User talk:Brews ohare

On improving the editing climate

“I am not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won.” Norman Thomas, quoted by Justice Sotomayor

“Substantial unanswered questions are raised when men seek ... solutions which are not based on real conditions.” RA Chikota & MC Moran

• On drafting clear sanctions   

• Filtering ArbCom cases     

• Handling minority views    

• What administrators should do 

• Trouble on WP: an open letter

“Increased democratic deliberation, based upon rewarding good political judgment ... harnesses the contest among ambitious leaders to the necessity of giving good advice” --- Peter Breiner Max Weber & democratic politics

►      …      ♫       …       ◄     

Tar babies

Br'er Rabbit meets the tar baby; an encounter with enforcement.

Arbitration ‘hearings’ are tar babies. Once you attract administrators' attention, residual attacks and arbitration follow you 'round like gnats in the Quebec woods.

Great to have you back!

Hey Brews. I just noticed you'd returned to editing and wanted to let you know that it's great having you back. I was never too clear on exactly what the ArbCom drama was all about and didn't want to interfere, but I'm glad that it's finally over. Anyway, hope you weren't too discouraged and that we'll be able to work on some articles again in the future. -Roger (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How's it Hanging Brews?

Hey I was checking out the Citzendieum started by Larry Sanger. I'm not suggesting you leave wikipedia or anything of the sort but the way that site is set up with your credentials I think you would make a excellent addition to their Editor ranks. They require you to be a expert but you would have a part in reviewing submitted content and making sure it is correct. Not advocating for you, just figured to point out that you could also contribute there with your qualifications. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back to physics!

		Welcome back to physics!
		Count Iblis (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Merci

Merci pour la reconnaissance :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars³

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In recognition of your inspirational, tireless and enthusiastic contributions in many diverse areas of Wikipedia. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		In recognition of your many fine, tasteful and meticulous technical drawings which illuminate and illustrate so many scientific concepts. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Technology Barnstar
		For your excellent contributions to science articles. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, they are well deserved. Brews ohare, please learn Portuguese and start editing in the Portuguese Wikipedia, because unlike here, there you will be welcome! AmigoDoPaulo (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 8

Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable sources where available. The part most reliable sources where available makes it clear which sources are the most reliable and keeps the proposal concise. Most editors will reject the proposal if it was expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers and magazines can be used as "reliable sources" but usually the "most reliable sources" are academic publications where available. So we defer to academic where available. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Verbatim

Just a quick note to say that if you keep encountering problems with people demanding that you inappropriately quote sources, you can take the dispute to WP:NORN, where some editors who are good at figuring out the line between "verbatim copyright violation" and "accurately summarizing the source in your own words" usually hang out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice; I was unaware of this page. Brews ohare (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Hello. The recent report, moved from WT:PHYS, concerning the article Free space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a violation of your topic ban. I do not think it would now serve any purpose to impose a sanction for the initial report, although other admins will likely disagree. However, commenting on editorial decisions such as this is totally unacceptable. Please add no further comments to the discussion. CIreland (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

From the resulting discussion of this link, my concern appears to have raised a widespread issue that needed attention. That is a good thing, and to slap me for bringing this administrative issue up in the wrong venue as a violation of a topic ban on physics (which it wasn't) would be inappropriate.

Aside from that, however, I don't understand why a query about the validity of using a redirect to avoid a deletion discussion is off-limits: the fact that the example of this high-handed activity occurred with a physics-related article has nothing to do with the validity of such redirects in general, which is the issue raised.

Physchim62 has redirected the article Free space to Vacuum, thereby, in effect, neatly deleting this article altogether without the nicety of taking Free space to AfD and having a discussion. Is redirection in this manner considered an acceptable circumvention of a discussion of deletion? Brews ohare (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Siiiiiiiiiigh. You really don't learn do you. I really tried not taking you to AE, but it's like you just want to be there. Since you insist on violating your ban, here you go, for the 154th billion time: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews_ohare. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for repeated and flagrant violations of your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."