User:Brews ohare/Clarification request

Brews ohare
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Brews ohare

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 04:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBSL, #7
 * Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :

The ban was 'from all pages' I think to precisely cover this, the physics content of non-physics articles, so it is clearly covered. Not only is this against his ban but his tendentious arguing and editing despite his fundamental misunderstanding of it illustrates why he was banned in the first place.
 * 1) 12 December 2012 Removing physics content from article
 * 2) 12 December 2012 Describing perfectly good physics as gobbledygook.

I don't know if a warning is required, but I on two recent occasions reminded him of the ban after editing that was close to the line:
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :


 * 1) Warned on 16 November 2012 by
 * 2) Warned on 21 November 2012 by


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 04:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



Statement by Brews ohare
As to the diffs brought as evidence in this case:


 * 12 December 2012 Removing physics content from article.


 * 12 December 2012 Describing perfectly good physics as gobbledygook.

These diffs affect content in the article Free will, and are not about physics, but about clarity in presenting the topic of free will without confusing digressions. The digressions are Gobbledygook because they are not pertinent to the topic of Free will. Blackburne has elected to skew his descriptions of these edits to appear to be what they are not. Brews ohare (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If this proceeding should result in a site ban for week, as seems to be the proposal of some, it is unclear what lesson should be drawn. From past history and the present action, it is clear that Blackburne will search for every opportunity to do this again, on the slimmest of pretexts, and regardless of whether WP is served. Brews ohare (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @Seraphimblade: The quote you have supplied "Physical models offered at present are both deterministic and indeterministic, and are subject to interpretations of quantum mechanics - which themselves are being constrained by ongoing experimentation." was not a statement of mine, but was a quotation from the article Free will supplied here by Richardbrucebaxter.


 * I made no comment as to its accuracy, and began my arguments for its removal with the remark "Now, whether or not "physical models" are both deterministic and indeteriministic" is completely irrelevant here..." I went on to say " It contributes nothing to the presentation.."


 * My remarks here are directed simply at the relevance of this paragraph to the article Free will and make no statement about the merits or demerits of Richardbrucebaxter's claims about physics. It is a stretch to call such an argument of irrelevancy of a paragraph a "physics-related discussion".


 * Such detail may be tedious for you to examine, but it's needed for a true assessment.


 * In addition, I'd like you to bear in mind that this was part of an ordinary discussion of Free will, and there is no need here for intervention by Administrators to "set things on the right track", so to speak. Blackburne's intrusion here is simply as a busybody with no engagement in Free will or this discussion.


 * Seraphimblade, with a careful reading of this Gobbledygook? exchange, would you reconsider? Brews ohare (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade: You say: "A reference to quantum mechanics is a clear and direct reference to a theory that is a major part of modern physics, and that means that editing or removing that reference is off limits to you, period."
 * Got it. I don't have to actually discuss physics to be off limits; off limits extends to any action involving names of physical theories or their vocabulary, whatever the context or purpose of those actions.
 * This restriction is very severe, especially with Blackburne looking over my shoulder. It appears I will have to avoid philosophy, engineering, mathematics, most science, and a good deal of history. Is all this really necessary or good for WP, or is this more akin to a Les Misérables type of strict enforcement in the Inspector Javert vein?. Brews ohare (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @Mathsci: Yes, I mentioned string theory as an example of a physical theory. I did not discuss it. My total, complete, and exhaustive reference to this topic was: "For example, determinism phrased to accord with Newton's laws is not viable, but how about one phrased to fit string theory or multiverses?" You may be unaware that Determinism is a philosophical topic, not physics.  According to your present opinion, if I mentioned Obama, that would be "politics-related". As already pointed out by others, this interpretation of a "physics-related" edit is extreme. I question the value to WP of such an approach.
 * BTW, and FYI, because you bring up my credentials, I have a PhD in physics from McGill University and worked as a physicist member of technical staff at Bell Laboratories for 23 years, publishing articles on phase transitions, electronic band structure and electron devices such as the MOSFET in technical journals such as Physical Review, Transactions on Electron Devices and Solid State Electronics. It speaks highly of WP that Blackburne has managed to have me excluded from contributing in these areas using exactly the tactics presented here. Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @EdJohnson: Ed, you are off point here. No-one doubts that I removed material related to physics from the philosophical discussion of Free will. Your long description of just why this physics is physics is beside the point. I seem to recall you had a previous issue of this kind with me when you failed to distinguish geometry from physics and smacked me for that one. Now its philosophy and physics. It is for these reasons that sanctions should not require judgment about content.
 * Deletion of a digression on physics from Free will is about its relevance to free will, not about physics. Brews ohare (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ed, you say: " If Brews would agree to avoid this in the future, this might be closed with no action. My assumption is that he will not negotiate, but I would be glad to be proven wrong."
 * I am not at all intransigent about this. If you can formulate what "this" is, I will avoid it. Brews ohare (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Physics includes anything with SI base units, so anything with a unit would fall in scope of a strict definition. So any edit with time (seconds), a length, a mass or weight, reference to light, color, sound, electricity or electro magnetic radiation, waves, pendulums, springs, levels, internal combustion, heat, thermodynamics, motion, rotation ... would be right out! Just because "quantum" is more esoteric than "second" -- which is, of course "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" doesn't make it any less physics. NE Ent 22:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Brews ohare

 * As the entire scope of Wikipedia falls between Big Bang and Heat Death of the Universe, you can broadly construe a physics topic ban to include into a site ban if you're so inclined. The topic ban is about what pages they can edit, not what content -- Free will is not "about physics and physics-related mathematics," NE Ent 16:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is all philosophy, not physics, plain and simple. Based on such argument, one could sanction Brews for mentioning words like "force" or "velocity" somewhere. I suggest that John should stop following and reporting Brews. There are other editors around to notice problems if any. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All natural sciences, technology and philosophy (as we can see) are somehow related to physics. My very best wishes (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's very borderline because the recent comments on the talk page (not just the diffs above) seem to be about the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Mathsci (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At the very minimum, give him a explicit warning that he is stepping too close to the line. Otherwise he will think that he was right, and he will keep pursuing the same line of editing until he finds himself blocked. And he will think that he was unfairly blocked, since no one had told him explicitly that he was Doing It Wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue here is what "broadly construed" means.
 * It appears that any sentence in any article (including ones which are not specifically about physics or physical phenomena)which has any terms related to physics is being interpreted to be included - which may be stretching the concept of topic bans to their uttermost limits.
 * Posit a person quoting George Gnarph as saying "Like Galileo, I say Gnarphism is true and the sun still moves." If Georgen Gnarph's quote is not relevant to an article, the fact the qyite refers to physics "broadly construed" ought not make the physic topic ban applicable.
 * In short - the term "broadly construed" should mean "reasonably and substantially construed to be directly related to the subject of the topic ban", and not mean "uses any terms at all which a rubber-bander could stretch to include in the topic ban." Collect (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. On the talk page, Brews ohare explicitly mentions quantum mechanics, string theory and the standard model. These are specialist parts of theoretical physics, not everyday terms. Mathsci (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a physicist can not avoid discussing actual physical concepts, even when he is trying to write something about natural sciences, technology and philosophy. For someone like Brews this is basically a site ban. My personal suggestion would be to allow Brews editing Physics for a while and see how it goes, but this can not be decided here...My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On his user page Brews ohare does not describe himself as a physicist. Mathsci (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he describes himself as an electrical engineer. It's not a particularly large leap from Kirchhoff's circuit laws to Maxwell's equations to modern quantum electrodynamics. As usual, xkcd is on point here. NW ( Talk ) 19:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he descibes himself as an electrical engineer. There is a huge gulf between that subject and what is required to master rudimentary string theory, even prior to more recent developments in M-theory. Mathsci (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Boodlepounce is puzzled. The sanctions states the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed  It seems clear to Boodlepounce that this is a ban from certain pages; that the ban extends to all spaces not just article space; that the pages are defined by being about physics and physics-related mathematics; and that the construction of the the defninition of physics and physics-related mathematics is to be broad.  The complaint is about edits to Free will and Talk:Free will.  Boodlepounce cannot see that this page is "about physics and physics-related mathematics" however broad the construction.  Other complaints levied against the accused here are unrelated to this sanction.  If the Committee had intended a topic-ban on content about physics, they could and would have said so -- Boodlepounce assumes that the Committee meant what it said and said what it meant.  If the Committee had intended to impose restrictions on editing or conduct related to physics, again it would have said so.  It is clear to Boodlepounce at least that there is no vioplation of the Committee's topic ban here.  Complaints about other aspects of these edits are misplaced and should be taken up elsewhere.  Boodlepounce (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge
It seems pretty obvious that Brews ohare violated their topic ban. A topic ban means that the editor cannot make any edits regarding that topic regardless of article. As soon as they begin discussing the topic, they have violated their ban. The two diffs provided in this RfE are extremely damning. Who could possibly argue that the physical universe and quantum mechanics aren't part of physics? I don't see any problem implementing the 1 week block or EdJohnston's suggestion that Brews ohare agree to avoid this in the future without action. If Brews ohare believes that the topic ban is without merit or is no longer necessary, they are free to request that the topic ban be lifted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the only legitimate exceptions to topic bans are obvious vandalism and dispute resolutions involving the ban itself. No such justifications have been offered and Banning policy is very clear. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Count Iblis
Since this has nothing whatsoever to do with the original speed of light case, it is a violation of an extention of an extention of an extention of an extention of extention of an extention of an extention of an extention of an extention of an extention of an extention of extention of an extention of an extention of an extention of sanctions that were designed to deal with too much talk on the speed of light talk page, I think the best thing is to start a new ArbCom case. 23:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Brews ohare

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.


 * Given the usual use of the words "broadly construed", I can't see that there's a whole lot of wiggle room here, and it seems there is indeed a violation, which would allow for a block of no longer than one week. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also agree with TC that the maximum block is warranted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, I had taken the "pages of any nature about physics or physics-related mathematics" to mean any page with any connection to physics, even if not the primary topic. Apparently we don't have agreement on that understanding here, though. If further discussion doesn't produce a consensus, perhaps a request for clarification could be in order. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * NW, Seraphimblade, as there is a clear disagreement here with people on both sides clearly acting in good faith, I very much support the idea of a request for clarification. This situation, where people aren't sure how to interpret an ArbCom ruling, is exactly why we have a place to make such requests. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a violation to me; given the history here, minded to go with the maximum one week block. T. Canens (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I remain of the view that this is an unambiguous violation. The third example in WP:TBAN is directly on point: just as a "section entitled 'Climate' in the article New York" would be covered by a topic ban from weather, even though the article itself is not about weather. This remains so even if the edit in question removed the whole section on the argument that it's irrelevant to the subject at hand. If someone topic banned from climate change were to edit Hurricane Sandy and remove the "Relation to global warming" subsection because it is "about its relevance to the [hurricane], not about [climate change]", I doubt that any of us would hesitate to block. T. Canens (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not immediately clear to me that this really is a violation of the topic ban: the edits relate to the plausible applicability of some vague physics-related concepts to philosophical concepts rather than discuss the physics themselves – and the posts were clearly intended to affect the philosophical discussion and not the physics. I'd agree it skirts uncomfortably close to the restriction, but I'd argue that a week-long block is unwarranted. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coren; this seems to be stretching the definition of "broadly construed" a bit too far. NW ( Talk ) 18:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still unconvinced by arguments that this falls within the (intent of the) topic ban. It appears to be 4-2 against my position though. What have we historically done in times like this? NW ( Talk ) 19:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that all of Brews' edit cited here to free will was physics-related, but I have a hard time seeing how "Physical models offered at present are both deterministic and indeterministic, and are subject to interpretations of quantum mechanics - which themselves are being constrained by ongoing experimentation." could be interpreted as anything but directly and clearly relating to physics. Brews was clearly aware this was part of the edit, as evidenced by the later "gobbledygook" discussion on it. Other parts of that edit, such as those about intuition, etc., would not have violated the topic ban, but that, in my opinion, very clearly does. Accordingly, I have to agree with those finding this to be a sanctionable violation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Brews, no, that doesn't convince me at all. The topic ban means that you may not edit any page or part of a page related to physics, at all. That's what a topic ban means. I do understand that there could be a significant grey area there, but I just can't find any grey here. A reference to quantum mechanics is a clear and direct reference to a theory that is a major part of modern physics, and that means that editing or removing that reference is off limits to you, period. Seraphimbladepublic (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * NW, I'm not sure, this is indeed an unusual situation. Maybe Heimstern's suggestion of a request for clarification would be a way to move forward? Seraphimbladepublic (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've correspondingly filed the request for clarification. This is an unusual case, and I think some additional input from ArbCom would be very helpful here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think the result of the clarification request clearly indicates that these types of edits were intended to be prohibited by the topic ban. I suggest that now that this has been made clear, we should close this thread with a logged final warning to Brews that the topic ban applies to physics-related material in all cases. This applies to only material reasonably and closely related to physics, and I'll be the first to warn that if we see an enforcement request here because Brews expressed units in meters or seconds, or because he edited an article on a car engine and car engines are ultimately applied physics, the filer is likely to be the one sanctioned for filing a frivolous request and wasting everyone's time. However, if the material is related to physics, its theories, etc., it is off limits, even if that isn't the main subject of the article. I also strongly urge Brews to ask for an opinion on applicability of the ban before editing a questionable area, either here or from one of the admins familiar with the case. Appropriate clarification requests are not a violation of the topic ban. As to the topic ban itself, it's ultimately up to ArbCom whether relaxing or lifting it is called for, as the ban was not imposed by AE but by ArbCom directly. I honestly don't see a block doing any good at this point, but now that the scope of the restriction is clear, it will be very likely next time. I hope never to see that thread appear here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is the most appropriate resolution. NW ( Talk ) 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The word 'physics' occurs in material removed by Brews ohare on 12 December from the Free will article. His edit removes a citation of a physics paper called "An experimental test of non-local realism" published in Nature in 2007 by Simon Gröblacher et al. So I do find this to be a technical violation of his physics restriction. To convince you his edit is really about physics, take a look at Bell test experiments. It explains the significance of Gröblacher's work in the context of quantum mechanics. On December 13 another editor restored mention of the Gröblacher paper and it is currently back in the article. Brews has been in front of Arbcom a number of times. So in spite of the temptation to send this report away as too minor to bother with, I think it's better if we treat it as a bright line issue, and issue a block of some duration. If Brews would agree to avoid this in the future, this might be closed with no action. My assumption is that he will not negotiate, but I would be glad to be proven wrong. If anyone thinks it is time to start relaxing Brews' ban, they should take it up with Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Blackburne: To support this action you have brought, you have provided only diffs in which 'See also' links were provided, and links to sources. None of these seem to reach the level of gravity requiring Admins' attention. One Admin has pointed out, apparently accurately, that the ban requires that I not contribute to pages dealing with physics, even if my contributions do not involve physics. It would appear that the interpretation of a link as a form of 'contribution' is the technicality behind your action, which is about at the level of complaining that I fixed a typo. While your interpretation that any change by me, however minor, is an infraction, and any infraction still is an infraction, does it serve WP to distract Admins with such sins??? Haven't they (and you) got actually important things to do to improve WP???  Brews ohare (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)