Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:57, 29 March 2010 editHans Adler (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,943 edits →Can we close this, please!: r← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 04:27, 12 August 2011 edit undoXeno (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators103,385 edits ←Redirected page to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests
(12 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			#REDIRECT ]
	{{archivebox\|auto=yes}}

	For discussion on requests for arbitration, see ].

	==ADHD==
	I need to ask have any of the arbcom staff who have voted have actually taken the time to read my efforts to work things out with scuro on my talk page?] It seems I am being punished for a failed mentorship which had nothing to do with me. This is wrong and very unfair and I am perplexed the staff here appear to be not assessing or asking for evidence and just voting, some even before any evidence was presented at all. I am willing to self impose a voluntary topic ban but this involuntary topic ban seems like an injustice to me which I cannot accept. :-(--] \| ] 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	Scuro himself said just a few minutes ago .--] \| ] 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	==Arbitrators needed to help out at DYK==
	Since Arbcom "helped" the project by banning an editor/ administrator who did a lot of work at DYK, I think it's only fair that the arbitrators step up to ease the backlog and make sure that the updates are done on time. Thanks. ] (]) 22:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

	== Viridae ==

	Re: "blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge" - shouldn't that read "editor" instead of "administrator"? Or is Arbcom explicitly stating that non-admins do not deserve the same consideration that is expected for Admins? ] (]) 09:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
	:It's not a matter of "not the same consideration" so much as the simple fact that an administrator can be reasonably ''presumed'' to be an established editor (and the fact that Viridae wasn't even aware that the editor was an administrator is symptomatic of how blindly reactive the block was). — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

	::That's not the way it reads though. Clearly regular editors are not given the same consideration as administrators, no matter ''how'' "established" they are. --] ] 11:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

	::It shouldn't make any difference to the decision to block whether or not the blockee is an admin - so Viridae's ignorance of the editor's status is immaterial. ] (]) 13:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::It is pretty common knowledge that many Admins stick together and give each other preferential treatment. The Arbcom have always known this and endorse it - or at least do nothing to stop it. So it's pretty refreshing to see that some are prepeared to block a fellow Admin. However, Coren talks of presumptions - That an Admin can be "''reasonably presumed to be an established editor''" is incorrect - anyone whose been here 5 minutes and chats on IRC can be an Admin - some Admins are even so green they don't even know what copy-vio is when elected by their mates to rule over us. So let's not have all this whitewash given to us please. Impose this stuff on us - if you must, but don't insult our intelligence in the process. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
	::::Giano, "''anyone whose been here 5 minutes and chats on IRC can be an Admin''" is <s>an outright lie</s> ''unwarranted hyperbole'' and you know it. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I know there's a history here, but I wonder if it's helpful to label ] as lying.--] (]) 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
	::::::It looked like a statement meant to be taken at face value to me rather than a rhetorical device, but I admit that I might have misconstrued the tone. One of the risks of online text-based communication is that much of the subtle tones necessary to properly convey sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek statements and hyperbole are impossible to render (which is why I avoid such devices when I can). — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
	*If it humours you to think it is a lie - then sobeit Coren. However, are you too suggesting that "''some Admins are even so green they don't even know what copy-vio is when elected by their mates to rule over us.''" is a lie too, or an I imagining that. A simple yes or no - will do. We don't want to digress off subject do we? <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::You still haven't explained why it's worse to block an admin without attempting to communicate than it is to block a non-admin in that way. ] (]) 16:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::It's not. What's bad is to have studied the context so little before a block (if at all) that the fact that the blocked editor was an admin went ''unnoticed entirely''. Or that the editing history did not match the allegations. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::In my experience of being blocked admins do not normally make any attempt to communicate with the blockee beforehand or to establish the background. I am still concerned that the motion as it is worded implies very strongly that blocking an admin is regarded as more serious than blocking non-admins. ] (]) 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::It ''is'' more serious for one thing, mind you: the distinctly higher probability of wheel warring. That being said, the motion could (and possibly ''should'') have used "editor" rather than "administrator" in its wording if only to avoid the unfortunate (and incorrect) implication that the block would have been any more acceptable if it didn't implicate an admin. It's a minor point, however, and not worth the quibble. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::It's clearly a minor point to you, as an administrator, but that doesn't make it a minor point except in your head. --] ] 01:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I don't think it's quibbling - we've now established that you see admins as more important than non-admins, and you allow that to affect your arbcom work. ] (]) 01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

	==Oppose Brews motions==
	(editor voted in oppose section of motions, moving here)

	I find this motion to be very funny, this is passed around as a way to help Brews. If there wasn't Tombe, myself or the other supporters there would be no motion to end sanctions on Brews, by this time he would have ben site banned. I do appplaud the fact that there is movement to progress, I ask myself though at what cost? Arbcom is starting to rectify a error that should never happen so they modify policy, they then promptly desysop the admin who unblocks brews. Next after a request for a review by Jimbo, they say ok we are willing to back down a bit but we will be silencing the opposition with a proposal that not cools down the situation where there was one loud sets of voices there will be 4 for this travesty. How is this rectifying the situation? Do you believe us to be any quieter over our own treatment then we were over brews? C'mon folks you're taking one step forward and two back with this motion. ] (]) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

	...by <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 01:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

	I forsee problems with the restriction '''after Brews topic ban expires'''. If Brews and me are both editing an article then I would not be allowed to comment on edits that Brews made. Note that comments in such cases will typically be criticisms (e.g. you spot what you think is an error and then want to discuss that). Other types of comments could well be similar to what I wrote to Likebox recently on the black hole page:

	<blockquote>
	While I agree that all this is not really OR, I do think that a FA article on Black Hole cannot contain too much detail about all these subject (and bringing this article to FA status is the goal behind the recent editing drive). I think the removed detailed explanations can be moved to the more specialized articles for further reading. You could try to keep a summary of the most important points for the general reader here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
	</blockquote>

	That after Jehochman complained on AN about Likebox (I actually first posted that before I saw Jehochman's complaint). As you can , this was welcomed by Jehochman, it helped to diffuse a conflict.

	I think David can testify that around the time that the ArbCom case was ending I removed some comments by him that I thought were disruptive (exactly in the sense that the AbCom case was addressing). David was furious with me about my action. So, the whole idea that there exists a group of editors that are fans of each other who will always defend each other is simply not true, especially not if the main subject of discussion is physics. That combined with the fact that Brews may be more receptive to constructive criticism from me or Likebox than from someone who Brews clashed with during his topic ban, makes this a very bad idea. ] (]) 01:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

	: Count is capable of polite and constructive editing. I think you arbitrators ought to vote on the sanctions separately, per individual, as a matter of fairness. Otherwise, I have no opinion. It's probably not helpful for me to comment further. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

	:Rather than worrying about "if scenarios", probably better to just appeal it after the restriction from motion 1 expires. I think these proposals gives all involved a good opportunity to demonstrate whether they can address their problems without further restrictive measures. ] (]) 04:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

	::Indeed. Once the Brews sanctions expire, any or all of the four named editors can apply to have these restrictions lifted. I will likely support that, though if a return to similar conduct is observed and considered disruptive (this would tend to be where comments overwhelm a discussion) then the sanctions could simply be reimposed, or a motion passed allowing administrators to re-impose the sanctions as needed (though that would be individually, not for all four editors). ] (]) 06:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

	:::I for one have no intention of being quiet about this. I will fight this with every inch of my spirit. Substitute my name where brews was and Tombes and Likebox and you now have 4 personally effected editors. This will not bring increased peace only more nopise for the Arbitrators, this much I promise. ] (]) 12:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

	{{outdent\|3}}] & ]: It is an odd stance to say bad rules should be passed and then amended by the victims. It is better to pass good rules that do not require prolonged hearings to fix them, and that do not irritate everyone involved. ] (]) 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

	:I don't think they are bad rules; I'm not seeing the evidence of being a victim here either. If Hell in a Bucket had taken this good opportunity to demonstrate that further restrictive measures are not necessary, he would not have been blocked. That's the type of issue that the editors named in the motions need to focus on: addressing their own conduct and complying with restrictions short of other restrictive measures. If those editors can do that much, without toeing the limits, an appeal wouldn't be quite so prolonged. ] (]) 00:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

	::]: To be clearer, you have yourself that one should not worry about ''if scenarios'' and just fix things with an appeal later. I'd suggest that those drafting a rule should indeed worry a lot about ''if scenarios'' as a check to see if hardship is going to occur, and phrase things so that will not happen. In particular, the language ''"advocacy for or commenting upon"'' is way too loose, as explained below, and a restriction for the ''indefinite future'' fails to recognize that this all will be over when the strictures expire. ] (]) 03:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

	:::] that time either. Again, unless the editors are unable to fully comply with their restrictions short of other restrictive measures, and do not toe the limit, there should not be any undue hardship for those involved in having the restriction lifted. As for the wording, it's clear that none of these editors are to be commenting about you at any venue. It's up to those editors to take care and act in a manner that cannot reasonably be construed as violating the restriction, particularly if they (i) don't want to be blocked, and (ii) want the restriction lifted later. It's up to them on just how much care they are ready to take with this "broadly construed" restriction. Again, these restrictions give a good opportunity to those involved to demonstrate whether they can address their problems without further restrictive measures. ] (]) 05:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

	::::]: We are talking about different things here. You say no problem can arise ''if the editors behave and adhere to the rules''. I have no doubts about that. My point is different: if the rules are badly phrased, infractions will occur because of vague boundaries that may be crossed inadvertently. And, although you may be loathe to think so, some editors with an axe to grind will bring actions over supposed infractions in these gray areas, actions fundamentally made possible only because the boundaries are not sharply defined. As Administrator AGK has said, "Any infraction is punished, regardless of whether it benefits WP". ] (]) 14:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

	A major ambiguity here is just what constitutes “advocacy or commenting upon”. An observation is made, for example, I say ''A''. Headbomb says ''A'' is inaccurate, ''B'' applies. Now if Count Iblis says ''A'' actually is preferable to ''B'', Headbomb (just as an example) says Count Iblis is "commenting upon or advocating" Brews' position. Of course, should some admin take Headbomb seriously, a block is imposed for 24 hours. Maybe Count Iblis would protest the block on AN/I, but as we all know, the block will expire long before AN/I reaches any resolution.

	So we have a case where Headbomb (just as an example) can object to anything Count Iblis says that he can trace back to something Brews said somewhere, and some admin like Sandstein (just as an example of an admin who believes sanctions should be imposed first, and then resolved by ArbCom later) will insure that Headbomb achieves a 24 hour block. After doing this three times, Headbomb can block Count Iblis for a week, which still is too short a time for AN/I to resolve any reversal action. ] (]) 16:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

	:Or, more likely I'd be the one banned for making a frivolous request and wasting everyone's time. Unlike what seems to be your impression, I'm not stupid, ill-intentioned or self-destructive, and neither are the vast majority of admins and ARBCOM. Your obsession in obvious things turn into bureaucratic nightmares is one of the reason we're here. Keep out of physics articles, stay out of the Misplaced Pages namespace, stay out of physics-related disputes, and let the past be the past and you won't have a problem from ''anyone'' on Misplaced Pages, me included.

	:So unless you plan to butt-in an WP:AN/I thread about a content-problem in a physics article involving the same people as your original ARBCOM case and it's millions of appeals and run all over wikipedia screaming "Help, help, I'm being repressed", we shouldn't have much of a problem. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 16:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

	::We are here ''precisely'' because of frivolous actions brought by yourself to AN/I. The purpose of my remarks is to remove restrictions that facilitate unvarnished ]. ] (]) 16:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

	:::No, we are here ''precisely'' because you keep testing the limits of your bans, keep violating your bans, and refuse to disengage. You were first banned for tendentious editing. Tznkai banned you from tendentious advocating. Read ], only apply it to your recent activities. Particularly {{xt\|On returning from a block, your first action is to head right back to the <s>article</s> noticeboard and <s>repeat the edit</s> argue that the block was invalid.}}, {{xt\|You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.}}, {{xt\|You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts".}}, {{xt\|You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.}}. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 17:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

	::::Your remarks cannot be substantiated, and amount to ]. The actions you {{xt\|attribute to me of claiming "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts"}} have not occurred. Instead, why not address the point that the language “advocacy for or commenting on” should be cleaned up? ] (]) 18:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

	== Contradiction in 1.2 ==

	It currently reads
	<blockquote>

	1.2) '''''' 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) are withdrawn the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that violations of his topic ban will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.

	</blockquote>

	So what, he's prohibited from participating in physics related discussions, but allowed to participate in physics related disputes??? What kind of a motion is that? <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 22:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
	:I think it just means Tznkai's restriction from 13 January 2010 is withdrawn right away, but the original (narrower) arb restriction stays in force for 90 days. ] (]) 21:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
	::If so, that should be clarified. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 14:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

	== re: advocacy motion (re D. Tombe) ==

	David Tombe writes:
	:IP66, I don't follow your arguments at all. I don't know what you are trying to say. An appeal was launched in February to have Brews ohare's topic ban lifted. I supported that appeal. You are now trying to infer that my support was detrimental to the success of that appeal. Can you qualify that claim in any way? You have then bought into this latest lie that 'benevolent advocacy' is a punishable crime. You have mentioned meatballism, whatever that is supposed to mean. I looked at the link and I couldn't make any sense out of it.

	My response:

	# I expressed my personal interpretation of the situation based on having watched the facts unfold. Arbcom has seen the same facts, so it can decide for itself whether my interpretation casts any useful light on the topic.
	# I haven't said your advocacy was a punishable crime. I don't see the proposed restriction as a punishment. I don't subscribe to the theory that a "crime" has to be committed before a restriction can occur (see ]). All that's needed is a consensus that what you're doing is unhelpful to the project, not that it's a crime. I do think what you're doing is unhelpful.<p>We are a volunteer project with a loose atmosphere, so if I exchange a few user-talk messages with another editor about my cat, it's no big deal. If my talk page turns into a chat room about cat care and becomes a drama magnet, at a certain point the burden falls on me to show that it has an encyclopedic purpose, or have it shut down (which is not a punishment). Your group is beating the proverbial ], to the point that Arbcom should decide that it's time for you to exit the topic (either the 180 day or the indefinite versions are ok with me).
	# I don't know what meatball-ism is. Meatball Wiki is a wiki whose main topic is meta-discussion about wiki and other online community dynamics and intra-wiki interaction. Since Brews gets into that kind of discussion somewhat obsessively, I mentioned Meatball because I thought it might interest him and help him gain some insights. I wasn't trying to support any argument with it.

	'''Count Iblis:''' I don't think Likebox would have fared well in a Hillman regime, but unfortunately we're not likely to ever find out.

	] (]) 22:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

	: ] (]) 23:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

	:B.t.w., except for the appeal lanched by Likebox, there haven't been any moves initiated by our sides to get Brews topic ban lifted. All we did was engage Brews critics when Brews was in the dock for (alleged) infractions at AE. In these Arbitration procedures it is expected that people will comment and they have set up the rules to accomodate for that. It can hardly be called disruptive that we give our comments there in the same was as happens in all other cases.

	:I wrote the following to Physchim62.
	:To put things in perspective, right now there is an ] discussion about an editor, for his c.v. Some people are suggesting he find some not so controversial articles to edit. I suggested he write up his ideas about how Misplaced Pages should be edited in an essay and disengage from the problem areas. It should be clear that GoRight is not like Brews, yet we still try to spend quite some effort to get GoRight contribute productively. Patience is only recently starting to run out. Also no talk at all about "advocates of GoRight" who religiously defend him (e.g. ATren). ] (]) 23:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
	::I think all of your group's activities related to Brews have been unhelpful, not just the ones connected to the appeal. I haven't followed GoRight's story enough to have much of a view about it. ] (]) 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::David has given a detailed account of the history of the case below. Let me jusal problem, you should urgently get involved in the GoRight issue. ] (]) 13:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

	IP66, From what I can establish you don't seem to know the facts at all. There is no group. Four editors have been singled out from amongst a larger number of editors who have been defending Brews ohare in a number of recent issues, none of which have been instigated by themselves, with the exception of the initial appeal in February which was initiated by Likebox. So let's now set the facts straight.

	In February, Likebox launched an appeal to have Brews ohare's sanctions lifted. There is no crime in that. Many people voiced their support for the appeal. I came in late, and I made a statement of support. Do you have any evidence that ARBCOM ignored the supporters because they included the four editors named in this 'advocacy restriction' motion? And if such evidence does exist, it would merely demonstrate that ARBCOM are driven by personalities and not by principles, which would be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.

	In the wake of that appeal, there was a succession of incidents, none of which were instigated by any of the four named in the 'advocacy restriction' motion. Brews ohare was blocked three times for actions that can in no way be attributed to him having taken bad advice from any of us. We had absolutely nothing to do with those actions. However, we all believed that Brews was being harshly treated and so we all spoke up in his defence. This culminated in Brews having a new appeal at the administrator's noticeboard.

	While that was happening, noises started to be heard to the extent that Brews's situation wasn't being helped by those who were supporting him. These noises began to gain weight, like a rolling snowball, to the extent that a new lie was born. The new lie was that there is a group who are flogging a deadhorse and who have been engaged in ongoing 'disruptive advocacy'. I found myself being accused of having a track record of 'advocacy' as if we are all now supposed to believe without any doubt whatsover that 'advocacy' is some kind of undesirable and sinister activity. The snowball effect has now built up to a kind of hysteria in which it is wrongly believed that there is a serious problem in existence which needs to be halted urgently. But there is no problem. The problem is a figment of certain peoples' imaginations.

	And all your comments above suggest that you have eagerly bought into this 'newthink'. You have repeated once again that you don't think that my advocacy has been helpful, but you have not qualified your statement in the least. It seems to me that you are merely parroting what you have read on some recent noticeboards. And the fact is that Brews is getting four months knocked off his sanctions which means that the advocacy must have had some effect. If not, then can you please answer me the million dollar question. If our advocacy has been unhelpful for Brews, then whose advocacy was it that led to his sanctions being reduced by four months? ] (]) 09:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

	== Can we close this, please! ==

	Motion 2 got eight supports at 10:46 (UTC) 25 March, while motion 1 reached the same absolute majority of active arbitrators at 11:56 (UTC) on the same day. That's four days ago now, and I don't see any evidence of arbitrators changing their minds: if anything, positions are hardening. Can we please just close this circus down with motions 1 and 2 passed: all we're doing is allowing Brews ohare and David Tombe to waste '''''even more''''' of our time. ] ] 12:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	* Easy solution, look at the top of the screen, find the unwatch tab, click and all your problems just fly away... ] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	**]! (and note that that thread started more than 36 hours after the motions had gained their majorities). ] ] 12:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	***But that link points to a very easy to clear up issue raised by Brews. Just give the diffs that proves you correct regarding the pseudoscience allegations that you made against Brews. ] (]) 13:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	****{{ec}} I can't even be bother to provide you with a link to the ArbCom case where the subject is discussed ''ad nauseam'', let alone waste any more time on these highly disruptive users. Yet {{user\|Likebox}}, yourself and {{vandal\|Brews ohare}} all decided to take the issue to my User talk page more than 36 hours after the motions had gained a majority among the arbitrators. It is only out of a desire to avoid any more time wasting dispute that I don't take you all to ]. ] ] 14:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

	{{outdent\|5}}]: It is not the case that you “''can't even be bother to provide you with a link''” that prevents you from providing one. The problem is that '''''there is no evidence whatsoever, and no links, and no diffs exist anywhere'''''. A failure to redress incorrect views that you have spread far and wide, even after that you are in error, and doing damage spreading fallacies, reflects very unfavorably upon you yourself. ] (]) 14:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	*There were several links provided in the evidence to the Arbitration case, including your views that there is no theory of free space and that it has "defined behaviour" . You don't believe that it is possible to have a defined value of the speed of light , and you don't believe the definition of the metre actually means what it clearly says . You're as entitled to your views as I am to consider them pseudoscientific: what you are '''''not''''' entitled to do is to deliberately disrupt the work of editors on this encyclopedia who do not share your idiosyncratic views, that is, the vast majority. I am not required to wade through the literally thousands of posts you have made: a simple reading of the megabytes of talk page archives would be sufficient for any open-minded person with a knowledge of physics to reach conclusions similar to mine. If the only argument you can make is to claim that I'm some sort of Big Bad Wolf who's got it in for you, as you tried to throughout the Arbitration case, then that certainly "reflects very unfavorably upon you yourself". ] ] 15:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	{{outdent\|1}}]: Of course, we could open a discussion about ] and follow this diversionary strategy of yours, unrelated to the issues. That would involve a digression that no-one here would follow, and leave the impression with the unversed that perhaps this was a deeper matter than they wished to pursue. However, the real issue is your about my views of the redefinition of the metre, which you simply avoid retracting, or even addressing. In fact, your repeat this allegation with the nonsensical statement “''you don't believe the definition of the metre actually means what it clearly says''” providing a meaningless link to the definition, and no diff that is pertinent to the statement made. ] (]) 15:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

	****Physchim62 and his pseudoscience allegations lie at the very heart of this whole sorry business. This whole affair began with Physchim62's pseudoscience allegations against myself on 19th August 2009. See here . That was the first day that I met Hell in a Bucket. He intervened to ask what dispute resolution had been attempted. And I still maintain that this saga could have been avoided altogether if the services of the mediation committee had been used. ] (]) 14:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	*****No, the dispute is about your extremely disruptive behaviour and that of Brews ohare, which has been demonstrated over again over a period of well over a year now. ] ] 14:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	******That's right Physchim62, defending myself against your false allegations constitues 'disruptive behaviour'. ] (]) 14:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	*******"David Tombe rejects large portions of modern physics, inappropriately promoting this ] on Misplaced Pages and violating Misplaced Pages's principles against ], ], and ] ()." ''Passed 7 to 0, with 1 abstention, on 22:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)'' ] ] 14:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	Looking at this as an outsider who is unfamiliar with the parties but has seen a lot of totally baseless pseudoscience allegations in Misplaced Pages that were based on a simple failure of some editors to distinguish between their crackpot opponents and their reasonable opponents, I can't help notice the structure of the above discussion:
	* Count Iblis asks for evidence that Brews ohare supports pseudoscience.
	* Brews ohare asks for evidence that Brews ohare supports pseudoscience.
	* David Tombe claims that he also was improperly accused of pseudoscience.
	* Physchim62 provides evidence for the pseudoscience accusations against David Tombe only.
	Physchim, are you going to provide diffs concerning Brews ohare as well? ] ] 15:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	:I started this thread by asking for the motions process to be closed, given that it is now four days since the two original motions have gained a majority. As you correctly point out, Count Iblis, Brews Ohare and David Tombe have decided to discuss something completely different. We're left with the question: are the motions in force or not? If they are in force, then Count Iblis and David Tombe are in breach of motion 2; if not, Brews ohare is in breach of his editing restrictions for . Either way, I've wasted a good part of my afternoon. Could we please have some clarification, and blocks where necessary. ] ] 15:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	::Well, you asked for it by linking to a thread in which you were asked to substantiate your allegations that Brews is engaging in pseudoscience. I see that you have now provided four diffs above, but as far as I can tell they simply don't prove any such thing. I can only see people talking past each other because they subscribe to different philosophies w.r.t. the practice of standardisation bodies to define physical constants with recourse to ideal conditions such as an absolute vacuum.
	::If that's all you have I suggest that you stop making such accusations and apologise to Brews. Then hopefully any further threads regarded to Brews will not be disrupted by a discussion of this particular aspect. ] ] 15:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

	== Let's assume Physchim can argue in favor of the pseudoscience allegaton ==

	We then still have to consider the fact that the view taken by him, me, Likebox and most other editors are in agreement about Brews' position regarding SoL, but no one except Physchim found it necessary to brand Brews as a pseudoscientist.

	"Naming and shaming" is not something that is regarded as good behavior on Misplaced Pages. When I did that myself on the entropy page last summer against an editor who pretended he knew a lot about the subject but in fact didn't know one iota about it (he was using an advanced book and quoted texts without understanding), I was brought to the Wikiquette noticeboard by another editor simply for writing the rhetorical question asking if the editor in questons understands this topic at all.

	It was decided there that however justified by comments where, I should not have written what I wrote (especially not in the title of a section). My lesson from that was that even I can learn to become more civil. Unlike that editor on the entropy page last summer, Brews will likely be frequently editing physics pages in the near future. Physchim and Brews will likely encounter each other on various talk pages. So, I'm not sure what Physchim is hoping to achieve by making provocative assertions. ] (]) 15:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:27, 12 August 2011

Redirect to:

Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests