Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Discussion of agenda

Agenda (please use a header for each new discussion section here)

Discussion of announcements

Appeal to BASC: Green Squares

Announcement

Stephen Bain

Announcement

Thanks for your service, bainer. –xeno^talk 16:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done. MBisanz ^talk 17:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Parole at last. Good luck with a real reality. billinghurst sDrewth 01:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Announcement

Can somebody please unban Brews? Yes, he made a few errors in judgement and in technical content, but the ban was not justified. It is senseless to throw people away like this.Likebox (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, let's not. The dust finally settled, and the physics articles are once again editable without getting bogged down in incessant discussions of obvious things, and of the ban itself (as was the case for several months after the ARBCOM case was closed). Let's not re-open this can of worms, let the ban run its full course.

The exception for the image is sufficient. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with letting Brews back to editing physics articles again. Count Iblis (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose lifting Brews' physics topic ban. I supported the recent motion and made a complimentary motion, both of which passed, to make an exception to the topic ban to allow Brews to edit images in connection with the FAC. I supported Brews in 2 enforcement actions against him where I thought that the ban was being (mis)interpreted overbroadly. I am glad that, a month or so after the arbitration decision, Brews dropped the stick and returned to productively and peacefully editing articles outside the physics topic. However, ArbCom, in its judgment, decided that 1 year was the appropriate term for the topic ban. Physics disputes got Brews into trouble in several articles, and see no reason why he should return to that troublesome area now. I also note that Brews has not asked for this relief, which shows good judgment on his part.—Finell 01:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not asked for relief because such relief is not simply a decision of arbitrators regarding my behavior, but also that of other editors, and there is no prospect that Talk page behavior is going to be equitably adjudicated. Brews ohare (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this subject is worthy of a longer discussion, but I want to make sure that Brews is up for it, because it involves him. If he is OK with me arguing stuff that involves him, I'll bring up a separate motion with ArbCom to discuss this in a forward looking way. The past is over and done. So please, can we drop this for the moment, at least until Brews says its OK? If he thinks it's right, I will try to put together an argument, and ask that it be considered on its merits then. I think that this block has many unintended consequences, many of which have a negative impact on the basic functioning of the encyclopedia.Likebox (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Also note that Brews was banned from all topics he was contributing too, which happened to be only physics. Had Brews also contributed to math topics prior to the Arbcom case, he would have been banned from those pages too. Since the Arbcom case, Brews is conducting himself differently. When he has a dispute with someone, he is not going to dominate talk page discussions anymore. See e.g. the way Brews discussed an issue with another editor at the p-vector talk page. Had Brews edited the p-vector page prior the the Arbcom case, then that same dispute would have led to much longer talk page discussions which would have led to him being banned from math pages too. This clearly implies that Likebox is correct in his assessment that the topic ban makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Count Iblis (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I am unfortunately a bit jaded in this matter, and actually do not believe the sanctions against me had any effect whatsoever (changes in my behavior were learned before any admin action occurred), I do believe some discussion of Talk page conduct would be helpful. Probably the sanctions against me preclude much interaction on my part with such discussion. The basic issue is that discussion is fundamentally different from debate, although it has superficial similarities. The objectives differ and the rules have to be different too. Brews ohare (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC) . I'd like to remind you all of my essay. Brews ohare (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC) The discussion page for this essay is of particular interest. Brews ohare (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference, it appears that Likebox has been canvassing for editors to come here and argue for Brews ohare and David Tombe's topic bans to be lifted, as well as trying to reargue the contentious topics which led to the original arbitration: Talk:Speed of light#Comment on an old dispute, Talk:Speed of light#Trying to clarify a distinction. It appears that Likebox's campaign has so far been unsuccessful.

For what it's worth, I don't believe that Brews ohare had any prior knowledge of Likebox's intentions, nor should his steady improvement over the last couple of months be overshadowed by the regrettably counterproductive zeal of his self-appointed defenders. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades: I do not interpret Likebox's actions as you do. I understand the issue to be one mainly of tolerance in the face of vocal opposition on Talk pages. Brews ohare (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW: I applaud Likebox efforts. I'm not sure how contacting editors involved in the Arbcom case to take another look can be "canvassing". Rearguing a contentious topic should be a routine thing. Why do most legal systems in the World have a truly independent appeals system if this is seen to be so bad? Count Iblis (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To respond briefly--- I wasn't sure what this dispute was all about, so I read all the old speed of light talk page debates. I looked at the last text Brews was arguing for, and thought "should this be in the article", and I decided that it wasn't so great, and that I couldn't argue in good conscience that it should be put in.

But I found the point cogent and interesting, although minor, and I thought that if the point is explained clearly enough, people will understand how trivial this dispute is, and decide to put it behind them, and briefly accomodate the point of view on the page with a short text.

This didn't happen. Instead, the new discussion (which is different from the old one, mostly because I don't agree with Brews on all points) was archived repeatedly, and I was accused of being disruptive for talking about it. This led me to mull things over, and I will officially ask ArbCom to reconsider some aspects of the decision in a forward looking way. ArbCom does the best job they can, but sometimes things can drag on a little long. I'll bring it up in the proper venue. I brought it up here because I thought people would be unanimously for this. I was wrong. Sorry.Likebox (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know how you could have thought that people would be unanimously for this when you've specifically asked me and TimothyRias (and others opposed this as well, such as Michael C. Price) what we thought of this and vehemently disagreed. It particularly puzzles since you said "I don't want to raise it [the unban motion] unless I have your support--- I am asking for your support. If you say "yes", and whoever else says "yes", then I will do it. I don't want to go there with hostile editors against the motion." on JohnBlackburne's talk page. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Headbomb, It seems to me that you are attaching a grossly disproportionate weighting and importance to your own prerogative in a field of many thousands of editors. Likebox unfortunately asked the people who had been most hostile towards Brews from the outset. I'm sure you will recall that the entire arbitration hearing arose exclusively as a result of an AN/I thread which you yourself started for the sole purpose of getting Brews sanctioned.

This matter needs to be investigated by an independent panel. David Tombe (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure, knowing Michael Price, that he does not care very much about the ban. He only cares about the accuracy of the science. It took a while to get your responses, and I respect them, and I thought about them. Given that there is opposition to this, I had to carefully weigh how to proceed. I believe, despite the opposition, that there is merit here, and I will make the argument soon (I am preparing the motion). Please, argue it then--- it is senseless for us to argue here.Likebox (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to explain the timing of everything--- I put the first comment here before doing anything else, and then I went to read the archives, then I asked people's opinions, and I got one or two neutral/positive responses at first, and later a few negatives.Likebox (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh please don't Likebox, not another 3 months in ARBCOM again. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect this discussion will take three months. Nobody will be accused of misbehaving or of showing bad judgement or anything. It's just a simple request for redress, hopefully with no negative impact on anybody.Likebox (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My ears are burning, so let me say that I am presently neutral with regards to Brews' ban being lifted. If Brews showed understanding that his past behaviour was not appropriate and would not be repeated I would support an unbanning. A simple and sincere statement by Brews to this effect would probably go a long way to persuading others as well. If, of course, Brews chooses to blame everybody else.... --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Brews still does not understand that his past behavior was inappropriate. To the contrary, he has made it very clear, as I understand it, that he believes that the arbitration decision was wrong, that his behavior on physics articles and talk pages was not problematic, that the problem was other editors' rejection and suppression of his valid positions, and that the Wikipedia's polices regarding talk page and editing behavior (including use of edit summaries) require substantial revision. While I respect Brews and am pleased at his peaceful and productive editing recently, I disagree with him on these points as much as I did during the arbitration and in the arbitration decision's afterglow, when Brews campaigned with his well-known zeal and persistence for reform of Wikipedia's policies. No one can change Brews' mind for him, but these opinions of his, and his actions based on them—classic disruptive conduct (even though Brews honestly doesn't see it that way)—led to his well-deserved arbitration sanctions. Going through these arguments all over again will result in the following:

1. Brews will have a few supporters, as before.
2. A very substantial consensus of editors will oppose lessening of Brews' sanctions.
3. The arbitrators will conclude, unanimously or nearly so, not to modify the arbitration sanctions.

Likebox: Although you mean well and are seriously trying to help Brews, you are actually doing him a severe disservice by dragging him through this all over again. This is the kind of dispute that Brews is not good at handling, the kind that led to the arbitration decision in the first place. Brews will not enjoy the process, and will enjoy the result even less. Further, if Brews conducts himself in this replay of the arbitration the same way that he did in the arbitration, it could lead to additional sanctions, rather than reduction of the existing ones. Indeed, some of Brews' supporters—Tombe, Hell in a Bucket, and Iblis—are likely to egg Brews on and get him into more trouble, even though their intention is the opposite, and Brews is more likely to listen to them than he is to more sensible advice. Brews will have to be very careful to prevent that from happening. Brews is better off staying out of disputes and editing articles peacefully. So is Wikipedia.—Finell 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Finell: Of course, reading people's minds is a delicate business and can go easily wrong. Here is how I read my own mind:

1. The Speed of light debacle was completely mishandled. There were problems, and they were fixable by the right actions, but that did not happen.
2. The notion that the difficulty was that I had the physics wrong [Brews: I never said that this was the problem you had on physics pages.—Finell 23:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)], and therefore the problem was that I didn't understand the physics was nuts. The problem was that the patience of the prevailing vocal group was exhausted.
3. The correct remedy to this situation was not a topic ban that was decided upon, which had nothing to do with the problem, but some behavioral remedy. I suggested some guidelines that would avoid any such problems in the future, and the response was to enlarge my bans to include comment upon procedure even on my own Talk pages!
4. My present frame of mind is soured by these experiences. I have undertaken to avoid pursuit of arguments where resistance is encountered, but that is not really good for WP. It simply means that nuanced and detailed argument will not appear in WP, and defended errors will persist. Brews ohare (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, as far as I can see this is the only thing that matters: Brews saying that "I have undertaken to avoid pursuit of arguments where resistance is encountered" and not only saying that, but also demostrating that he has done so in his recent editing behavior. Therefore, I think Brews is now ready for an appeals process to overturn the topic ban. If Arbcom is competent they will agree to overturn the topic ban and not listen to the majority of editors who want to keep the topic ban in place, because they don't have any good arguments in favor of the topic ban. If Brews were to edit an article on, say, classical mechanics, then how on earth would that be of any relevance to the issues encounterd on the speed of light page? As likebox said, this is more of a problem for Arbcom to decide. They make a ruling that makes no sense whatsoever, so it is for them to correct this error. Likebox could start a process in which he emphasizes this aspect, rather than argue on the basis of Brews right to edit and revisit all the details of the old conflicts. Count Iblis (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To Finell: I know the political situation is sticky. I just want this to end. This is sewing bad seeds everywhere, for no reason. It obviously won't recur, and it's obviously a waste of everyone's time.

I know that a couple of editors will oppose lifting sanctions, but I feel it is important to get them lifted at this point. I will ask the editors that support lifting sanctions to be completely respectful of the difficult job ArbCom is forced to do. They didn't create this mess--- that was a subset of the editors at speed of light.

Brews does not have to acknowledge wrongdoing to move forward. Frankly, it's a little embarassing to ask an expert editor to apologize for defending mostly obvious technical comments. It's also a little jarring--- we don't need an apology, we need productive discussions.

Brews did misjudge the politics terribly, but that's not a rules violation. Some people, especially scientists, are completely tone deaf with regards to politics (I know, I'm one). Letting arguments drag on for too long causes problems, and can be disruptive, but I wouldn't say that to prevent this one needs to find fault with anyone. Instead, you just say "let's not do that again", which Brews has said and done.

I ask you to save your text for the actual ArbCom motion. I have prepared the request, and I will post it in the next few days.Likebox (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the whole purpose of this is to get the new ARBCOM to take an objective look at the whole concept of topic bans arising from talk page discussion. The vocal opposition to this motion is coming exclusively from those who opposed Brews's point of view at the 'speed of light' debate. The old ARBCOM clearly pandered to that group and set a very dangerous precedent for wikipedia in general which has got repercussions far beyond the specific 'speed of light' dispute. There is a danger after the first ten years of wikipedia, that it is entering into a new era which will eventually be written up in the History of Wikipedia as The Reign of Terror. We have currently entered an era in which anybody involved in prolonged debates on talk pages is in fear that at any moment the thought police will arrive and drag them off to the pillory.

The new ARBCOM need to make sure that this current reign of terror is swiftly brought to an end. The topic ban on Brews ohare was ostensibly brought about to end the argument on the talk page at the speed of light. It didn't have that effect. It failed in its purpose. As for Brews, I can see that he is probably too bitter about that particular dispute to want to return to it anyway. Why would he want to go back to that dispute again? We all saw what happened to Likebox when he tried to raise the issue there a few days ago. There is a problem on that page which is a matter for the wikipedia administration to sort out. I doubt very much if Brews will want anything more to do with it. But nevertheless, he should still have the right to involve himself in it if he so chooses. Why shouldn't he edit there? Why the gagging order?

Clearly the old ARBCOM made a big mistake in pandering to a wolf pack at 'speed of light'. The new ARBCOM need to reverse that injustice ASAP and usher in a new era of impartiality. This appeal needs to go ahead as a test case. Protestations from biased editors such as Finell and Headbomb need to be ignored as a matter of importance. David Tombe (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

How can you say these irresponsible things? ArbCom is a small group of volunteers in charge of an editor base which rivals a large city. Their task is to make sure people who don't know each other and disagree virulently can come together to make collaborative writing, something which anyone would have told you is impossible ten years ago. What makes you think that you would do a better job?

I agree that my own selfish motivation for looking into this was because I was worried that bans like this would become common, and editors would start to think that arguing for a point of view on a talk pages is a dangerous thing. But what would it look like if 500,000,000 english speaking internet users started putting four pages of random musings on arbitrary talk pages? There are guidelines for behavior: don't harm collaboration, stay on topic, be brief, don't monopolize, don't repeat yourself too much, and don't disrupt. These rules are sensible, and by themselves they don't prevent points of view from being heard.

Enforcement of these rules is necessary--- everyone acknowledges that. But there is a danger that enforcement decisions can be misused to make censorship. This hasn't really quite happened yet--- your position on speed of light can still be heard (briefly), if you follow the rules. The only thing that the committee expects from editors is to be mindful of their actions, to take responsibility for their actions. That's not a blame game--- it just means, act wisely to prevent disruption, because it is always right around the corner.

So please do not demean others with inconsiderate comments. It is irresponsible, and a blatant display of irresponsibility makes people wary of entrusting a person with editing the encyclopedia.Likebox (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Likebox: I hope that you are beginning to see how the motion that you have proposed is just going to re-open old arguments that were settled in a lengthy, bitter arbitration. And I hope you will reconsider. In the end, this is not going to do anyone any good, least of all Brews.—Finell 06:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right--- this isn't what I expected. But my worries about the chilling effect on talk-pages remain, and incivility should not rub off from one editor to the one standing next to him.Likebox (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can meet halfway here, and remove Brews'/Tombe's physics-related ban on their own talk pages? This restriction does seem to fly in the face of natural justice. I can't see that anything would be lost by lifting it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that personal talk-page bans do smack of thought-policing. But I am not sure that this is the main issue here.

I think the main problem here is the secret motives. When you ban someone, and your true motives are different than the stated ones, you don't really let them know the problem, so its difficult for them to fix. You also make outsiders (like me) start to suspect that Wikipedia is based on Kangaroo court justice, which isn't true.

I read the ArbCom case, and I looked over the example diffs provided, and for Brews, they took a bunch of pedestrian talk page comments and called them "disruptive". I had no idea what was going on. For David, they took a bunch of talk page thoughts and called them "inserting original ideas in the encyclopedia", but when I checked his edit history, he never did any of that on the main pages (at least not in any way that could be attributed to bad faith). He mostly tried to get the history more accurate. He did discuss some offbeat ideas in talk, but that's normal for science, since explaining what you think usually helps people get a clearer idea of where you're coming from.

But I now believe that the real cause of the disruption is not any one individual comment, but the total "K" devoted to comments--- people didn't like the number and verbosity of the comments (correct me if I am wrong).

If the problem was verbosity, dominating talk pages and such, it should have been stated more prominently in the case, because I wasn't sure what the violation was. Neither was Brews, by the way. He thought people were hounding him out because they didn't like his view regarding the meter! I thought so too. That would be silly, now, wouldn't it.Likebox (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no secret, it was a combination of factors, as testified to, and detailed by, the arbcom judgement. Obviously different people place a different weighting on them. I suggest that Brews's and Tombe's talk pages be unrestricted. If their behaviour is acceptable (as you have assured us it will be) I'm sure further debanning will follow.--Michael C. Price ^talk 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to reassure one and all, I do realize that my tendency is to try to get my point across when others don't seem to pick up what I am talking about, especially when they really don't care in the least what I am talking about. I will earnestly attempt in future to avoid lengthy exchanges where it seems such efforts fall on deaf ears. Brews ohare (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (1)

Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (2)

Announcement

Why not simply unban Piotrus? Master&Expert (Talk) 10:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Does "proxy" editing abide by our licensing (GFDL) requirements? Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 03:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say it does, as long as the edit summaries used are clear about the proxying. Graham87 03:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Craigy144

Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Abd-William M. Connolley

Announcement

Oversighter retirements

Announcement