User:Brews ohare/Sandbox6

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Brews ohare
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – Brews ohare (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : <This action by Sandstein is appealed. Following upon a request by Blackburne, Sandstein concluded that I was in violation of “normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”. I have three objections: first, the duration of Sandstein's penalty extends beyond the expiration date of the restriction used to authorize that action; second, the violations of decorum etc. authorizing action did not occur; and third, the warning required by the authorizing restriction was not provided.>


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :  Sandstein notified with this diff; Blackburne (instigator of original request for action) notified with this diff.

Statement by Brews ohare
<The motion was this. It refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010.

This statement suggests conditions for reinstatement of the remainder of the initial ban, but does not authorize an individual editor to take action without a proper hearing.

This suggest that an individual uninvolved editor may impose sanctions “if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.” Apparently it is this restriction that Sandstein has invoked.

I would raise the following points: Brews ohare (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) >
 * Although the restriction does not contain wording limiting the nature of sanctions to be imposed, I would take it as implied that any such sanctions are to run co-extensively with the authorizing motion; that is, until October 20, not indefinitely. Sandstein has exceeded the authority granted by this remedy. To extend a sanction beyond the time of the authorizing restriction itself requires a full arbcom hearing.
 * I was not, IMO, properly advised that such action was going to be taken. I believe that claims by Blackburne that I was warned that arbcom action would be taken are erroneous.
 * I immediately desisted when advised that arbcom was to become involved.
 * There was no warning of impending arbcom action; Blackburne's diffs that he interprets as warnings do not specifically indicate that unless I desist in talking about things on the Talk page, action would be initiated. In some cases, these remarks are simply bad tempered expressions of old wounds.
 * There was no violation of Talk page decorum or standards of behavior. What did happen is that extended discussion of a number of points took place, in an entirely civil manner. As a result some improvements of some topics on the article page were made by a variety of editors. Some issues remained open on the Talk page at the time of Sandstein's action. They did not involve Blackburne, who brought the request. It is probable that these matters would have been abandoned in due course due to lack of agreement, and there was no need to intervene with sanctions.
 * In view of the bad tempers and impatience exhibited by many on the Talk:Speed of light page, I volunteer that any future contributions to a thread that I might offer upon this Talk page will be limited upon request of any editor actively involved in that thread.
 * Response to Blackburne on civility: As pointed out, these remarks were commentary upon actions participated in by many, and were not personal comments directed at yourself or any other edtior. Brews ohare (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I'll not comment on the merits of this appeal at this time for two reasons:
 * I doubt that the appeal is admissible. Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light does not provide for appeals to the community against administrative actions taken according to that case's provisions. The only venue of appeal available, therefore, is to the Arbitration Committee.
 * The appeal raises some of the same issues as the outstanding request for clarification in this matter. To avoid parallel discussion, I recommend that the processing of this appeal is suspended until the request for clarification is resolved.    Sandstein   17:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb
And the wikilawyering begins; procedures, formal warnings, etc... Brews the truth is admins have the authority and mandate to stabilize Wikipedia and fix problems. Full ARBCOM hearings aren't required everytime someone farts, and warnings don't need to come form the top before you need to heed them.

Also, I want to echo's Elen of the Roads statement "[W]hy does he have to be warned formally EVERY TIME he starts this up. Why can't he remember from one time to the next not to do this shizz, like most of us do with things we're not supposed to do." I and other editors told him several times (see the diffs provided above) to drop the stick in the last weeks (and this behaviour started more or less on the day of topic ban expiry, give or take a week).

I'll doubt, I'll involve myself in yet another ARBCOM nightmare more than this statement (and now that the advocacy ban has been repealed, you can bet your ass that this will be long). I don't feel like debating the obvious with someone who can't grasp it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JohnBlackburne
The diffs were provided to show that a number of editors - most of the participants of the talk page - had objected to Brews' editing over the space of a only a few days. That some reference the previous arbitration case is unsurprising as it concerned the same page and is hardly "old wounds" as it is still in force. I'm not sure why you expect them to show a "warning of impending ArbCom action".

On civility I again point to and, your characterising other editors' contributions as "stupid" and "lazy" respectively. Or only yesterday, perhaps more typically, three good faith attempts by different editors to address your concerns were dismissed like so:. Whether any of this is bad tempered or impatient I'm sure editors can judge for themselves.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by 
Just wanted to note, from reading Talk:Speed of light. Brews, you were repeatedly advised to take the extra content to the article on the Metre, which all agreed could do with the expansion. You are still able to do that - Speed of Light is the only article you are barred from. Why don't you do that, make it work, and you'll be in a much better position to convince people that sanctions are no longer required. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Brews ohare

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


 * I am of the opinion that this appeal is out of order as the decision does not provide for an appeal here. The appeal would need to go to ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the clerks can move this appeal section to the appropriate venue?? Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk comment: This thread is not actionable as an appeal and so it would form no part of any complaint you submitted to the Arbitration Committee. You should simply file a new request, using the old statements and such if you like. AGK   22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I need advice on how and where to file the new request, as I cannot understand the procedure. Brews ohare (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why appeal of an enforcement action by Sandstein does not fit into this form of the appeal process. The suggestion by AGK to file under amendment of an existing sanction confuses me, as the template for such action doesn't seem to fit this appeal. I have requested some assistance in this matter from AGK, but so far he has been unable to help. Brews ohare (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)