Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:20, 13 October 2009

Note to Physchim62 and to parties generally

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. I assume that everyone would be willing to abide with ArbCom sanctions—I'm most curious about what sort of resolution parties would find helpful. I think I might have over-emphasized "concessions." I only mentioned it because parties sometimes acknowledge that their own behavior was problematic/over-aggressive, or whatever. In that case, they might be willing to set limits for themselves if their other concerns are addressed.

At any rate, I agree that there should be better guidelines for these sorts of disputes, and I would especially like to clear up the issue of community/admin topic or page bans. This issue also came up in the WMC-Abd arbitration, but it was very muddled in that case. I think this would be a better case for that issue. Cool Hand Luke 16:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There already are guidelines: WP:NPA and WP:talk, but they are enforced erratically instead of upon all participants. They could be beefed up to state more clearly that critique of contributions should be based exclusively upon statements in the contributions, not upon generalities brought to the table by the editors' imaginings. Bandwagoning, snowballing, and gossip should be prohibited. They cloud judgment and lead to a lynch mentality. Brews ohare (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

General Question

In reading through this arbitration case, I see posted a comment by one of the arbitrators that seems unclear to me. This is perhaps due to the fact that I do not have as long of a history of observing arbitration pages as other users may. Nonetheless, I thought I would point it out, and another user could perhaps clarify if they have time. The lead section of the workshop page says "Any user may edit this workshop page", which would imply that suggestions on effective solutions by uninvolved editors are welcome. On the other hand, the drafting arbitrator's comment that "Non-parties may only add a statement here with my permission, and only if they can show a reasonable connection to the dispute" indicates that uninvolved suggestions are deprecated or prohibited. Either way is fine, it just seemed potentially confusing. —Matheuler 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That particular comment is only for the questions that CHL had posed to the parties; I believe his intention there was just to figure out what the parties wanted out of the case. In that situation, comments from uninvolved editors are neither terribly helpful nor useful (no offense intended to anyone who is uninvolved). We do still allow workshop proposals from uninvolved editors, however, as they can provide an outside view of things and could provide more moderate proposals than may be suggested by involved parties. Hersfold 00:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you for your quick and clear explanation. —Matheuler 16:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Totientdragooned's proposals at the workshop

Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence Hersfold 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Totientdragoon has made a series of noble proposals at the workshop. But until he can show where these issues have been breached up until now, it's hardly going to get to the root of the problem. The problem at speed of light has got absolutely nothing to do with original research, righting wrongs, soapboxing, disruptive behaviour, or fringe views. The problem at speed of light is about what balance to apply regarding two different concepts of the speed of light as in (1) the defined speed of light in SI units that is beyond measurement, and (2) the physical speed of light as is measured in most other systems of units.

It follows therefore that Totientdragooned's proposals are tantamount to pre-empting the judgement. The proposals assume that some of the involved editors have been guilty of breaching these issues. Until it can be proved that some of the editors have been guilty of disruptive behaviour, or soapboxing, or whatever, then these proposals are totally irrelevant as far as solving the problem is concerned, and they should be shelved until the judgement is completed. In fact, Totiendragoond's proposals are merely a re-statement of the existing wikipedia rules. David Tombe (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. They are proposed principles, not evidence or findings of fact about any particular party.TotientDragooned (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. But they are already part of wikipedia's rules and regulations. We need to be aware of the fact that one side in particular in this dispute is making unsubstantiated allegations about behaviour. I am not interested in sanctions being imposed against anybody. However, when all of this is over, I would hope that warnings are given to all parties who have made unsubstantiated allegations, because it is those unsubstantiated allegations that have been the only thing so far that have disrupted the debate on the speed of light talk page. David Tombe (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is about the workshop... why is it on the evidence talk page? Anyone mind if I move the thread over there? Hersfold 16:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, Yes, you can move it over there. I didn't realize that a talk page existed for the workshop. David Tombe (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Scope of this case

It is in the best interests of the community to have a broad scope for this case. The scope presented by arbitrator Vassyana makes good sense. Attempts to limit this scope in order to avoid scrutiny for problematic behavior should not be entertained. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is in the best interests of the community to keep the scope of this case focused upon Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light. The introduction of material and allegations based upon other pages will take place with inadequate context, and may be weighed incorrectly. If a broadly based decision with broad implications is entertained, the case should be drawn up that way and should invite comment and evidence for the purpose that is envisioned; it is not acceptable to invite evidence and opinion on a narrow topic and then allow incomplete allegations to be brought in from venues where other issues were at play, and where a different dynamic existed. That is not to say that lessons learned from the present dynamic at Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light may not have broader implications, especially for the conduct of Talk pages and the proper enforcement of WP:NPA and WP:Talk. However, using the narrow case of Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light as a pretext for dragging in discontents that arose in other venues, and bringing them for judgment in a surrounding where adequate assessment and complete evidence is unavailable, is unreasonable and unjust. Brews ohare (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I agree. The case was proposed exclusively in relation to the speed of light and it was accepted on that basis. If the case is widened to include debates that took place a year ago on other articles, then it would become necessary to call upon a wider pool of witnesses. The matter would have to be re-initiated with statements from those additional witnesses who were involved at, say centrifugal force, as to why any actions needed to be taken in relation to a page that is now calm. Clear evidence would need to be presented regarding what the supposed original research or disruptive behaviour had actually entailed. I notice that they have only mentioned pages that you and I were involved with, and that they haven't mentioned any pages that the opposition in this dispute have been involved with in our absence. This again illustrates the presumption of guilt that has prevailed throughout the entire preceedings. If there had been matters warranting discipline on those pages, then that discipline would have surely been enforced at the time. David Tombe (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors subject to arbitration may have all their actions scrutinized. They don't get to limit the scope. In this case there are colorable suggestions that there's a pattern of disruptive behavior. Of course the editing at other articles can and should be considered. Jehochman 19:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, The term 'colorable suggestions' is an interesting term. Those who are are making these colorable suggestions ought to be obliged to very swiftly back these colorable suggestions up with hard evidence. Were the administrators ever aware of a problem at ] over a year ago? What was the nature of that suggested problem? Who are the witnesses? Was Steve Byrnes perhaps the one at fault for wanting to claim in the introduction that there are two Faraday's laws of electromagnetic induction? These are matters that need to be swiftly attended to before Totientdragooned can be allowed to propose that I be banned from all physics related articles simply on a vague inuendo from Steve Byrnes, who rather than clarifying his accusations chose to go into a long rant about the JFK assassination. David Tombe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman: I am undoubtedly naive about these proceedings, and when I was invited to make an initial statement it never occurred to me to go back years and discuss every encounter I ever had with Dicklyon (for example) and why I was right and he was wrong, and why I understood things and was civil, while he was annoying, truculent, and deliberately disingenuous, and how I evolved over the months into an ever more capable editor, while Dicklyon steadily slumped into becoming a nasty curmudgeon. (Of course, this is all a bit colorful, to get the point across.) Now it appears Dicklyon can drag things in from anywhere and state the case as he wishes with whatever diffs he thinks are in his favor and make no attempt at balance at all. The arbitrator obviously cannot possibly dredge back and restore balance, recreate the dynamic of what was happening then, or assess whether everything turned out OK or not, or whether attitude has changed with time. It would be exhausting for me to do that myself for every editor that wishes to drag up their own examples out of context and put their own spin on things, round up my own team of positive players to testify on my behalf, etc. Frankly, that is not what I signed up for, it is not what the case originated as, and I find it all disturbing indeed. The only way I can see to narrow this inquiry down to where some kind of accurate picture can be constructed is to look at Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light and regard other flotsam and jetsam from the WP archeological past as possibly (big grain of salt) casting some light on what happened on Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light period, and not as being on the same footing.

In any event, I find an emphasis upon the behavior of individuals to be misplaced, as the focus really should be upon methodology for promoting useful Talk pages and avoiding stupid backbiting pie-throwing contests. Yes, somebody threw pies, but it isn't the pie thrower that has to be looked at; it is the inadequate regulation of perfectly obvious bad behavior that draws the flies to the dung, and encourages more crap. Brews ohare (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I don't think we had much interaction before May of this year, but feel free to add an evidence subsection about my behavior if I did something wrong that should be examined. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dick: My first encounter with you was in May 2007 where we had a little run-in over "analog" vs. "analogue". I abandoned that one. We collaborated on a number of semiconductor device articles MOSFET, Early effect, etc. More recently the physics articles have come up. I think you are aware that you have not always been civil - remember the turd you left me on my user page because you couldn't understand the purpose of my adding an historical reference? That little episode led to a complete rewrite of that section which thankfully brought in an historian that could read Danish. Brews ohare (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Unfortunately once dispute resolution reaches arbitration, the parties have very little control over the scope of the case, and should expect to have all of their editing scrutinized to determine if there's been a large-scale pattern of disruptive behavior. My one piece of advice is to focus on what matters: are there any instances where you brought up a technical error in speed of light or other physics article, amicably discussed the error on the talk page, then had that change implemented on the article after consensus agreed there was a problem? What about diffs showing that other editors, besides you, David Tombe, and Count Iblis, have legitimate concerns about the redefinition of the meter, and believe that this discussion is worth having? Diffs demonstrating your willingness to disengage when opposed by a majority, after an appropriate amount of discussion, even if the majority is wrong? Adding these kinds of diffs to the evidence page would, in my opinion, be tremendously helpful to your case. " back years and discuss every encounter ever had with Dicklyon" is probably much less helpful. I'm not an arbitrator, so of course take this advice with an appropriate amount of salt and use your own judgement, but I hope it's something you'll consider. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that well-intentioned advice, which comes too late I am afraid. I do not have the energy to go back and rearrange all the furniture. Beyond that, I have found this experience so distasteful as to discourage my participation. My perspective is that a huge battle has grown around what is really nothing at all, and deliberate distortion, vicious attacks and entirely unwarranted accusations have been made. My enjoyment in contributing is nonexistent, I recognize that hours of work drafting figures, finding sources, explaining issues, are pissed on, and huge numbers of editors I have never worked with (and hopefully never will) have jumped on me just because they figured it was a lot of fun. My respect for the WP editing community (with a few wonderful exceptions) is now nonexistent, association is a negative, and I draw no pleasure from interacting with them. I restrain myself from evaluating their acumen, their motives, and their education. IMO they are not serious about WP except as a platform for peacocking. I wish I felt better about this, and I wish my original enthusiasm for the WP project were still with me. I would be better off doing other things. My wife agrees enthusiastically. Brews ohare (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Totientdragooned takes on the role of cheer leader in the public gallery

Totientdragooned styles himself as an 'inclusionist'. You can see this fact proudly advertised on his user page . This is in stark contrast to his behaviour at this arbitration hearing. As a knee-jerk reaction to unsubstantiated allegations by Tim Shuba, he has decided to propose that I get banned from all physics related articles for a period of one year. He has not explained exactly how this would help with the impasse at the speed of light article, which I have had very little to do with, and which is the subject of this hearing. So what is Totientdragooned's evidence that I have been editing tenditiously at Faraday's law of induction? Why has this vacuous allegation been allowed to interrupt the hearing? Steve Byrnes has categorically stated that I have not been inserting original research or fringe views into the articles. So why does Totientdragooned then accuse me of this and claim to be parroting the evidence of Steve Byrnes? The arbitration committee are supposed to be judging this case carefully on the merits of real evidence, and not on the noise coming from the public gallery. I suggest that the public gallery be closed down for the remainder of the hearing and that Totientdragooned's proposals be removed from the workshop noticeboard forthwith as they are destructive to the neutral environemnt of the hearing, and they indicate that Totientdragooned doesn't have the remotest grasp of what the dispute at speed of light is about. David Tombe (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you sit down for a while, calm down, and then remove your comments above. You can remove these ones as well, so long as you just scrub the above. Physchim62 (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Scope of Workshop page

Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of the Workshop page (this is my first experience as a party in an arbitration), but much of the extensive argumentation on the Workshop page appears to me to be out of place. The discussion of specific proposed principles has degenerated into broad arguments and counterarguments about who misbehaved, rather than discussion of the specific proposed principles. In this regard, it resembles the behavior on article talk pages and project talk pages (and also some user talk pages) that led to this arbitration and to several AN/I incidents. —Finell (Talk) 18:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. See here. Also see the section above the linked one which states, "Comments made by the parties during the Arbitration case may be taken into account by the Committee in setting any remedies, and continued evidence of disruptive behavior is often seen as evidence that milder remedies (warnings or probation) will not have the desired effect, leading to topical or general bans." Some of the behaviors in this case have indeed paralleled those that precipitated the case, a pattern which can be expected not to escape notice by the arbitrators. Tim Shuba (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you are talking about the provocative behaviour of editors Physchim62 and Totientdragooned in attempting to get some of the disputing parties banned. David Tombe (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk note: When I get a chance (unfortunately, I'm about to head to class at the moment) I will go through and see if any discussion needs to be brought back to the original topic. If there are any instances of particularly incivil or inappropriate comments, anyone is welcome to leave me a note on my talk page. Hersfold 18:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And while it's sort of off topic for this particular discussion, I'd also point out that what is proposed here will not necessarily end up on the proposed decision or the final decision. The workshop is intended to gauge what sort of outcome the parties would like to see, and what they feel the main core of the dispute is. Therefore, a ban proposal here may not lead to a ban proposal on the proposed decision, and the lack of one here doesn't mean there won't be one on the PD. That said, if someone is proposing you be banned from anything, it would be in your interest to watch your conduct for the remainder of the case as well as provide evidence (in the proper location) that shows you're not being disruptive. Adding evidence to show others are being disruptive isn't going to help your own case as much (see WP:NOTTHEM). Hersfold 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not referring to incivility on the Workshop page. I am referring to lengthy argument in the nature of, "I'm not pushing fringe views", when the issue is whether a proposed principle is correctly stated or should be adopted. —Finell (Talk) 20:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand. The same thing applies, though - if you feel something is getting entirely out of hand and I seem to be either missing or not seeing it, feel free to let me know. Incivility is a bit more severe, but in the interest of keeping things in order, I'd like to know if I'm missing wildly off-topic debates too. Hersfold 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Process?

Can an admin or arbitrator tell us how this case is supposed to proceed? I've been pretty much avoiding the discussion/workshop so far, as it seems like just more of the usual interminable discussion that the case was complaining about. If there's a process that will help this to get to a resolution, let us know what it is. I can't imagine than anyone is going to actually read all this stuff, but it's a good example of some of the editing style that makes collaboration so difficult. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently we're in the evidence/workshop phase. During this phase, parties and others may submit evidence they feel is relevant to the matter at hand on the /Evidence page. They may also propose various principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions on the /Workshop. The purpose of the Workshop is for the Arbitration Committee to get a feel for what the parties believe to be the main causes of the dispute, how it can be remedied, and other questions of that nature. After some time, Arbitrators will begin making workshop proposals of their own, again to see how the parties react to them and get feedback. After this time, the drafting Arbitrator will begin making proposals on the /Proposed Decision page, which is where the Arbitration Committee will vote in the Final Decision for the case. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration can probably give you some more information, but this covers most of it. Hersfold 22:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Typically, this page is most useful when the arbitrators have posted some proposed remedies for comment. We value critique on our draft proposals, but we don't usually put much weight on tons of comments saying "yeah!" or "boo!" It's true that a lot of this sort of partisanship goes on in the workshop, but it doesn't normally help your case. Cool Hand Luke 04:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tombe's statement re: "battalions of the relativistic army"

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop#David Tombe

Note: I moved this section because it was in Tombe's section, but I have my own comments below. Cool Hand Luke 19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• The "spearhead battalions of the relativistic army"???? I couldn't make it up if I tried! Meanwhile, David Tombe refuses to answer simple questions about his "theory" like "what does it predict?" and "How does it differ, in terms of practical measurements, from those used by everyone else?" He has another chance to do so here. Physchim62 (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

David, the main problem I'm having in analyzing Talk:Speed of light is understanding why this dispute has persisted for so long. The sources simply do not present the 1983 definition of a meter as any kind of enigma at all. Contrary to what you've said, 26 years is a very long time in research science, and the definition is mentioned in the textbooks I used several years ago. They say the same thing that has been argued on the talk page umpteen times by a half dozen editors: namely, when the speed of light is measured, one is now simply calculating the length of the meter. It's not unmeasurable as you've repeatedly claimed, any more than it's sensible to say that the rod in France was unmeasurable in the pre-1950s SI system (yeah, it was defined as one meter, but the point of measuring it is to provide a reference to other lengths). This isn't conceptually difficult.

More importantly (and this is the part where Misplaced Pages policy comes into play), none of the sources present it as a baffling tautology—and we must follow the sources. While your interpretation of suppression by a "relativistic army" is illuminating, I will not support any finding that writing articles within widely-accepted scientific frameworks is akin to belonging to a cabal—let alone a "battalion." Cool Hand Luke 19:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, This diff here may help shed some light on your query . When I first got involved in this in early August, I noticed that there were some very bad inaccuracies in the history section regarding Maxwell's work on linking the electric and magnetic constants to the speed of light. I set about to fix those errors, but my first edit was immediately reverted by Martin Hogbin with the caption "No crackpot physics". That immediately alerted me to the motive behind it all. I had already warned Brews on his talk page that he may be sailing too close to the special theory of relativity controversy. Maxwell's work involves the luminiferous aether which is the anti-thesis of the special theory of relativity, and that is why it set the alarm bells ringing. Tim Shuba soon moved in and deleted the entire section on the luminiferous aether.

My guess is that Brews simply couldn't understand why he was encountering so much resistance to his attempts to make a very basic point, and that he felt that it was his duty to the readers to keep pushing for the truth. And his argument is correct. The speed of light when expressed in SI units is 299,792,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds, every second. That tells us absolutely nothing about the physical speed of light. The physical significance of the speed of light has been cancelled out of the expression, and Brews felt that it was important to explain this fact in the introduction for the benefit of the readers. Surely you must realize that such a trivial clarification would not normally encounter such a prolonged and determined resistance unless there was some kind of hidden motive.

By the way, the administrator Jehochman that banned me on 19th August asked an interesting question on the workshop project page. I couldn't help thinking that he is actually beginning to get somewhat amused about all this. He wanted to know why he couldn't use a meter stick to measure the speed of light. He seemed to think that it was me that was causing the trouble. But when his ally Physchim62 came back with answer "But you would measure the speed of light relative to the average length of your metersticks", Jehochman disappeared. I can't help thinking that Jehochman is maybe now thinking the same as myself and wondering why he ever got involved. Who on Earth could possibly understand a statement such as "But you would measure the speed of light relative to the average length of your metersticks"? That really is Alice in Wonderland physics. David Tombe (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Cool Hand Luke's question, the reason that the discussion has lasted so long is that Brews ohare and David Tombe have fixed ideas about the 26-year-old redefinition of the SI metre, wrote and wrote without listening to others, paid no attention to the explanations of other editors (other than to belittle them), and were determined to argue and re-argue their position despite the lack of supporting WP:RSs. Tombe is motivated by his disbelief in 20th century physics. He accuses physicists, including those who edit Misplaced Pages, of conspiring to defend their fallacious science against the "truth" as Tombe imagines it. His remarks about "battalions of the relativistic army" and "the special theory of relativity controversy" (which exists only in the minds of Tombe and other FRINGE relativity deniers) spring from that context. His post immediately above illustrates Tombe's point of view, his ascribing motivations to others, and also his contempt for other editors and for real physicists. Finell (Talk) 21:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I shan't repeat myself. I posed two questions above, David Tombe still has the opportunity to answer them should he wish and should he be able to. That he has (yet again) chosen not to is – to me – rather telling. Physchim62 (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A point that I repeatedly raised but which was never rebutted is that while it is a tautology, it doesn't mean that it's useless: many people have an idea of how long a metre is, even if they don't know how it's defined. To these readers, saying "the speed of light in vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s" tells "so, in a time roughly that between two consecutive heartbeats of mine when I'm calm, light travels a distance about 300 million times the width of my bed. Whoa, that's fast!" By the same token, saying that there are three feet in a yard is a tautology because of the way the foot is defined, but that doesn't make it useless. Ditto for saying that the triple point of water is 273.16 K (0.01 °C, 32.02 °F). In particular, all of mathematics consists of tautologies (as all mathematical statements logically follow from the definitions of the terms in them, without possibly being able to be false), but that doesn't make all of mathematics useless. --___A. di M. 09:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A. di M., The bottom line is this. Can I still go into a shop and buy a meter stick, and place it across the plates of a capacitor? And if the reading is 2cms, can I then use that value for the separation distance d in the experiment that measures electric permittivity? Can I still substitute d into the equation C = εA/d ? I would say 'yes'. But the others say 'no', and the experiment in question, which is a historically very important experiment dating back to 1856, has disappeared from the textbooks since 1983. That is clearly an important change worth noting.

And ultimately this all comes down to establishing why Martin Hogbin was so keen to (1) obstruct Brews ohare from elaborating on the special details surrounding the speed of light when expressed in SI units, and (2) to revert the history section edit of mine here , and which relates to that important experiment of 1856. David Tombe (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read the replies of others (myself included), you'd already know the answer to your question about the Weber–Kohlrausch experiment. You haven't, nor have you daigned to reply to the questions I put to you on the evidence talk page: 1) what is the difference between the "actual physical speed of light" and the one used to define the metre; 2) what are the "full practical consequences" of the redefinition of the metre in 1983, in your eyes.

For the benefit of others (because evidence suggests that David Tombe will not read this paragraph) David quotes a classical equation for the capacitance of a plate capacitor: the equation suggests that you can calculate the capacitance by knowing the distance between the two plates and the area of the plates. That is true (subject to boundary conditions which are well understood), it has been standard physical theory now for more than 150 years. You can only calculate the capacitance as well as you can measure length, either to get the distance between the two plates or to get the area of the plates. There is no tautology involved in its use with a unit of distance defined in terms of the speed of light. If it has disappeared from textbooks since 1983 (not true, David has only provided us with a single pre-1983 source that it has ever been included recently), then maybe it is because this experiment is pointless in the current state of physical theory. A version of the same experiment was used to measure the speed of light (ie, assuming that the underlying theory was valid) as early as 1907 . Physchim62 (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is another example of Physchim62's attempts to totally misrepresent, confuse, and obfuscate the issue. In relation to his first question, there is no difference between the physical speed of light and the speed of light that is used to define the metre. Nobody ever said that there was. Physchim62 even passed a motion on this matter at the workshop and it totally fooled arbitrator Cool hand Luke. Cool Hand Luke was quick to agree with Physchim62. Well of course, because the motion is absolutely true. But that has never been what the controversy has been about. The controversy has been about the fact that when the speed of light is then expressed in terms of this new metre it becomes a defined quantity that is beyond measurement. And Physchim62 has just shot himself in the foot by providing a convenient source which states,

The new definition of the meter, accepted by the 17th Confe´rence Ge´ne´rale des Poids et Mesures in 1983, was quite simple and elegant: “The metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.” A consequence of this definition is that the speed of light is now a defined constant, not to be measured again.

Thank you very much Physchim62 for this source. David Tombe (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No problems for the source: if you actually read other peoples' contributions to the talk pages, you would have had it long ago. For example, the exact same webpage was cited here, more than ten days ago. If you were to read the source, it explains why it was decided to define the metre in terms of the speed of light and not some other possible solution to the problem: the reason is somewhat different from the ones that you and Brews ohare have been spouting over the last months, so I guess that you two will simply ignore it, just as you have systematically ignored anything which goes against the ideas you wish to force down the throats of Misplaced Pages readers.

And you still haven't answered my second question: 2) what are the "full practical consequences" of the redefinition of the metre in 1983, in your eyes. Physchim62 (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if the "actual, physical speed of light" is the same as the one used to define the 1983 metre, as you have now (thankfully) admitted, how can it be "measurable" and "unmeasurable" at the same time? Or are you simply saying that we cannot measure length any more? Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by David Tombe (moved from workshop)

Placeholder. 22:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Principles

This entire problem was caused by Physchim62 and Jehochman

Physchim62 has totally misrepresented the dispute at speed of light. The dispute is about the distinction between the physical speed of light and the defined speed of light. Physchim62 has been trying to make out that the dispute is about the fact that myself and Brews ohare have been trying to allege that there is a distinction between the physical speed of light and the speed of light that is used to define the meter. Not so. We have been saying that there is a distinction between the physical speed of light and the defined speed of light. In sewing this confusion, Physchim62 has already got arbitrator Cool Hand Luke on side. Cool hand Luke looked at Physchim62's proposal and instantly said 'I suspect that you are right'. Cool Hand Luke of course didn't realize that nobody was actually arguing with Physchim62's proposal.

Physchim62 has revealed during the course of this hearing that he is already familiar with administrator Jehochman. While arguing with myself and Brews ohare at the speed of light talk page, Physchim62 went to AN/I and accused me of disruptive behaviour. Jehochman moved in swiftly and page banned me without any apparent investigation whatsover. The pressure then mounted on Brews ohare, and an attempt was made to have him page banned too. The result of that attempt was that my own ban was upgraded by Jehochman even though I had honoured the existing ban. Jehochman then tried to get me blocked for voting in a motion to ban Brews ohare. (I of course voted against the proposal to ban Brews but my edit was deleted twice by Jehochman). This was a major case of bully boy tactics. This arbitration hearing has now revealed the fact that Jehochman knows nothing about the content matter of the dispute and that his ally Physchim62 is totally confused. Together, these two have hatched a storm in a tea cup and instigated some gross injustices. I suggest that these two editors are severely warned about their behaviour and that the the speed of light pages be protected for a period of six months until the heat dies down. I also suggest that the arbitrators admonish Dicklyon for his recent uncalled for invective against myself and Brews ohare. David Tombe (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is actually not a principle, or even a good faith attempt to write on. Perhaps you misunderstand: proposed principles are general site policies and norms that we would use to help resolve the dispute. This is a rant. I've moved it to the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 01:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose: This isn't a proposed principle; it is a combination of multiple proposed findings of fact and proposed remedies. These proposed findings and remedies are unsupported by diffs or other evidence. They are also untenable based on history: the "problem" was already evident by March 2009 (and probably began earlier), with Brews ohare pushing a POV that is unsupported by reliable sources. I don't believe that Jehochman was involved until July or August, and then solely as a neutral admin attempting to enforce behavioral policies and guidelines. Physchim62 was not involved in this dispute for most of the many months that it raged on, until August. However, Tombe's long-winded fulmination here is a further illustration of his own disruptive behavior: assuming bad faith, attacking and demeaning others (e.g., "bully boy tactics"), and even accusing Arbitrator Cool Hand Luke of having been fooled by Physchim62 (and thereby charging that Cool Hand Luke can neither read nor reason). Tombe writes, "Physchim62 has revealed during the course of this hearing that he is already familiar with administrator Jehochman." What is that supposed to imply? Conspiracy? Tombe, who admittedly not a professional scientist, accuses others of knowing "nothing about the content matter of the dispute" and being "totally confused". The same Tombe admits elsewhere that he was ignorant of the 26-year-old definition of the metre until last month. What hubris! Finell (Talk) 18:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, I am seeing endless rants from other editors at the workshop. They are talking about what sanctions to impose on myself and Brews ohare as if we have already been found guilty of something. I am witnessing a tirade of malicious and unsubstantiated allegations that are being delivered under the guise of principles. Are counter allegations not welcome at the workshop? How come these other rants that make statements of guilt about myself and Brews ohare can be classified as 'findings' by yourself, yet similar accusations against Jehochman and Physchim62 get cast into the talk page and labelled as a rant? Am I detecting the signs of bias here?

Let's please see the facts fully investigated before we start talking the language of sanctions. You have allowed the myth of 'behavioural problems' to fester for too long. Let's hear once and for all what those behavioural problems are. And let's not find the injuries in the defensive actions. David Tombe (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is simply not a principle—at all. It's remarkably unhelpful. You're right that many of the proposals have been unhelpful, but this is the least constructive one yet posted. I've looked through the evidence, and I find a number of behavioral problems. I'm will try to post proposed findings and remedies to the workshop shortly. Cool Hand Luke 16:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Finell: Finell says: "the "problem" was already evident by March 2009 (and probably began earlier), with Brews ohare pushing a POV that is unsupported by reliable sources." I would like to see clearly stated what this so-called "problem" is and see diffs to support the assertion that Brews_ohare has pushed a POV unsupported by reliable sources. IMO there is no "problem" or POV at work here. The main problem is unsupported hearsay and rumor mongering such as Finell's allegations above, with no intent of being substantive comment on any issue related to Speed of light, but with the clear end result of slander and slur, of confusion and obfuscation, be that deliberate or a failure of intellect; Finell himself exhibits "long-winded fulmination" that "is a further illustration of his own disruptive behavior: assuming bad faith, attacking and demeaning others"; all of which sad behavior is, in fact, very adequately documented in the case against editors such as Dicklyon, Finell, Martin Hogbin, Physchim62 and others, with the diffs adequately provided on these evidence and workshop pages. No such documentation is presented in the case of Brews_ohare and D Tombe, who have remained civil for the most part despite repeated taunts and inflammatory remarks. Finell's actions are simply raising the heat and fanning the flame, not fixing a thing, but feeding an atmosphere where no sensible decisions can be made. Brews ohare (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The evidence of "pushing" is the approx. 230 edits to the article that you did between March 3 and March 23; the first two, on March 3 (this diff and this diff), were each immediately reverted (by TStein and myself, respectively) because they were nonsensical attempts to introduce complexity around the definition of c. LouScheffer tried to moderate your complexification, but wasn't able to keep up with you. Over time, your POV has driven your editing in many ways; in particular, when someone tries to moderate your POV, or move the article back toward what is well sourced, you just push harder. This is the disruptive behavior what was evident in March on this article, and continue to this day and on every article you engage with. Finell may have particular POV issues in mind, but this is what I observe, without studying your 230 or edits of that month in detail. Dicklyon (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Dicklyon above: Of course, counting editing contributions says little about content, and Dicklyon's selection of specific example diffs are not pushing a WP:Pov but are a (minor) rewording of a few lines of the introduction and the providing of a link to free space where the EM notion of vacuum is explained. All is entirely orthodox material, and doesn't change the sense of the text. To propose this "evidence" as a basis for an assertion that Brews_ohare has pushed material that is "unsupported by reliable sources" (Finell's words), and as an adequate justification for distortion of Brews_ohare's views and the instigation of uncivil vendetta, is an odd judgment. Brews ohare (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you still fail to see how your "minor rewording" changed the sense of the text from sensible to nonsense. Maybe the edit summaries weren't enough to clue you in to re-read your text? For example, in the one I reverted, you had "The speed of light in a vacuum is an important physical constant usually denoted by the symbol c. In free space, it is defined as exactly 299,792,458..." Can you not see that the definition of c is universal? That there's not a definition of c in free space and some other definition of c somewhere else? This was just your wanting to push your POV that "free space" is not the same as "vacuum", a point that you continue to belabor at every opportunity. But single diffs like this are not the problem; I was just trying to provide the example you asked for of what kind of pushing Finell was referring to. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Dicklyon: Once again, you choose to distort and fabricate and then dismiss your fabrications as nonsense. You are arguing with yourself, and pretending to argue with me. Brews ohare (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Definition of a Kangaroo Court

The case of Martin Hogbin

Martin Hogbin has made a few rants at the workshop to the extent that I have been pushing fringe views. This is a lie. This diff shows my interaction with Martin Hogbin at speed of light. I corrected material in the history section. This was very important material relating to the convergence of the measured speed of light with the measured parameters in electromagnetism. Martin reverted this edit with the caption "No crackpot physics please!". The arbitrators need to make Martin Hogbin accountable for his allegations. What are the fringe views that Martin is referring to? And why did Tim Shuba delete that entire section? David Tombe (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

David, you declared your crackpot agenda here. This edit was just one small part of your campaign to push it. I don't understand the weird co-dependence that you and Brews developed around this crackpot idea, since he clearly doesn't buy into it, but he seems to love having you around to help him generate massive quantities of stuff, as the two of you did at Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), where you attempted for so long to push the other end of this agenda. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Dick, Do you seriously think that I would have gone to Brews's talk page, in the full knowledge that anybody could read what I wrote, and say something that in anyway exposed a breach of wikipedia's rules and regulations on my part? Yes I've done original research off-wiki, and yes I hold views on these matters. But I never put those views into wikipedia articles. It doesn't matter if it was Maxwell's vortex sea that got me interested in centrifugal force. I was quite happy for any interested parties to know that. The point is that the centrifugal force article as I first found it was seriously lacking, in that it tried to make out that centrifugal force could only be explained within the context of rotating frames of reference. That is untrue, and we have all seen sources that deal with the planetary orbital problem without the involvement of rotating frames of reference. You made a determined effort to keep that fact off the article. You were the one that was pushing a point of view, and not me. I was determined to expose the viewpoint that centrifugal force is a real outward push that arises in connection with rotation. You carefully moved everything to do with absolute rotation to a branch article, and you managed to confine the planetary orbital equation to the history section, which you then shifted to a branch article. You are the one that is pushing an agenda. You are the one that is trying to hide things. You are trying to hide alot of things. You are trying to hide Maxwell's vortex sea, you are trying to hide centrifugal force, and you are trying to hide the distinction between the real speed of light and the defined speed of light.

The sum total that I would have put into the centrifugal force article, if I had been allowed to do so, would have been the radial planetary orbital equation, drawing attention to the centrifugal force term, and the fact that the solution is an ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola. Check the diffs if you like. But you were determined not to allow this important piece of information to appear in the article, even though it is standard textbook stuff. In fact, the truth is that I taught it to you last autumn. Last autumn you couldn't even handle elliptical orbits.

Now if I had gone further and said that two orbits sitting side by side will repel each other by centrifugal force, then that would have been original research. So don't try to pin me down on original research, based on my off-wiki activities which you obviously resent strongly. Who do you think should be writing these articles? Interested parties who have done research, or person's whose knowledge doesn't go past the circle on the blackboard with the teacher pointing along the tangent and drawing attention to the lack of centripetal force?

So getting to the point, did Martin then remove that section about Maxwell's vortex sea out of spite because I have done alot of research in that field? Is that what it all comes down to? David Tombe (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

David, I have no feelings about your off-wiki activities and opinions. But when you add stuff to wikipedia about aether vortices and centrifugal force, you're pushing a crackpot agenda, and that's what people are talking about and pushing back on. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Dick, show me where I have put my controversial views into the articles. Steve Byrnes started out along the road of similar allegations, but if you read his posts, you will see that he has admitted that I have never broken the rules. Read my latest reply to him on the issue of Biot-Savart which he brought up. There is alot of hype being stirred up here about nothing. Maxwell explained magnetic repulsion using centrifugal force. I agree with his explanation. I did planetary orbital theory at university and tackled all kinds of maths problems about trajectories and orbits. It pains me to see a wiki article about centrifugal force which claims that centrifugal force is something that only arises in a rotating frame of reference. It pains me to see you getting all upset about a section which deals with the pressure of the water on the walls of a bucket in a state of absolute rotation, and so much so that you feel you have to make a separate article for it. What exactly are you trying to hide? Your determination to hide something is greater than my determination to bring it to attention. And I am within the rules. But obviously relativity's outer defences encroach on stuff that is already in the textbooks. And we've seen how the textbooks themselves have been changing in the last 30 years in relation to this very controversy. And Martin cannot eliminate Maxwell's vortex sea from the history section just because of his prejudices. If the arbitrators back Martin on this, they will be setting a very dangerous precedent of selective deletion of history. David Tombe (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The section about Maxwell's vortex sea was removed because it is a theory which no serious physicist has used for more than one hundred years. You do realise that belief in the aether these days is the equivalent of belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, don't you? That you can ascribe any properties you like to the aether so long as you also state that they can never be measured and therefore can have no physical consequences? Physchim62 (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Physchim62, I'm not going to discuss the aether with you. Maxwell used the sea of molecular vortices to link the speed of light with the electromagnetic constants. That is part of history, and it is appropriate for it to be mentioned in the history section. It is not your prerogative to decide what should be in a history section based on your own prejudices. If what you said about the invisible pink unicorn is true, then why the fear of mentioning it in the history section? Why the determination to delete it? David Tombe (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue of importance here is the civil discussion of ideas that might go into an article. It is not about particular topics. If civility can be maintained, a reasonable compromise often can be reached. Without civility, a distorted article results.

Physchim62's comments about the Invisible Pink Unicorn are simply inflammatory counterproductive invective.

Intemperance over ideas little-used in one field or during one era is misplaced: the obvious example is particles and waves. A less obvious example is the aether. Vortices have been used as models of many physical phenomena, and their behavior is not crackpot physics, and not entirely relegated to historical interest only. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I am assuming that at least some of the arbitrators will see right through Physchim62's invisible pink unicorn analogy. Maxwell derived the famous equations of electromagnetism using the hydrodynamics a sea of molecular vortices, so it is hardly in the same league as the invisible pink unicorn. If it was in the same league, Martin wouldn't have deleted it from the history section. That was a cheap stunt by Physchim62 which was only suitable for an audience that is as common as muck. Be braced up for alot more gutter level tactics to unfold over the next few days. I see that Finell is well busy investigating matters relating to my block record last year. These guys are trying to win a scientific argument by default using dirty tactics. David Tombe (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold's closing of the discussion above

I fail to see what exactly the anonymous IP server was saying that warranted Hersfold's comments that he was not being helpful. What does trolling actually mean? This is another example of an arbitrator declaring for one side in the dispute. What did the IP server say that was less helpful than say Totientdragooned's calls to have me banned? The incivility in that discussion above came exclusively from those editors who rounded on the IP server and made assumptions of bad faith about his identity and motives. At any rate, I had already been aware of Hersfold's bias from the moment when he made this statement above,

That said, if someone is proposing you be banned from anything, it would be in your interest to watch your conduct for the remainder of the case as well as provide evidence (in the proper location) that shows you're not being disruptive. Adding evidence to show others are being disruptive isn't going to help your own case as much (Hersfold)

So what exactly does a statement like that mean in plain English? It means that somebody like myself who is at the receiving end of calls to be banned should be squeaky clean throughout the proceedings. In other words, unlike Tim Shuba or Physchim62, I should be eating humble pie at this hearing. It also reads that the onus is on the accused to prove their innocence. And it further reads that counter allegations will not be tolerated. This is fully in line with the pattern that was continued by Cool hand Luke. This is a kangaroo court beyond any doubt, as has been proved by Hersfold's decision to collapse the section that defined a kangaroo court. Arbitrators Cool Hand Luke and Hersfold are not neutral, and it is better that this fact should be out in the open so as to end this shameful charade once and for all. There's no point in arguing that I am shooting myself in the foot by drawing attention to these matters. Hersfold and Cool Hand Luke were against me from the start and nothing was going to change, so it's better that they are aware that I am aware. Let them do their worst. But it's not me that's on trial here. It is wikipedia. I was trying to help students out by making confused topics in electromagnetism easier to understand. It took me a long time myself when I was a student to untangle topics like electromagnetic induction. But I've been continually obstructed, in many cases by Ph.D. students who are still only learning the subject. So if the arbitrators feel that these Ph.D. students know better, then so be it. But my advice to them, before making any fatal decisions, would be to call Christopher Thomas to account regarding his rant (or "principles" according to whose side of the fence you are on) on the evidence page in which he claimed that my enquiry at WT:PHYS amounted to disruptive behaviour. Under what stretch of the imagination could that discussion about electric permittivity possibly have been classified as disruptive behaviour? It couldn't. And anybody who says that that discussion was disruptive is lying. David Tombe (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold is not an arbitrator. He's a clerk doing his best to manage this case, and I think he's doing a pretty good job.

Your comments are enlightening about how confusing this process really is; we should really create a guide to writing principles and findings, because users very often propose unsuitable headings.

For the record, anyone can edit these pages, but I usually find non-parties less helpful. So when I made a novel section for parties to state their case, I said that non-parties should not comment and that users should only comment in their own section. You may have noticed that I removed Psychim's statement, which he placed in your section in contravention of the rules for that section, see #Tombe's statement re: "battalions of the relativistic army". Cool Hand Luke 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, I'll willingly help you to write a guide for arbitration proceedings. I would base it on standard principles of jurisprudence as is used in English and American law. I would insist that block records are only visible to a trusted group of Jimbo Wales's closest advisors. I think that would be the most fundamental reform that needs to be addressed in the entire wikipedia system. Previous convictions in a real court case are religiously kept secret from the jury, and the judge only gets to see them when it comes to the sentencing stage. How is a person supposed to operate if very time they get into a dispute, their opponent sees their block record and opportunistically starts up an AN/I thread to get them blocked on a popular vote? Far too many blocks are made on the basis of previous blocks.

I would then insist that malicious allegations against opponents in the hearing are swiftly backed up with evidence. The accused should be given a chance to defend or explain. That particular principle has been 'skipped' in this hearing. More control should be taken of the proceedings in order to prevent accusers from using the reactions to provocation as the evidence that they didn't have in the first place. We can't have an arbitration hearing in which a person comes in innocent but goes out guilty because he was provoked into being abusive.

And another important point. I've noticed the emphasis on motions. Investigations are not about passing motions. Imagine a man in the dock for bank robbery, and let's imagine that he is innocent. What would he think if the court started passing motions condemning robbery and putting it to the vote? How would he feel if the judge asked him "Don't you think it's wrong to rob a bank?" You need to get away from all these oblique methods that allow the presumption of guilt to fester.

There have been too many witnesses at this trial who have given evidence and then gone over to the gallows to argue about the length of the rope before the judge or jury have even examined the evidence. David Tombe (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what the Arbitration Committee is. ArbCom is not the US Supreme Court, where both sides get to make their case and the decision unilaterally goes one way or the other. ArbCom reviews a history of evidence, and meters out sanctions as they feel appropriate to prevent disruption on the project. Naturally, that includes a review of past conduct and the results of said conduct. I don't see how your points here relate to this case or the dispute it's about. That's partially why I closed the discussion above - it was focusing more on bashing ArbCom in general, and had nothing to do with the case. If your purpose here is to reform ArbCom into some sort of actual legal system (which, by the way, it isn't), then you need to bring the discussion elsewhere. This page is for discussion of the proposals on the workshop; nothing else. Hersfold 04:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell has gone over the top

Finell is obsessed. He is in the process of digging up as much filth about me as he can possibly find. He wants to win a scientific argument by default by getting me expelled. He is going into the minutiae of my block record last year, when it doesn't in any way relate to the issues in this case. He has a list of people from the past to be informed. He is talking about having me investigated for sockpuppetry in relation to this arbitration hearing. If Finell is taken seriously, then the precedent will be set to ban an editor who has been blocked in the past simply on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. David Tombe (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You just compared his "tactics" to Goebbels, yet you say he's "gone over the top"?

I'm finding your commentary increasingly offensive. You should really tone it down. Failure to do so may result in blocks. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, Once again you have demonstrated more of a concern for the reaction than the provocation. Finell has been very active in trying to discredit me. He keeps repeating over and over again that I have behaved disruptively, and he hasn't produced a single shred of evidence for his allegations. He keeps going on about my block record, and right now he is investigating it in detail. If he comes along to this arbitration hearing with all those details, it will prove nothing in relation to this case. You cannot punish the same actions a second time around. Finell is simply engaging in calumny, and you don't seem to be concerned about that in the slightest. You are being totally unreasonable in wrapping my knuckles for being provoked by his actions. Your behaviour is clearly not that of a neutral arbitrator.

There was a dispute at the speed of light article. Can you please show me a single shred of evidence that my behaviour was in any way less acceptable than the behaviour of anybody else? If you block me, it will be a gross abuse of the arbitrator's responsibility. I came to this hearing with a positive attitude. I made proposals and I didn't vindictively ask for anybody to be banned. But all I am seeing over at the workshop right now is hysteria, with a group calling for me to be banned. And why? Because I stated that the SI speed of light is a tautology, which it is. And here is a quote from a source supplied by Colonel Warden

Consider for instance the way a meter is currently defined ... With this definition it is clear that the speed of light will always be a constant, a statement akin to saying that the speed of light is 1 light year per year. One then does not need to perform any experiment to prove the constancy of the speed of light: it is built into the definition of the units and so has become a tautology.

— John D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies, Charles L. Harper, Science and ultimate reality, Cambridge University Press, 2004, page 531

That is all you need to read. A source has been provided. The other side have not provided a single source for their point of view. Brews has already provided three more sources. Charvest provided a source, and Physchim62 shot himself in the foot by providing a source. David Tombe (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is your evidence for your allegations? I don't see anything in your response here that justifies personal attacks such as the Nazi reference. Hersfold 03:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, You say that you don't see my evidence? I was alleging that Finell has been repeatedly making allegations that I have been guilty of disruptive behaviour. He has been repeating these allegations endlessly throughout these pages. It is impossible not to have seen Finell's endless allegations against me. Finell has provided no evidence for his allegations, and he is the one who should be producing his evidence first since he has been making the allegations first. So please don't turn the whole issue upside down. And it's interesting how you have managed to sensationalize the so-called nazi reference. On other occasions when editors mention Hitler as a metaphor for dictatorial behaviour, it is brushed off as Godwin's law. I used the name Goebbels as a metaphor for repetitive propaganda. It is no big deal, but you have decided to make it into a big deal. It's a shame on you that following this ongoing provocation from Finell that you can only see fit to threaten me with a block. It appears that you can see no wrong in what Finell has been doing. You can only see evil in the reaction but not in the provocation. Supposing I was to go to the workshop and state that Finell has an ongoing established record of disruptive behaviour and assumptions of bad faith, would I instantly be asked to produce evidence? I'll bet I would.

More importantly, what about the quote from the source above about the speed of light being a tautology? Did you see that? Is that not the most important thing in the case? Was that not the issue that caused the dispute, and about which claims were repeatedly made that no references were being produced by Brews ohare? David Tombe (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the arbcom looks at behavior problems; they don't involve themselves in content disputes. But I'd be interested in knowing when Brews provided that source. I think it would be OK to say that some authors have termed the current exact value of the speed of light as a tautology, as light year is, and cite that; if he tried to do so, let me know, maybe we can find an appropriate way to put it into the article. If we do it right, I doubt that it will get much pushback. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dick, It was Colonel Warden who produced the source at the evidence talk page. David Tombe (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, as I suspected; I didn't recall Brews ever trying to add "tautology" except as unsourced. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dick, It's been a right storm in a teacup. David Tombe (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

David, to reply to your response to me above, Finell has been providing evidence of your past disruption: your block log. You were unblocked slightly over a year ago from a block, initially for three months then indefinite, placed for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing against consensus. Since ArbCom resolves cases that include long-term disruption, mentioning a user's block log to show they have been sanctioned for disruptive behavior before is permissible. I have not seen that Finell has been using your block log as a part of personal attack, only as I describe in the previous sentence. Other users have provided evidence to assert that such disruptive behavior is continuing. I am not making a judgment on whether these assertions are accurate (that's ArbCom's job), I am simply stating that evidence has been provided and Finell's assertions are assertive, however not aggressive. Your comments, on the other hand, are highly offensive, as you are comparing a user to a Nazi leader, and then (after A. di M. called you out on it) switching to another prominent Axis leader to make a point (the WP:POINTy kind of point). It is unacceptable, and will stop. Now. Hersfold 07:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, It's a pity that you have felt the need to bring up the subject of my block record from last year. In what respect does that block log back up Finell's latest allegation here which states that I have been guilty of disruption at the speed of light? Your exoneration of Finell's activities have simply encouraged this latest instance. On another occasion I would happily have discussed the circumstances surrounding that series of blocks. But it is not relevant to this case. Whether that series of blocks was justified or not, the alleged behaviour in question has never been repeated. This hearing is about an impasse at the speed of light article, and the dynamic that led to this hearing began when Jehochman page banned me when I claimed that the SI speed of light was a tautology. Colonel Warden's source, quoted above, along with other sources, have confirmed that I was merely pointing out an obvious truth in the face of sustained obfuscation. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that I was engaging in disruptive behaviour. I was not trying to force anything into the main article. It is totally inappropriate for Finell to be highlighting the fact that I have got a block record. It effectively amounts to calumny. It's strange that you can't see that. On the other hand, you are trying far too hard to imagine offensive behaviour on my part in relation to my mention of Goebbels as a metaphor for repetitive propaganda. It is a well known metaphor which you seem to be trying to over sensationalize. If you cannot find any instances of disruptive behaviour on my part at the speed of light article, then there is absolutely no call whatsoever to be digging up my block record again. Nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever of disruptive behaviour on my part at speed of light. We have seen a number of editors who talk the language of diffs. They come along with a mountain of diffs as if that constitutes some kind of evidence. But when you open the diffs up, the cupboard is bare. We see alot of old diffs that go back to the time before my series of blocks last year. These old diffs have been re-hashed time and time again on AN/I boards. You cannot bring them up again as a justification for punishment in the absence of new evidence that I was editing articles against a consensus. The one diff in particular that I would like you to look at, would be the diff that was supplied by Christopher Thomas. I challenge you to find any disruptive behaviour on my part in that diff which relates to a thread at WT:PHYS. David Tombe (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you're from, then, because where I'm at, comparing someone to a Nazi is seriously offensive. I'm clearly not the only one who finds this inappropriate, either; Cool Hand Luke and A. di M. have both commented against your reference. That line of discussion is closed. To comment on the evidence situation, Finell is referring to the evidence brought up by other users in multiple sections on the evidence page. It's not necessary to flood the evidence page with the same diffs again and again when someone already has. Again, this is common practice. If you would like to provide some evidence as to how you have not been disruptive, you are free to do so on the evidence page. It is not my duty here as clerk to go looking for how you've been disruptive elsewhere - my concerns are limited to these Arbitration pages and preventing disruption here. In that role, I am trying to explain to you how things are working, why certain actions are being taken here and not there, and why certain comments are seen as acceptable and others are not. I feel as though I have explained this very thoroughly here. If you feel otherwise, I'm afraid I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to continue. I don't see that discussion is getting us anywhere except more frustrated. The main point I wish to make is that personal attacks here will not be tolerated; should they continue, I will take action as appropriate in my role as the case clerk, which may include blocks of increasing length and/or a ban from further participation on these pages. Hersfold 21:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, A block record in 2008 cannot be used as evidence of disruptive behaviour at the speed of light article in August 2009, under any modern principles of justice whatsoever. No evidence of disruptive behaviour has been provided in relation to this case. In this arbitration case we have seen a total toleration of malicious and unsubstantiated allegations coming from some of the parties. In one case, these malicious and unsubstantiated allegations get repeated daily. We have also seen that when allegations are made against birds of a different feather, that they are not tolerated, and that they result in threats to block. I saw your note in your own talk page regarding Finell's coup yesterday to have me evicted, and in which you told Finell that you didn't consider this action to be disruptive. You and Cool Hand Luke have demonstrated your bias quite clearly, and so there is no point in discussing the points that you have raised above. David Tombe (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Split the Workshop and Evidence pages into separate pages for each section

The pages are so large that it's hard to quickly read the proposals and comment on them. Count Iblis (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there much more to comment on? Per CHL's post, it's looking like the arbitrators will be moving on to discussing evidence, findings, and remedies amongst themselves shortly. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe we're maybe a week or so away from the proposed decision at this point; once CHL posts some proposals for findings and remedies, that'll be the next step. This is also far from the largest workshop I've seen; my last case's workshop was four times this size by the time the case closed. I don't think it's totally necessary to split this yet, but if it starts pressing up against 400,000 bytes I'll look into it. Hersfold 03:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of proposals by D Tombe

Revision as of 14:25, 1 October 2009 with Edit summary: clerk removing content and replacing with templates; the workshop page is not the place for presentation of evidence nor soapboxing in this manner. Please use expected formatting and conduct) deleted proposals by D Tombe. As this material seems to me to be D Tombe's historical perspective upon this case, is reasonably temperate, and contains sources, I am confused why it was deleted, and request some additional specifics about how the "formatting" might be changed to allow its posting. Personally, I find no more "soapboxing" here than in many other contributions by other editors, and think additional remarks by the clerk are necessary to avoid the appearance of censorship. Brews ohare (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I explained my actions on David's talk page. The workshop page is not the place to give lengthly speeches about how they are right and everyone else is wrong. Relevant information can be presented on the evidence subpage, and objective findings of fact based upon said evidence can be proposed on the workshop. This is not the first time David has made inappropriately worded posts to the workshop; see #Proposals by David Tombe (moved from workshop) above. Following that example, and advice from the Arbitrators, I will be moving his recent comments here as well shortly. Hersfold 14:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would add that it is not my intent to censor anyone at this case, and that I am always open for comment if it is needed. Hersfold 14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If a proposal comes from Finell, it is evidence. If it comes from me, it is soapboxing. That just about sums the whole situation up. David Tombe (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments removed from Workshop

This arbitration hearing came about as a result of attempts by Physchim62 and Headbomb to have myself and Brews ohare pagebanned from the speed of light article. The grounds for these requests were that Brews and I were alleging that the speed of light, when expressed in SI units is a tautology. It was alleged that we hadn't provided any sources for this assertion and that by continuing to argue the case that we were being disruptive.

Since this arbitration hearing began, there have been a stream of allegations that I have been disruptive, but none of these allegations have been proved. Nobody has been able to present a single edit of mine at speed of light that can be in any way considered to be disruptive. The only behaviour that has caused actual disruption at speed of light was the behaviour of Physchim62, and Headbomb by virtue of trying to get Brews and myself banned from the page. There was also the disruptive behaviour of adminsistrator Jehochman in obliging with Physchim62's request, hence increasing the pressure on Brews ohare.

Evidence has come to light since the beginning of these proceedings in the form of a quote from a source by Colonel Warden Which reads,

Consider for instance the way a meter is currently defined ... With this definition it is clear that the speed of light will always be a constant, a statement akin to saying that the speed of light is 1 light year per year. One then does not need to perform any experiment to prove the constancy of the speed of light: it is built into the definition of the units and so has become a tautology.

— John D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies, Charles L. Harper, Science and ultimate reality, Cambridge University Press, 2004, page 531

This evidence proves that the calls to ban myself and Brews ohare were totally unwarranted.

Proposed remedies

My proposed resolution is that the arbitrators formally present this source to Physchim62, Headbomb, and Jehochman in order to draw their attention to the error of their ways and that the arbitration proceedings then be brought to an end as there is clearly no case to be answered. David Tombe (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A message for Hersfold

Hersfold, I notice that you stated above that the onus is on the accused to prove their innocence. You also said,

If you would like to provide some evidence as to how you have not been disruptive, you are free to do so on the evidence page. (Hersfold)

I don't know what kind of evidence one would be expected to produce in order to prove their own innocence, but I have a diff here by Jimbo Wales himself which was made three days after I was page banned on 19th August at speed of light .

Jimbo's advice was that I produce a source. I saw no allegations of disruptive behaviour in Jimbo's edit. As regards putting this diff on the evidence page, I thought that the deadline had already expired. This issue can not be allowed to be obfuscated by trolleys full of boxes of sand that are being presented as evidence for the phantom behavioural problems.

I have now produced a source. Here is Colonel Warden's source again,

Consider for instance the way a meter is currently defined ... With this definition it is clear that the speed of light will always be a constant, a statement akin to saying that the speed of light is 1 light year per year. One then does not need to perform any experiment to prove the constancy of the speed of light: it is built into the definition of the units and so has become a tautology.

— John D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies, Charles L. Harper, Science and ultimate reality, Cambridge University Press, 2004, page 531

This quote should lay the matter to rest. David Tombe (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The tautology mentioned in this quote refers to the fact that the speed of light, as stated in terms of the speed of light, is always constant. It does not affect one's ability to compare the speed of light to other physical phenomena, which is what "measuring the speed of light" actually involves. Long story short, this doesn't say what you seem to think it's saying. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, messages directed at me should be left on talk page. It's very easy to get to and is conveniently linked in my signature. There is no guarantee that comments left on this page will be seen by me.

David, thank you for rephrasing your proposals on the workshop; it is now the responsibilities of the participants of this case to review your comments and respond accordingly. Once again, my concern here is not who is or is not responsible for the dispute this case is about, but that the conduction of this case is done in an orderly manner.

I would, however, point out that the Arbitration Committee does not rule on content, but primarily conduct, and so they are unlikely to consider the matter of this source you've provided. Hersfold 20:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No Christopher, It says exactly what I have been saying all along. The defined speed of light is a fixed number that is beyond measurement, and it is a tautology. The physical speed of light is something different that can be measured. David Tombe (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This source doesn't mention any such distinction. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not. But it confirms my claim that the new SI speed of light is a tautology, that being the claim that got me pagebanned. The other aspect of the argument follows naturally from that. The physical speed of light is a measured quantity and not a fixed number. David Tombe (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One does not get banned for an idea or a claim, but for a behavior. Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick, I think we're all getting a bit long in the tooth for this phantom behaviour yarn. I was banned because I was arguing that the SI speed of light was a tautology and it was badly upsetting people like Physchim62 and Headbomb. David Tombe (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

D Tombe suggests there exists resistance to particular content and, indeed, confusion about content is the beginning source of resistance. However, on top of that, is a built-in hostility to D Tombe. Whatever the source of this hostility, it should be possible for the opposing editors to restrain themselves and engage in logical discourse and presentation of sources. That course would lead to an improved article. But these opposing editors simply must vent their animosity, which impedes their clarity of mind and prevents them from being constructive: they think D Tombe is inevitably wrong, and that is the source of their thoughts, not an analysis of the actual issues. Brews ohare (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb's latest intervention

Headbomb's latest proposal to have tougher sanctions implemented against Brews ohare just about sums the whole situation up. Headbomb has already called for my absolute total blocking from wikipedia because I dared to question the issue of the experimental determination of electric permittivity at WT:PHYS in light of the new definition of the metre, and because I said that the new definition leads to the speed of light being a tautology. Headbomb has even since agreed with the latter assertion despite having asserted that I had been inserting fringe views into wikipedia. Headbomb, while adopting the airs of management, initially decided that Brews's crimes weren't as severe as mine and allowed for Brews to have a lesser punishment. That was very nice of Headbomb to be so lenient towards Brews. Brews nevertheless, fearing that he was about to suffer a gross miscarriage of justice, decided as a last resort to make representations in various places. His fears had been caused to a large degree as a consequence of management groupies, who weren't actually part of the real management, presuming to state what punishments lay in store for him. Headbomb now finds sufficient evil in Brews's defensive actions to call for a higher punishment for Brews. This truly does sum the whole situation up. It is summed up by 'provoction for the purposes of inciting a reaction, which can then be used as evidence to fill the gap that has been caused by lack of evidence in the first place'. David Tombe (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"dopting the airs of management"? First, there is no management here. Second, the purpose of the arbitration pages is to give everyone an opportunity to be heard. On the Project page, all parties are invited to propose relevant principles, findings of fact, and remedies for the Arbitrators to consider. In addition, Cool Hand Luke solicited the parties' answers to a broad question. Headbomb has as much right to express himself on these topics, including proposed remedies, as anyone else. Indeed, Tobme and Brewe have expressed themselves more on these pages than anyone else, and have no ground to complain when the rest of us do so. Third, as repeatedly stated here, this arbitration is about dispute resolution, not about "punishment". However, resolving some disputes and restoring a collaborative editorial environment may require restraints on editors who, in the Arbitrators' (not the parties') judgment, have disrupted the project, to avoid further disruption. Cool Hand Luke specifically asked the parties what "concessions" they would make toward resolving the dispute. The arbitrators would consider a party's voluntary concession, such as to change behavior or accept mentoring, in determining appropriate remedies. Accepting a voluntary restraint or change might avoid the need to impose a broader mandatory restraint. In a step in the wrong direction, Brews just withdrew the mild "concession" that he previously offered to make. Apparently, Brews was influenced by Tombe's bad advice despite Jehochman's attempt to warn him: Some Advice 2. That Brews is taking his advice from someone who has been sanctioned more than anyone else here (at least, so far as I am aware) does not reflect well on Brews' judgment. Finell (Talk) 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This string of red herrings fails to notice that nobody except Brews_ohare proposed any concessions, despite the so-called disputes in this Case being the result of a good deal of misbehavior by multiple parties. Brews ohare (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Although Brews's previous (since withdrawn) concession said he "would agree to avoid editing a range of article topics for an extended period (and to avoid certain editors)", I referred to it above as a "mild 'concession'", and put the word concession in quotation marks. I did so because (1) the range of topics and editors he would avoid was unstated, and more importantly (2) it came with a long string attached—one that would impose restraints, which go beyond existing policies and guidelines, on other editors in return. Now, Brews contends that my referring to his proposed concession as "mild" led him to withdraw it: User talk:DVdm#Sushi. That would involve a time reversal and violate causality, since I made my comment after Brews withdrew his previous concession. Nevertheless, in the interest of trying to salvage something out of all this, I am striking "mild" and the quotation marks from my comment above. I should have been more charitable and supportive of the concession that Brews did offer. Finell (Talk) 23:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Another "clarification" by Finell that misreads what was said and "takes the high ground". Brews ohare (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's Analysis

It is fully understandable that a non-physicist will take a while to tune into what the dispute at speed of light was all about. It even took me a few days myself, as can be seen from my edits of the first few days of August 2009 on both Brews ohare's talk page and on the talk page at 'speed of light'. Nobody can be blamed for not quickly grasping the subtlety of the argument.

But unfortunately one of the arbitrators 'Newyorkbrad' did actually grasp the subtely of the argument, but got the players the wrong way around! This then becomes a serious matter. Newyorkbrad has clearly demonstrated a bias in favour of Martin Hogbin, and we need to ask why. Is it because, based on his own own reversed findings of fact, that he believes that Martin has been correct in the argument, and that therefore Martin deserves more sympathy, and that Martin's incivilities can be brushed off as being minor infractions?

Does the situation now reverse when it becomes realized that it is actually Brews and I who agree with Newyorkbrad's finding that the human definitions do not actually affect the underlying physical reality of the speed of light?

Or has such a momentum now built up to have me punished, that there can be no turning back, and that even if Newyorkbrad realizes that he is in agreement with myself and Brews, that myself and Brews are still nevertheless the ones that need to be punished, since that is the way the bandwagon has been rolling?

I can see what is going to happen here. I am going to be punished as a scapegoat in order to save the face of the arbitration committee, and to save the face of Jehochman who pagebanned me contrary to wikipedia's banning policy, and in order to pacify a mob who have had their belief systems shattered. If I have to be punished to save the face of the arbitration committee then so be it, but I have absolutely no intention whatsover of repeating the folly of the geese that went up to confess in George Orwell's Animal Farm. I have no intention of acknowledging any wrongdoing on my part.

But I have to ask, 'how does Newyorkbrad get the situation so badly reversed in the first place?'. Is it because he has already been swayed by the crowd adversely against me, and when he examines the facts and ascertains the truth, he then automatically assumes that I must have been the one that was holding the contrary position? It's time alot of people here woke up to a bit of reality and snapped out of all this petty nonsense.

This is an appalling example of how a gross miscarriage of justice can arise as a result of a judge not properly investigating the facts, and getting the facts totally reversed. David Tombe (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to accuse this Arbitrator of lack of comprehension, bias, covering up for an admin, saving face for ArbCom (I can't even imagine what Tombe is referring to in this one), or other bad faith. Tombe has reacted the same way to all prior findings and sanctions against him: blame the "cop" or the "court". His refusal to take seriously those who disagree with him, even though they are a near-unanimous consensus, is one reason why he is constantly in battles, and why he finds himself in this arbitration. No one is asking for a "confession", or concession, from Tombe—we have learned that will never come. Brews ohare summed up Tombe's out-of-hand rejection of all opposition when someone proposed calling in an "expert" to resolve a fuss Tombe was making last year. While the whole passage should be read, here is a highlight:

What is NOT going to happen is David's saying: "Oh golly, now I see the light. You guys should accept my deepest apologies for involving you in hours of effort to change my mind. I see now that you were right, but somehow the light just did not turn on until the expert said the magic words "abracadabra"." I make that assertion based upon the manner in which David approaches all this discussion, which indicates an unwillingness to really take any contributor's argument seriously, but to latch onto some detail and knit a sweater around it oddly similar to his previous design.

The "find an expert" routine boils down to this: if the expert agrees with David, David will take that as proof of his views. If the expert does not agree with David, either David will find a way to say he actually does agree (it's just that the expert's meaning for "inward" corresponds to our "outward") or that the expert is off the beam, expert though they may be.

Ironically, this also sums up Brews' own "unwillingness to really take any contributor's argument seriously" when it disagrees with Brews. Finell (Talk) 17:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much trouble adopting serious arguments; however, revisionist history and patronizing remarks don't get as much attention (or shouldn't, anyway). Brews ohare (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Finell, I'm sure that Newyorkbrad is quite capable of answering this for himself. Newyorkbrad got the physics right. It's just that he got the parties mixed up as regards who said what. Newyorkbrad knows that Brews is right to distinguish the physically real speed of light from numbers that are related to man made unit definitions. Unfortunately however, based on Newyorkbrad's expressed leniency towards Martin Hogbin, there lies the danger that Martin will soon be given total freedom to give primacy to the man made SI units speed of light in the speed of light article, whereas Brews would have wanted to either give primacy to the physically real speed of light, or at any rate highlight the distinction between the two concepts, but may not be allowed to do so.

And yes Finell, we think that we are right, just as you think that you are right. But you are very clever at trying to make us feel guilty for thinking that we are right and that we should be punished for such thoughtcrime. David Tombe (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Findings regarding Physchim62

None of the findings of Vassyana or Ncmvocalist pertain to Physchim62, who engaged in attribution of false positions to Brews ohare, threats, and incivility as outlined here. I find the failure bring any findings about this egregious behavior peculiar, and suggestive of an unhealthy avoidance of criticism of an editor with privileges. Brews ohare (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Brews repeated his charges against Physchim62 all over these arbitration pages, one reason for the lack of proposed findings or sanctions against him is obvious: Vassyana or Ncmvocalist concluded that Physchim62's conduct did not warrant it. And what "privileges" does Physchim62 have that would cause an Arbitrator (!) or anyone else to fear this editor? Finell (Talk) 18:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I regard the statement Should you continue to block up the talk pages and article histories of physics articles in order to promote your personal point of view as to what is physics – a point of view which has been roundly rejected as absurd by other editors – I shall have no choice but to ask for you to be banned from all such pages and its repetition and defense on Talk:Speed of light as clearly a threat. The accusatory premises of the threat are opinion, not universally shared as suggested. The blatant misrepresentation of my position as my saying that everything is FUBAR since 1983 and nobody else has noticed was followed by disregard of a request to provide any evidence for it. Various other violations of WP:Civil have been noted. Inasmuch as lesser infractions by myself and by Martin Hogbin are deemed sufficient for a finding, I do not find the evaluation of this matter even-handed. Brews ohare (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether a statement is a warning or a threat depends on one's point of view. Brews still doesn't explain what he means by saying that Physchim62 is an "an editor with privileges" or how that would lead Arbitrator Vassyana, or anyone else, to avoid criticizing Physchim62. Finell (Talk) 20:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I consider myself concerned by this finding of fact and this remedy, both proposed by arbitrator Vassyana. I note that the Arbitration Committee, after looking at evidence posted by many editors, is currently considering measures to ban Brews ohare from all physics-related topics, as is its right regardless of whether such measures are finally put in place. A resolution will be reached in this case, whether it pleases Brews ohare or not – maybe that is what is so upsetting for this editor. Physchim62 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)