Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Risker (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 17 December 2012 (→‎Clerk notes: I think this can be closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/3/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2|Amendment request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2]] none none 17 December 2012
Clarification request: Speed of light none none 15 December 2012
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

Amendment request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2

Initiated by
Rainer P.
Case affected
Prem Rawat 2
Remedy to which an amendment is requested
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Information about amendment request
  • Request : Rainer P. unbanned.

Statement by Rainer P.

  • I have been indefinitely topic-banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights, for “persistant battleground behaviour” but he provides no evidence or diffs to support that charge.
  • I have never engaged in “battleground behavior”. I regard my influence there as neutral, moderate and conciliatory. About the only comment about me notes “Rainer's attempt to pull this discussion back on track seems a move in a positive direction”.[2]
  • I have edited Prem Rawat articles less than 10 times in three years. I have made edits only with full consent from all after previous discussion, like my last edit to the article on October 19th.[3]
  • Most of my edits have been to the Talk Page because I have extensive knowledge of the subject and want to help the article editors. I have never been uncivil despite being frequently provoked.
  • I have never been warned or criticised in over three years of editing.
  • I have never been part of an Arbitration action. And so, as per Discretionary Sanctions, I should have received a warning before banning.[4][5]
  • I have never been banned or blocked or otherwise been subject to disciplinary actions.
  • I have looked at all my edits and I cannot see what I have done wrong.

Statement by Rumiton

Thanks for inviting me to comment. I don't understand the reason for Blade's implementation of these bans so I will wait to hear from him before commenting further. Rumiton (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive oil

I have a few impressions of the recent dynamics of this article discussion page and editing that includes Blade of the Northern Lights recent blocks. I had very little knowledge of Prem Rawat and of the editors who edit on this article until a few months ago with one exception, a now banned editor. I came to the page because of a comment I saw on Jimbo's talk page which seemed to me to be very uncivil.

Clearly discussion and editing on this page is highly contentious. However, while editors had strong opinions about how policy applied to content and sources, I did not see anything unreasonable in the issues raised. it seemed to me that some editors where intent on protecting past edits and content, while other editors were interested in contesting some content. I don't see anything wrong with any of this. Discussion pages are for discussion. This is contentious and a BLP so there's going to be lots of differing opinion. Once an uninvolved editor (olive) had come onto the page and Blade had made a few warning remarks in reference to civility, I felt things on the page settled down and editors were making a real effort to work collaboratively. I think that general process was ongoing and working. Issues were being discussed and then acted upon and there was little edit warring. The only inappropriate aspect of the process was periodic incivility which tended to degrade the process. I didn't see battleground behaviour in Memento, Rumiton or Rainer. Nor did the three of them always agree with each other. That isn't to say they didn't have strong opinions and were willing to express them. Rainer was always mild mannered, polite, and conciliatory in his positions. (I'm not taking credit for any quieting down on the page. I suspect any outside person requesting quiet above the din could change the long standing dynamic on that page)

It was after the page had quieted down and following a comment on Jimbo's talk page, and when progress was being made in terms of talk page dynamics that Blade sanctioned 4 editors silmultaneoulsy with out diffs to support the sanctions. Blade's ban didn't appear to follow the normal WP process by pointing to diffs of threads showing problematic behavior so I think posting diffs especially within context of the discussion as a whole would be a good next step for the banning admin to take.

In theory, sanctions in WP are meant to improve behavior. One can't improve if one doesn't know specifically what one has done wrong.(olive (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

  • @Sir Fozzie: Editors have been sanctioned already. I may not have understood your statement.
  • My points, and I may have not articulated them very well is that It would be helpful if diffs indicating sanctionable behaviour for each editor be shown rather than a simultaneous editor sanction with no diffs.
  • @ Commenting Arbs: My first reading of the article when I came to it a few months ago was that it contained, as some contentious articles do, subtle tiny points which together serve to colour the article as a whole. This is an insidious form of editing dangerous for an encyclopedia especially on a BLP article. As is now, the article reads in a pretty neutral way excluding the second sentence of the lead which serves to describe another human being in only one way. Not good and not neutral. My experience with the editors on this page was that there was a genuine effort to improve their editing. The sanction came as a shock, especially the sanction of Rainer, in light of the improvements I saw in editing behaviour. Perhaps the difference with someone coming in, who is aware of the history and contentious nature of the article in general, but has no view of the editors, nor preconceptions about the topic area is that I didn't know or care what Rawat is in a personal way, nor do I care about editor motive. I'm looking at the present situation. I as a reader now, as the article is, sense that Rawat is controversial, has detractors and supporters, and I have a sense of what his tenets are. I no longer feel I am being manipulated to see Rawat in any particular way. The slant when I came in was pejorative. The Nixon article is probably a good example of a neutral article that could have easily been slanted in a pejorative way. This means to me process on the article is starting to work. I have left the article because support of edits was seen as support of editors which left me open for a a lot of abusive comments. Not what I have time for.(olive (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

In response to Roger Davies, if you want to switch the remedies over to discretionary sanctions, and want to find a way to deal with the existing bans, you could decide that any existing bans placed under the old remedies are vacated, but are replaced by new bans of the same duration subject to arbitration enforcement appeal. Once you had made that change, you could deal with Rainer P.'s appeal by having a clerk copy it over to WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Momento

Where is the evidence of Rainer's "persistent battleground behaviour"? I can't see it. Little Olive Oil and Silk Tork can't see it. BOTNL can't provide a single diff. And no one has raised it on Rainer's talk page or Prem Rawat talk. The only person accused of "battleground behaviour" on the Prem Rawat articles this year is PatW. Four separate editors have found it necessary to go to PatW's talk page and ask him to modify his behaviour to no avail. [6][7][8][9] And that doesn't include numerous comments on Prem Rawat talk. As for BOTNL's observation that "it was becoming obvious the article was being stifled by the incessant fighting and tendentious editing", I think this comment from an independent editor who wanted to contribute sums it up nicely - "I came to this page to see if the allegations being made about Memento's editing were true, but what strikes me as more egregious are the constant personal attacks by PatW and Surdas. Because of the hostility and unconstructive comments by those two, I'm unwilling to get involved at this point. PatW and Surdas, if you will work on getting your behavior back in line with WP's policies, I think more page watchers, such as myself, might be willing to get involved in the content discussion".[10] Rainer may be an SPA but he is, as WP:SPA notes "a well-intentioned editor with a niche interest" and "the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject". Rainer's appeal should have been over in five minutes, he has done nothing wrong and "the project" is diminished when "mild mannered, polite, and conciliatory" editors are hounded and sanctioned for their personal beliefs.Momento (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary.
Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement from The Blade of the Northern Lights

Let me begin by saying I also think a blanket lifting here would be a bad idea; as noted below by Risker, there's something else at work with PatW's situation, and in any event these sorts of issues are normally considered on a case-by-case basis. In early April of this year, an ANI thread brought my attention to the Prem Rawat topic area; since that time, I have been watching over the Prem Rawat article and a few associated articles. From April to August, Rumiton was under an indefinite topic ban, but I was monitoring the other users linked above, and when I lifted his ban I continued to watch him. What I could see was a pattern of editing that was slowly but surely slanting the article away from criticisms of Rawat. Although Momento, Rumiton, and PatW (PatW being the sole voice of opposition) were clearly the most active of the three, Rainer P. came by with some frequency to support the first two; the percentage of edits these editors had to Prem Rawat and the talkpage referred to by Roger Davies below also caught my eye. With the exception of a couple of outbursts from PatW, it's not something that can easily be packaged in diffs, but watching it happen it was becoming very clear what was going on. User:Steven Zhang had come in to mediate in August, and he was seeing exactly the same patterns I was. By mid-October, it was becoming obvious the article was being stifled by the incessant fighting and tendentious editing. Although Rainer P. didn't edit the article a lot, he made a large number of comments at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 49 (which for some reason isn't linked in the archive box at Talk:Prem Rawat; someone who knows how such things work may want to fix that).

As was stated in the messages I gave them each, I had initially intended to institute the topic bans in late October, but first Hurricane Sandy and then a nasty snowstorm had other ideas, and I didn't think it'd be fair of me to topic ban people and disappear for several days; in those couple weeks, I saw a series of edits between November 10 and November 15 from Momento and Rumiton. These edits clearly gave the article a very pro-Rawat slant, and the tone on the talkpage made it readily obvious that was the intent. It was to the point where another editor noted on the talkpage how obvious it was, and even Jimbo stated his intent to get involved in trying to remove the bias from the article (something he later did); this made it even more obvious to me the continued presence of these users would be detrimental. I knew none of them would want to raise an AE thread because it would almost certainly result in the filer[s] being banned as well, and knowing the article was under article probation I decided to unilaterally do it myself.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether or not to remove the article probation sanction and replace it with standard DS; though the current article probation makes it easier for one administrator to manage major problems without requiring 15 threads in 10 places, I also understand not wanting to give administrators too much power over articles. As to the lifting of the topic bans, I think allowing SPAs who clearly have some sort of agenda back into the article will lead to exactly the same problems there were before. If you're going to replace article probation with standard DS, I'd support EdJohnston's suggestion above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I've looked back at the contributions of Rainer P. (which are mainly to the talkpage of Prem Rawat) and I cannot find any problematic edits. I think it would help if The Blade of the Northern Lights could identify the problem areas for us. SilkTork ✔Tea time 05:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And would this be better placed at AE? SilkTork ✔Tea time 05:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a look at this too, but a slightly different perspective. The authority for the sanctions comes from the 2008 Prem Rawat Article Probation remedy. The 2008 remedy does not require prior warnings, and has no appeal provisions. Whatever else happens, we probably need to consider whether the 2008 remedy needs to be modernised by replacing it with Standard Discretionary Sanctions. If we do go down that road, we could consider replacing the current indefinite topic bans with warnings to bring enforcement into line with current provisions, though probably not for all four editors involved. In any event, I'd like very much to hear from Blade of the Northern Lights before this amendment request gets much older. Parhaps one of the clerks would be good enough to notify User:The Blade of the Northern Lights as well as the other topic-banned editors, User:Momento, User:Rumiton and User:PatW. Thanks in advance,  Roger Davies talk 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just looking at the contribution histories, 71% of Momento's edits are either to Prem Rawat or its talk page; 37% of Rumiton's; 86% of Rainer P.'s; and 77% of PatW's. Between them, they've added 11,800 edits to these pages.  Roger Davies talk 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EdJohnston. That's a good idea. I'll think on the other mechanics/implications,  Roger Davies talk 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with bringing the remedy into the modern DS framework, however, a blanket lifting of the sanctions would be a bad idea. This appeal, however, we need to hear from Blade before proceeding further. (A motion on the underlying remedy would be in order before that, though) Courcelles 23:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be interested in bringing this into line with the current discretionary sanctions framework. I will note that I recently blocked PatW indefinitely for an attempt to out a user in relation to this topic. I am quite concerned about the fact that we seem to be dealing with several editors whose sole contribution to the project is in the Prem Rawat topic area, and I am unconvinced that any steps that permit these accounts to continue to monopolize the topic area is beneficial to the project. Risker (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we need to bring this case in line with "modern" discretionary sanctions, but I don't think a blanket lifting of sanctions is workable, nor desirable. I share Risker's concerns that there are a number of SPA's who are very close to the edge of a sanction here. SirFozzie (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Speed of light

Initiated by Seraphimblade Talk to me at 06:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Arbitration case or decision:


Statement by Seraphimblade

Brews ohare is subject to a topic ban as follows: "...the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed.", as passed by motion in WP:ARBSL.

This topic ban is more difficult than most to interpret. Everything that occurs in the universe, from a sunspot to biology to art to music to digestion is, however indirectly, related to fundamental principles of physics. I presume that the Committee did not mean the topic ban to be interpreted that broadly, as this would amount to an effective site ban, and if that were the intent, presumably the Committee would have simply imposed a site ban.

Recently, a request for arbitration enforcement was brought by JohnBlackburne on the grounds of an edit made by Brews ohare to free will [18], and subsequent discussion of this edit [19]. The opinion of myself [20], and three other uninvolved admins [21], [22], [23], was that this edit was a violation of the topic ban. However, two other uninvolved administrators disagree and do not find this a violation: [24], [25]. As there is significant disagreement here in good faith, it would be appreciated if the Committee could clarify the following:

  • Did Brews ohare's edit to free will violate the topic ban?
  • More generally, regardless of the answer to the above question, how broad is "broadly interpreted" in the physics topic ban, given that a sufficiently broad interpretation covers everything in the known universe? Or to rephrase, how close must an edit of Brews' be to fundamental physics to breach the topic ban?

Help on this question would be most appreciated, as it is an unusual case, and it would be helpful to both Brews and the administrators tasked with enforcing this restriction to have clarity on where exactly the line is drawn here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare: Please don't think of this as a referendum on your character. I don't know you, and while I recall having seen your name before, I don't recall in what context, nor have I interacted with you during editing. I don't know a thing about your character. What we do know is that when an issue comes to AE, it is a reflection of disruption to the project serious enough that the ArbCom had to draw a bright line. The only thing we ask there is whether the edits in question stepped over that line.
Newyorkbrad: I would agree myself that common-sense interpretations should work in this case. However, I've seen both NuclearWarfare and Coren around many times, and found them to be reasonable and intelligent. If both of them disagree with me in good faith, that's certainly enough for me to request more input on the matter. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by brews_ohare

As stated by Seraphimblade, the sanction as formulated covers a lot of territory.

One can take the view of some that brews-ohare is generally a problem, and any action to curtail his activities is a plus for WP. On this basis, a broadly worded sanction is ideal as it allows action to be taken for any reason. From this position, a clarification is exactly the wrong thing to do. Taking this view, the issue really is not what happened in this particular incident, but whether this is an opportunity to further curtail the activities of brews_ohare. Those seeing the matter in this light are not interested in the particulars of this incident, nor even whether they are actually an example of a pervasive pattern in brews-ohare's activities on WP. The assumption is that the mere fact that Blackburne has (again) brought brews-ohare before Enforcement is ipso facto sufficient evidence that brews_ohare is a problem and should be be disciplined.

My view is that Blackburne is the problem. He exhibits a strange fascination with making my activities on WP difficult, and this particular incident is only the latest example. I wish to assure all Administrators involved here that I am not interested in disrupting WP nor in thumbing my nose at Administrators. My participation here is strictly aimed at improving existing articles and writing new ones.

Rather than assuming brews_ohare is bad character, one can take a different view, that this particular incident should be looked at specifically, and it should be decided whether action has to be taken in this instance. Those seeing the matter in this light seem to think nothing need be done.

My view is that this view is closest to the truth. To support this view, some details of this incident might be helpful. Here are the details:

A paragraph was contributed by Richardbrucebaxter to the philosophical article Free will in this edit. I found the paragraph irrelevant to Free will, and removed it with some talk page discussion. Richardbrucebaxter disagreed, and reinstated the paragraph, where it remains in the article since.

There is nothing unusual about any of this activity, except it came to the attention of Blackburne, who was not involved with Free will, but likes to keep tabs upon my activities. He noticed that the paragraph in question contains the words quantum mechanics and so could be brought to Arbitration Enforcement as a violation of the "speed of light" action forbidding me to make physics-related editing.

Of course, physics was never discussed by myself. I simply found the paragraph turgidly written and not pertinent to free will. Here is Richardbrucebaxter's paragraph for your own judgment in this matter as to its clarity and as to its pertinence to Free will:

"Fundamental debate continues over whether the physical universe is deterministic. 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.[10] Yet even with physical indeterminism, arguments have been made against the feasibility of incompatibilist free will in that it is difficult to assign Origination (responsibility for "free" indeterministic choices):[11]"

Clearly the paragraph mentions quantum mechanics, albeit vaguely. Clearly I had nothing to do with its content and did not discuss its physics.

So this hearing has a decision to make: how will the sanction be interpreted - in the harshest light requiring action to bring under control what is seen by Administrators as a flagrant and continuing disrespect for his ban by brews_ohare indicative of his bad character? - or in the light of what happened here, in this case?

@Blackburne: The philosophical subject of Determinism is not a physics topic, as you and some others here seem to believe. It is the case that some physical theories can be classified according to one or another of a dozen or so meanings of determinism, but others are not. Application of this descriptor is a technical judgment in philosophy, not to be confused with physics, and having nothing to do with the considerations of this hearing. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this kind of confusion is impossible for Administrators to avoid without spending time they do not have to educate themselves about things like the differences between philosophy and physics, or mathematics and physics, or neuroscience and physics, and on and on. Consequently a "physics ban, broadly conceived" becomes a hunting license for those seeking pretexts, amounting to a near site ban. Brews ohare (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators: I do apologize for this flap, and will be more cautious in the future. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators: By the way, I am unable to find the exact wording of the present topic ban. Can someone provide a useful link to this information? Brews ohare (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this information is found here. A clear statement of its adoption and date of adoption is not provided, but appears to be June 2 or June 3 2012. The wording is:
"Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed."
This topic ban can be revisited June 2013 at the discretion of ArbCom. It was the response to a "clarification request" by Blackburne 00:15, 16 May 2012 regarding my Talk-page activity on Wavelength, incorrectly asserting that I exhibited "a flawed understanding of maths and physics", a position later backed away from as "not a content issue". Brews ohare (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I recognize your point, also raised by My very best wishes, that I tend to become involved in long discussions on Talk pages. Sometimes these are contentious, but in this case of Talk:Free will things have not become heated. Nonetheless, Blackburne has intervened there, even though he is not involved at Free will, a part of his continuing dedication to watching over me for bogus opportunities to bring in Administrative attention.

Long ago I suggested simple restrictions upon my Talk-page activity limiting my discussions. However, ArbCom ignored this useful approach to treating the real problem here, and instead applied a bogus topic ban which they had to make so wide as to encompass every conceivable topic so they can intervene at any time under incorrect premises, namely that it is the topic that matters, not the discussion.

The topic-ban approach was an outgrowth of confusion between my contributions to Speed of light and the support of David Tombe, considered at the time to be a radical, although his support of my position was entirely rational. From that point on, I was labeled as a screwball with odd views on some topics, a view still held by SirFozzie and some others. That despite perfectly sensible articles I created like Envelope (waves), p–n diode, Length measurement, Widlar current source, Step response, Idée fixe (psychology), Field effect (semiconductor), Numeric precision in Microsoft Excel, Low-velocity zone, etc., accompanied by numerous illustrations drawn myself, and completely uncontroversial contributions to many other articles. Some have remained pretty much unchanged and others like Mountain formation have been built upon by others ever since.

I would favor a removal of the topic ban, which is completely archaic at this point, and instead allow me to edit any page but with some clear guidelines about Talk-page engagement. I'd be happy to discuss some proposal in this direction. What do you think about this suggestion? Brews ohare (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Elen of the Roads: You have said: "all the evidence is that he removed the section from where it was because of factors to do with the physics - his opinion appears to be that these physical models are not a good fit, something that there appear to be several opinions about." I'd like to clarify that is not my opinion. I've tried to be clear that my removal of this material was completely unrelated to its physics content. My view in removing this material was that it was a digression in explaining Free will, did nothing to clarify Free will, and merely dragged in a rather murky explanation of matters inessential to the topic of free will. This removal was not a physics matter, and neither was Richardbrucebaxter's retention of this material. We simply disagreed about its pertinence to the topic of free will. Brews ohare (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators: A question of the role of such "clarification" hearings.

From the comment of Newyorkbrad below, I am led to think that role of a clarification proceeding is to determine whether a ban in force has been violated. If that is found to be so, then the results of the clarification hearing are to be forwarded to Arbitration Enforcement. If that is correct, then the results of the present deliberation should be referred back to the originating 13 December 2012 AE action filed by Blackburne. Is that so?

And to follow up upon this point, Blackburne's present 13 December 2012 AE action was brought on the basis of his previous May 16 2012 clarification action.

That May 16 2012 clarification action found the ban for which Blackburne had requested "clarification", namely Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, had in fact expired.

Having found there was no ban to clarify, the use of a "clarification" hearing was uncalled for. However, ignoring its illegitimacy, the clarification proceeding carried on, and continued directly to draft and impose an entirely new ban where no ban previously was in force. The May 16 2012 clarification action entertained a series of motions, one of which suggested the present ban that is now being "clarified" here.

No formal transmission of the May 16 2012 clarification action to AE occurred, because there was no ban in effect to report a violation of. Bypassing AE and ArbCom review, the results of that "clarification" were then simply tucked into the expired Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light as a "Motion #7" added to a dead case. Appending the motion to an expired case was done because there was no authority for a clarification hearing to draft a completely new case. Thus it was made to appear as though a case was in force to clarify, although that was pure fiction.

So far as I can see, all this was highly irregular. The preamble at the beginning of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment states that: "Requests for amendment are used to: ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions" Likewise: "Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case." Neither of these precepts were followed. Of course, WP is not about rules. Nonetheless, a better approach would have been to ask Blackburne to formulate a charge that could be taken to WP:ANI and proceed from there. However, there was no actionable issue formulated that could be taken to WP:ANI, and the "clarification" process was diverted instead.

As a result of this convoluted series of events, the origin of the ban being clarified here is not fundamentally Wikipedia:ARBSL as stated at the outset by Seraphimblade, but actually just another clarification proceeding. It begins to appear that there are serious questions about the present process going back to May 2012.

There is a mess here, and I have no idea how the Arbitrators sort this out. Perhaps some statement of what constitutes due process and the chain of authority could be outlined for future reference? Brews ohare (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Heim: You say, "But an edit like this one that explicitly mentions principles from physics does seem to fall under it." Your remark gets to the point of this clarification: What is the intention of the ban anyway? There are many possible answers, and sorting through them would achieve the Arbitrators' goal of "clarification". Brews ohare (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@CountIblis: As SilkTork, My very best wishes, and myself have indicated above, some modification of the rules governing my behavior is desirable, both because the present vagueness of the ban is too easily abused as a hunting license by those like Blackburne, and because it severely limits my ability to contribute to WP in areas where I could be most helpful. Whether Arbitrators are more open to such changes today than in the past is unclear. When that discussion takes place, if it ever does, mentoring could be examined. Personally, a much simpler approach would be something along these lines: "Brews_ohare is advised to explain on Talk pages that his participation in discussion can exceed the patience of some editors. If this should arise, a majority vote by those involved to the effect that Brews_ohare should desist is taken to be sufficient warning to Brews_ohare that continuation of that discussion point is considered tendentious editing that can be taken to WP:AE for sanction as follows: etc.." Brews ohare (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the Arbitrators consider the intent of the present ban, they might ponder whether the objective of the present very broad and vague ban is exactly that, to limit prolonged discussion on Talk pages. It is not a topic issue, and that is why the topic ban is framed so vaguely that it refers to almost anything that I might participate in. Therefore, the topic ban should be dropped and a guideline for Talk-page activity adopted in its place. Brews ohare (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators: So far, only SilkTork has responded to any of the discussion here from other editors, or any of the points I have raised above. I do hope that the early observations by the Arbitrators expressed so far might be re-examined in the light of what has happened in this hearing, and that they will not feel their initial opinions have locked them into positions they cannot modify. Brews ohare (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coren

I still think that by itself, the edit is so tenuously related to physics that it should not be construed to fall under the topic ban clearly enough for a sanction. That said, if the related behaviour on the talk page falls within the old problem patterns (something which I have no opinion on), then there is cause for concern. — Coren (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TC

I have explained my views in the AE thread, and have nothing more to add at this time. T. Canens (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JohnBlackburne

Thank you to Seraphimblade for bringing this, it seems from the enforcement request that 'broadly intepreted' is perhaps not as precise as it could be, as there seems to be some disagreement over its interpretation. I think Seraphimblade has stated this very well so don't have anything to add to that.

I would also note that this is a very narrow question as the number of pages that are not physics pages that refer to it must be very small. Whole subject areas will have nothing to do with it and even in philosophy there are very few intersections. But the relationship between free will and physics is clear, with free will being closely related to determinism which is also a fundamental question in quantum mechanics. This does mean though that there is no danger that such a broad interpretation of 'broadly interpreted' makes it effectively a site ban, as it affects the physics content of very few pages.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Comment by Johnuniq

While I have scanned several pages related to WP:ARBSL in the past, and have occasionally commented regarding Brews ohare's editing and talk page conduct, I am not familiar with the precise nature of the ARBSL sanction (I've read the words, but not the background). For those who are familiar with the history, wouldn't NOT BUREAUCRACY resolve the current request by considering whether the current activity is of the same nature as that which ARBSL was intended to prevent? If it is, an in-spirit violation would have occurred—that would warrant a very strong final warning, although perhaps not a sanction. I just scanned Talk:Free will and it is obvious that some kind of relief is required. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Heim

I'm one of the three administrators Seraphimblade alludes to as believing that these edits were indeed a violation of the topic ban. My rationale: Yes, of course it's possible to bend everything to fall under a physics topic ban. For example, I wouldn't support blocking over an edit concerning the motorcade in which Kennedy was travelling when he was assassinated because cars moving falls under the laws of physics. Even "broadly construed" doesn't go that far, in my opinion. But as edit like this one that explicitly mentions principles from physics does seem to me to fall under it. So I guess my understanding, at least, is that any edit that concerns actual principles from physics is out of bounds. Of course, I will defer to what the committee agrees on in terms of how it should be enforced. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by My very best wishes

I think Brews made good faith effort to edit something unrelated to Physics, such as "Free will". But his problem is not related to Physics, but rather to his tendency to continue very long discussion on article talk pages, even when two or three people happened to disagree with him, instead of simply dropping the issue. If he could stop doing this, he would be able to edit just fine anywhere, and especially in the area of Physics and Engineering where he is an expert. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with comment by NE Ent (just below). First of all, this is not a page about Physics, hence there is no violation. Second, I do not see any evidence of disruption by Brews at talk page of Free will. I have seen much longer discussions, and no one was blocked like here. Maybe that's because there is nothing wrong with long discussions? My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did not check this Free will discussion in all detail (tl;dr), but I saw a number of previous discussions with Brews about physics (e.g. just before his topic ban) and must tell: he always discuss in a good faith, his suggestions to improve articles are reasonable, and he has no strong biases. This is all very different from some discussions in more contentious subject areas where some participants may discuss to stonewall, to discredit their content "opponents", to discredit sources they do not like, or even to force their "opponents" to loose their cool and then report them to AE. If that happens, one should run away from such discussions where some participants make literally thousands comments because of their POV, COI or whatever. However, Brews obviously do not do anything of this nature. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by NE Ent

Please review Talk:Free will slowly and in detail. There's no evidence of disruption and no personal attacks, rather robust but polite discussion among 2 to 3 editors trying to come to consensus. Yes Brews ohare has pretty horrible wiki-political instincts and could've / should've made his rhetorical points without using forbidden words. Yes, he has a tendency towards long windedness that's not doing him any favors.

And yes, the current wording of the ban is weak: the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. (emphasis mine). If ya'll want a wiki-wide topic ban, the original wording from 2009 topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed is much clearer on scope. NE Ent 19:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Boodlepounce

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 Boodlepounce does not see why this needs clarification. 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. 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. Boodlepounce has commented on the present request for sanctions in the appropriate location.

Boodlepounce is equally unpersuaded of the need for amendment. The conduct complained of seems well within the scope of normal editing behaviour and if not Boodlepounce sees no evidence here that other mechanisms for dispute resolution have been tried. Boodlepounce suggests that there is no need for the Committee to consider this request further. Boodlepounce (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Count Iblis

I ask ArbCom to pass a motion to modify the topic ban into a mentoring set-up where Brews can edit any page after approval by a mentor. Brews has made contributions within the physics and math topic areas that are valued where the collaboration was without problems. In fact, he is sometimes asked to collaborate but then has to decline due to his topic ban. With this mentoring set-up, it's less likely for Brews to get into the problems. E.g. if Brews wants to spend all day on editing the various wiki-pages that give the explicit expressions for the acceleration in different coordinate systems including the derivations, most likely there would be no problems. In fact, by spending his energy this way, it's not used in fruitless talk page debates. As things stand now, the latter is "legal" as long as the talk page isn't that of a physics related page, while the former is illegal as it would violate his topic ban.

So, just do away with this topic ban and replace it by the mentoring set up that precisely addresses the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Clerks, I think this clarification can be closed. Risker (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • During the Speed of light case, three years ago, Brews ohare was found to have engaged in tendentious debates. When looking at the talkpage history of Free will, I notice that Brews ohare has dominated discussion in the past four months. I also note that this edit involves removing mention of physical models such as quantum physics, which is at least touching on the borders of the topic bans, but when challenged Brews ohare defends his actions, even though it has become a contentious issue. Given that Brews ohare's editing of Free will was contentious and tendentious and that he has been previously warned about his behaviour, I am concerned that he has not apologised and walked away from this issue. None of us are indispensable to any article, and when reasonable concerns are raised about our involvement in an article, it is perhaps wiser to either step back and edit elsewhere (there are over four million articles to edit) or ask for an independent third party to get involved.
I'll wait for further comments to see if sanctions and/or adjustments to the topic ban are appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Brews ohare - I had wondered if some talkpage restriction would be appropriate. I did ponder it last time the Committee discussed your behaviour. I have briefly looked at the content of Free will to see the value of your contributions to main space, but haven't made any kind of analyses - it is a big article on a complex topic and would require an investment of time that I'm not sure I'm willing to make. The Committee has been criticised a number of times this year for wandering from the exact point of a clarification request, so this may not be the time and place to consider such a restriction nor the lifting of your ban. This request is to establish if you have violated your topic ban, and if the wording of your ban needs adjusting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Johnuniq makes a good point here. Had Brews removed a joke about quantum uncertainty from the article on English muffins - ie where no-one could reasonably argue that it had a place - then that might have been unproblematic. However, all the evidence is that he removed the section from where it was because of factors to do with the physics - his opinion appears to be that these physical models are not a good fit, something that there appear to be several opinions about. As such I would have said that it goes over the border into the topic ban, particularly given the tendentious behaviour as well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that this is a violation of the topic ban. Considering Brews ohare's history, the decision previously was to restrict him from these topics in the broadest sense. We are seeing why now. SirFozzie (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This edit involved article content on a physics-related topic and therefore falls within the topic-ban. The scope of restrictions and bans needs to be construed reasonably, but I agree with the others that the material that Brews ohare removed here was at least arguably relevant to the article it was contained in, and therefore he should not have removed it. (I would not have been as concerned if Brews ohare had merely questioned on the article talkpage whether the material belonged there—although a separate issue is that no one editor should monopolize a talkpage to the extent of making it useless for everyone else, compare Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question). The situation is clear enough that I do not see the need for a formal clarification or amendment of our decision. If the AE administrators believe Brews ohare's violation of the ArbCom remedy is established, he may be blocked in accordance with that decision. If the AE administrators believe that Brews ohare may have been acting in the good-faith belief that his edit was proper, and he now commits not to do the same thing again, then perhaps only a final warning for the infraction should be given and logged; that is a decision for AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Seraphimblade: I have no issue with clarification having been requested. My point was simply that the arbitrators' comments here should give sufficient clarification, as opposed to a formal motion to clarify or amend being made and voted upon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the AE report as a pretty much unambigious violation of the topic ban. Courcelles 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadly per Brad,  Roger Davies talk 18:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing particular to add to what others have said before, which seems to be sufficient clarification to me. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur broadly with Newyorkbrad. While the inherent subject of the page is not physics-related, Brews ohare's edit to the page attempted to make it physics related. I agree this is a violation of the ban. Risker (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=528521170"