User:Brews ohare/Hearing on realism

Brews ohare[edit]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Brews ohare[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions #7

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

26 June 2013 Adding physics related content
26 June 2013 Re-adding it after it was removed (for reasons unrelated to the above ban)
26 June 2013 Discussing said physics related content on the talk page

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

previous AE visit, 14 Deb 2013 resulting in 1 week ban
AE visit before that, 18 Dec 2012 resulting in final warning

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Brews ohare[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Brews ohare[edit]

Blackburne has been policing my activities diligently for years, as evidenced by the history of this ban. His present cause is based upon the idea that mentioning some things like 'length' on the page Philosophy of science is a violation of a physics ban. The mere mention of the words 'length', 'surveying' 'intergalactic distances' and 'quantum measurement' were part of an observation on science in general, namely, that there is a connection between empirical observation and measurement in science, an everyday observation, not a physics statement. This mention is not by any stretch of imagining a discussion of physics as such. As pointed out by Collect, to interpret these words, by themselves and without adornment, in an everyday observation within a philosophy discussion, as an engagement in 'physics broadly construed' is a stretch.

Besides echoing Blackburne's issue, Snowded claims that because Hawking is a physicist, my attempts to gain mention of his philosophy in philosophy articles like meta-ontology and internal-external distinction is physics. Snowded has diligently removed these references, possibly because he genuinely believes no scientist can really do philosophy. Whatever Snowded thinks, the subject of Philosophical realism, Antirealism and so forth have been topics in philosophy for millennia, and Hawking's views on realism (discussed extensively in Model-dependent realism) are philosophical ruminations, not physics.

@EdJohnston: What is the purpose of making such a very wide interpretation of "physics, broadly construed"? Is it to curtail my activities as originally intended by the ban, or is it to curtail all my activities on WP to the greatest extent possible under the ban by interpreting its language as widely as it can be stretched even if that goes well beyond ordinary usage? Brews ohare (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

More to EdJohnston: An improvement on the present wording would be a variation upon the restriction you suggest: namely, to state I should avoid all articles listed in specific categories like [[Category:Physics]] and maybe some others, and be permitted anything else anywhere else. That would at least be specific, and would exclude Philosophy of science, History of science. It would avoid silly complaints and let me know what exactly is expected of me. Brews ohare (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@Heimstern Läufer: A real clarification would involve some analysis of what the goal is here - if it is to limit my participation in particular subject areas, nothing would be clearer than specification of specific pages. The present 'guideline' is vague enough that it can be interpreted in ways hard to anticipate that serve no purpose for WP. Brews ohare (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

@Cailil: You say edits about Hawking are obviously physics-related, but it is hard for me to see that as obvious. What is obvious to me is that Hawking spoke about model-dependent realism which falls under the philosophical subjects of Philosophical realism and Antirealism. It would appear that in your view the subject of 'reality' is a physics topic, which covers a large swath of WP. I think that is an extreme position. The purpose of this ban is not to make it impossible for me to contribute to WP, but to limit any disruption of WP. I fail to see that this action of mine caused any harm, and so your proposal is purely punitive. Of course, I try to avoid such encounters, but I'm not always sufficiently alert. It is hard to know what will trigger such an alarm when nothing tendentious is intended. That is why I suggest a follow-up along the lines suggested by EdJohnston. Brews ohare (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

@ John Carter: You find the statement of the sanction unambiguous? It applies to everything including saying ice cream is 'frozen'. The way to clarify the matter is to follow EdJohnston's suggestions. Brews ohare (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

@MyVeryBestWishes: In your remarks to Count Iblis your recommendation is for me to leave the project or change topics. However, this topic-ban has evolved from a narrow restriction to encompass many new areas, now proposed to mean almost anything a critic wants it to mean, and chasing me about from topic to topic. This broadening is enabled by vague wording, which has been exploited by vigilantes via the artifice of leveraging 'clarification' and 'enforcement' hearings and suggesting I am thumbing my nose at ArbCom. ArbCom is then manipulated to try to remedy uncertainty in the ban by broadening its interpretation and by increasingly punitive actions. Why do you not deplore the abusive leveraging of WP process and manipulation of ArbCom, instead of suggesting I accept that this is how WP works and leaving the project? Brews ohare (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this now a content issue? Although ArbCom explicitly denies that it engages in content disputes, here it is in the middle of one. The tenor of the discussion here has departed from being about violation of the ban to a discussion of "What is physics?". In particular, the assertion is made by Blackburne and others that the article model-dependent realism is in fact physics.

Does ArbCom intend to consider this and similar matters? If so, it must consider whether it is in fact the case that model-dependent realism is physics. It is not. Neither is Hawkings book discussed in the WP article The Grand Design, which mainly is aimed at the argument that God is not necessary, hardly a physics issue. The part of this work devoted to model-dependent realism is about the same topics of philosophical realism and antirealism discussed for millennia, and in fact Hawking discusses Aristotle and Hume and other philosophers' concerns with 'reality' along the way. My work in these areas is of a piece with my extensive contributions to subject-object problem, meta-ontology, metaphysics, internal-external distinction, holophrastic indeterminacy quantifier variance and so forth that have occupied me for months. They all deal with the issue of the connection between logical frameworks, observations, and the way they are arrived upon and selected, and impact our notions of the world we live in. These very broad matters include aspects of the philosophy of science, although they go far beyond that to consider what lies outside of science, how its methods can be assessed and so forth. These issues are much more general and more widely based than the exact sciences, and I don't think anyone here would say that they are considered by scholars to belong to the exact sciences, and definitely are not part of the narrow part of the exact sciences that is physics itself. This work is published in philosophical papers and books and will never show up in Physical Review, for example.

The ban as originally imposed arose from very technical arguments about the Speed of light clearly within the purview of physics. Now we seem to be on the verge of saying that the ban applies to philosophy as well and more particularly to the philosophy of science. That is a very large broadening of the original ban, and in my view, a stretch of its scope far beyond the considerations raised in Case: Speed of light. It also is a stretch that drags ArbCom into considerations of subject matter and content that it is not (at least as a matter of WP official statements) what it is supposed to be doing, which is protecting WP from damaging behavior. Brews ohare (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

In this connection, it may be observed that there is in fact no claim by anyone here that I have engaged in behavior damaging to WP. The purpose of sanctioning me about this is not protection of WP but the aim of punishing any flaunting of ArbCom's authority. Obviously that was not my intent, and any crossing of boundaries was inadvertent and a matter of my personal failure to recognize that the ban could impact what I was adding to Philosophy of science. I apologize. Brews ohare (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Snowded[edit]

There are several other cases. In particular material from Hawkins has been introduced into several philosophy articles, and Brews has been happy to edit war to restore the material. There are several of these but here are three, maybe four, I was able to find quickly.

There have now been 3/4 RfCs called by Brews each time other editors have rejected his material but he just keeps telling them they are wrong. Its late at night, but I can find the diffs if needed.

To Brews: Please stop misrepresenting other editors. You, despite requests, provided no references other than your own opinion to establish any connection between the Hawkins material and the articles concerned. As has been pointed out to you by several editors on repeated RfCs you constantly engage in synthesis/OR then simply don't listen if people disagree with you. I know perfectly well that scientists can be philosophers, some are even notable in both fields. So far no philosopher is taking the Hawkins stuff seriously. When they do it might belong in the articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A PS: It is worth noting that the behaviour on Philosophy articles is almost identical to the 'previous' on Physics articles. Highly combative, refusing to work with other editors. This can be illustrated by a quick look at his responses to the RfC on Philosophy, especially his refusal to let Andrew Lancaster (one of the most experienced Philosophy editors) simply disagree with him. Even when another editor did his best to mediate he was not allowed to escape even on his talk page. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect[edit]

Brews definitely edited about Physics "broadly construed" if one uses "broadly" broadly enough. Using such links as "length" is Physics-related, as would be "height", "elevation" "size", "mass" and "weight" In short, the ban seems to indicate a huge area, and I suggest it now be given a more reasonable and sharply defined ambit. Collect (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

I don't see how any of these diffs presented by JohnBlackburne can be construed as anything other than violations of Brews ohare's topic ban. I don't know the full history of the case but clearly warning this user didn't work last time so I doubt it will work if tried again. I recommend a block of a week to a month, whatever others feel is most appropriate to prevent further violations of this topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by FyzixFighter[edit]

Full disclosure, I was a minor participant of the original case - however, I rarely have commented on Brews with regards to the case. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any admin who thinks that the topic ban of "physics, broadly construed" would include general discussion of "height" and "length". Contrary to what a few others seem to be saying, I don't think that's what John Blackburne is suggesting. However, when the editing in question includes "...atomic and sub-atomic distances..." and "For example, see quantum measurement", then I think it's passed from a general science discussion into something that pretty clearly falls within the physics-related topic ban. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

As a technical aside, is the 500 word limit per statement still in force (Brews' is up to about ~1k by my count)? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes[edit]

This boils down to an interesting question: What is Physics? As far as I know, only something that can be actually measured and expressed by mathematical equations belong to Physics. In this regard, edits by Brews above look to me like Philosophy, not Physics. This is talk about "measurement" as a philosophical idea, not about certain physical objects whose parameters were actually measured. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This whole ontology/philosophy thing (the question if something was "real") has little to do with Physics because, exactly as Stephen Hawking said, in Physics "it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation" [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

However, thinking logically here, the quote of Hawking was about Physics, and therefore the edit was a topic-ban violation. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by JohnBlackburne[edit]

(I wasn't sure whether to add this above with my first contribution or below. If it is out of place please move it). Further to Snowded's comments and looking at Model-dependent realism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); it is in Category:Philosophy of physics and so Category:Physics and clearly comes under the scope of the ban. Brews ohare has made numerous edits to this, so much that he is the leading contributor to it, with his first contribution adding a link to the physics book The Grand Design.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis[edit]

There is no such thing that is not physics related in this universe, so the restrictions imposed on Brews are nonsensical. I suggest we lift the physics topic ban; the problems with Brews are due to escalation after escalation starting from the speed of light case. We should look at Brews general behavior and impose restrictions to deal with his general editing pattern. There are some issues here that should be looked at, it isn't physics or math that is the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest to Brews to completely ignore all his ArbCom restrictions, because they are mostly nonsensical from the point of view of actually editing articles here. It would be justified for him to do so according to WP:IAR, any objection to applying IAR cannot be based on the imposed restrictions or any other rules, it must address the actual editing of articles. Of course, he would likely be banned if he does this, but then he could always edit as an IP perhaps using a proxy server to avoid detection. I think this is better than this ridiculous circus that has been going on all these years now. The ban would be wrong, and eventually this would be recognized. But because Brews is sticking to these ridiculous restrictions that discussion cannot even begin. Count Iblis (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Brews was justly topic-banned, however going proxy and not complying with his editing restrictions is a terrible idea because it means showing utmost disrespect to others. I know that Brews made excellent work, especially during the initial period of his editing here. If he is really dedicated to the project, he should either switch to editing different subjects or leave, especially since he is obviously not having an enjoyable Wikipedia experience any longer.My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Brews ohare[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

It is reasonable to take 'broadly construed' as making Brews stay away from articles and talk pages that concern the physics-related aspects of philosophy of science. Everything that's included in Category:Philosophy of physics should be covered, and the physics-related sections of the Philosophy of science article should be covered. I recommend that this complaint be closed with a clarification of his ban to that effect. Note that last December, Brews was warned to check with an admin "prior to beginning editing any material where its relation to the topic ban may be in question", but I don't think he did so here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this pretty much exactly what happened back in December? Brews edited about physics, insisted it wasn't covered by his ban, then got told clearly "nuh-uh, it is" by ArbCom themselves? If indeed these edits are about physics (and it looks to me like they are, though it's hard to tell because of my limited science background), I really don't think another clarification is the way to go. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Heimstern here. Edits about Hawking obviously fall within the ambit of "all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". If after December's clarification Brews ohare still hasn't got the message then frankly that's his problem not wikipedia's. I'd support sanction of a stronger nature here. It's not the role of AE to alter or "improve" ArbCom's wordings, as requested by Brews above. It's our job to enforce the existing ruling both in spirit and to the letter. This edit is about Hawking's theoretical physics as much as it is about philosophy[3]. That is a breach of the ban. One in a long long list of breaches of sanctions by this user since 2008. Recidivism is a factor here--Cailil ^talk 00:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Cailil. There is a pattern of recidivism here, and the clarification quoted above is about as unambiguous as I can imagine under the circumstances. A stronger sanction is definitely called for here. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)