Revision as of 13:04, 24 March 2010

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

• WP:A/R/M

Motions regarding Speed of Light and Brews ohare

User:Brews ohare

1) Brews ohare's topic ban, is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Misplaced Pages/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.

Support

1. I was hoping that this wasn't going to be necessary. Brews ohare seemed to finally understand the situation he was in when he initially replied to the "Moving Forward" suggestion during his appeal at WP:AN. However, subsequent comments unfortunately went down the same old track (continued Wikilawyering and disruption in this area). We are offering the carrot/stick approach here. If he can abide by his restrictions without further disruption, then it will be resolved in 90 days (although I would caution it not be taken as further license to be disruptive at that time!). If he cannot abide by the restrictions, then it will be indefinite (along with any further blocks he receives for his actions in this area). SirFozzie (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Reluctantly as I'm sure stronger measures will be needed later. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Kirill  02:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 05:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Per SirFozzie. And a plea to all involved to find articles to edit quietly until these restrictions end. You should all be capable of doing that (all editors should be capable of doing that), so please show us you can do that, as that will count in your favour if there are future disputes once the restrictions end (though the hope is that by editing quietly people can learn how to take a less adversarial approach to editing). Carcharoth (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Brews ohare advocacy restrictions

1) Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After five three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.

Support

1. I have to say, that the actions of the above named editors in consistently and continually attempting to re-litigate the Speed of Light ArbCom case and Brews ohare's restrictions has made this area a WP:BATTLEGROUND and has indeed been counterproductive for Brews ohare. They feed into his desire to fight this issue again and again and again ad nauseum. While I understand they consider themselves to have nothing but the best motives for this fight, I think it's time we asked them to stop being counterproductive for Brews ohare's sake. SirFozzie (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Reluctantly as I'm sure stronger measures will be needed later. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Steve Smith (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Kirill  02:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
5. I've amended five blocks to three blocks. Undo if you don't agree.  Roger Davies 05:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
6. I am usually reluctant to restrict other people from participating in disputes that arise after an arbitration case has closed, but sometimes it does become apparent that some people bring more heat than light to discussions. Arbitration is meant to be the final stage in dispute resolution, not setting the stage for further battles. The time to debate and argue about things is before and during arbitration, not afterwards. And while there should still be a right to appeal, that right should be limited to the person under the restriction (with help from others if they request it and the request is granted). Allowing an indiscriminate number of others to add to such appeals just creates noise, when what is often needed is direct one-to-one communication between the sanctioned and those doing the sanctioning (in this case, admins at AE). I would also urge that if one of the four editors named above is brought to arbitration enforcement, that the other three don't get involved (that should be common sense, but it seems this needs to be explicitly stated). Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion

Please comment only in your own section. To comment for the first time, add a new section below, and entitle it "Comments by ". Comments added to another editor's section will be removed by a clerk.

Comment from Brews ohare

In view of the difficulties that have arisen in the past over interpretation of the sanctions, both the original ArbCom sanctions and even more so the Tznkai additions, I request an explicit statement of just what constitutes a violation and what the corresponding sanctions are. It is not desirable to refer vaguely to vaguely worded previous formulations. They should be replaced with carefully worded new statements. Brews ohare (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the ruling regarding my own restrictions, limitations upon people's rights to express themselves in the future are not acceptable. This simply is stifling support before any argument has been engaged. In the event that, for example, Headbomb decides to implement an AN/I action against me on some thin pretext, why should all advocacy against that action be suppressed in advance? Doesn't such a situation simply invite abusive actions? Such censorship is contrary to good practice and contrary to WP's principles.

The notion that advocacy is so strident that administrators cannot sift through it to discover the "facts" of an action is equivalent to the statement that said administrators simply are incompetent to make judgments. Or, more probably, they are unwilling to sift through various arguments and prefer instead a black and white situation dominated by those they have already anointed as "reasonable".

The claim that the named parties are continually re-fighting old battles cannot be substantiated. In this appeal they have made arguments directly about this appeal. If this blank claim is asserted, it must be backed up with actual evidence, which IMO does not exist.

I also object to the wording allowing any "uninvolved" administrator to take action. As we have recently witnessed, "uninvolved" does not mean clear-headed, and once done such an action cannot be reversed without an extensive hearing. Brews ohare (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In particular, the notion of "physics-related" should be reworded to explicitly allow mathematics and discussions of subjects like geography or music or bridge building so long as physical principles are not explicitly the object of discussion. In addition, Tznkai wording about periodic reviews should be either adopted in careful terms or eliminated. Likewise, certain rights of all editors should be explicitly permitted, such as voting upon motions about new ways to recall administrators, or appointment of particular administrators.

I also object to the old wording allowing any "uninvolved" administrator to take action. As we have recently witnessed, "uninvolved" does not mean clear-headed, and once done such an action cannot be reversed without an extensive hearing.

Whatever is done, I believe it is clear that rewording is needed. Brews ohare (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Likebox

Remember when I suggested that you don't pass motions restricting users that haven't broken any rules? This is an example of where you should take this advice. It's just silliness to expect that anyone will comment on Brews ohare once his sanctions are modified/lifted.Likebox (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

=Comments by a pissed Hell in a Bucket

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Can you seriously spout bullshit like this and expect it will end drama? This will cause not less but more drama. Do you think I will be any less vocal over the treatment accorded to me then has been accorded to Brews? If anything I will be louder, this will have a personal effect on me. I can also pretty much garuntee the others will be too. If we choose to advocate for Brews or each other that's our business. Arbcom has proven they can't make decisions responsibly and so they are now trying to play bait and switch, where once it was Brews is a bad editor now they have switched that label to us. Good luck, I welcome you to the added noise and consequences. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)