Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:20, 27 February 2010

Blocked: 07:23, 22 February 2010

Brews ohare (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This block was instituted by administrator Sandstein, also called for by editor Headbomb in an action at WP:A/R/E . 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 that this action was <u>not a physics-related discussion</u>. 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 and . 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. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=This block was instituted by administrator Sandstein, also called for by editor Headbomb in an action at WP:A/R/E . 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 that this action was <u>not a physics-related discussion</u>. 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 and . 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. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=This block was instituted by administrator Sandstein, also called for by editor Headbomb in an action at WP:A/R/E . 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 that this action was <u>not a physics-related discussion</u>. 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 and . 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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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)

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)

• Requests for unblock