User:Brews ohare/Sandbox7

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&diff=378453304&oldid=378453130

= =

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light
Initiated by   Sandstein   at 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (notification)
 * (notification)
 * Possibly the contributors to WP:AE (notification on that board)

Statement by Sandstein
I request clarification about whether the sanction Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light has expired.

The motion of 20:37, 29 March 2010 recorded at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light reads in relevant part:
 * "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."

It is not clear whether sanction 3, entitled "Brews ohare restricted" is part of the "supplementary restrictions" that the motion refers to, because it is not listed in the "(namely ...)" part of the motion and, in the list of sanctions on the case page, it is not followed by the comment "Modified by motions below" as is sanction 4.2, entitled "Brews ohare topic banned".

The question is relevant because I have just been enforcing sanction 3, following an enforcement request at WP:AE. It has subsequently been argued on my talk page that sanction 3 has expired. Should that turn out to be the case, my enforcement action was in error, but in this case I ask the Committee to consider reinstating the sanction by motion because, as the enforcement request shows, it appears to continue to be necessary.

I would also appreciate it if the Committee would consider establishing a process to ensure that arbitration case pages always unambiguously reflect any change in status of the decisions without much need for interpretation.  Sandstein  07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth, thanks for the advice concerning page updates. You appear to be under the impression that I reinstated the full topic ban as a discretionary sanction. I did not – I only imposed a ban from the article Speed of light and its talk page.  Sandstein   09:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Concerning expiration dates, I recall a previous request for clarification (can't find the link now, sorry) in which most arbitrators appeared to be of the view (contrary to my own opinion then) that discretionary sanctions could extend in time beyond the duration of the remedy under which they were imposed. I'd of course not otherwise have imposed a ban lasting longer than 20 October. May I ask the Committee to clarify this "question of law" one way or the other and preferably codify it in some arbitration policy or guideline page?  Sandstein   06:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment 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:
 * 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. Brews ohare (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment upon this proceeding: The basic question here as to whether “sanctions cannot run past the expiry date of the restriction” is a general technical point, and its accidental origination in my particular case really has little bearing upon the broad issues at stake. I believe the morphing of this clarification proceeding to become in effect a hearing on my appeal is (i) a distortion of what the clarification should be about, and (ii) an invalid hearing of my appeal in a restricted context where all the issues pertinent to a decision cannot be raised. Brews ohare (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by JohnBlackburne
To clarify I did not claim that the previous warnings were about ArbCom. I simply wrote "He has been warned before" with diffs, so editors could make up their own minds about the relevance of them.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hell in a Bucket
keeping this short...typing one handed is a bitch. 8-) I am not advocating for brews specifically, I'm more concerned with arb enforcement w/o specific authorization. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I find this inherently interesting. Jehochman is calling foul because i started a advocacy restriction against him and others and didn't notify him. My question is where is our notification he wanted to impose community restrictions? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
Flagging this prior clarification for attention as it is of some relevance to sanctions, expiration dates, reset sanctions, and additional sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman's
Brews has gone back to purposefully disrupting the speed of light article by repeatedly advancing fringe theory and original research. Why must you torture our editors by subjecting them to this repeated punishment. Brews doesn't get it, and will never get it, no matter how much you wish he would. Please, would you finally deal with this problem: ban Brews from making any edits related to the speed of light or definition of the length of the meter. This ban needs to be permanent. Jehochman Talk 11:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Would somebody please address this. The advocacy restrictions on Count Iblis and Hell in a bucket were allowed to expires.  These accounts are now running cover for Brews disruptive editing.  The situation is abominable because you folks have abdicated your responsibilities.  Please take a look at the current discussion on User talk: Brews ohare and WP:AN/I.  Jehochman Talk 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Steve Smith: Wikipedia is not a popularity contest to see who has the most friends to support their position. The AN/I thread has thin participation from uninvolved editors.  Please look at the behavior patterns that have largely reverted to the pre-arbitration state.  What's the point of arbitration if editors just go back to their old, improper ways? Do you think that AN/I is acceptable behavior?  It is transparently retaliatory. The subjects of the ban proposal were not even notified of the discussion. And since when do we ban editors (without any prior warning) from participating in arbitration?  How can you turn a blind eye to this? Jehochman Talk 08:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Question from the puzzled Angus McLellan
I don't understand Carcharoth's position, or Sandstein's proposal. Brews had a topic ban and, in best Bourbon manner, forgot nothing and learned nothing. So why give him another topic ban, whether that's the original one until October, or a narrower one indefinitely? The expired topic ban was his last chance to learn and he didn't take it. So why wait until he doesn't learn from another last chance? An indefinite block is the only solution here since Brews isn't interested in changing his behaviour. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Protonk
The RFAR resulted in a strict topic ban and an advocacy ban. The former was whittled down by arbcom I presume out of their belief that they had unfairly classified Brews due to the actions of David Tombe. The lapsing of that topic ban resulted in Brews immediately reviving his past behavior on Talk:Speed of Light, which produced a discretionary topic ban from Sandstein. That ban in place the same behaviors were started up in other (closely related) physics articles. When an admin moved in to stop Brews, those editors formerly restricted from advocating on his behalf did so strenuously and simultaneously (though I don't think they were acting in concert). With respect to arbcom, it wastes the time of the admin corps when old cases are re-litigated needlessly. Whatever the motivation of arbcom to relax Brews' topic ban, the proper thing to do is to re-instate it (and not leave it reinstated as an AE action) and expand it to related articles. Protonk (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Count Iblis
Jehochman intervened to stop Brews on an alleged OR issue as discussed here on AN/I. Jehochman being an experienced Admin can, I'm sure, filter out the sniping on the AN/I thread, take my own comments with a pinch of salt as I started the thread, and then focus his attention on the comments by experienced uninvolved editors who make relevant comments on this issue like e.g. Awickert and Holmansf.

As I explain here, involved Admins are actually better qualified than univolved Admins to judge cases like this. I know that this sounds crazy, but take the time to read my arguments. Count Iblis (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * First up, I would encourage Sandstein (as someone active in arbitration enforcement) to approach the clerks and sort out a good way of making sure that it is clear what is in force or not following an amendment. The topic ban does have the phrase appended in italics Modified by motions below 02:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC), but there are other, possibly clearer options, such as collapsing old text to avoid it being unintentionally read as still in force (in passing, the previous confusion caused at the date-delinking case is still there, so you could raise that as well). I suggest going to the clerks noticeboard to raise these issues, especially the one of how to deal with time-delayed expirations (it is not normal to expect case pages to be modified every time a sanction expires, but maybe it is needed in some cases). Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving on to the issue that needs clarification, I support the reinstatement of the topic ban and agree that the general probation (which was still in force) gives some authority to take this step, but I think that an indefinite topic ban requires a new ArbCom motion, and that any arbitration enforcement action should only extend to reinstating previous sanctions, not extending them (or, at most, resetting them to a length not greater than the original sanction). Accordingly, I would suggest reimposing the topic ban until 20 October 2010, and also reactivating the exceptions (numbers 1 and 2) that allow participation in featured article candidacy discussions solely in order to discuss images and to edit said images. I would also suggest that if the topic ban expires or is lifted at some point, that Brews Ohare realise that he needs to change his approach to such articles and to write down how he will change his approach, and if he cannot change his approach, to avoid such articles otherwise he will end up indefinitely topic banned. And to clarify a few other points, I view remedy 3 (the general probation) as still in force, and I believe the wording of the motion referring to "supplementary restrictions" referred to the 24 November 2009 restrictions imposed by Tznkai and logged at the case page in the logs section. Finally, I agree that the actual expiration of the topic ban should have been logged at the case pages at or soon after the point it expired. Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein: sorry, I misread remedy 4.2. In effect you have narrowed the scope (from all physics pages to just 'speed of light') and extended the timescale to indefinite. I am still wary, however, of new sanctions imposed at arbitration enforcement extending beyond the date when the initial sanctions would have normally expired (20 October 2010, in this case). My feeling is that if an administrator thinks sanctions need to be extended in time or extended in scope, that needs to come to ArbCom for clarification or amendment. The exception would be things like resetting sanctions following evasion, or following a set series of escalating sanctions set out in enforcement provisions. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been noted above, the general restriction on Brews remains in place until 20 October. I do not believe that any sanctions placed under the guise of arbitration enforcement can extend beyond that point without additional arbitration committee involvement. Steve Smith (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My view remains that arbitration enforcement actions cannot extend beyond the expiration of underlying remedies. If you can dig up the clarification request that concluded the opposite, I may reconsider in the interests of consistency and predictability, but right now I see no reason to do so. Steve Smith (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not longer clear on what clarification question is being asked here. Initially, it appeared to be on the technical propriety (not the merits) of Sandstein's actions, but that question has been asked and answered.  If this is now an appeal of the merits of an enforcement action, it should be re-framed as such (and not on the request for clarification page).  In direct response to Jehochman's most recent comments, the restrictions on Hell in a Bucket et al were extraordinary (and, so far as I am aware, unprecedented).  The concern was that these users were causing a dispute to flare up where, were it not for their involvement, it would burn quietly out.  The case now is that they are participating in a live dispute (live due other than to their own actions).  While it may be annoying that these users are now bringing these matters to ANI, arbitrators' talk pages, or wherever else, it's not fundamentally any different from what happens all the time in all sorts of polarizing disputes, and I cannot agree that by allowing it we have abdicated our responsibility. Steve Smith (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The procedural matter here is somewhat curious. To the best of my recollection, the Speed of light case is the only instance in which the Committee imposed a general probation with a specified ending date; general probations imposed in other cases have normally been of indefinite duration.  (Borrowing of terminology from topic-level discretionary sanctions, rather than using the traditional wording for probations, adds to the confusion, in my view; but that's tangential to the main point here.)  My inclination with the old variant of probation—which was limited to page bans specifically, rather than any imaginable sanction—would be to allow the bans to remain in place beyond the expiration of the period for making them, since there would be no reason to assume that an editor would necessarily be ready to return to a page merely because the original remedy had lapsed.  However, I'm not quite convinced this is a particularly good approach when the remedy authorizes the full range of available sanctions rather than merely page bans.  The best solution, however, would be to avoid crafting remedies in a way that causes this sort of thing; thus, the motion below. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Motion
1) Remedy #3 ("Brews ohare restricted") of the Speed of light case is replaced with the following:"is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on him if, despite being warned, he repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Actions taken under this provision are subject to the relevant rules and procedures for standard discretionary sanctions."


 * Support
 * The easiest way to avoid the procedural uncertainty here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Un-gameable, and easily enforced. I see things in this area backsliding to what they were before (which caused sanctions to be mooted against both Brews and some of his supporters), and I am not really wanting to go through that whole thing again. SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I don't see it as helpful to increase sanctions' severity to make them easier interpretatively. We don't do due process, of course, but this offends something. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding to that, the stuff that's going on now at ANI and elsewhere does not strike me as a ringing endorsement of the existing general restriction; I don't see extending it as self-evidently useful. Steve Smith (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Abstain