Motions

User:Brews ohare

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Abstain

User:Brews ohare alternate

User:Brews ohare alternate 2

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

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

Support

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

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

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

Oppose

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

Abstain

Brews ohare advocacy restrictions

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

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

Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

Abstain

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

Discussion

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

Comment from Brews ohare

With regard to proposed motion on my restrictions

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

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

With regard to restriction of commentary on future actions by whomsoever

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

Query as to clarification

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

Reply to Physchim62

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

Reply to Jehochman

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

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

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

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

Comments by Likebox

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

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

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

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

Comments by Count Iblis

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

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

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

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

Agree with Headbomb regarding my position

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

Dr. IP,

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

Comment by 66.127.52.47

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

Additional comment

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

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

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

re Likebox: Deleted as tangential original text.

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

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

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

Comment by Physchim62

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

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

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

Supplement

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

Comment by Jehochman

Reply to Physchim62

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

Comment by Dr.K.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Headbomb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by David Tombe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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