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

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. Carcharoth
2. Coren
3. FloNight
4. John Vandenberg
5. Newyorkbrad
6. Rlevse
7. Stephen Bain
8. Vassyana
9. Wizardman

Inactive:

1. Cool Hand Luke (will still assist with drafting, but will not vote)
2. FayssalF
3. Risker
4. Roger Davies

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Cool Hand Luke inactive

CHL is listed as inactive above; per his email to the clerks list just now, he has stated that he does not plan to be active on Wikipedia for some time, and will not be voting on this case. As he is still listed as the drafting Arbitrator, he will be working with Vassyana to complete that role. If you have questions, please contact me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions: D Tombe

D Tombe is an example of what can happen when a particular individual is placed in a particularly hostile environment. Others may respond in a more acceptable manner. However, IMO the environment here is truly awful, and good behavior under these circumstances requires a lot of self-control. The very hostility here toward an individual is a major cause of the entire problem. The solution here is to step back and ask: What is it that makes such an environment possible? Why should amazing self-control be necessary? Why have sarcastic, smart-aleck responses replaced reason? I don't care how eccentric an editor may be or however weird their arguments, it is achievable to deal with such things in a more equitable manner than silencing the party with the most to lose. It is almost comical to refer to a "collegial atmosphere" in this context, and D Tombe has little to do with the failure to achieve it. The wording of the second proposal to prevent the disruption from spreading to other areas is groundless. Brews ohare (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with Brews' 5 consecutive edits of his preceding paragraph):

Of the parties involved in this arbitration, Tombe has done more than anyone else to create a hostile atmosphere, both throughout his entire Wikipedia career as a battling editor, and now in this arbitration. Invoking Nazi war criminals before he was blocked for it, and even arguing that there was nothing wrong with doing so, was already an outrage. Doing it again, after being blocked for it and being warned, again, that he would be banned if he did it again, is proof that Tombe's open hostility is inimical to Wikipedia's community. Finell (Talk) 20:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"an example of what can happen when a particular individual is placed in a particularly hostile environment"? You mean like the "particularly hostile environment" of Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 6, where Brews ohare intervened in July 2008, with what seems like his first edit outside of physics, after nine months of WP editing, in favour of David Tombe who was trying to push a personal view point against no fewer than eleven other editors? Or like the "particularly hostile environment" of unblock requests, where Brews ohare intervened in September 2008 (unsuccessfully in this case) of David Tombe in Tombe's attempts to be reallowed to edit Wikipedia? David Tombe has a long history of disruptive editing, and not only in physics articles: I very much favour the second proposal. Physchim62 (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of heat here about "creating a hostile atmosphere" and Hersfold has said Arbitration has always had a stricter set of rules on civility simply due to its nature. and that it is important to make an effort to maintain a collegial atmosphere on these case pages. However, I see very little indication that the parties involved have any problem attacking Brews_ohare or D Tombe in an uncivil fashion, very little indication that the parties involved really want to accept any role in improving the environment or approaching the complaints, absolutely no collegiality, and no attempt to enforce civility across the board. Brews ohare (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews is 100% correct. Regardless of the final decisions, we can already say that this arbitration process has been a big failure. This was already clear to me some time ago, see here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You could say that any arbitration case is a failure of other processes: other large Wikipedias are steadily limiting or doing away with their ArbComs for that reason. That doesn't mean that Brews is right; obviously, the one editor he omits in his "creation of a hostile atmosphere" is Brews ohare (talk · contribs) himself. Everything would be alright for Brews ohare if other editors accepted his point of view… As I mentioned above, it is interesting how Brews ohare has come to the aid of David Tombe in disputes that are completely unrelated to to this case, and that predate the current disagreements by several months. David Tombe has returned the favour in disputes that form the basis for the current arbitration case. To say that the dispute has come about because editors are bullying Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is simply ridiculous. Physchim62 (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Physchim62: The issues here are real and not ridiculous. I have sided on several occasions with D Tombe not only because he often has something to say, but also because of intolerance on the part of those that do not wish to deal with independent viewpoints and do not know how to deal with opposition other than the Jerry Springer format. I object to your stance that I insist on everybody accepting my view: what I insist upon is civil discussion of actual content, and avoidance of disruption and invention of fake positions as a method of dealing with contrary opinion. I do not understand why you feel that a rhetorical format exhibiting imbalance and exaggeration is the right way to handle this arbitration. Brews ohare (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Could the SoL case finally be resolved?

Copied from User talk:Hersfold#Could the SoL case finally be resolved?

Brews and Tombe going at it again, dominating the talk page of the physics project with the same old "free space doesn't really exist / the redefinition of the SoL in 1983 means the end of the world" song. If nothing is done, in a few hours the page will probably have doubled in length like everything the Brews & Tombe couple touch. Could you get the administrators to finally deliberate? The atmosphere is untennable and is incredibly harmful to the physics project. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A simple proposal has been put before Headbomb: show specifically what your objections are; put up or shut up. Instead, he is searching for Admin action. The simple facts: he hasn't a leg to stand on. The above statement that I believe: " the redefinition of the SoL in 1983 means the end of the world". is more than exaggeration: it is deliberate distortion in implying that some less crazy version of this might actually be my position. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to ask ArbCom about that. I've no control over the pace of the case. I am told that we should have something up soon, however. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes well since you're the clerk I thought it would make more sense that if you asked them to deliberate. But if it's better that I do it, could you direct me to the proper page to ask this? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll send them (another) email to figure out what's going on. Unfortunately, that's about all I can do. I'd recommend posting a question on the PD talk page if you're interested in inquiring yourself; Vassyana and a few of the other arbs should have it watchlisted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me thanks. I'll leave a notice on the PD page as well. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If the arbitrators had enacted a site ban in response to David Tombe's consistently disruptive behaviour, just like any plain-thinking, sensibly minded administrator would have done, we wouldn't have the current problem. Tombe's block ends, Tombe resumes pushing his personal views wherever they would be most disruptive. Utterly, utterly predictable, except to members of ArbCom, who don't have to clean up the mess afterwards. Physchim62 (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I too am left unsatisfied with the slowness of this case and the very little feedback from ARBCOM, but there's no need to call them insensible. WP:CIVIL and all that. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Brews' comments are problematic at all. David did raise the same point again and his comments could have been deleted and then a message could have been posted on his talk page about that removal. That can also be a solution. And if this here to break down (e.g. David continues to post the same message) then that's effectively a more standard edit war case. Count Iblis (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I just did what I just suggested: I removed the comments by David on the wikiproject talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis is effectively making a community ban on David Tombe: I support his actions, but I am sorry that ArbCom could not see that such action was necessary. As for Brews ohare (talk · contribs), he seems to be meatpuppetting for David Tombe, just as he has done in the past. I hope that ArbCom will take this into account in the sanctions that they might decide to impose. Physchim62 (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb reverted my intervention. But if you look at the page with David's comments removed, you see that it is quite managable. Brews raises a point that is useful to discuss. The point raised by David is not useful to discuss as it has been discussed many times in the past. Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I now archived David's comments. Let's see if this is more acceptable. Count Iblis (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's much better yes. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban for Brews

Although I don't agree with any topic ban for Brews, if a topic ban is imposed, one has to consider that a topic ban on all physics pages is effectively a complete ban from Wikipedia in his case. The proposed ban on fundamental constants would be far more appropriate (putting aside my objection to topic bans). That combined with the general restriction that if Brews violates this ban he can be banned from wikipedia right away for some time should be more than enough. Count Iblis (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(interjecting after another edit conflict with Brews):

Isn't that a tad narrow? Even the speed of light is not a fundamental constant in the narrower, dimensionless definition of that term. If you want to suggest a more limited topic ban than "physics, as broadly construed", propose one that is coextensive with the topics about which Brews has battled disruptively.

Fundamentally, Brews' problem is not topic-specific. The problem is his the way he conducts himself in disputes, relentlessly filibustering for his position when there is no hope of consensus and dominating the discussion. Were it not for his approach to disputes, Brews could be be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia's coverage of physics and electronic devices (at least) because he has genuine knowledge in these areas (Tombe has knowledge too, but he is dedicated to pursuing a fringe agenda on- and off-wiki). Have you looked at the beautiful graphics that Brews has contributed to Wikipedia (exhibited on his Talk page)? I would support a behavioral remedy with no topic ban if it was carefully tailored to restrict his participation in disputes. I believe I have seen this in another arbitration decision, possibly the one for Mattisse; I suggested something along these lines in my answers to CHL's questions on the Project page. Iblis, why don't you see if you can draft something like this after looking at the precedents in arbitration decisions? You could help Brews and Wikipedia by doing so, as it seems pretty clear that this process is moving to a broad topic ban for Brews. Finell (Talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Remedies for Brews_ohare

I have no problem with remedies 1 - 3. I really have little interest in pursuing WP under the conditions of proposed remedies 4.1 & 4.2. Moreover, it is my view, which at this stage is quite dispassionate inasmuch as I have already come to this decision, that this matter is completely mishandled by 4.1 & 4.2. It is hard for me to understand how these remedies have reached the proposal stage, as they conflict with the evidence, and simply iterate the unsupported views of a vocal group. (My crime, as I see it, is trying too often to persuade on the Talk page. Needless to say, it is very easy to ignore any such attempted persuasion, unless you think there is something to it. In no event should it lead to a Case like this one.) This group has taken absolutely no responsibility for any of the behavior in this case, has made no attempt to engage and made no offers of conciliation, causing me to withdraw my proposals for concessions. They have continued a rude and uncivil behavior throughout the Case, exactly parallel to their behavior on Talk: Speed of light. They have not retracted the false misstatements of my views pointed out to them. A similar paradigm is presently under construction by this group as discussed next. Brews ohare (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Matter of allegations concerning Vacuum permeability and vacuum permittivity

Allegations have been raised very similar to those regarding this Case at Vacuum permeability and vacuum permittivity. This discussion as yet has not occurred, but the idea is to settle it using this Case before it starts, assuming it will take the same course. However, there is no basis for this assumption if normal WP guidelines are followed.

There is absolutely no evidence, for example, that classical vacuum contains any inaccuracies; it is completely documented at every point. From a technical standpoint there is no argument.

If the proposal nonetheless is to edit the main page of classical vacuum, then the simple procedure is to propose the change (or actually make it) and then describe on the Talk page why the replacement is preferable to what was there before, and deal with any counterarguments. The procedure is not to short-circuit matters, complain that unspecified claims are WP:POV and WP:SYN with absolutely no indication of what exact statements violate these guidelines, and ask for Admin intervention in what is anticipated to be a struggle. In fact, I have never discussed these matters with any of these parties, and they have not been participants on Talk: Free space.

There is so far no indication that either Headbomb or Physchim62 has any intention of following this paradigm, and every indication (see Headbomb's flag waving of guidelines & Physchim62's sarcastic interjection in a thread he has no interest in) that they will follow the pattern of their Speed of light behavior, which consists of using sarcasm and putdown, inventing false positions, waiving about unsubstantiated WP:POV, WP:SYN, WP:Fringe, begging for Admin action because (they claim) sourced and civil responses to their actions on the Talk page are WP:DIS, WP:Soap, and WP:TE, and all the rest of this bag of tricks. I do not comprehend where this kind of thing is taking them. I understand very well where it is taking WP.

BTW, claims that I am "meatpuppetting" for D Tombe on this subject is ludicrous: he has made maybe four edits on this page in 5 years. I assure you that I speak for myself. Brews ohare (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, when you've been intervening on behalf of David Tombe on pages like Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart [1] or User talk:Sandstein [2], the accusations of long-term meatpuppetry become rather less ridiculous. Physchim62 (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Physchim62: You are making things up. I showed up precisely once to inject some common sense. You have a wont to invent evidence to suit your positions. Brews ohare (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is there in the diffs and in your contributions history. Your asking us to believe that, after nine months of contributing to physics articles, you chose the page Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart as your first foray outside of physics; and that it is simply a coincidence that that page at that time had a dispute where David Tombe (talk · contribs) was faced against nearly a dozen other editors but refused to back down, a discussion to which to contributed? Or that out of all the blocked users you could have supported in their efforts to get unblocked in September 2008, you chose David Tombe? Come off it! None of this demonstrates meatpuppetry in the current disputes, but it speaks volumes about your willingness to stick your neck out for David Tombe over an extended period. Physchim62 (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You are a troublemaker, eh? For the good of WP, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is also a useful reminder to arbitrators that David Tombe's disruption has not been entirely limited to physics articles, even if he doesn't seem to have caused too much trouble when editing about obscure currency issues. Physchim62 (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's seems a rather liberal accusation Physchim... These are over a year old. That being said, this was also around the time first got banned if I recall correctly, so who knows. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews is not Tombe's meat puppet

I do not agree with the claim that Brews is Tombe's meat puppet. Brews did not support Tombe's claim that Mozart should be called a German composer (modern sources consider him to be Austrian). Rather, he was trying to end the long argument (Tobme vs everyone else) over whether to call Mozart German or Austrian. He made just the one comment, and did not come back to support Tombe (or anyone) in the rest of the debate. (Like many of Wikipedia's nationalist debates over nationality, the result was that Wikipedia does not assign any nationality to Mozart). Yes, Brews probably went to the Mozart Talk page because he knew that Tombe was involved in an argument there (it is one of the battles for which Tombe was blocked). And Brews argued against blocking Tombe. However, being sympathetic to another editor or to that editor's views does not make one a meat puppet.

More importantly to this arbitration, Brews has clearly disassociated himself form Tombe's fringe rejection of modern physics. Also, during one of Tombe's blocks last year, Tombe (on his talk page) asked Brews to post an argument for him on the Centrifugal force talk page.[3] Brews refused because he didn't agree with what Tombe said[4] and continued on Tombe's talk page to argue against Tombe's unconventional (really obsolete) take on inertial forces. Brews is an independent thinker, which is admirable. The problem on Wikipedia is that he argues in favor of his independent views incessantly despite clear consensus to the contrary. Sticking up for one's own views also is considered admirable in many contexts, but it isn't how Wikipedia works. Finell (Talk) corrected: 01:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Implementation notes

This case is using a new format for the implementation notes; if any party or Arbitrator is having difficulty understanding them, please let me know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good; eventually in the future, it may be worth getting a bot to do it (in the same way that it does for elections). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It should read "abitrators should not pass the motion to close until satisfied…" Physchim62 (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's standard wording, so it's like that on all other cases, but you're right that it needs fixing. I'll take care of it in the template. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If, for once, I can be of help to ArbCom ;) Physchim62 (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews_ohare topic banned

Remedy 4.2

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

This remedy is likely to pass. If so, I'll leave WP indefinitely.

I want to observe that this "remedy" was not forced upon the ArbCom, but was chosen by them. In my opinion, this is a decision to suppress dissent rather than enforce guidelines. As such it both exceeds ArbCom's resolution to avoid content decisions, and abdicates ArbCom's obligation to enforce good conduct.

A simple effective decision would have been to enforce upon all editors the guidelines that would suppress bad behavior, as amply documented: behavior such as catcalls, incivility, reversion of Talk page content, putdowns, personal attacks on article Talk pages, false attribution of positions not held, refusal to address content and so forth, all adequately covered by WP:NPA WP:Civil WP:Talk and other guidelines, and most clearly broken by editors other than Brews_ohare. Such enforcement requires no understanding of content, but does require impartial across-the-board enforcement. Such action would immediately settle things down and encourage open discussion of content.

Instead, ArbCom has made a call that reinforces this bad behavior by rewarding it, and eliminates the contributions of a good faith editor who has made many contributions to WP, articles and diagrams, and is well qualified, as a Fellow of the IEEE, a former research scientist at Bell Labs, a former editor-in-chief of IEEE Electron Device Letters, an EE professor at the U of Arizona, and an author of technical articles and books. That ArbCom action is considered justifiable based upon my "bad behavior", which primarily is one explicit complaint about some other editors as a group made upon a different editor's Talk page, and a certain insistence on the Talk page to employ an accurate description of the impact of the 1983 CGPM definition of the metre. A very bad move all around: an opportunity for positive action is replaced by destruction as evaluated from any viewpoint. Brews ohare (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In summary, Brews_ohare stepped into a hornets' nest and when the ArbCom beekeepers arrived, they figured his foot was the problem, not the hornets. Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews don't leave. Appeal this unjustified decision. Or simply violate the topic ban and trigger an appeals process that way. Count Iblis (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis: Telling Brews to violate a topic ban it terrible advice. It will trigger an immediate block, not "an appeals process", and will make it more difficult for Brews to return to editing Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 20:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As Finell said, violating ArbCom sanctions is a very bad idea. You'll notice that the enforcement provision on this case is rather stricter than usual, escalating to a one-year block after only the third violation. Encouraging sanctioned editors to violate their sanctions is similarly frowned upon, and can also lead to blocks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(I planned to give a reply here, but didn't because what I planned to write may be construed as falling under the "Encouraging sanctioned editors to violate their sanctions" clause. It's sad to see Wikipedia becoming more and more dictatorial) Count Iblis (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict):

I regret that it has come to this, but it has nothing to do with suppressing dissent. It has everything to do with how Brews expresses his dissent, which is to dominate the discussion, and to continue to insist on his position even after is is clear it has no chance of attaining consensus. That makes it too difficult for other editors to work on the article and focuses too much time and energy on one relatively small issue that Brews fixates on.

However, I would still prefer a remedy for Brews that does not involve a topic ban, provided that the remedy addresses the problem of Brews' behavior: perhaps mentoring or something that keeps Brews out of disputes, since he has not handled disputes in a way that is consistent with collaborative editing. I proposed this in my answer to CHL's question on the Project page. I've just posted on this topic at on Brews' talk page.

To be clear, I am speaking only about remedies for Brews, not Tombe. Finell (Talk) 20:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews, do any of these rings a bell?

• You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.
• You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts".
• You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.
• Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw.
• You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.
• You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors.

What are those? Signs that you are editing tendentiously. How about these?

• Your edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive.
• Your edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article.
• You resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
• You have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error.

What are those? Signs and techniques used by disruptive editors.

Just how many people does it take before you pause and reflect on your actions? Even on this ARBCOM case, your attitude has constantly been "but it's everyone else who's wrong!" It really sucks that it has come to this, but you simply refuse to disengage or hear the voices of everyone who said "Brews, enough". Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not.

I hope the editing break will let you reflect on what happened over these last few weeks/months and that you'll be able to put this behind you and that you'll be back with productive contributions once the ban is over. `Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman's role and administrator topic bans in general

There is great irony in the statements by Count Iblis above. If, instead of taking a strident position against any sanctions for Brews ohare regardless of how disruptive he has been, Count Iblis had allowed Jehochman's minimal topic ban to be implemented, this entire arbcom case might have been avoided. Count Iblis could have attempted to convince Brews ohare to desist in the behavior that led to that proposed sanction, and if successful an appeal of the topic ban would likely have sailed through. Count Iblis' actions in opposing the most minimal topic ban directly led to the wider sanctions now passing in this case.

It's too bad that Cool Hand Luke's desire to flesh out some of the issues with administrator topic bans has fallen by the wayside in this case. Jehochman's efforts to address the problems are looking pretty good right now. When admins attempt such actions, they are often subjected to abuse by involved parties (e.g. David Tombe's badgering of Jehochman) as well as get flak from the so-called community. I encourage arbcom to revisit its role in supporting administrator topic bans that have the goal of reducing drama and contentiousness. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

While I would tend to agree with you, as I've been a long-time supporter of admins being able to impose topic bans, it is beyond the scope of ArbCom. Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions was, in my mind, a well-founded attempt to introduce a relevant policy that (sadly) failed. Admins do certainly impose topic bans occasionally nonetheless, but the practice is still controversial and without explicit policy support. ArbCom does not have the power to overrule the community, nor the ability to impose policies. (See WP:POLICY for more about the formation of policy in general.) In his case statement, Jehochman explicitly noted the controversy potential of imposing topic bans and the inability of community discussion to come to a consensus as motivators for filing the request. Unfortunate as it may be, Jehochman did exactly the right thing in bringing this to ArbCom. Vassyana (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment, and a general thanks for your attention during this case. Tim Shuba (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I always sought to deal with this problem in a pragmatic way. The discussions with Brews went nowhere but that was not entirely Brews' own fault. explained very early on in this Arbitration (and also before the Arbitration), that the sort of discussion with Brews is likely to go on forever unless you discuss from first principles. But that was something the other editors were not doing either. Then Brews could always maintain his point of view.

To see an example of this, just look at the discussion with William Connoley who has just stepped in the debate, see here and here. I urged William to also consider the hardcore theoretical physics POV as that will clear everything up in an instant.

Then, if the disussion goes on and on and the ongoing discussions are seen to be a problem by some, the logical solution would be to agree to disagree and move on. So, you would then need to write on the talk page that enough is enough and vote for some article version and then agree not to start discussions. If someone would (inadvertantly) raise a very similar issue then you could archive that discussion and refer to the previpous discussions.

This would be a pragmatic solution to the problem, which I proposed here on the Workshop (closing of discussions). However, I got no support at all for that. At that point I thought that this whole process was going to go nowhere, it would be nothing more than a Kangaroo court instead of thinking about solutions.

You have to ask yourself the following question: What fraction of discussion boards have no moderaton at all? Even if everyone always conducts him/herself in a civil manner, you will still need to remove off-topic comments, discussions can gradually move in an off topic direction etc. etc. If that tends to happen more often in certain cases, that does not necessarily mean that the involved persons are at fault.

Here at Wikipedia, we think we can dodge this problem by demanding that all discussions be focussed on only improving the article. While that may make moderation unnecessary in 99% of the cases, it won't always work. The speed of light case is such an example.

The whole Administrative infrastructure operates in an ineffective and flawed way. An example from yesterday proving my point. No efort made to look into the complaint and seek a pragmatic solution, instead an Admin imposes a ban on the grounds that the person who reported the problem violated 3rr. That then triggers some action and only then the problem is dealt with properly. Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis: I repeatedly asked you to engage Brews in the kind of discussion from first principles that you say would have solved this problem. You didn't. You previously contended that editors at Speed of light were derelict in their "duties" for not correcting "errors" that you saw in the article; you were justifiably concerned that errors might mislead students. I pointed out that you had as much of a "duty" as any other editor to correct errors. It is getting tiresome to see you continually tell us all, after the fact, how we could have avoided difficulties by doing things the way you think we should have. We try to do the best we can, and we are far from perfect. The next time you see a mess, please pick up a mop. That would help the project a lot more than lectures. Finell (Talk) 17:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I did do that, but then Brews stopped replying to me and instead only replied to others who were still discussing with him on he purely phenomenological basis. This led to nowhere. I think I explained that also here during the arbitration when I compared that with the Einstein-Bohr debates on QM.

Alternatively, one can delete or archive discussions that go nowhere, that's also something I raised during this arbitration. Again, no support whatsoever. And I did do that recently to David's comments, and as you can read here David did not like it. Nevertheless I think this was necessary.

About not "correcting errors", when I thought the climate was better I went ahead and edited in the sentence about the Scharnhorst effect. That edit led to some discussions (still ongoing). Now, if you take a close look at the discussions, you'll see that Dicklyon's behavior there is not ok. He may not strictly violate any wiki-rules but his behavior does cause irritation and precisely that has been a relevant factor in this whole dispute. I did mention that during this Arbitration, but again, no one picked that up.

I'm not saying that everyone else was always wrong and I was always correct. What I'm saying is that many important factors in this whole problem were not addressed. Count Iblis (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that some different approaches to disputes of this kind need to be raised. Count Iblis has some original proposals that he has tried with some success on his own, and further experimentation might prove useful. I suggested that stricter and completely even-handed enforcement of existing WP guidelines would improve matters. Both on Talk: Speed of light and during Case/Speed of light there have been numerous incivilities totally ignored by Admins. My conclusion from indifference to discussion of Count Iblis' proposals and even to enforcement of existing guidelines is that, in fact, there is little interest among many Admins or editors themselves in promoting open discussion of content. It's b-o-r-ing. The interest of WP lies in its entertainment value, somewhat like the Jerry Springer Show. Until a group with clout and WP in mind can assemble to turf out the rabble, things will get worse. Brews ohare (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with your jaundiced, self-absorbed, self-righteous view of the project and its processes. Notwithstanding the positive contributions that you could make to Wikipedia, and those that you have already made, this may not be the right community for you. I sincerely wish that were not the case, and that you would examine your own behavior and how you might change it to conform to this community's norms. Denial accomplishes nothing; sarcasm and bitterness is useless. Please at least consider the statistical probability that every Arbitrator and the Clerk (who had no reason to be biased against you when this process began), and every administrator who warned and blocked you (who, likewise, had no reason to be biased against you until their first encounter with you), is wrong about everything: your behavior, Tombe's behavior, and everyone else's behavior in comparison to yours. Finell (Talk) 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

See here for another opinion. I.m.o., it's not that they are wrong about everything, just that they cannot see the difference between an edit warrior on, say, the Obama pages and Brews. Vassyana's explanation of the topic ban on all of the physics pages seems to indicate this. But then a topic ban on all physics pages is more similar to banning someone from all politics pages. Note that User:ChildofMidnight was only banned from Obama related pages. Count Iblis (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely, in science, we also have to consider the null hypothesis, that is that a compromise has been reached. I think a compromise has been reached: everyone is unhappy, but in mutually incongruent ways. In the pluri-dimensional space of the personal aspirations of the parties to this arbitration, I could could not even begin to design a proof that this is a global minimum instead of simply a local minimum. However, every party seems to see it as a minimum in their local coordinates, or at least sufficiently close to apply perturbation theory to see what the real local minimum might be. Several commentators have suggested alternative cosmologies in which the global minimum would be different from their perception of the current local minimum, and have even called into question the normally accepted principles of relativity. Nevertheless, the principle of the inertial frame has triumphed, or at least the principle that a framework has inertia has been verified. Physchim62 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

These remedies are hardly a compromise: they are a rout. They may be an extremum, but a low point, rather than an optimum. Brews ohare (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Finell: You are correct that nothing Brews_ohare says matters, neither now, nor earlier in this Case. That situation arises because the community norms set by the WP guidelines have been ignored or inequitably applied. The standards set by Brews_ohare's adversaries in this proceedings do not meet even minimal WP standards (whatever might be said about Brews_ohare), but those failures have been indulged and no action is envisioned to correct matters. You are yourself fully aware of this situation, yet in your sermons from your elevated position, never do you include these others in your broad moral landscape. A credible historian must be able to see all sides. Brews ohare (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said "that nothing Brews_ohare says matters, neither now, nor earlier in this Case," nor anything of the sort. And more pointless argument with you is a waste of time. I've made statements supportive of you, while also trying to get you to look at your behavior. It's obviously been a waste of my time. I'm sorry for Brews, and I'm sorry for Wikipedia that this is the way it had to turn out. The arbitrators who unanimously voted for sanctions against you were right, and my hope that a lesser behavioral remedy might help you to function productively in this community was misguided, since you won't listen. Look in a mirror, and stop complaining about everyone else. I'm done trying. Finell (Talk) 22:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews Ohare's topic ban

I urge the committee to take another look at Brews's behavior, and reconsider if it warrants a broad topic ban. Yes, his refusal to disengage in the Speed of Light discussion has been very disruptive, but he has done a great deal of good work elsewhere: see for instance his creation log and the many diagrams and animations he's added to various physics articles. Maybe a lighter sanction, such as mentorship, combined with the discretionary restriction already passing, could allow him to continue to positively contribute to physics articles, while also preventing disruption similar to what took place at Speed of Light? TotientDragooned (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) I disagree. I don't care about being called "nuts", that's water off a duck's back to me, but I do care about the way that Brews' conducts his arguments. While I accept the problems with simple edit counts, I put it to the committee again: this is an editor who is capable of making seventy or eighty edits per day to talk pages if he thinks it will help him get his way. This is not constructive discussion, it is disruptive, if not to say obsessive, editing. I've said above that I believe that Brews should be forced to take a (complete) WikiBreak, my views haven't changed. Physchim62 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If he was the best editor in the world, a topic ban would still make sense, as several other editors-in-good-standing have indicated that they find it nearly impossible to work with him, and he has refused to address this problem. Given the options of losing the contributions of one editor and losing the contributions of many editors, the ban makes sense, even outside of arguments about whether or not Brews' edits have merit. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I see problems from a purely legal point of view. Suppose Brews were to violate his topic ban simply by creating an outstanding article with beautiful diagrams a month from now. Then, according to wiki law, he would be rewarded for his outstanding work by a total ban from Wikipedia for one year. Count Iblis (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Let him do it on Citizendium… Physchim62 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If he wanted to create such an article, his most logical course of action would be to do it off-wiki, and file an appeal asking that he be allowed to return to implement it on-wiki, giving assurance that he would take pains to collaborate with other editors. Given the evidence of constructive behaviour (making that article off-wiki) and assurance of good intent, my guess is that he'd end up with the ban lifted and have probation imposed for the remaining time. I doubt that the situation you describe would happen, however, as a) Brews has announced intention to leave Wikipedia (and so cease contributing to it), and b) Brews seems to be unwilling to end (or even acknowledge) the behavior that was flagged as being unacceptable (so coming back would just result in him being banned again). I'd be happy to be proven wrong about this, and it'd be easy enough to do so (per above). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months. - read literally, this includes a ban on discussions with other editors on their talk pages, even by their own invitation. Could arbcomm please clarify that this is indeed what they intend. Less clearly, it would appear to prohibit an appeal or even an attempt at clarification, since that would inevitably be physics related. Again, clarification would be desirable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the topic ban is intended to prevent this. One of the patterns of disruption that Brews and Tombe have both engaged in is taking discussions of article content to other editors' talk pages. Brews should not be permitted to carry on his relentless discussions on individual editors' talk pages. Likewise, he shouldn't be allowed to recruit other editors to carry on his battles for him if he is topic banned. Finell (Talk) 22:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You've obviously missed my even by their own invitation. But more importantly, I want an arb to comment, since your opinion is (obviously) not binding on them William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've commented below. I will ask other arbs to comment as well. Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have stated, on this page and elsewhere, my preference for a remedy short of a topic ban, provided that it be sufficient to stop Brews' disruptive manner of argument. That would allow Brews to continue making valuable contributions productively to Wikipedia in science and technology, areas in which Brews is very knowledgeable and accomplished. It would take more effort to monitor such a remedy, but I think the effort would be worth it. I would be willing join in the effort, if asked. Finell (Talk) 22:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans don't include appeals. Brews ohare would be free to file an appeal. If other editors want to endorse and help put together an appeal for Brews ohare, that would increase its chances of success. As regards talk page edits, one of the problems is that in the past, people editing their user space or the talk page of others, has led to gaming of such restrictions, with people ending up acting as proxies for topic banned editors. While this might be workable in some cases, it is simpler to avoid such complications. A discussion between Brews and Tombe and WMC might seem innocuous, but it could quickly draw in other editors and be a timesink. If WMC were to formally offer to mediate the dispute, that could be an option where those two editors were allowed to participate, but editing elsewhere in physics articles needs to be able to proceed without the disruption of the past few months (and longer in some analyses). Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Addendum - an appeal to allow limited participation for image purposes would probably be considered, for example.

On the appeal issue, this is clear. On the using your own or other peoples talk pages it is suggestive but not clear. The question Brews needs answering is "If he edits on a SoL discussion by specific invitation of another editor on that editors talk page, can he be blocked for that?". Your answer appears to suggest that he could be, but it needs to be much clearer. It is possible to interpret your answer as "yes he can be blocked, but only if other editors get sucked in", which would appear to lead to the possibilty of Brews being blocked but only because of other peoples edits, not his own William M. Connolley (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

FloNight is correct. My example of other editors been drawn in was an explanation. I should have made clearer that any mediation or discussion, or relaxing of the restrictions on Brews and Tombe can only take place following an appeal to ArbCom. If any editor thinks that such an appeal is justified, they are welcome to advise these editors, but in a way that does not cause disruption (see the example pointed out below). A calm, well-reasoned and brief appeal, is more likely to succeed than an appeal that starts off with the premise that the case was a travesty, sprawls over several pages, takes months to prepare, and involves pages in userspace perceived as attack pages by others. Time spent working productively in other areas of the encyclopedia is also far more likely to be looked on favourably, rather than instantly appealing. Furthermore, time has been devoted to evidence presentation in this case. Attempts to re-run the case via an immediate appeal will not be helpful, and will end up rather low on the list of arbitration priorities. Our priorities right now are the other cases being heard. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A broad topic ban that includes discussion means everywhere, even by invitation as Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for topical discussions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that is clear. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Count Iblis (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Excepting discussion related to clarifying their situation, appeals, and similar matters, whenever I have seen an editor address the subject of their topic ban in userspace and user talk pages, it has been at best a soapbox and more often an attempt to pointedly test the bounds of a topic ban and/or solicit editing proxies. Inviting case-by-case exceptions would be an open door to system gaming and a ridiculous volume of appeals. Vassyana (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently if I refer to Superman on my own Talk page as "faster than the speed of light", I would incur sanction. Of course, Vassyana would insist on being able to determine this might not really be about physics (some uncertainty as this would be a matter of "content"), but if the other parties of this Case became involved & suggested this statement was in support of the Global Conspiracy to invalidate the special theory of relativity (which is no stretch of imagination given certain prior statements by certain parties, strongly supported by other parties), it is quite clear that my statement would arouse a clamor, and Vassyana might intervene to enforce the ban, as a procedural matter. If Vassyana hesitated to act, Jehochman would take immediate action. Brews ohare (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Strawman arguments, hyperbole, and reductio ad ridiculum will not serve you well here. A discussion of a comic book character in no reasonable interpretation falls under your topic ban. It is topic-based, not a kneejerk keyword filter. Vassyana (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Let me give a more realistic scenario. I may edit the article on Lagrangian dynamics some time in the future. Then, I may have some questions that I want to ask you. This is normal practice and actually recommended when editing technical articles. E.g., I know that the article avoids the formal derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equations based on an infinitesimal change of the action due to an infinitesimal change in q(t). So, I may want to ask you why you avoided that.

If you were to reply, then that would be a violation of the topic ban. Moreover, it would not be some freak unintended consequence of the topic ban, as the Arbitrators here make explicitly clear that they really want to implement the topic ban this rigorously. This is simply beyond ridiculous. Count Iblis (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the point is that it would be rather better to ask for somebody else's opinion rather than that of Brews ohare. WT:PHYS is a place that you can find such specialist input. You might also want to try your own recipe of working it out form first principles, as long as you realise that your "first principles" might be different (no better, no worse) than other peoples. Wikipedia does not exist to perpetuate the personal views of its editors. Physchim62 (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, I don't agree that this would necessarily be better. The Arbitrators, who are not physics experts, have not made any such determination at all. Then, because there may be circumstances where it would be far more convenient to talk to Brews directly, the topic ban can be ignored (only under such circumstances) per WP:IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The arbitrators do not have to be physics experts to deal with the behavioral issues. And behavioral issues are the issues in this arbitration, as the Arbitrators have made clear from day one. Note that there is not a single finding about what the scientific content of any article should be. (To the extent that they did involve themselves in the physics, they did quite well, such as accurately identifying Tombe's wp:fringe POV and its impact on Tombe's work on Wikipedia.) And how many times do you have to be warned not to suggest ways to get Brews in more trouble by violating his topic ban. It is reckless to bring up WP:IAR, which is not policy, when Brews was just severely sanctioned for violating what passes for rules on Wikipedia (i.e., policies and guidelines). If you want to have physics discussions with Brews, I suggest you do so off-wiki, so you don't lure him into more trouble than he is already in. For example, he might succeed in a post-arbitration motion to modify his topic ban to allow him to do some physics editing provided he stays out of battles. (I might even support him in such a motion [for whatever that may be worth], depending on the editorial scope that he seeks and his behavior.) Please don't encourage behavior that might spoil Brews' chances to improve his situation on Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 04:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is policy. And I did not suggest that Brews violate his topic ban by starting to edit physics articles (at least not now, I did mention that some time ago, but you and others explained that this would not trigger an appeal, so it would not be a wise thing to do). All I'm saying now is that I will have have physics discussions with anyone anytime when I think that's appropriate (and simply testing the topic ban is not an appropriate reason for that). Count Iblis (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oversighting of some of Carcharoth's votes

Huh? TotientDragooned (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also my feelings. I reckon reading them and I can't think of anything warranting oversight. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I redid my edits here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

But why did it warrant oversight when simple editing was sufficient? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably just a simple cock up. I saw the edits and there does not appear to be any sort of cover up! Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

TotientDragooned, I checked for you. Evidently, there was an inadvertent disclosure of private information that was removed appropriately based on policy. Nothing for concern or related to the case at hand. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks FloNight. TotientDragooned (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Case/Speed of light

Jehochman has suggested that these proceedings be deleted following closing of the case. As I personally feel they are a testimony to the ineptitude of all concerned, I am anxious that they be preserved as evidence for future inquiry and do request that they be archived for that purpose. To do otherwise is not only to hide evidence, which could be reconstructed of course, but also to hide how the case was conducted, which is much more important in establishing the egregious conduct of this case. Brews ohare (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman suggests nothing of the sort. Instead, he proposes deleting the pages you established in your userspace that serve no purpose except to disparage myself and Dicklyon (talk · contribs). Three of them have now been deleted, a fourth survives. Physchim62 (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman obviously can speak for himself. However, in the context of the AN/I that Count Iblis brought, it seems clear that Jehochman was suggesting deletion of the pages that Brews made in his user space: those were the pages that were the subject of Count Iblis' AN/I. Jehochman would not have been suggesting at AN/I that pages in this arbitration be deleted. In any event, regardless of what anyone was suggesting or wants, I personally oppose deleting or blanking any of the pages in this arbitration; I see no justification even for courtesy blanking. I agree with Brews that the record should be preserved for all to see. I do not agree with Brews as to what they do or do not show, but his is entitled to his opinion, just as we all are. Finell (Talk) 16:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Finell, thank you for your support. Perhaps your interpretation of Jehochman's remarks is correct, but in any case, the issue now is laid bare. Page blanking is not unheard of. Brews ohare (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The interpretation of Jehochman's remarks, even by Jehochman, is beside the point. The Clerk already explained to you that the arbitration pages will not be deleted.[5] Even in the rare case where pages are courtesy blanked, the content is still available in the pages' edit history. Further, no one had made a motion to delete or even to courtesy blank the pages. Of course, you can make copies of the pages yourself and store them safely off-wiki, if you are concerned. This is another non-issue based on your misinterpretation. Finell (Talk) 22:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's putting it politely. Physchim62 (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough. If anyone feels Brews' userspace evidence pages should be deleted, go to MfD and argue there. The case is closed, go back to editing the encyclopedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Attack pages can be speedy deleted by any administrator. Why suggest MfD? Are we here to make drama, or to write articles (neutral, reliably sourced articles, free of original research). Jehochman ^Talk 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Another admin speedied it, then overturned themselves. MfD is now the proper venue. Either way, this is not the correct venue, which is the point I was trying to make. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You're creating drama rather than resolving it. You could delete the page yourself under either G10 or under remedy 3, buit instead you wish to conduct a meta-discussion as to the proper forum. Given the discussion elsewhere, I think WP:AN/AE would be a better place than MfD to raise Hersfold's point further. But this thread wasn't actually about the attack pages in the first place. I shall wait a few hours to see if Brews has the decency to put a {{db-self}} on the page, I think we could all do with a rest. Physchim62 (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not. Brews is just being silly or tendentious. Jehochman ^Talk 03:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Brews, I don't believe that he is being deliberately tendentious. He does have a way of reading things a bit out of focus, and the way he misreads them often gives him something to protest. This is a part of the problem that brought him to ArbCom. But, subjectively, I believe that he is genuinely in good faith. Finell (Talk) 03:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Important note to arbitrators

Please send a clerk to handle the necessary actions at Wikipedia:ANI#Brews_Ohare.27s_right_to_collect_evidence. It is unacceptable that I have brought this matter to arbitration, and before the case is even closed, the usual suspects have resumed the same old battles and disruption at WP:ANI. Please discharge your responsibilities as the final stop in dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 12:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I see a clerk has commented there. The case will close soon, and administrators are perfectly capable of handling disruption elsewhere without us getting involved. Please don't demand that we get involved in dealing with disruption elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am demanding that you send a clerk to stop the disruption. Email the clerks list. The clerk that appeared did nothing, because he's not "clerking the relevant case". I am disappointed that the Committee are burdening the community with matters that you should have resolved here. We should not be subjected to incessant trolling by disruptive editors in multiple venues. When a matter is at arbitration, the clerks should deal with disruption wherever it may occur. Once the case closes, arbitration enforcement can be used. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with Jehochman here - the whole point of Arbcom is to end the disruption caused by disputes - and that is especially true during Arbitration when disputes should be...in stasis. Why can't all clerks be involved in handling disruption of this type? We have oodles of clerks, but only seem to assign one or two to actually work on it at a time - just make one the lead and unleash them all. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And I have to agree with Carcharoth! There are only a few hours left on this case, the worst of the disruption has been dealt with and the rest can be taken to WP:AN/AE should it continue after "closure". What I find most worrying about the comments at ANI is the idea that no simple administrative matters (at least one simple and clear single-purpose personal attack page, now deleted by admin action) should be undertaken while a case is under arbitration, especially in the current situation where the case is about to close (no point in asking for interim motions). THAT would be a welcome point of clarification (although I've always wanted to open a case against ArbCom for disruptive editing :P) Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply tagging {{db-attack}} would have been sufficient, and could have (potentially) limited the scope for this spilling over into more areas of the project. Arbitration is a containment of a dispute - a simple administrative matter, as you put it, does not require an ANI discussion. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(very belatedly interjecting): That was done, as I understand it, and several of Brews' user space pages were speedy deleted. Count Iblis went to AN/I to object to the deletion of those pages. Obviously, Count Iblis should have raised his concern here, if anywhere, because it pertained directly to this arbitration. Finell (Talk) 17:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and in light of the spilling over and a notification to that effect, I don't see why it shouldn't be possible for a clerk to do what Hersfold has now done in that discussion. Or rather, I do see, but it is easily fixed once one understands that Wikipedia is a 24 hour endeavour and we need clerks to be given a structure to handle that fact. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And I also agree with Jehochman and Fritzpoll. The point of Arbitration is to stop disruption caused by disputes. Editors and cases that are under arbitration result in a strange situation on Wikipedia: uninvolved admins who take actions on editors or situations which fall under the arbitration are immediately (sometimes heavily) involved, moreover, they do not have the background as the admins that are actively connected to the case, nor as the Arbitrators and Clerks active on the case (and I think that many uninvolved admins would be scared away to take action, just because the case is under arbitration). Also, when situations come to ArbCom generally several editors are involved in the case, and practically all admins are somehow involved with one or more of the parties as well (I recuse from even considering to say which solution should be chosen!!). The admins in the case certainly can not take action here, as that is 'abuse of admin tools while involved' (we all know what happened to WMC, and this case would be quickly 'unclosed' if that would happen), which leads to the only editors who have to keep an eye on this situation are either Arbitrators or Clerks (which they clearly don't do, now here, and in the Abd-WMC case just until WMC blocked Abd). You can see now how heated the discussion becomes, and there is severe confusion about what should be done now. While under arbitration, one can proceed with disruption as it is simply too difficult to find parties to stop it.

This situation should have been brought to the Arbitration Committee, as Jehochman says, but I am not sure if in either way it would have been solved. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This amazing brouhaha over a passage copied from PhysChim62's Talk page to another location is just like the same nonsense at Talk: Speed of light. Of course, this ruckus over copying is raised because this passage shows inability to observe WP:NPA & reign in spleen for a span of mere sentences. Jehochman's support of Physchim62's excesses shows an equivalent absence of judgment. By no means can WP sigh that "the worst of the disruption has been dealt with": these two will continue to rend and ravage over all WP. Brews ohare (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be of great assistance for someone to clearly note what exactly is expected to be done by the clerk. I would also note that the case clerk is generally asleep and/or just waking up at 12:39 UTC, and so getting impatient and demanding ArbCom send me over to do an unspecified something isn't likely to do much more than simply raise your blood pressure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong - I don't think this is the fault of individual clerks. I think the way the clerking of cases is organised is not always conducive to serving the purpose of arbitration - I fully appreciate that clerks, like other editors, are volunteers and not automata that operate 24/7 and I apologise if that was the impression I gave. These complaints could generally be remedied by having clerks operate more as a collective than as individuals - and that is a matter for the Arbitrators to decide. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Hersfold, you have pinpointed the problem right there. We fully understand that one case clerk can not keep up with keeping an eye on the actions of the parties in the case, let alone act quickly on any disruption that may happen during a case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with Psychim62. There is no reason that normal administrative intervention requires the attention of the arbs or clerks, barring perhaps notifying them of the action. Even what could be perceived to be more exceptional actions, such as enforcing prior discretionary sanctions, is perfectly legitimate. I did the latter as a regular uninvolved administrator when I topic-banned DanaUllman during the course of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. I documented the topic ban, as well as a warning to another editor, on the evidence page.[6] Outside of the normal schtick in intervening in such areas, there was no big hassle about acting within normal administrative boundaries during an open case and I did not instantly become "involved". There should be not a problem with a clearly uninvolved administrator acting clearly within bounds on an editor involved in an arbitration case. If I could do it in a considerably more controversial and messy area, it should be unproblematic entirely for uninvolved administrators to intervene in this situation. Vassyana (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Typically, Vassyana fails to examine the particulars of the matter and views it entirely as a procedural issue based upon inapplicable generalities. Brews ohare (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a procedural matter, as the discussion above about whether ArbCom or admins should handle the matter illustrates. The substance of the matter would be best addressed by uninvolved administrators and/or community discussion, and the pending nature of this case does not impact that. Vassyana (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh. Thanks Vassyana. So the community can solve this? So what is the Arbitration Committee actually trying to do here?. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There a massive distinction between disentangling an ongoing, sprawling dispute that has shown little hope of being addressed at the community level and handling a specific issue that has no indication it would be particularly controversial or difficult to handle (except for the confusion about whether or not it would be stepping on ArbCom's toes, as someone in the thread put it). If you really do not understand the difference, we're worlds apart and I'm not sure how to express it better than that framing and my comments above. Vassyana (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean, I do understand the difference, and I agree. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Some questions for clerk or arbitrators

1. Does the topic ban mean that ohare is banned from editing physics related articles and their talk pages (I assume it does)?
2. Does it additionally mean, as other seem to think, that he cannot comment on physics related matters on his own talk page (I assume it doesn't)?
3. If he wanted to appeal, could he do so? how would he go about it? when would be reasonable? is he allowed to create evidence gathering pages for this purpose?
4. In a case like this, where ohare is clearly willing and capable of being a useful editor but there are two quite disparate strands of objections to his editing, who is responsible for helping him?
   1. who will mentor him on editing style, use of sandbox or preview button, listening, consensus, etc?
   2. who will mentor him on physics?

His heart is in the right place and he does have some good points; he just needs steering a little. Should we not be finding a way to utilse his energies rather than simply kicking him out (for that is what we are about to do)? Abtract (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't have any problem with Brews talking to other people in his own userspace about any topic (physics or non-physics) and contribute to physics article in this indirect manner (so long as no one is meat-puppeting on his behalf). The core of the problem was Brews' domination of the talk pages and his inability to be concise and stop hammering the same points over and over. If someone is willing to be concise on Brews' behalf, and unwilling to repeat the same things over and over, there shouldn't be any problem with that. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)