Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:42, 1 March 2010

Blocked: 07:23, 22 February 2010

Brews-ohare's unblock request

This block was instituted by administrator Sandstein without warning, following a call by editor Headbomb in an action at WP:A/R/E here. Of course, I don't question the authority of Sandstein, I question the justice of this action. Its justice also is questioned by all participants that managed to join the discussion of the original WP:A/R/E action in the few hours before the whole thing was shut down by Sandstein, curtailing feedback.

As mentioned in the unblock request, the reason given for the block was a violation of sanctions that require me to avoid discussion of physics-related matters. Of course, I did not discuss any physics related matters: I discussed resolution of a quarrel on WP:AN/EW in an entirely generic, non-technical manner that would apply to such a quarrel over any type of article. It also was the opinion of all editors that managed to join the discussion at WP:A/R/E that this action was not a physics-related discussion. It did not involved physics or physics-related issues per se. It also is obvious that it was not a disruption of WP. You may judge the matter yourself by looking at the diffs that are the basis for this action, found here and here.

The matter all seems rather high-handed to me, especially in view of the fact that Sandstein's block implements the the very same, poorly received request by Headbomb.

The action precipitating this block was a well-meant effort on my part to reconcile disputing parties on WP:AN/EW with a few non-technical and even-handed suggestions. That action of mine is a far cry from violation of sanctions, or disturbing WP, or causing damage to WP, and I am at a loss to understand the impolite, blunt imposition of a block, especially against community opinion and in the face of good intentions.

I hope this matter will receive your serious attention. (This revision posted 20:23, 23 February 2010.) Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment on block

Rather than question whether Sandstein has authorisation to sanction you (for clarity, he does), you might want to instead rebut the accusation that you violated your topic ban. If you find that you cannot, then perhaps it is time that you changed how you contribute to the project. AGK 19:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

AGK: Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate further. Of course I don't question the authority of Sandstein, I question the justice of this action. As mentioned in the unblock request, the reason given for the block was a violation of sanctions that require me to avoid discussion of physics-related matters. Of course, I did not discuss any physics related matters: I discussed resolution of a quarrel on WP:AN/EW in an entirely generic, non-technical manner that would apply to such a quarrel over any type of article. It was the opinion of all editors that were allowed to join the discussion at WP:A/R/E that this action was not a physics-related discussion. It also is obvious that it was not a disruption of WP. You may judge the matter yourself by looking at the diffs that are the basis for this action, found here and here. Brews ohare (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the request as per your suggestions to make clear that I am not challenging Sandstein's authority. Brews ohare (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing what Sandstein says on this. But you must at least concede that commenting on an edit war complaint that related to the Infraparticle article whilst banned from the physics topic area was at best unwise. AGK 23:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently so. I had previously held the view that the sanctions were to protect WP from any harm I might do. The sanctions are not crystal clear, and that latitude allows for a range of interpretation by me, while my accusers have theirs to fit their agenda. Brews ohare (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your actions to advise on general terms a group of editors on how to compromise and find common ground was innocuous and actually helpful to Misplaced Pages. Then the official complaints started because, although unrelated to Physics, your helpful comments were addressed at a dispute that started in a Physics article. Like all official complaints, this one involved the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy responded and it hammered you. Who's to blame? If we can answer this question then maybe we can learn something out of this mess. Dr.K.  00:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Violations of a topic ban are always punished even if they are helpful to Misplaced Pages. The thinking behind that is that, although the edit itself might have been productive, the presence of the editor who made it has been shown to be unhelpful (hence the existence of the topic ban in the first place). Allowing the editor to slip back, even by a small margin, into the topic area is a slippery slope. If you're honestly trying to say that your edit probably did technically violate the topic ban (fyi, it did) but that it was helpful and therefore should be permitted, then you're going to have a hard time having your unblock request granted. My advice is to change your approach. I've handled enough unblock requests to know where this one is going. AGK 01:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you AGK for the clarification but I already garnered that much. I am not an expert on topic bans but why is the presence of an editor deemed unhelpful even if the only thing the guy did was to provide some helpful unrelated to the topic ban advice? Dr.K.  03:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I also see your "slippery slope" point. It is a well used argument in these types of situations. The problem with this argument is that we will never know if there indeed is a slippery slope if we just clobber the editor before he embarks on the slope. Wouldn't it be much more humane and just to let the guy slip a bit further and then ban him? Why are we so overcautious? Another point: Certain unscrupulous editors may take advantage of this systemic flaw and knowing that the system will always behave overcautiously, they can file these reports just to create additional problems for the well-meaning but sanctioned editor. I find this systemic, almost reflexive action rather disturbing and unproductive. Or are we just creating shibboleths that separate the high functionaries, who only understand the mysteries of bureaucracy and discipline, far better than the average mortal editor? Can you really support a shibboleth-centric culture and how well does that fit in a hitherto WP:AGF based wiki-culture? Dr.K.  06:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AGK, Have you ever heard of Inspector Javert? You can read about him right here in this excellent wikipedia article. . Inspector Javert was a fictional character created by the famous French author Victor Hugo, and the purposes of Victor Hugo's creation was to highlight the destructive nature of the bureaucratic mindset. Javert was obsessed with upholding the secular law to the letter, and he was totally incapable of seeing the higher picture surrounding any given scenario. As such he totally destroyed a good man (Jean Valjean) by hounding him for years over a trivial issue. The man in question had committed a very minor transgression in circumstances where he himself had been subjected to a catalogue of gross injustices. Inspector Javert chose to ignore the injustices which had provoked Jean Valjean, because those injustices had been sanctioned in the name of the law, which in the particular circumstances meant that they had been sanctioned by human corruption. The point that Victor Hugo was making was that Javert was wilfully blind to the human corruption, and chose to delude himself that by upholding the law to the letter, that he was doing something very noble and honourable.

At the moment, we are dealing with a situation in which under an extreme stretch and play on words, it might be argued that Brews transgressed in relation to a sanction that has been imposed by ARBCOM. There are however many others who are capable of looking at the higher picture and asking themselves as to whether or not those ARBCOM sanctions have any justification whatsoever on the basis of natural justice.And even putting that issue aside, it takes a very special kind of person to want to bother enforcing such sanctions on the basis of such a stretch, and especially after the enforcement action has been brought about while an appeal against those sanctions is currently underway, and which has been supported by a large consensus.

I think that Victor Hugo, in his famous classic Les Misérables, has raised an extremely important moral issue with his creation of the Javert, which has repercussions in many walks of life, including this very situation which we are now discussing.

AGK, you say above that Brews is going to have a hard time getting his unblock request granted. Not necessarily. As I understand it, you are an administrator, and you could unblock Brews this very instant at the push of a button. I sincerely suggest that you do so. Inspector Javert realized the error of his ways too late in life and he couldn't cope with the change. As such, he threw himself into the River Seine.

Why not take a leaf out of Victor Hugo's discourses and do the right thing now, before it is too late. David Tombe (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am most touched be the comments in support of lifting the block. Thank you all most kindly. Brews ohare (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AGK: There seems to be some support for the view that a violation occurred. Given that view, some moving arguments are advanced that enforcement of the letter of the law is not always advisable, which I'd say is an obvious enough remark, and the "slippery slope" argument is advanced to say that it is too subtle a matter for mere men to make such exceptions. Although they are, apparently, capable of coming up with the imperfect laws to enforce. The slippery slope argument is bogus, of course, and in this instance there is a clear and obvious exception that sets no muddy precedent.

However, my own position is that no violation occurred. The sanction against discussion of physics-related topics means just that: it means physics may not be discussed or technically involved in the discussion. That is, a violation would involve discussion of things like Newton's laws and their application, or (heaven forbid) examples of centrifugal force. It is not a physics-related discussion to say that the page "Talk:Speed of light" is a hopeless battleground of misconceptions (anyone can see that even with no understanding of the subject); it is not a physics discussion to say at age 40 Newton began to lose his hair (even though Newton was arguably a physicist); it is not a physics-related discussion to say to Finell and Likebox that the object of their debate should be to write an introduction that more people can follow: one of the two could play the role of the great unwashed (posing questions that should be answered) and the other the role of the savant, and put together something useful (that same suggestion could be put to Watson and Sherlock Holmes).

The name of a thing is not the thing; grammar isn't sentences; talking about how to write doesn't involve knowledge of subjects written about.

Isn't that argument correct?? No violation occurred. Brews ohare (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You say that commenting on a discussion that related to a Physics article, even if it was from an editor conduct dimension (and not in relation to an academic/content matter), is not a violation of your topic ban. That is not the case. The purpose of a topic ban is to remove an editor who is deemed to be a problematic influence from a given subject area. When you became involved in a discussion that influenced the Infraparticle article, you undermined the topic ban applied in the Speed of Light case. In light of this thinking, Sandtein's block seems to be quite proper. AGK 23:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position. However this puts an editor in a straitjacket or an Iron Shroud where all walls are closing in on him through mechanical (bureaucratic) action, (sorry I just couldn't resist this one). Look at what happened when people allowed him to contribute on his Physics related diagrams. That was a smart and realistic move. Wouldn't it be better for a sanctioned editor to be rehabilitated by taking tiny steps toward freedom by sometimes involving themselves peripherally in an ancillary role? Kind of playing in the shallow end of the pool? When he exhibits a taste for the deep end (the slippery slope theory) then the banhammer can rise from the pool's bottom and that would be the end. Give this guy a chance to get banned properly. Not by nibbling on his ear like a mouse but giving him a chance to screw up so much that noone will ever have any doubt that he deserved it. So far this overcautiousness seems to me to be an ideological position rather than one based on pragmatic considerations. Dr.K.  00:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That comment was barnstar worthy....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. K and Hell in a Bucket: I recall H in a B's earlier posting when amelioration of the ban came up: Give Brews enough rope to hang himself. Sounds fine to me. Brews ohare (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AGK: You have taken the position that advice upon 'how to write a physics article' is physics-related, even though the exact same advice can be given to authors of a mystery novel using the exact same wording, becoming then "mystery-related"? I don't get that. Likewise, if the discussion arose in a bus, it would be bus-related, and so forth. These are confusions. Giving advice on writing to physicists about a physics article debated on an Edit warring talk page is not physics related. Brews ohare (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dr.K. I also note that while a physics topic ban was imposed on Brews, the problem was never really physics related. It was just that Brews had only contributed to physics articles that it looked that way to ArbCom. If one sees Brews as a potentially disruptive editor who will argue for ages on talk pages, then there is absolutely no reason why he could not behave in that way on the math and geology pages on which he currently contributes. Unfortunately, Brews did not get a fair hearing in his appeal, so I request AGK or any other Admin to not only lift this present block, but also leave a note on the Arbcom Enforcement page that the topic ban won't be enforced, and that any blocks due to violation of the topic ban will be reversed. We need Admins on Misplaced Pages who are willing to act in the way judge Burge acted in this case, i.e. overturning a sentence even though it had been upheld in all appeals and all appeals were exhausted. Count Iblis (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AGK, Your argument above hinges entirely on a play of words. What did ARBCOM originally mean by a 'physics related discussion'? Did they mean that the discussion had to be about a topic related to physics? Or did they mean that it could be a non-physics discussion that arose as a secondary effect of a discussion in physics? I asked ARBCOM to clarify this point but there has been an uncanny silence from that quarter. As such, this is a clear cut case were the benefit of the doubt should be given, in particular owing to the fact that no harm has been done by the so-called offending comments. I don't see why you are dragging your heels. There is no need to make light of my references to Javert as you did on Sandstein's talkpage. The lessons of that story apply to you right now at this very moment. David Tombe (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AKG: You say: "The purpose of a topic ban is to remove an editor who is deemed to be a problematic influence from a given subject area." Yes. Is advice on how to write an article, written in a generic way that applies to any article whatsoever, and does not refer to physics in any way, reside in the subject area called "physics related"? Only by a wild stretch of imagination. Brews ohare (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you're blocked but.....

I opened this discussion on your behalf....] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Sandstein has made it clear that he does not want to discuss the matter, and stands on ceremony here, requiring a written committee ruling to overturn the block. I have my own opinion of refusal to engage. Brews ohare (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie has taken the stance that he doesn't know who is "right" ( a black or white approach) but nobody best try to overturn Sandstein without "a full and complete discussion". Of course, a conclusion that the sanctions have not been violated would make all that moot. So far the discussion by admins has been accusation with no engagement in the questions of actual interpretation or applicability of the sanctions. Discussion of the latter by various editors is ignored. Brews ohare (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist says "unblock would be taken the wrong way and would prove dangerous to well-imposed blocks by administrators"; the mindset that considers this a justification for a mistaken action (a not well-imposed block) is beyond remedy. Brews ohare (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman raises the interesting point: "Is the volume of beneficial editing sufficient to justify all this overhead to the project? The interesting point here is that all the "overhead" is due to misguided actions by administrators that lead to overhead because these actions are disputed by most of the rank and file. By definition, there would be no controversy in response to noncontroversial decisions. Brews ohare (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What is strange is that on Jehochman's talk page we can see that he is happy to give hospitality to the entire Global Warming Cabal there  :) . Count Iblis (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The connection being that classifying discussion as "overhead to the project" depends upon Jehochman's sympathies, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Durova has closed the discussion as being "misfiled", categorizing a discussion as a "review" instead, a progression in descriptive terms making a less noticeable transition to its classification as an "appeal" (which it is not, no motions having been presented), instead of simply a discussion. It is annoying that administrators close down discussion when they are getting no support. Shutdown also was implemented by Sandstein upon discussion of Headbomb's action on WP:A/R/E. Brews ohare (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Classic examples of Fight or Flight. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is disheartening to see the prevailing climate regarding disciplinary actions in Misplaced Pages. It is also more disheartening to see that no matter how eloquent and persuasive one's arguments are in support of Brews in this latest incident they are summarily dismissed mostly by use of slogans. In a consensus and AGF-based wiki this state of affairs is terribly sad because it shows that the average editor here is dismissed as a powerless sap. I guess unchecked power tends to promulgate itself in such fashion. The Wall of Orthodoxy and the displays of unfettered power have replaced consensus and discussion. Minor transgresions are met by persecutorial reports to Arbcom and then followed up by summary justice-style weekly blocks that are not even handed out to cussing vandals. In the era of the twilight of the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan had challenged Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall thus: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" he had said. To whom must I then address my plea here in Misplaced Pages to tear down the Wall of Orthodoxy? Dr.K.  17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your summary, Dr. K. Frankly, I regard myself as mentally disturbed for spending time contributing to WP in the first place, and to put up with nitpicking, ill-tempered, blind stupidity makes me a nut case. Brews ohare (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a great sense of humour, or should I say humor, you being an American. Anyway using humour is sometimes a great way out of certain predicaments. I practice it all the time, maybe not as often as I should :) Take care Brews and keep strong. Dr.K.  19:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You were sacrificed in a power struggle

Brews, There were e-mails flying around about this. It seems that even though there was a strong view that your block was unwarranted, it had to be upheld nevertheless to preserve the integrity of the system. Your consolation is the fact that nobody actually formally declined the unblock request. It must be the longest unanswered unblock request in wikipedia history. I would say that you won the high ground at the moment when an arbitrator openly declined to rule on the validity of the block. The swift closure of the thread on the heels of that arbitrator delegating the decision to further community discussion, and on the false grounds that it was not for the community to discuss but rather for ARBCOM to decide, was a classic case of two headed buck passing. They showed themselves up. They ran away. David Tombe (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You raise the point of "preserving the integrity of the system", which is the point raised by Nvmvocalist: "unblock would be taken the wrong way and would prove dangerous to well-imposed blocks by administrators". It is historically obvious that it is not considered reversals of action that cause trouble. The trouble for administration results from patently poor enforcement, primarily aimed toward punishment and extraction of heart-rending remorse and recanting of heresy sworn never to be repeated, mostly for the pleasure of administrators in seeing their power extended and exercisable even under dubious circumstance. Brews ohare (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Many, many historic political and religous organizations use this same excuse. We shall leave them nameless so as not to break the illusion they are working under and no one can accuse me of personal attacks. The behavior is easily recognizable though.......Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly taking my words out of context, and continuing to grand stand about poor enforcement (that didn't occur in this case), simply reinforces the thoughts I expressed at that discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist: Your words have not been "repeatedly taken out of context". The very same words of yours have been quoted verbatim twice, and a link to your full remarks is provided (an uncommon courtesy in WP debates) for all who wish to read your remarks in toto to discern any nuances. Brews ohare (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Exact same words can be taken out of context, even if they are in quotation marks, and that's precisely what has occurred. I'm not sure what nuances you are referring to, as I did use remarkably plain English to convey the main part of my comment - that the "block was the means of enforcing an existing sanction, it wasn't against the wider community opinion, and in such circumstances, was the correct response to the AE request. There was a very simple way to convince me that the block is worthy of at least being lifted as time served, but jointly, the editors involved (including Brews) managed to do the total opposite. My opinion is unchanged." It may not have occurred to you that unblock requests over AE actions are not handled in the same manner as unblock requests over general admin actions. If you still disagree and believe the arbitration enforcement action was bad, after no other administrator is able or willing to modify that action, the proper procedure is to appeal to ArbCom (which would perhaps obviously be via email rather than continuing to grandstand on your talk page). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Every word you said surrounding the quote is linked, so anyone can look and see if your meaning is misconstrued. That is all that is said. You are, of course, free to back away from this wording at any time. Brews ohare (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an user would find a need look and see if my meaning is misconstrued unless the issue was pointed out - and frankly, there would be no need for the issue to be pointed out if it didn't occur in the first place. I certainly have no intention of changing my comment when you've repeatedly acted in a manner that reinforced its actual meaning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

I've been quietly watching this play out for the last few days and I am now in a position that I'm willing to assume good faith and unblock. First let me say that despite a couple trivial confrontations I've had with him in the past, I consider Sandstein to be one of the most fair and conscientious administrators I can think of off the top of my head. Second, I feel that the block was justified. What I am chiefly looking at is the namespace and namespace talk ban. I'm less thrilled about the idea that this was physics-related. The terms of your topic ban say "broadly-construed" not "outlandishly-construed", and I have read over all the material two or three times and I still find myself playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon to figure out how it relates to the topic ban. I would very much have liked to see a clear warning before a block over what I see to be a pretty gray area that involved no disruption and a tenuous interpretation of a topic ban, but the namespace ban is still in place, and you were in violation of that. Still, I think that the current length of the block is more than sufficient to get that point across.

I've never been in a wheel war and I don't plan on starting today, so I'm going to hold off until morning and see if there are any specific comments, gripes, praises, threats, etc before taking action. Trusilver 07:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You are the proof that the system can work or at least that dialectic exchange is not dead here, yet. It is a good day to be a Wikipedian. Thank you. And for the record I agree with you about Sandstein. I also find him to be professional, fair and tough. I simply disagree with him in some of the modalities of this case. For brevity's sake, I will not comment any further on the mechanics, the timeline and the mechanisms, institutional or not, which led us to this latest incident as they are all a matter of record. I also thank you for your argument about the "outlandish-construction" of the terms of the ban, which I find both elegant and effective. I also think that any fair-minded proponents of this block should also be satisfied because Brews has already been punished enough, so your proposal makes even more sense. I think that you may have found the golden section of this problem. Dr.K.  15:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I also wish to add that the admin corps in general, by not declining the unblock, have collectively acted in a silent but honourable way. Dr.K.  15:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is also enabling the persecution of a good faith editor. Brews has endured hardships beyond belief here and this is yet another slight. When will good faith apply again? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand and even share your frustration Hell In A Bucket. But in a case such as this with all the prior history and acrimony involved and the conflicts that are weighing in on it, sometimes the average admin feels overwhelmed and, for a time, unable to act. Dr.K.  16:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't commented on this yet, though I read through all of this when I got back to civilization yesterday. I was going to write something longer, but Trusilver (above) said everything I was going to say, and more eloquently to boot.

I would like to add my hope that Brews will continue to use his time to help write articles in geology (an area in which I work), and express my disappointment that Brews was not first warned in what seemed to me like good-faith edits. That being said, I hope that we can put this controversy behind us, and think that it is our (communal) responsibility to encourage Brews to continue to make the many constructive edits to Misplaced Pages for which he is too-little recognized. Awickert (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• An arbitrator has already reminded all that a full and complete discussion at the appropriate venue should be made before reversing AE actions...in case you thought this was a gray area, you can consider it a clear reminder for you in particular, Trusilver. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, Yes indeed, an arbitrator did remind us that a full and complete discussion should take place at the appropriate venue. But shortly afterwards an administrator archived the relevant thread and stated the complete opposite, and nothing was done about it. And furthermore, the arbitrator in question could easily have adjudicated and ended the issue on the spot. But instead he chose to make two statements. The first statement was in plain English and would have put Brews unequivocally in the clear. The second statement was incomprehensible and left us all guessing.

So do you now intend to go back and un-archive that AN/I thread and point out to that administrator that she got it all wrong? Perhaps, if this drags out long enough, Brews himself will be able to join in that discussion at AN/I about having himself unblocked retrospectively. David Tombe (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm really sorry this has taken me so long, the downside of my profession is that last minute schedule shifts mean that I can be yanked away from a computer for hours or days at a time without notice. I've discussed this with Sandstein on my talk page and I'm not unblocking immediately out of respect for him and his wish that the unblock request conforms more with WP:GAB. I agree with him, I would like to see a little bit of responsibility being taken by Brews, at least to the extent that he acknowledges the section of his namespace ban that he was in violation of. As far as an arbitrator's opinion on the matter, it doesn't hold a lot of water with me. Anything out of the mouth (or keyboard) of an arbitrator that isn't in the form of an arbitration decision carries roughly the same weight as any other editor on the project, sorry if that sentiment offends any of you. Per Sandstein's request, I would like to see the change made to the unblock request, but at the same time I also restate that I feel the block is unnecessarily punitive and am continuing to watch. Trusilver 04:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon meets Catch-22. At least you tried your best Trusilver. Thank you for that. Dr.K. _πraxis 05:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've said a few times already, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a community consensus that authorizes the lifting of a valid enforcement action until something changes - unfortunately, nothing has changed. It seems that there's a general case of not listening on the part of some of the participants here. As for the sentiment, it doesn't offend me - whether someone chooses to heed the reminder from an individual arbitrator, and later an editor, or go against the reminders, despite its effect coming from a binding arbcom motion, is not something I'd be held responsible for. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ncmvocalist. I assure you no one will hold you responsible for anything since you hold no office and as as far as I know you are free to express your opinion any way you see fit. On the other hand I do hope that you finally realise that there is so much an average editor can take of your law and order reminders before they tune out. Dr.K. _πraxis 07:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist is a rollbacker, and so must take all his/her actions more seriously than the actions of plain editors, as having a wider implication for WP. Brews ohare (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reinforcing my earlier comment, Dr.K. and Brews. If an user imagines it to be "my law", when it's a mere restatement of that which applies to Misplaced Pages as a result of community or ArbCom consensus, then it's little surprise that such an user even considered taking such foolish actions in the first place, even if it is testing the boundaries of their sanction or testing the boundaries of their tools. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

All I pointed out is that you hold an office and so are held to a higher level of responsibility in your actions. Brews ohare (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of what it was you pointed out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist: I don't know where in my statement you imagined that I reinforced your earlier comment Ncmvocalist, but since you wrote: "...If an user imagines it to be "my law",..." I think you mistook my statement: "...that you finally realise that there is so much an average editor can take of your law and order reminders before they tune out." I hope you realise that the possessive "your" in my phrase: "... of your law and order reminders before..." refers to "reminders" not "law and order". "law and order" here is the modifier of "reminder". Therefore the logical construction you attempted in your reply is invalid. I think that I don't need to explain that if you were talking about "your" law and order nobody would take you seriously. It is your interpretation of Misplaced Pages's rules that you keep reminding us about. Dr.K. _πraxis 16:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to think what you like - at the end of the day, nothing has changed, and regardless of how you or anyone else interpreted SirFozzie's interpretation, Sandstein's interpretation, or my interpretation (or "my law"), it doesn't make the arbcom motion any less binding. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist: I believe Dr. K is trying to help you understand what he said. He is not arguing about interpretations. And the "binding" nature of arbcom motions has never come up here; the issue is whether the particular action here qualifies as falling under the arbcom motion, and if it does (it doesn't) whether the action taken was appropriate to the circumstances. Brews ohare (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Did Sandstein or any other admin ever communicate with you a concern that the discussion you were involved in might be too closely related to the physics subject area? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight: No, Sandstein acted abruptly and severely, without warning. Brews ohare (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver, It's an accepted fact that certain officials have to act on occasions without examining the deeper issues in which they are involved. For example, prisoner officers have to keep remand prisoners behind locked doors. Prisoner officers cannot release a convicted prisoner because they happen to believe that the prisoner in question was wrongly convicted. Policemen execute warrants of arrest without knowing the details. Without such unquestioning service, there would be no stability in society.

One might argue that Sandstein was only doing his job. ARBCOM imposed sanctions. It is not Sandstein's job to inquire into the rights or wrongs of those sanctions. If Brews ohare breaches his sanctions, and if those sanctions have been badly imposed, then the guilt lies squarely at the feet of ARBCOM and not at the feet of Sandstein.

But this case was not clear cut. Whereby Sandstein is not obliged to inquire into the rights or wrongs of ARBCOM's actions, he is nevertheless obliged to examine the motives of the editor who took out the enforcement action, and then weigh these motives up against the severity of any alleged breach. That wouldn't have been too difficult to do. A brief inquiry would have revealed that Headbomb was acting for the sole purpose of settling a private score. And on top of this, it is obvious to any objective observer that it takes an extreme play on words to interpret ARBCOM's sanctions in a manner which would make Brews ohare culpable on this occasion. Sandstein could easily have walked away and ignored the issue. Nobody forced Sandstein to do what he did.

The damage to Brews has already been done. Headbomb has succeeded in giving Brews a poke in the eye. That fact remains even if you unblock him right now. I am very disappointed in you. You began with promise. It appeared to all that justice had finally arrived on the scenes. It is clear that you can see right from wrong. It is clear to everybody from your initial statements that you know that Sandstein was wrong. You have the authority to reverse the wrongdoing, but for some reason it appears that you are afraid of upsetting the applecart. Your follow up statements show that you have backtracked in the face of opposition from Sandstein in your own talk page.

So what lessons do we all learn from this experience? Who are the losers and who are the winners? Well Brews is a loser and Headbomb is a winner. Misplaced Pages is also a loser. Meanwhile, I really do exhort Sandstein to read about Victor Hugo's famous character Inspector Javert. Inspector Javert was a prime case of a man who stuck rigidly and inflexibly to the letter of the law, and in doing so lost the higher picture and ended up inflicting unnecessary harm. Inspector Javert realized the error of his ways late in life, couldn't cope, and threw himself into the River Seine.

As for yourself, I would like to remind you of a famous quote by Edmund Burke (1729-1797),

• All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

And I don't include Sandstein in that evil. Victor Hugo made it clear that he didn't consider Javert to be evil. But evil has been involved in this case on a more subtle level.

David Tombe (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

An eloquent and accurate portrayal. Thank you. Brews ohare (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Brews, It's a lesson to all administrators. They should never block unless they have direct knowledge of the full circumstances. That is the more subtle evil that I was referring to above. A system has evolved in which administrators are being obliged to dish out punishments on the back of ARBCOM sanctions without knowing the back story. This is an evil, because it opens the door to that ancient excuse,

• I was only doing my job

Administrators would be well advised to restrict their actions to matters of they have first hand knowledge. David Tombe (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and had Sandstein followed your advice here, he would simply have walked away. I'm inclined to think that even without knowing the background history, the claimed offense here is so obviously minor (even under the most narrow legalistic interpretation), and has so obviously a net positive impact on WP (if indeed any impact at all), as to require no action whatsoever by any administrator. That leads me to conclude that Headbomb's claims were given this attention based on Sandstein's (unfortunately inaccurate) assessment of Headbomb, not based upon the facts of the matter. Brews ohare (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that the excuse I was only doing my job is patently untrue in this instance: Sandstein did not do his job, and failed to do due diligence. He accepted Headbomb's assertions at face value instead. Brews ohare (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Brews, There was no offense. You were stitched up plain and simple. David Tombe (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): See below Request handled by: Trusilver Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Unblock Round 2

I know that at this point, Brews is getting pretty close to being unblocked through due course, so what I do today, I do entirely out of principle rather than any real effect that it will have. Despite my respect for Sandstein, I am going to unblock. I do this for two very important reasons:

• I find the stated reason for the block to be invalid. A topic block that is broadly construed must have some parameters. To say that posting to an area completely outside of topic ban where some vague mention of the banned material should be given zero tolerance is so far beyond the realm of absurd, I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. As much as I state otherwise at times, ARBCOM does serve a purpose, but that purpose is not furthered by blocks such as this, it is undermined. Blocks due to an ARBCOM sanction must be clear and obvious, this was not. ARBCOM blocks should not be automatically assumed to be valid, they should be given even more scrutiny, because they are often given under convoluted circumstances.

• Second, even though the editor did technically violation his namespace ban, this was also a very gray area, and he should have been giving some kind of warning before jumping straight into a week long ban. 24 hours? Sure, why not. But a week long ban, in light of the circumstances, was unnecessarily punitive.

Those that disagree with this unblock, know that I don't do this lightly, this is probably the most well thought out administrative action that I have ever taken in the nearly three years I've had the mop. I made a poor decision last night in deciding just to walk away, and I knew it the moment I did it. I had told Sandstein elsewhere that the moment we stop scrutinizing and acting on each other's admin actions, then the cabal really does exist. I feel that this block was absolutely, positively wrong, and to ignore that fact and walk away would be doubly wrong. Had any hundreds of other admins made this block, I would have already removed it, and I hope that Sandstein understands that I did not do this without a great deal of consideration.

Trusilver: Thank you for your help in this matter. Unfortunately, autoblock of my IP address has not been lifted. Brews ohare (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Your action, Trusilver, is much appreciated. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. _πraxis 17:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left a barnstar for TruSilver. He is allready being attacked by the powerful few....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Auto-unblock

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock #1797135 lifted. Request handled by: NW (Talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Commandments for Administrative actions

(Reinstated from old Talk page)

A few precepts that I think should be obvious:

(i) Admins should not respond to mere clamor about disruption, but to documentable rules violations.

(ii) Admins should maintain a good editing environment on Talk pages: violations of WP:Civil,WP:NPA,WP:Talk & WP:Poll should be prevented, including catcalls, cheerleading, and red herrings, as elaborated below.

Admins should suppress catcalls; by this is meant interjections into a thread on the Talk page that are jeers or boos, such as Buckle your seatbelt, here we go again!

Admins should suppress cheerleading; by this is meant that accolades like "Me too!", "I echo that!", "I concur!", should be taboo, because they are made to snowball or bandwagon a viewpoint, not to add dimension to the discussion. They are intended simply to intimidate opposing viewpoints.

Admins should suppress red herrings; by this is meant injection into a thread on a Talk page a diversionary topic, meant as a distraction to interrupt discussion, or as a means of introducing a pet topic or rant that otherwise would be ignored. Separate threads should be started for separate topics.

(iii) Admins should narrowly interpret and rigidly enforce WP behavioral guidelines regardless of whom Admins believe to be in the right.

(iv) Admins should ride herd on waving about of WP:POV WP:OR WP:SYN WP:Fringe as self-evident labels and insist that the evidence supporting their use be presented explicitly. In other words, these guideline references should not be used as pejorative WP:Peacock terms. Admins should not make judgments of the validity of the evidence presented, only insist that there be evidence presented.

(v) Admins should insure that Main article page rules are not applied to Talk page discussion, which last should be more open and free.

(vi) Admins should not take preemptive action based upon personal predictions of what might happen, but restrict themselves to what actually does happen. They are not fortune tellers.

(vii) Admins say themselves that they cannot address content, and so should not propose remedies that are content specific. For example, topic bans should not be imposed, frankly because Admins are unable to distinguish occasions where the topic actually has been discussed (a violation), from other occasions where the topic has been merely alluded to, or has been used only as an example, or in fact hasn't come up at all although some of the vocabulary has been used. Page bans are better, because infractions are readily identified, whether you know anything or not. Behavioral control is even more appropriate, such as strict enforcement of WP:NPA or WP:Civil or WP:Talk.

(viii) Admins' overriding principle should be to catalyze open discussion of content, and rules should be enforced to engender exploration and comparison of viewpoints (not to impose unanimity), especially in the presence of vocal support for a particular view. Misplaced Pages:Reasonableness should be kept in mind. Brews ohare (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Were you planning on starting another project where these commandments might apply? They certainly don't all square with policy around here.  Frank  |  talk  21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

They are desiderata; they are not followed, at least not always, but it would be better if they were. Brews ohare (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a diversity of views. If you ever decide to run for adminship, you can adopt these principals, and encourage others to do the same. Jehochman 01:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As noted, I consider this behavior as obviously desirable, and I am discouraged that one Admin sees them as applicable only to "another project" and still another Admin would consider them so far off base as to constitute a "diversity of views" requiring new blood to encourage their adoption. I feel that WP depends upon open discussion of content and the prevention of activity that inhibits it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they were far off base. We have a great diversity of views on Misplaced Pages. Each person can follow their own ideals (to a point), and may try to convince others (to a point). Jehochman 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That's a reasonable point. Dr.K. _πraxis 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I forgot my reading glasses

Trusilver, I forgot to bring my reading glasses out with me tonight. But I think that I can just about make out that you have taken the honourable course of action. I'll read it all properly tomorrow and thank you. David Tombe (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,  Sandstein  06:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)