Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Request from Cool Hand Luke

Vassyana and I will be drafting the proposed remedies for this case. We intend to carefully manage this arbitration to avoid personal attacks, revert warring, and other unacceptable behavior. Additionally, I would like to ask parties for their input as an experiment in our dispute resolution process. Namely:

What resolution would like to see from this process, and what (if any) concessions would you be willing to give to achieve that end?

In most arbitration cases, dueling partisan remedies are posted on the workshop page, with various parties predictably agreeing or disagreeing with each proposal. I've never found this helpful. Most cases are animated by problems more complex and difficult than "XYZ is a stubborn and unreasonable editor." Dueling partisan remedies gives arbitration a punitive character, which I think is at odds with our essentially collaborative project. I would prefer a process that allows parties to identify problems themselves and craft a more acceptable solution for everyone involved.

I hope that each party can explain what they believe the root problem is, and how they can work with others to resolve it. I hope we can get to the heart of the dispute, and I would like to know how parties think it can be fairly resolved.

Please edit only in your own section. Statements should be reasonably brief and free from personal attacks.

Non-parties may only add a statement here with my permission, and only if they can show a reasonable connection to the dispute—I hope that remarks are collaborative rather than deliberative. If you wish to comment on another's answer, take it to the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 14:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman

My position here is cop. I would like to see everybody involved behave properly. I promise not to use my baton on anybody who makes an effort to get along and who listens to sensible feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Abtract

What resolution would like to see from this process, and what (if any) concessions would you be willing to give to achieve that end?

Brews ohare

First, as I initially understood it, and so far as my remarks and evidence are concerned, the scope of this examination was to be /Case/Speed of light, and the objectives were therefore limited. More recently it has evolved that this case is completely unrestricted as to the range of its inquiry, but very severely limited in its range of response to its conclusions, boiling down to a decision whether sanctions against particular editors will be pursued. I hope the response will be extended to consider enforcement procedures in general, and not be directed solely at specific individuals.

However that may be, proposals like that of Physchim62 for one year bans of myself and D Tombe from English Wikipedia in its entirety go far beyond fixing behavior on Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light, and exceed the scope of this inquiry. Physchim62's proposal that the Depleted uranium case or the Sadi Carnot case are precedents shows an acute lack of judgment in discerning parallels, and a failure to recognize the scope of the present inquiry and the different nature of the present problem. The only party to this dispute that may be accused of deliberate distortion and misrepresentation is Physchim62 himself, and even that egregious misbehavior occurred only on Talk pages.

Evaluation of evidence

Consideration of any drastic remedies affecting activity on WP outside Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light should be based upon separate inquiries where a proper presentation of evidence can be organized. Allegations or issues brought into this case from other venues, not only from activities on other pages of WP, but even activities outside WP altogether, have bearing primarily as they illuminate Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light, because it is the behavior here that led to this case and is the most egregious violation of guidelines I have seen.

Moreover, allegations dragged in selectively from outside the venue of Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light, by editors with an agenda, require special evaluation as remarks based outside this venue are very readily presented without the appropriate context and are on that account likely to become distorted, whether deliberately or by accident. Also, it should be noted that things change over time. Events on Speed of light and Talk:Speed of light take place in an atmosphere different from that on other pages at different times and with different participants holding different attitudes.

The objective here shouldn't be restricted to an evaluation of specific editors per se, but should extend to an examination of how to improve overall behavior at Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light.

Remedies

Although there may be a tendency to scapegoat individual editors, the problem is one of controlling the editorial process, not the editors one by one. There are two separate problems to face: first, how to restore Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light to a working atmosphere, and second, how to learn from this experience so it will not be repeated. The first is how to put out a fire, the second is fire prevention.

What has to be done to fix the editing atmosphere at Talk: Speed of light is to enforce WP:NPA and WP:Talk uniformly across all participants, to insist upon the restriction of comments upon contributions to specific statements in those contributions, require these comments to be substantive (that is, disallow few-word pejoratives like "nonsense", "idiosyncratic"), and to disallow comments based upon editors' generalities that may be inaccurate. Generalities tend to be tendentious imaginings of what actually was said, and often are formed by reading other editors' comments instead of reading the source material itself. That leads to escalation of rhetoric and distortion of fact. In particular, Physchim62 has associated me with statements that I have never made. My attempts to introduce a sub-sub-section have been resisted based upon generalities that do not apply to the material submitted, and by reversion of sourced sub-subsection without comment.

In the case of edits on the article page, editors should be free to revert subject to WP:3RR. However, I believe such reversion should be subject to a mandatory review on the Talk page with specific arguments based upon specific wording from the reverted work. Vague pronouncements about WP:Fringe or WP:OR or WP:POV or WP:V should be considered insufficient without serious confrontation with the actual wording or sources in the reverted material. Lazy, sloppy, smart-alecky editing should be impossible.

If critique of proposed contributions to the article is restricted to commentary specific to verbatim excerpts, and WP:NPA and WP:Talk are enforced across the board upon all editors (not a subset), and reversion of sections with no accompanying critique on the Talk page is banned, things will quiet down. In particular, commentary that constitutes bandwagoning and snowballing is a no-no.

There is no need to discipline any editor for past transgressions; rather, let's look ahead and simply reign in these excesses. Let's control the editorial process, not attempt piecemeal control of individual editors. Brews ohare (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Technical issues

There is a variety of opinion as to whether there are or are not outstanding technical issues. Some editors say there is nothing here (e.g. Dicklyon), while others think the universe is at stake (e.g. Martin Hogbin). My views of the technical issues are summarized here with links to more detailed discussion here & here. Brews ohare (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My summary of events and remedies

Having had some time to let things fall into perspective, I'd summarize the events at Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light like this: a particular topic on this page related to the significance of the SI Units number 299,792,458 m/s arose, and led to opposing camps. The technical issues are not really a problem of content, although WP:OR or WP:POV or WP:Fringe are bandied about without support in the flurry of debate as a way to stigmatize the opposing views. A summary of the technical issues is found here. Unfortunately, civility was lost in the discussion, due to various abuses of WP guidelines like WP:Civil, WP:NPA and WP:Talk. The problem is one of escalating polarization and rigid doctrines leading to Pavlovian responses to certain views and those supporting them, akin to the feeding frenzy of Piranha. Venting of animosity interferes with clarity of mind. A summary of these behavioral patterns can be found here. While the conduct of some participants violated guidelines, even supposing all the bad actors are banned forever from WP, there will be recurrence of this behavior involving entirely different participants, as is evident from the WP history. The problem to solve is how to set up regulations and enforcement of regulations so that this kind of circus cannot develop because a lid is kept on bad behavior as it occurs. Erratic, piecemeal banning or blocking new participants episode by episode is not getting to the bottom of things; a uniformly applied, inescapable enforcement procedure is needed, applied independent of any technical judgment about who is right or who is wrong. My suggestions to ameliorate the situation are described below. Brews ohare (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Severe penalties for cheerleading (the "me too" response without any addition to the discussion attempting to bandwagon or snowball a particular view, not on its merits)
2. Severe penalties for catcalling (the caustic "boo" without any addition to the discussion)
3. Severe penalties for the putdown (the "Even a fifth grader knows that." characterization)
4. Severe penalties for introduction of red herrings in threads with the sole objective of misdirecting & derailing discussion
5. Severe penalties for distortion of others' positions to heap scorn upon opposing editors
6. Severe penalties for reversion of sourced submissions without Talk page back up based upon specific objections (not editors' imaginary summarizations)
7. Severe penalties for use of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:Fringe, and other guidelines without specifically introducing the offending material and suggesting what is wrong with it
8. Severe penalties for violating WP:CIVIL
9. Severe penalties for violating WP:Poll

Enforcement of such rules will make editing a more serious business and less a matter of entertainment in a circus atmosphere, and less a platform to preen and show how superior and smart one is. Maybe some guidelines can be developed so something like Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle will work? Brews ohare (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Added note: I made an RfC at WP:Civil to explore reactions to restrictions on the one-line edit summary. It appears that Angryapathy has a well-reasoned reaction to this proposal. A useful suggestion by Rd232 is to create an article Edit summaries to avoid. Physchim62 took the opportunity to make an unwarranted uncivil attack on that Talk page, and Jehochman took it upon himself to support Physchim62 in that attack, a clear indication of bias on his part. Brews ohare (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Recently, Woonpton explained to me some issues of propriety regarding this RfC of mine. I urge the Arbitrators to look upon my suggestions about the use of the one-line Edit Summary not as a reason to censure individuals, but as a suggestion for improving the editing climate. Brews ohare (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Final notes

Being unaware of how these proceedings work, this has been a learning process for me. Until recently, my thought was that this type of hearing was intended to establish what some of the systemic problems were that led to the troubles at Talk: Speed of light and endeavor to fix them. However, I have come to discover that is not the objective at all: the objective is to attach crimes to individual editors and apply bans and blocks that will "teach them" to "behave better". My view is that is not going to solve anything, because the problems are systemic, which is to say, the circumstances will repeat and no matter who is involved in these situations, bad things will happen. So my evidence and recommendations are largely misdirected because it was my intention to establish what was happening, using individual events as examples, and not with the intention of banning or blocking individuals.

The systemic issues have to do with violations of behavioral guidelines, WP:Civil, WP:NPA, WP:Talk and the like, and the uneven and partial enforcement of these guidelines. When a Talk page discussion is governed by personalities, the participants become heated. The notion of brainstorming, or trying to figure things out, or to address sources is replaced by a version of the Jerry Springer Show or The McLaughlin Group: any reply to a comment is automatically taken as contentious and the format is verbal rough-housing, not discussion. The ability of editors to misread simple English is amazing, really startling, and they wander into uncivil accusations based on misconception instead of addressing content. If the discussion lasts long enough, it attracts hornets, editors that are there for the brawl, not for the article. That means enforcement of behavioral guidelines is very important. Presently this enforcement does not happen. Maybe Admins are too busy, or too partial, or the guidelines are not enforceable, or are too weak. Bad tempers, exacerbated by hornets, upset the atmosphere and soon no constructive activity can take place.

Another possible outcome for WP besides the Jerry Springer Show analogy is partitioning of WP into a set of fiefdoms controlled by fanatics and their sycophants, who will not allow departure from their views to be expressed. One might expect such things in the realms of religion and politics, but they occur in technical subjects like this one as well. Fiefdoms are facilitated by Admin inability to defend normal, sourced discussion in the face of opposition by a vocal and rigid control group claiming orthodoxy and violations of WP:DIS, WP:Fringe, WP:POV etc.. Such claims must be held to account by actual confrontation with text and sources. Vigorous enforcement of WP:Talk and (possibly) new guidelines must force criticisms based upon WP:Fringe, WP:POV, WP:NOR, WP:Soap (and so forth) to be be supported by actual WP:Diff's and verbatim quotes of so-called offending material. Otherwise, misattribution of false positions and imaginary tendentious summary generalizations will be used to crucify "revisionists". This kind of activity is very evident in this Case/Speed of light, and IMO is the origin of much of the rough-housing.

The experience on Talk: Speed of light has been awful. This review has been worse, attracting unfounded accusations, invective, lies, hypocrisy, and distortion. There is absolutely no concept of trying to fix things. It is all about scoring and vendetta. If Arbitrators can see through all this noise, they are saints. When I began editing in 2007 WP was interesting and I thought useful. However, in the course of this review I have discovered something else about WP much less interesting and, in fact, dispiriting, disappointing, and worse. Brews ohare (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Concessions

As no-one seems inclined to meet me half way with their own concessions, and as my efforts appear likely to be misinterpreted: see here, I have withdrawn my earlier proposed concessions. Brews ohare (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe strict enforcement of guidelines will catalyze discussion and cooperation. It will avoid escalation to a circus atmosphere, and allow dissension amidst rigid belief. Without this enforcement, I fear that these abuses will encourage free-for-alls & fanatical rule inimical to accuracy or good judgment, with consequent deterioration of WP as a whole. Brews ohare (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Charvest

The main dispute here is about the 1983 definition of the metre and its consequences for the definition of the speed of light, and what the article should say about this, and how much the article should say about this, and where abouts in the article it should be said, and how editors should go about discussing this. Any resolution needs to answer those questions.

On a separate matter, one thing that could help with the editing of scientific articles (and other articles for that matter) is if each article had a section called "Common misunderstandings". New editors could be encouraged in the welcome message and other policies to read this section before making edits to other parts of the page. This would save a lot of time in the long run. Charvest (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis

This is a good start.

What kind of physics articles do we really want?

It has to be recognized that underlying the tensions between Brews and some other editors is a dispute about what an article on some physics topic should contain. Brews is usually in favor of including many specific examples while some other editors see this as bloating, they may be more concerned about the article becoming less encyclopedic, losing FA status etc. etc.

In my opinion, what is far more important is to satisfy the educational needs of the people who want to learn physics than to have articles that will be judged to be FA quality that are useless to students looking for the detailed information they want. In this respect, Brews' editing style is to be preferred.

How to conduct technical discussions

Usually on the talk pages of physics articles on elementary topics disputes get settled quickly. Sometimes there are disputes about how to interpret what sources say and then there is a danger that a dispute can escalate. My experience on wikipedia has led me to conclude that sticking to these guidlines is the best solution.

This is a good example of such an discussion. Note that I do not quote any sources as that would not help one iota. And as we can see here, my efforts are appreciated:

Sorry for being off-topic... I just want to thank Count Iblis for his contribution to the article Helmholtz free energy and its talk page; these are very helpful to me. Probably, editors in physics have more problems with quack editors than we mathematicians.Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that while Dicklyon has disagreed with me on the grounds that such discussions violate wiki rules, the inconvenient fact for him remains that while he frequently finds himself in disputes that escalate to AN/I on the pages he edits, I have rarely experienced similar escalation of disputes on the pages I edit, despite vigorous debates about the content.

Focussing on editor conduct isn't going to lead to better articles

User:Physchim62 points to the Sadi Carnot case. At the time, I commented that this was a massive failure of all the other editors who failed to see what Carnot was doing. At that time I had already noted that some thermodynamics articles had some uncorrected problems (after Carmnot was banned), but I didn't actively contribute to those articles. A year later I started to edit those pages and only then was I confronted by the huge errors in many of these pages that somehow had persisted for many years.

Articles like Helmholtz free energy, Fundamental thermodynamic relation were affected and completely rewritten by me. The errors were, I think, due to Sadi Carnot, but he was gone on 2007 while I corrected and rewrote these and other articles in 2008. Moreover, despite the previous editors having at least some background in physics, the grossly erroneous statements were never even discussed.

One has to ask the following question: What would it reasonably have taken for the editors to have noted and then corrected the flawed texts themselves not long after the flawed texts were edited in around 2004 or 2005? My experience in physics tells me that the only reasonable way that could have happened (given that they were not expert in the subject of thermodynamics enough to have noticed the errors at a glance) was if they had put their sources aside and discussed the content from first principles. Individual editors should have had a willingness to derive the equations themselves despite sources having been given to notice problems and come to the talk page for discussions.

Count Iblis (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe

• From a purely physics perspective, I would like to establish a general awareness that the post 1983 speed of light is a definition which is beyond measurement, and that as such it is a different concept from the physical speed of light as expressed in other systems of units, and which can be measured. As regards how that should be written up in the article, I'm now prepared to leave that to the discretion of whoever writes the article. There is clearly a very bitter ideaological divide on this issue, which is why I have suggested that all the disputing parties stand back and allow a neutral physics trained editor to be given exclusive access to the article for a period of six months. I have suggested Steve Byrnes for this task, because I have edited with him on a number of occasions, and I know that he is totally knowedgeable as regards the content matter.

• As regards sanctions, I have no desire to see anybody sanctioned. I would however like the motives of both parties to be carefully examined. I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to having my own motives cross examined, and I am willing to answer any allegations relating to the issue of original research. Likewise, I would like to see the opposition camp being cross examined as to why they are so keen to obscure the distinction between the new SI speed of light and the speed of light as expressed in other systems of units. In particular, I would like Tim Shuba to be cross examined as to why he deleted a large chunk from the history section at the speed of light article. With the motives of both sides fully exposed, along with a voluntary willingness on the part of all the disputing parties to withdraw from the article for six months, I think that we will have the ingredients of a permanent settlement to the dispute.

• On a more general note, I agree fully with Count Iblis's view on arguing from first principles. The purpose of a debate is to try and persuade your opponent to see your point of view. Too often I have been frustrated in rational argument by my opponents demanding a source. We all know that sources need to be supplied for contested entries in the main articles, but it is taking things too far to allow sources to be used a means of obstructing rational argument on the talk pages. Time and time again, my attempts to explain things have foundered for a number of reasons which include (1) The opponent saying "I'm not going to discuss physics with you. I'm only interested in reporting what is written in reliable sources". (2) The opponent does a wholesale reversion of some lengthy edits that I have made, along with a note in the caption stating a spurious reason that at best would only apply to one small aspect of the lengthy set of edits. I challenge them about it and before you know it, they come in doubled up in pain, having been wounded by perceived incivilities and assumptions of bad faith, claiming that they cannot discuss the matter with me because they are wounded, but that they will continue to revert my edits unless they are backed up by reliable sources. Give them a reliable source and they will of course then argue that the source is not saying what I am claiming it is saying. A revert war begins, and suddenly the wolf pack comes along. And of course, more recently there has been a culture of running to AN/I to try and get me disqualified from debating on the talk pages. If Count Iblis's ideas were adopted that would end alot of those silly games. If an article is written on the basis of being a patchwork of quotes from relaible sources, it will likely be an incoherent mess with no programme of understanding to it. David Tombe (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Cool Hand Luke, I can see that you are having some difficulty in analyzing exactly what is going on at speed of light. I will try and help now by giving you my own assessment of the impasse, since I myself entered this affray as an outside unofficial arbitrator in early August. Vassyana asked recently if the defined speed of light in any way affected the issue of the constancy of the physical speed of light that is used as a postulate in the special theory of relativity. I think that everybody is agreed that these are in fact two separate issues. However it is clearly in the interests of relativists to have the distinction between the two concepts blurred. So where does Brews come into all of this? To the best of my knowledge, Brews is not opposed to the special theory of relativity. I may be wrong, but I don't know him well enough to know his views on this subject. I suspect that Brews has engaged in a good faith attempt to clarify the fact that the defined speed of light is a tautology that needs to be distinguished from the physical speed of light, and I suspect that his motive has been entirely driven by the desire to help the readers. However, in doing so, he has inadvertently strayed too close to the outer defences of the special theory of relativity. As such he has been tied down for about six months in trench warfare with the spearhead battalions of the relativistic army. Contrary to allegations of circular argument, what has really been going on here has been a cycle of obfuscation and re-iteration. This is not a problem that relates to original research, sources, or soapboxing. Sources have been provided. This is a problem relating to obfuscation and attempts to disqualify those who wish to clarify the subject matter. David Tombe (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon

As a minimum, Brews ohare needs to have some constraints imposed on him; a total block seems like overkill, as we're just trying to help him get with the program. Something like a limit of 2 edits per page per day would probably be sufficient to make him take his editing style seriously, and allow other editors to be heard and to more effectively restrain his otherwise very disruptive contributions; for Brews, the evidence shows that this would be appropriate for ALL articles, so that he doesn't just take his stuff to other places. Similar constraint for David Tombe and Martin Hogbin, on articles involving any editing disputes, ideally, as they, too, sometimes dominate by shear volume. I'll abide by any appropriately similar constraint on articles involving editors so constrained, if that's thought to be appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And maybe we also need to find a way to help David Tombe adjust his meds, to cross over from his alternate reality, if he wants to participate as a wikipedia editor. His conspiracy theory interpretations of the actions of other editors is amusing, but tiring. Can anyone really believe that there are editors among us with a hidden motivation to hide the truth about the speed of light? or about Maxwell's aether vortex theory? Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

DVdm

Freeze and full protection of Speed of light and Talk:Speed_of_light for 3 months. If the war starts again after that period, add another 3 months, etc.

Finell

• I would like ArbCom's guidance how editors themselves can handle situations where one or a few editors keep pushing proposals after it becomes clear that the proposals have no chance of gaining consensus, dominating the talk page, repeatedly raising new discussion topics about already-decided issues, answering (really arguing against) every opposing view as it is stated (even when multiple editors say essentially the same thing), and so on. Is there action that an article's editors can implement themselves, consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, short of going to a notice board or initiating an RfC?
• I would like ArbCom to advise administrators on how best to deal with editors whose behavior is undeterred other editors' comments and requests, consensus, warnings, and blocks. Are there ways of trying to rehabilitate editors who are not incorrigible, other than merely putting them on the sideline for a period of time and hoping that they figure out for themselves how to edit collaboratively?
• I would like ArbCom to advise administrators on ways of accompanying an initial warning with something that may help educate less experienced editors on how to conform to policies and guidelines. I appreciate the system of escalating warnings. They begin very civilly and assume good faith, but they do not really educate. I am groping for something that may prevent "first offenders" from becoming problem editors. (I realize that is not applicable to this case, which involves only experienced editors and no "first offenders". Sorry.)
• ArbCom should remind all editors to be civil even when dealing with troublesome editors. If anything, it is important for editors to make an extra effort to be civil, respectful, and explanatory when dealing with a problematic editor. However, this can only continue for a reasonable period of time. If that doesn't work, I believe the next strategy has to be disengagement, because the alternative is becoming reactive. I came to Talk:Speed of light 15 August 2009, when I saw that the page was protected due to edit warring. I became increasingly assertive, and ultimately reactive, as I saw Tombe and Brews ohare reject everything that I and everyone else had to say. I became increasingly shrill in trying to get through to them, and my behavior was not exemplary. (I do not believe that I did anything sanctionable in the circumstances, but that is for ArbCom to decide.) I later learned that the other editors had been dealing with these same issues for a year or so, had exhausted reasonable efforts to get through to Tombe and Brews, and had exhausted themselves before I arrived.
• Given Tombe's record throughout his career of constant WP:BATTLEs, escalating blocks, including an indefinite block a year ago, sockpuppetry and block evasion, which his conduct in the arbitration exacerbated (when he should have been on best behavior), I believe that a full, permanent ban is called for. (At the outset of this arbitration, I supported a physics topic ban, but this now seems insufficient.) Since he is sure that all editors who disagree with him are wrong, all admins who warn and block him are wrong, and he is undeterred by warnings from an Arbitrator and the Clerk (who he views as wrong and biased), there does not appear to be a remedy that will cause him to conform to tolerable behavioral norms. Added 02:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC): Just today, Tombe claimed that he was justified in evading a block by using another "username", to encourage another editor to carry on during his enforced absence, because he "didn't think that the three month block was fair. I felt that I had been victimized for being against a majority." This, along with use of yet another "username" and an IP address, led to Tombe's short-lived indefinite block for sock puppetry and block evasion. Again, it does not appear that anything short of a permanent ban, enforced by a permanent block, will protect the project from Tombe's willful, chronic violation of the community's policies and guidelines.
• A behavioral remedy is needed for Brews ohare, but not a ban or indefinite block, in my opinion. He also had been in constant battles and does not accept, or even seriously consider, what anyone who disagrees with him says about content or his behavior. For example, he continues to insist that the scope of the case is limited to Speed of light after two Arbitrators and the Clerk have said that long term disruptive behavior is also in issue. He obsesses on a single idea and cannot let go, and does not appear to examine himself. However, the character of his behavior is different from Tombe's. Brews is frustrated and cannot understand why others won't accept his views; he "knows" that it cannot be because his content is wrong, so he searches for other reasons. Underneath it all, though, he does not appear to be mean spirited. Unlike Tombe, it appears that he has made valuable, non-controversial contributions to Wikipedia. His user page has a gallery of beautiful circuit diagrams and technical graphics that he has contributed to Wikipedia and describes his article contributions. He should be encouraged to do more of this kind of work, rather than engage in controversies, which he does not handle well. I have some hope that rehabilitation is possible. I propose something along the lines of the following:
  • A 3-month block. Hopefully, a mandatory Wikibreak will help him to reflect and to recover from his traumas here.
  • After that, his return should be conditioned on 1 year of ArbCom-approved mentorship.
  • For the first 6 months of that year, he should be prohibited from engaging in any disputes. I believe I saw something like this, with specifics, in another arbitration decision, but I've lost track of it.
  • Some restriction on his number of edits on a particular article or talk page per quarter-hour, hour, and day, and a requirement that he write and edit his talk page posts to his satisfaction before posting. I proposed this at User talk:Brews ohare#Editing practice. He said he would try to modify this behavior. However, the edit histories of the Workshop and Evidence pages and their talk pages show that he has not done so.

Headbomb

• David Tombe needs to be permanently banned and blocked from Wikipedia, period. Anything less than this will result in massive wastes of time from the members of WikiProject Physics, who will have to hound Tombe to prevent the insertion of his fringe ideas into wikipedia articles, and of the admins who'll have to deal with the resulting mess, page-protect, hand out bans, and possibly of ARBCOM again. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Brews Ohare. I really don't know what would be appropriate here. A topic ban on any and all physics-related articles would certainly solve the problem, but might be overkill. An editing restriction limiting him to two replies (which is different from two edits) per day, per talk page, and two edits per day per article would be a good alternative IMO. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Struck some passages. Brews' recent behaviour (forum shopping + completely unapologetic about any of his actions + hundreds of edits per day + Battle mentality ) have convinced me that mere editing restrictions are not enough. Like Martin, I now believe that topic ban is the minimum required to solve this issue. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin

I agree that David Tombe needs to be banned from Wikipedia to prevent the insertion of his fringe ideas into articles. I might add that he is always civil and quite skilled at making his ideas sound non-fringe when it suits, but fringe they are and they have no place in WP.

In the case of Brews Ohare, I suggest a relatively mild limitation on his editing but with the option that, if a number of editors, say three or more, complain in the future that he is still problematic, the sanctions could be strengthened. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because of his actions here, I have changed my mind in this and now suggest that Brews is topic banned. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Physchim62

• I think the most important point for the community as a whole is to try to categorize the behaviour shown on the pages in question. I believe that there has been disruptive editing, but this is a very wide term: one editor's disruptive editing is another editor's essential protection of the encyclopedia, as is shown almost every week on ArbCom cases and probably every day at WP:AN/I.
• If we go by the "precedents" of the Depleted uranium case or the Sadi Carnot case, then David Tombe and Brews ohare are looking at a one-year ban from English Wikipedia here. I would be delighted if the the Committee could find a lighter remedy that fits with the project's goals – personally, I was quite vehement that the remedy in Sadi Carnot was too severe – but, in that case, the Committee must be very careful to explain why it has taken the decision to modify these "precedents".
• We need to aware that the aim of the arbitration should be to prevent similar disputes arising on different pages and between different parties. Or, at the very least, to give strong guidelines to administrators for what action should be taken if similar disputes arise in the future. Hence my request to arbitrators to be as clear as possible in the reasoning for any action which is taken.
• If the Committee feels that I should refrain from editing about the subjects in dispute here then I shall obviously comply.

Physchim62 (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim Shuba

The root problem

Well, the root problem can't be directly addressed by arbcom or by any number of admins, because the root problem is the nature of physics itself. Physics consists of a huge number of components that are interrelated in a myriad of ways. Moreover, there is an overabundance of verifiable, reliable sources, so applying WP:UNDUE can be difficult or subjective. This means that there are hundreds or probably thousands of plausible or at least plausible-sounding subsections for a subject like the speed of light, all chock full of sources, and each of these subsections could be presented differently or at various levels of sophistication depending on which parts of what sources are used. For this reason, someone with an entrenched point of view can often keep up an argument for months or longer, even in the face of much opposition. Admins see the back and forth arguing such as in the AN/I threads, notice the technical nature of the sources and points of contention, and go running off screaming to the battle du jour at Michael Jackson's glove or some place where they can at least get their heads around the issues involved.

A germ of an idea that may be helpful for similar disputes

So what can the admins do, other than the warning and blocking of obvious violators per normal practice? There is topic banning for individual editors, which may be effective or not, and may be fair or not, depending on circumstances. That's one tool. I think it could be helpful for an arbcom decision to specify other tools. For instance, in a case like this one where there are multiple allegations of ownership or an excessive amount of edits that may have become disruptive, something like one or more the following could be sanctioned.

• some limit on number of edits per day, or even per specific topic (e.g. 1983 definition of the metre) per day
• some limit on lengths of edits, with editors instructed to place long sections in user space and link from the talk page
• mandatory, relevant edit summaries, both to article and talk
• (I'm sure there are more possibilities that creative brainstorming can come up with)

Basically, the idea is to mandate behaviors for all involved on a page, and admins could then more easily make objective determinations about who is breaking the rules. Of course, restrictions could also be applied to a certain subset of editors as well. But the advantage to having page-wide restrictions, when feasible, is that an admin can send a message of "we have a problem here" instead of "you are the problem here", and the sanction may be more likely to be implemented in cases where the admin really isn't certain who are the primary disrupters or would rather not make that determination. Tim Shuba (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions from arbitrators

I think that arbitration proceedings aren't nearly interactive enough. Therefore, I hope the parties will help me with a little Socratic dialog. Cool Hand Luke 02:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about presentation of this topic in other authorities

1) One side of the dispute says that the speed of light and the definition of the meter aren't controversial topics. As far as I can tell, that's entirely true. That said, there might still be a pedagogical reason for treating the topic in a detailed way (perhaps readers will not understand a more abbreviated treatment). Therefore, I think it would also be useful to examine how other authorities have treated this topic.

Has any secondary or tertiary source ever included a passage like this, speaking about measuring the speed of light and "not just us[ing] the SI system"?

I have a background in chemistry and I consider myself quite scientifically literate, but my first impression is that it's animated by a strange obsession about the definition of the meter (which, after all, can be presented in reference to other terms like wavelengths). If, on the other hand, a reliable published secondary or tertiary source actually presents the topic this way, I would be disinclined to suspect that it's FRINGE. Cool Hand Luke 02:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Christopher Thomas: so the material in the diff is in response to the view that the definition is a "tautology," but in fact the material doesn't escape the "tautology" problem because the definition of a meter is already written in terms of wavelength? That's interesting, but my main question is whether any general reference primary/secondary source actually explains the measurement of c in this manner. Just to be clear, are you aware of any published presentations like this? Cool Hand Luke 02:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That is an accurate summary of my statement about the diff, yes. Unfortunately, I don't have any reference books on-hand that discuss the issue. The closest I have is the following passage from an undergraduate engineering physics textbook:

Today, the speed of light is defined to be exactly c = 299 792 457 m/s and the standard unit of length, the meter, is defined in terms of this speed. A measurement of the speed of light is therefore now a measurement of the size of the meter, which is the distance light travels in (1/299 792 457) s.

— Paul A. Tipler, Physics For Scientists and Engineers, extended version, 3rd edition, p. 979

--Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I couldn't find very much on the issue from accessible secondary/tertiary sources either. There's this from the opening pages of an introductory physics textbook: "Today the official definition of the meter used by all scientists depends on the speed of light and how we measure time." And I did find one slightly mournful comment, albeit from a textbook on statistics for scientists "It was done because one thought that the speed of light was so accurately known that it made more sense to define the meter in terms of the speed of light rather than vice versa, a remarkable end to a long story of scientific discovery."

What strikes me about this section that Brews tried to insert is that it takes a purely hypothetical example – an experiment that nobody would ever actually do – when there are real experiments to measure the speed of light that we could discuss: the 1972 experiment that effectively gave us the present-day figure and/or modern astronomical measurements which don't rely on the metre. Physchim62 (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't read Physchim62's second quotation, which ends "a remarkable end to a long story of scientific discovery", as "mournful". I read it as triumphant. Finell (Talk) 21:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to presentation of this topic: The Speed of light article now contains an appropriate lead that introduces correctly the notion of an "exact" value for the "speed of light" and an illuminating quotation from Penrose, which unfortunately has no on-line access. A definitive source describing measurement is Sydenham, and a more accessible yet authoritative source is Jespersen and Fitz-Randolph from NIST. The book by Taylor and Wheeler makes abundantly clear the arbitrary nature of the numerical value for the so-called "speed of light" in the SI Units, saying "Is 299,792458 a fundamental constant of nature? Might as well ask if 5280 is a fundamental constant of nature." & "A fundamental constant of nature? Hardly! Rather, the work of two centuries of committees.". There are two places in Speed of light where this topic becomes germane: in the lead, where too short a discussion violates WP:Astonish (the present lead is OK in this respect), and in the section on definition of the metre, which I wrote, and seems to be accepted by all. I'd like to add a simple example, but that has not been accepted, an indication that the more vocal editors actually do not understand the section already in the article. If one interprets "so accurately known" as meaning "so accurately measured", then the quote above from Dekking et al. appears to be in direct contradiction to the fundamental CGPM documentation, which points out specifically the introduction of a transit-time definition of length is based upon greater accuracy in measuring time intervals and has zero to do with improved accuracy in measurement of the speed of light. The CGPM documentation states explicitly that the problem with accuracy in measuring the speed of light is inaccuracy in establishing fringe-counts (that is, direct length measurement). The resulting confusion about the measured speed of light and the SI Units defined speed of light is discussed carefully here. Brews ohare (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The apparent claim in the cited diff that the present definition is not a definition in terms of wavelengths confuses me. If the metre is defined as 1/299,192,458 light-seconds, and the second is defined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a caesium-133 maser, then isn't a metre implicitly defined as 9,192,631,770/299,192,458 wavelengths of that maser's microwave radiation? Any definition of distance in terms of wavelengths of light produces the tautology that the diff objects to if our timebase is also defined in terms of oscillations of light. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, This is all relatively new stuff. The decision to re-define the metre in terms of the speed of light was only made as recently as 1983. I wasn't even aware of it until last month. I saw that Brews was having a hard time at the speed of light article and so I decided to enquire with him as to what was going on, to see if I could offer any advice. It took me quite a while to figure out what Brews was talking about, and that was largely because I was unaware of this new definition of the metre. I assume that Brews had assumed that I already knew about it. At any rate, once I became aware of the new definition of the metre in terms of the speed of light, I instantly spotted the tautology. But my immediate concern then shifted to the issue of the measurement of the electric permittivity. I have done alot of research in that field and I knew that there was going to have to be some knock-on effect in the literature as regards trying to explain a measured value of electric permittivity in terms of a defined value for the speed of light. I checked my 1979 textbook for the experiment for measuring the electric permittivity. I then made one edit at electric permittivity based on what was in that textbook. It was instantly reverted on the grounds that it was no longer applicable in SI units. There was no revert war. I then raised the question at WT:PHYS regarding what is the state of affairs in the post 1983 physics textbooks. Nobody answered that question, but Christopher Thomas reported me at AN/I for disruptive behaviour for having instigated that thread. Meanwhile, I have checked at the university science library, and it does rather seem that the discharging capacitor experiment for measuring electric permittivity has been sacrificed for this new SI definition of the metre. So far, I have not even attempted to address this issue in any article, either on wikipedia or off wikipedia. On 19th August, I got banned from speed of light pages for backing Brews up on the speed of light talk page, on the basis of having engaged in pseudoscience. Once I got banned, the pressure then increased on Brews and an attempt was made to ban Brews too. There was never any attempt at formal dispute resolution. The situation merely degenerated into over confidence on the part of one side in the dispute along with a confidence that they could get all their opponents banned.

I'll now deal with your specific question regarding how other authorities would deal with the speed of light. If somebody was looking up an article on the speed of light, they would either be looking for information about the physical speed of light itself, or they would be looking for a number. Here is an example of a random article that I have taken from a google search [1]. This article deals with the history of measurements of the speed of light. Since the SI speed of light is beyond measurement, it would be of no interest in an article like this. And scanning down through the google hits, they all seem to be in the same vein. Here's another example [2]. But since the 1983 definition of the metre is new territory, it is still much too early to see how its repercussions will unfold in the wider literature, and in the standard encyclopaediae. I have already spotted the ommission of a classical experiment in the post 1983 literature. I think that Brews's biggest crime in all of this was being the messenger. And as you know only too well, once you know it, you can't turn the clock back and not know it anymore. Brews has been battling against a group who have been determined to brush it all under the carpet. The speed of light expressed in SI units tells us nothing about the speed of light. David Tombe (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So the answer is no. How do you square the diff I asked about with WP:NOR? The passage that Christopher Thomas seems to be an intuitive post-1983 answer to me: increasingly accurate measurements would result in better reference points for defining the meter. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm your point about "better reference points for defining the meter" with links to the UK NPL (nice and short) and/or NIST (longer, but still readable). Physchim62 (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to David Tombe: The 1983 redefinition of the metre using c as a standard is not "relatively new stuff"; it is old, well settled, and well understood material. In science and technology, 26 years is a very long time. Even in ordinary life, it is an entire generation. All encyclopedias and reference works, both general and specialized, and all text books have been updated several times in those 26 years; some entirely new text books and other works that treat the subject have been written during that period. So far, no one has come up with any reliable source that devotes anything like the kind of attention to this 26-year-old fact that David Tombe and Brews ohare insist upon, or that supports the fundamental change in the concept of speed of light that these two editors relentlessly insist upon writing into Wikipedia's Speed of light article. Yet their arguments, and other editors' responses to them, have dominated Talk:Speed of light for about a year (I only became involved in this discussion on 15 August 2009). That is the nub of the problem. That David Tombe only learned of this 26-year-old change last month reflects his limited knowledge of the field. The fact that it has not become general knowledge in those 26 years reflects that fact that it was not a major change when it happened in 1983, and is of interest only to specialists. Finell (Talk) 19:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, I am certainly not aware of any textbook that has explicitly stated, as in the diff which you have presented above, that in order to measure the speed of light, we need to use a system of units other than the SI system. But since the speed of light in modern SI units is beyond measurement, then the author of that diff is essentially correct, albeit that if I had been the one making that point, I wouldn't have gone into the extra details that they did. I don't see any original research in that diff. The author is merely stating the obvious. Nobody here has argued against the fact that the speed of light is beyond measurement when expressed in modern SI units. David Tombe (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have argued that the speed of light is measurable in SI units here and (in more detail) here. This in the context of a thread of this arbitration to which David Tombe has posted (I must hesitate to say "contributed") less than 24 hours ago. Most parties seem to disagree with me about the possibility of measurement, so arbitrators might like to take my position (on this issue) as one of the two extremes. I say the experiment is possible but pointless, others say it still involves a tautology which I think I've removed. It's not of great importance, as I would be the first to admit that the experiment is as pointless as the one described by Brews in this diff, only I'm not pushing for it to be included in the article. On the other hand, to say that nobody (here) "has argued against the fact that the speed of light is beyond measurement when expressed in modern SI units", is incorrect. Physchim62 (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So the answer is still no, in the 26 years since 1983, no WP:RS supports Brews's diff. What Tombe calls "stating the obvious" is what Wikipedia content policy prohibits as WP:OR. Finell (Talk) 10:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't Brews's diff. It was made by somebody else. It was an overcumbersome statement of the obvious. David Tombe (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So who's diff was it, as you claim to know that it wasn't Brew's? Physchim62 (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. On checking, maybe it was. But it's all a bit of a storm in a teacup. Brews was merely stating the obvious. I've never known of stating the obvious to constitute original research. David Tombe (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Can't I still go to the hardware store, buy a flashlight, a bunch of meter sticks, and measure the speed of light? Meter sticks have all been pretty much the same length for a long time (in human terms). Full disclosure: I reside in West Hartford, home of Edward Morley, famous for the Michelson–Morley experiment. Jehochman ^Talk 12:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll need mirrors as well for the Michelson–Morley experiment! But you would measure the speed of light relative to the average length of your metersticks. That's an important measurement in human terms, but we can do better these days: fairly routine realizations of the metre can now be done to an accuracy of two parts in 10¹¹: that's six times smaller than the atoms in the platinum–iridium bar than was the standard up until 1960. Physchim62 (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, That's actually a pretty interesting question. I asked much the same question at WT:PHYS about the 19th century discharging capacitor experiment that is used to measure the electric permittivity. Why can we still not do it? The answer came back from Headbomb something along the lines that instead of the meter stick doing the measuring, we are in fact now calibrating the meter stick. Aparently, according to Headbomb, when I would put the meter stick across the plates of the capacitor in order to measure the separation distance between the plates, I would in fact be calibrating the meter stick, rather than actually measuring the separation distance. Hence my remarks about the new Alice in Wonderland. So apparently the answer to your question above is 'no'.

A crucial historical experiment has had to be sacrificed from the textbooks in order to pander to this new definition of the metre. And yet we have people here trying to tell us that nothing has changed that is worth elaborating on in an article about the speed of light. Maybe you are now beginning to see that there is more to all of this than you first reckoned upon. David Tombe (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it not make sense to add one sentence to speed of light to indicate that as of 1983, the speed of light is known so accurately, and believe to be so invariant (in a vacuum, in an inertial frame) that is it use to define the length of a meter? As a result, measuring the speed of light with a meter stick is a tautology. I assume these facts can be found in any physics text on the subject. Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't make much sense. We create a meter stick using a standard clock and light, assuming its speed is constant. Now we can hand this meter stick over to David, so he in turn can personally verify whether the speed is indeed constant, by using the stick and a standard clock, and effectively measuring the speed of any light signal he can come up with. Hardly a tautology, I'd say. DVdm (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If he found a different value of c than 299,792,458 m/s, he'd still be unable to tell whether you goofed when making the bar, the bar has shrunk, or the speed of light increased. (Matter of fact, I don't think there's any observable difference between the latter two, assuming the particles in the bar are held together by electromagnetic forces.) --___A. di M. 15:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

When it was tested, it was decided that the bronze bar had shrunk. That was in in 1893, reconfirmed against different bronze bars in 1957. Physchim62 (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• This interminable tautology drumbeat is completely off the mark. According to International Bureau of Weights and Measures (2006), The International System of Units (SI) (8th ed.) (see refs section in article), the official 1983 redefinition says in part, "that these various forms, making reference either to the path travelled by light in a specified time interval or to the wavelength of a radiation of measured or specified frequency, have been the object of consultations and deep discussions, have been recognized as being equivalent and that a consensus has emerged in favour of the first form". Now you tell me how a tautology suddenly sprouted up by changing a defined standard to something "equivalent". Tim Shuba (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I had never made any serious attempt to address how the matter should be written up in the main article, since I had such a hard job trying to persuade some people on the talk page that the new SI speed of light was in fact a tautology. And it is surely a tautology. The new metre is defined as the distance that light travels in 1/299 792 457 seconds. Hence if we try to express the speed of light in terms of this new metre, then we are stating that the speed of light is 299 792 457 times the distance that light travels in 1/299 792 457 seconds, every second. Having now had time to reflect on the whole issue, I think that the entire article should be re-structured as a history chronology charting the main developments in the measurement of the speed of light, and that it should finish with a statement and an explanation about the new SI defined speed of light, which is a fixed number that is beyond measurement. David Tombe (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Trying so hard to persuade people"? No, you don't try to persuade people, you just repeat the same arguments over and over, without any respect for what has been said in between. As such you pretend to discuss without actually exchanging views. If the Committee would permit you, you could carry on this farce indefinitely. Physchim62 (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it truly amazing that this entire line of argumentation is going on here and that people still seriously respond to David Tombe. I really think that this author has been hijacking the speed of light pages, and even more so, this very arbitration event more than long enough. He should be topic banned from everything remotely related to light and speed, and perhaps even to physics topics in general. Actually, I think he should be blocked altogether. There is no way I can assume good faith in this case. DVdm (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any dispruption by David here. David is explaining his point of view and we don't agree with him. What is the problem with that? That David should not have written what he wrote here? Then, why wasn't he told to stop arguing his point here? If with hindsight a disucssion is judged to have gone on for too long, it can be collapsed and then David could be notified not to continue this particular dicussion anymore. What is wrong is to let the discussion go on for a long time and then write that David should be (topic) banned because of the long discusions.

Another way to limit the length of the discussions is to make sure the ball remains in the court of the persons who make the claims that are not yet accepted. It is up to them to prove their points. In this case, it means that David and/or Brews have to show that assigning a specific value to the speed of light leads to a theory that is operationally different than when you don't do that. But this is obviously not the case. They have to prove their points from first principles, they cannot cite from some source and argue that the author means to say this or that, as such arguments are not scientific arguments. They are then free to disagree with us, but if we tell them that it is up to them to prove their point (using the first principles rules) then there isn't much of a problem. Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem comes when you have to define what are "first principles". In effect, Brews ohare and David Tombe will tie you in knots with varying definitions of "first principles" if you let them. They have been doing so for the last few months on Talk:Speed of light. Their only "principles" are that the 1983 definition is WRONG (although David Tombe doesn't believe in Einsteinian relativity either): they have used any (and will continue to do so until stopped) available argument, logical or not, civil and polite or not, consistent with an ongoing discussion (usually not) to defend their idea that the 1983 definition is WRONG. You cannot counter that with an appeal to first principles, because the people you are dealing with are somewhat less principled than you are, in all senses of the term. Physchim62 (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Inviting these people to argue from first principles is the worst thing one could do. I can't believe that they are allowed to just do this here, of all places. They have been doing so everywhere and from the beginning and they happily continue doing it here. This arbitration event should be about preventing them to argue from their first principles. DVdm (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote here, discussions from first principles are important. I don't see how David or Brews would be able to define their own "first principles". Ultimately, the other editors can ask them to pesent their argument in a certain way, if they can do that at all or else, shut up. Now, my proposals for limiting talk page discussions didn't get a lot of support, but I do believe that we have to think along these lines. Either the long discussions are seen to be a problem or they are not. If the former is true, the other editors should take charge of the discussions in a way that brings the discussion to a timely close.

If David claims that the 1983 definition is "wrong", then we can ask David to prove, without invoking sources, using special relativity and Maxwell's equations only, how exactly it is wrong. Then, if David does not accept the validity of special relativity, the discussion ends exactly here. If the argument is that if Lorentz invariance does not hold (so if special relativity is not valid for this reason) that then the redefinition would matter, then that can still be discussed from first principles.

No vague claims that this or that source says this or that, but instead we can ask Brews or David to read their sources, completely master the arguments from first principles, and then come to the talk page and present the full agument without appealing to some personal interpretation of what their sources say. Sources will only become relevant if they were to conince us that their argument is correct and we would agree that it merits inclusion in the article. Count Iblis (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Count, I had read what you wrote there, and I don't agree. But that's okay. You say you "don't see how David or Brews would be able to define their own "first principles".". Well, it is the only thing I have always seen them do in the articles, in the talk pages, and right here again. That's just my perception. Unless they are banned or blocked, they will happily continue doing that. That's just my opinion. No worries. DVdm (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, When you talk about deriving Maxwell's equations from first principles, are you talking about the set of four that appear in modern textbooks and which are known to be Heaviside's re-formulations? If so, then one of them is a restricted version of Faraday's law, curl E = -(partial)dB/dt. It is a purely experimental result, but Maxwell does derive it hydrodynamically in his 1861 paper, where it appears as equation (54). But you want me to derive this equation from first principles using relativity. I don't know how this could be done. I have seen attempts to derive the F = qvXB force (which is part of one of the original eight Maxwell's equations) using relativity, Coulomb's law, and invariance of charge. Whether this derivation is right or wrong, the speed of light will be introduced into the proceedings through the Lorentz transformations. The speed of light in question will then of course be the real physical speed of light. The speed of light as expressed in modern SI units is not the physical speed of light. It is just an arbitrarily chosen number. The physical speed of light has been cancelled out of the SI speed of light because the metre itself is defined in terms of the physical speed of light. We are left with the SI speed of light reading as 299,192,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,192,458 seconds, every second. That is about as blank a statement as saying that the speed of light is the speed of light. And if we said that on stage, there would be prolonged clapping, sarcastic whistles, and stamping of feet on the floor. David Tombe (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, tautologies aren't always useless. You still haven't addressed that after the fourth (I think) time I point that out. --___A. di M. 18:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A. di M., In this particular case, we can relate to the distance that light travels in 1/299,192,458 seconds for the exclusive reason that we know that the number 299,192,458 was chosen to make that distance correspond as closely as possible to the pre-1983 metre with which we are all familiar. But without that knowledge relating to the pre-1983 situation, the post-1983 SI speed of light is a meaningless tautology. David Tombe (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you say that "the metre itself is defined in terms of the physical speed of light" and then that 299,458,792 m/s isn't the physical speed of light. That is to say that if you take a quantity, divide it by the number 299,458,792, and then multiply it by the number 299,458,792, you don't get the same quantity you had initially. How's that? --___A. di M. 20:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your bonus question is "what is force? Please define in a strictly non-tautological way, by reference to first principles if possible." Physchim62 (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A. di M., Of course you get the same quantity you had initially. Can you now explain point for point how this scenario relates to the defined speed of light. What is the quantity in question that has been multiplied by 299,192,458 and then been divided by 299,192,458 again? David Tombe (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"The metre itself is defined in terms of the physical speed of light" means that the physical speed of light divided by 299,792,458 equals the SI unit of speed. "The speed of light as expressed in modern SI units is not the physical speed of light" means that the SI unit of speed multiplied by 299,792,458 does not equal the physical speed of light. Those two statements cannot be both true. --___A. di M. 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please see The observational foundations of physics which seems to address the matter with passages such as

  We agree internationally that the speed of light shall be taken to be 2.99792458 m/s (...) and that all lengths shall be derived from the time that electrical signals take to traverse them at that speed. The independent standard of length is abandoned and there is now no way of checking whether the speed of light is a constant. It is by definition a constant.

  — Alan H. Cook, The observational foundations of physics, Cambridge University Press, 1994, page 11

The author was the distinguished physicist Sir Alan Cook. — Colonel Warden (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So we see that distinguished physicists can write distinguished stupidities. Remember, Dingle was a distinguished physicist too. Perhaps we should create an article Distinguished stupidities from distinguished physicists. I'm sure this will become a long, interesting and well sourced article. The above citation is a good starting point. Good grief. DVdm (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Just open any book by Antonino Zichichi at random. He's probably one of the most famous physicists in Italy, but most of what he says is hilarious at best. --___A. di M. 16:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A. di M., When you say above "means that the physical speed of light divided by 299,792,458 equals the SI unit of speed.", you are quite wrong. The SI speed of light is a defined number which means that we can no longer measure the speed of light using the SI system. Colonel Warden has just provided yet another source. The sources are now mounting up admirably. Thank you Colonel Warden. David Tombe (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the sources are now mounting up admirably. The article will be very well sourced indeed. Let's go for it. DVdm (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If I'm "quite wrong", what on Earth did you mean by "The metre itself is defined in terms of the physical speed of light", then? --___A. di M. 16:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Here's another one. The context is an account of the importance of avoiding circular argument in cosmology.

  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

Colonel Warden (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be OK to quote someone holding such an opinion, though it would be good to balance it with a more sensible one, like that the question of the constancy of the speed of light is equivalent to the question of the constancy of the meter, and that it might be hard to find any good independent standard on which to base an experiment, and that the redefinition didn't change that. And course when he says "One then does not need to perform any experiment to prove the constancy of the speed of light" he is mixing up the physical concept with the numerical value; it may well be the case that someday we'll have an independent length standard that could be used to experimentally determine whether c is changing, its SI value notwithstanding. Probably not, but the 1983 definition didn't really change the issue there, of whether we'll be able to find a stable length standard that could be used to tell if c changes. But now I've allowed myself to get into these silly arguments again; why don't we focus on the arbitration issues instead. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, a statement like "the speed of light is constant" is a statement about physics and the universe, and it has nothing to do with SI units or humans. OTOH, the statement "the speed of light measured in meters per second is constant" is different, and is under the control of BIPM. Yes, it seems that some people, even good physicists, get caught up (over)thinking about units, and forget that there's a universe outside and independent of the unit system used by 21st-century humans. :-)

For a more mainstream view, open a string theory textbook. You'll find a fantastically deep discussion of the meaning of distance and time, but you'll never find a word about the current BIPM definition of "metre" and "second". How could that be? Because distance and time are meaningful concepts independently of any unit system. :-) -Steve (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

<rambling>String "theory"? Why? Does it have any more predictive value than I Ching? If not, it's speculation, not "theory".</rambling> <g,d&rVF!> --___A. di M. 10:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dick, That IS the arbitration issue and you've tried to obfuscate it by turning what he said upside down. The point is that he WASN'T getting the two concepts confused. Thank you very much Colonel Warden, I got topic banned for making that statement. And Steve, why didn't you say that earlier? I knew you understood the issue, and that's why I proposd you to write the article. But instead you chose to stab me on the back because of a misunderstanding at Faraday's law a year ago, which may in fact be very close to resolution if you check out the talk page. David Tombe (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to answer the question of whether any reliable secondary or tertiary source includes a statement like this, but I would consider it extremely unlikely since the quoted text does not make any cogent point, even though all of what is written is correct. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion for interim admonition of David Tombe

1) I move the Arbitrators to warn and admonish David Tombe against tendentious and disruptive behavior, assuming bad faith, and incivility on the pages of this arbitration. Finell (Talk) 22:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think Hersford's on top of this. I don't mind so much if he complains about ArbCom, but if he compares anyone else to a fascist, he should be blocked.

Plus, there's not much longer, I think. I'm going to post findings and remedies tonight, which will be critiqued and supplemented by Vassyana tomorrow. Hopefully these will be on the PD page by this weekend. Cool Hand Luke 23:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This promise I have to break. Soon though, soon. Cool Hand Luke 03:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Tombe's repeated accusations that this arbitration is a "kangaroo court" would be sufficient to warrant an interim admonition or other interim remedy:

• "This is a total kangaroo court."[3]
• "... guilt is never an issue at a kangaroo court. Guilt is taken for granted."[4]
• "That's what a kangaroo court is all about. All this 'Principles' and 'Findings' business is just a front for the mob to throw cabbages ..."[5]
• And, all of Tombe's remarks in the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop#Definition of a Kangaroo Court discussion topic, which the Clerk hatted, including the accusation that "Cool Hand Luke is most certainly not neutral" because the Arbitrator commented on the form of a proposed principle on the Workshop page.

However, Tombe's unrepentant comparison of other participants in this arbitration to Goebbels[6][7] and Mussolini (the latter with the edit comment "avoiding Godwin's law")[8] is too offensive to the feelings of other people to be tolerated, even in "heat" of an arbitration. These were genocidal murderers. Finell (Talk) 22:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Move that David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be blocked from editing Wikipedia for so long as the Arbitration Committee (including its clerks) see fit, such duration being no less than 24 hours and not so long as to impede his comments on any proposed final decision in this case. This diff demonstrates that said "user" (I would prefer the term "troll") refuses to comply with the norms of this site, even after multiple warnings. Physchim62 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is underway amongst the other clerks. In the future, if you feel administrative action is needed, please contact me privately on my talk page or through email. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

You don't need a motion for this. He's already been warned about his conduct; if you have concerns about how someone is behaving in this case, please contact me or another clerk. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Interim ban on Brews ohare and David Tombe from Talk:Speed of light

1) Brews ohare (talk · contribs) and David Tombe (talk · contribs) are banned from editing at Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or at its associated talkpage until the current arbitration case has been decided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It would be good if the parties could agree on a state to leave the article in while the case is taking place, and abstain from editing the article or its talk page while the case is in progress (unless uninvolved or new editors post questions during the case). That will both quiet things down, allow people to devote their full attention to getting the dispute resolved, and allow others a chance to discuss other parts of the article. If any editors who have been made aware of this advice persist in devoting time to the article instead of the case, could this be reported here so an injunction on such editing can be considered? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I feel I must propose this harsh measure, given the recent actions of the two editors concerned. David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is already covered by a topic ban from the speed of light article. Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided to go against the spirit of dispute resolution with thirteen talkpage edits to Talk:Speed of light in less than two hours, none of which address the question originally raised by the talkpage section:[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Despite the topic ban, David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to add another three edits to the same section over the same (less-than-two-hour) period: [22], [23], [24], Arbitrators might feel more inclined simply to read the talkpage section as it currently appears: here. Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I lifted the topic ban prior to commencement of this case. It seems like David Tombe should have a fair chance to be heard at arbitration before any ban is finalized. If he's disrupting the page during arbitration, well, that would be most unwise. Jehochman ^Talk 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The three edits in question were actually one very short comment on the talk page. Two of the edits were grammar corrections due to a faulty keyboard. So what Physchim62 means is that I made one short comment on the talk page at speed of light in less than two hours. Physchim62 seems to think that this warrants a ban. This is starting to look like harrassment. David Tombe (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Physchim62 takes a very harsh stance with others but does not apply similar scrutiny to his own behavior, which includes pejorative remarks of an unfounded nature, threats, and deliberate fabrication, as documented elsewhere in this examination. There is presently a quiet atmosphere on Talk: Speed of light and no drastic interim action is necessary. Brews ohare (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unimportant What is important is what happens after arbitration is complete. I have stopped editing the page during arbitration in the hopes that when the process is complete the physicists can get on with improving the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

David Tombe banned from further public participation in this case

2) During the course of this case, David Tombe (talk · contribs) has made a series of disruptive comments, including comparisons of other users to Nazi officials, and attempts to wikilawyer around complaints ([25] [26] [27] [28]). David Tombe was warned on several occasions by Arbitrators and the case clerk, and continued the disruptive behavior, being blocked for 48 hours on October 2 by User:Vassyana, and again for 48 hours on October 12 by User:Hersfold. In an effort to maintain a collegial atmosphere on these case pages, David Tombe is banned from further participation on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, its subpages, and their associated talk pages. Should David Tombe wish to make further comments related to the case, he may email them to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Support. I find it deeply unfortunate that it has come to this. Seriously comparing one's peers to the authortarianism and atrocities of Hitler, Nationalist Socialists, Stalin, or related figures and groups is extremely inflammatory and insulting. He was warned when I blocked him that repeats of this nature could result in being banned from participation in the case. (See: User talk:David Tombe#October 2009.) I see this as the inevitable result of a repeat occurance. Vassyana (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Motions posted for voting: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Proposed decision#David Tombe Vassyana (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. The edit that led to the second block is this one, although there are many, many examples of David Tombe's disruptive attitude towards this arbitration (and Wikipedia in general) and his utter contempt for other editors. Frankly, I'm at a loss to see why this ban should be limited to the current arbitration: I would favor an interim site ban until this case is decided. NB. the second block was made October 13 Wikipedia time. Physchim62 (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Question Is there any evidence of substantial, constructive participation anywhere on Wikipedia? If not, block the account as disruption-only and consider banning the user. Jehochman ^Talk 12:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I already have presented my arguments supporting D Tombe as a useful contributor here & elsewhere in this Case. I'd assume that you have read these statements, and your question is largely intended as rhetorical in view of the very few that are likely to try to determine the true answer to it. Brews ohare (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose This is overkill. The object of this Case is not to attack D Tombe. It is to improve the operation of WP. If there were no difficult cases of interaction, there would be no need to arbitrate. The solution to the problem is to diagnose the issues independent of the particulars of this case and come up with a solution for the general problem. The solution is not "cut the knot" and banish D Tombe. The very hostility here toward an individual is a major cause of the entire problem, D Tombe or no D Tombe, and just why it should be the view that violence is the answer I do not understand. Brews ohare (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this motion is not to attack David. The purpose of this motion is to prevent further disruption to this case, so that we can get on with the goal of improving the project. As I've said several times, I have no interest in the dispute this case concerns; my main purpose here is to maintain order. This motion is made in that regard. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold: To be clear, I was responding in regard to the topic heading banned from further public participation, not to your present 48 hour block. I don't think banned from further public participation is advisable "so that we can get on with the goal of improving the project". Rather, improvement of the project is dependent upon controlling editor reaction, even to what may be eccentric argument (something that they often conclude without adequate justification or regard for sources). Brews ohare (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This motion is in fact an effort to control an editor's reaction to situations. David claims he was provoked when making these comments; his response was unacceptable, and continued after warnings and blocks to get him to stop. This case cannot continue when a party is making egregious attacks against others. If we are to get on with the purpose of the arbitration, such obstacles need to be removed through whatever means are effective. Warnings and blocks have not proven to be such, so I've asked the Arbitration Committee to take the next step. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Support: After being warned repeatedly in this arbitration with no effect, then blocked for 48 hours (the first one), for Tombe to accuse other editors of behaving like a Nazi war criminal again demonstrates his contempt for this process and this project (remember that Tombe repeatedly accused others of "contempt of court" early in this arbitration). This is over the top. A very small percentage of individuals demonstrate that they are incapable of working in a collaborative environment under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tombe's behavior has proven, again, that he is one of those very few. Given his record of constant battles and chronic disregard of sanctions and warnings throughout his Wikipedia career, including a "last chance" reprieve last year from an indefinite block, Tombe should be banned and blocked from the project indefinitely. Finell (Talk) 15:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. In the entire context of this case David Tombe's behaviour is a strong example of thriving on being forced/allowed to play the victim role. This second block is not "punitive or preventive". It is more like accomodating and kindly oncoming. Tombe should have been blocked from commenting on this case many weeks ago. - DVdm (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: D Tombe is an example of what can happen when a particular individual is placed in a particular environment. Others may respond in a more acceptable manner. However, IMO the environment here is truly awful, and good behavior under these circumstances requires a lot of self-control. The solution here is to step back and ask: What is it that makes such a combative, hostile editing environment possible? Why should amazing self-control be necessary? Why have sarcastic, smart-aleck responses replaced reason? I don't care how eccentric an editor may be or however weird their arguments, it is achievable to deal with such things without the excesses found here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed in capacity as case clerk. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Support enacting this measure now, based on Vassyana's rationale and the David Tombe's response to the block. But I would also favour a full site ban for the duration of this case to prevent this misconduct spilling anywhere else (which is what I thought I was proposing in my proposals earlier). Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Ncmvocalist: I hope that these remarks are indicative of your impatience, and not your notion of a dispassionate assessment of the activities of D Tombe. Of course there are difficulties here, and that is a reason for your involvement, but the solution is not to brush the problem aside, but to address it, analyze it, and come up with a general solution; not a solution based upon beating down the symptoms, but a cure. Brews ohare (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Jehochman

Proposed principles

Proper use of talk pages

1) Talk page discussion should lead toward the improvement of articles. Editors must not use talk pages for soapboxing, publication of novel ideas, or personal attacks against other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Support in principle, subject to some tweaking of the wording. Talkpages are at least primarily for discussing the substance and improvement of the associated articles. There is limited tolerance for more general discussion, but not when it becomes disruptive, or overwhelms the substantive work of the page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Noting my agreement with Newyorkbrad. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is good. I expect something like this will be proposed for voting. Cool Hand Luke 04:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

An idea. Jehochman ^Talk 12:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well full points for setting the ball rolling! But I don't think this is something that would help admins in the future. I we decide that WP:SOAP, WP:NOR and WP:NPA are important here (they seem to be, to me at least), then each should be given it's own section. Perhaps someone could try to get something which is specific to WP:TALK… otherwise, we should wait until the FoFs below. Physchim62 (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Jehochman's principles. However, some editors who in good faith push WP:FRINGE or novel ideas or original research don't recognize that is what they are doing. They may cite WP:RSs, but fail to understand that the sources do not really support their position. In physics or some other subjects, some admins may have a difficult time deciding these content issues, and I am not sure if that is what admins are supposed to do in any event. I'm not sure that ArbCom wants to be faced with successive enforcement motions to decide future disputes over the content of Speed of light. It is easier for admins to enforce behavioral guidelines than to judge content of this type. WP:NPA can be enforced, but the most important guideline in this particular case is WP:DISRUPTIVE. That covers continuing to argue against a consensus that is established after sufficient discussion and that is supported by WP:RSs. —Finell (Talk) 23:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman's principles and with Finell. Brews continual argument about a point on which a clear consensus has been reached is disruptive. This action results in other editors, who essentially agree with one another, pointlessly discussing the minutiae of the topic. Davis Tombe then uses resulting chaos as an opportunity to push his fringe views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mixed reaction: Indeed, Talk page discussion should involve the "discussion of the substance and improvement of articles". At what point exactly does this activity transition to "more general discussion" that is to be treated with "limited tolerance"? If I attempt to present a point of difference with some editors in several different ways, or introduce new sources, or new examples, or new quotes from sources, thereby irritating some for whom this is a closed subject, is that on the "limited tolerance" side of things? It is not WP:SOAP, it is not an "opinion piece". Should it be a matter of policy that one is limited in how many ways one may present a case? Can't those whose minds are decided simply opt out of further discussion, and restrain themselves from interjecting cat calls? Brews ohare (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

For I am faced with a lack of comprehension of the issues I have raised on Talk: Speed of light. Of course, I am not an objective witness. However, Count Iblis, Steve, Abtract and David Tombe get the point, but many others do not. They accuse me of WP:Fringe and WP:OR, but IMO there is no basis for these opinions and they are not backed up by sources nor, indeed, specific examination of actual text. Also, these guidelines are not intended to restrict Talk pages, but are aimed at editing of the main article page.

No WP guidelines can lead to comprehension and a correct article. However, it is possible that enforcement of WP:NPA and WP:Talk uniformly across all participants (that is, Admins should not select particular individuals for enforcement based upon some appraisal of who is right or wrong; selection of some and not others simply increases polarization) would make the editing atmosphere less combative and lead to greater receptivity to sources and arguments, if implemented early on, before polarization sets in. Some modifications to these guidelines are in order to make sure that comments proffered are specific to the arguments under review, to avoid argument over imagined rather than actual content, and to avoid snowballing of editors' opinions instead of sticking to actual material. Threats, such as those made by Physchim62, should be strenuously opposed, as should pejorative adjectives such as "nonsense", "crackpot", "idiosyncratic", which should be firmly excluded. The object is to keep things civilized and focused upon substantive comment upon actual statements made, to avoid accumulation of a lynch mob atmosphere. No understanding of content or judgment of worthiness of argument is needed to implement a uniform, across-the-board civility and foster focus upon critique of actual material under consideration. We don't want critique based upon editors' distortions of others' arguments (whether deliberate or accidental), nor based upon some carry-over from other arguments on other pages.

It should be recognized that discussion is to be catalyzed, not consensus. Brews ohare (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Topic Bans

2) Administrators are empowered to do whatever is reasonable and necessary to prevent disruption of the Project. Administrators may entirely prevent an account from editing, or they may "topic ban" an account from editing particular pages or categories of pages. Technical means have not yet been implemented for enforcing topic bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per invitation of User:Cool Hand Luke, I an posting my thoughts. In practice, it is very hard to impose a topic ban this way because the editor will go from venue to venue complaining, and potentially lobby their friends to complain on their behalf. It would be far better to implement a technical means of imposing a "partial block". This would be a block that only restricts editing of particular pages. The pages could be specified as an individual page, such asPhysics, or a category of pages, such as Category:Physics. By creating a formal method to place, record, and appeal "partial blocks", the practice would be regularized and disruption would be reduced. Somebody with initiative could propose this at WP:PUMP and ask User:Brion VIBBER about the programming issues. Jehochman ^Talk 15:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe should be banned from editing physics articles simply because he is inserting his fringe views wherever possible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins should not be given a blanket power to prevent "disruption", as they are incapable of such broad judgments, which require technical knowledge and wide inquiry. Rather, they should undertake to enforce civility and to catalyze genuine discussion (not unanimity) instead of debate and rhetoric. Identification of bad behavior contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:Talk should lead to administrative action applied uniformly to all participants. The notion that discussion is disruptive basically is nonsense. Boring or marginal topics can be ignored on Talk pages, and reverted (with appropriate Talk-page critique) on main pages. It is high emotion, rhetoric and abuse that is disruptive. Brews ohare (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Administrative sanctions

3) Administrators are empowered to do whatever is reasonable and necessary to prevent disruption of the Project. In a situation where an administrator is permitted to block an account, they may instead place a lesser sanction an editing restriction, such as a topic ban, or civility restriction. Administrative sanctions are subject to review by the community and may be overturned by consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Like this a lot. I think this should be part of the case (along with a finding generally affirming the process Jehochman used to topic ban David Tombe). Cool Hand Luke 19:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

May be a better alternative. Jehochman ^Talk 07:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators should be empowered to enforce WP:Civil, WP:NPA, WP:Talk and possibly some additional guidelines related to enforcement of adequate justification for reversions. They should not be empowered to determine what is "disruptive", or what is "reasonable", or what is "necessary" because broad powers coupled with very vague criteria (decided by each admin's subjective opinion) will lead to abuse of power right and left, with the ultimate decay of WP in its entirety. Brews ohare (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is empirically true. Any time a more creative sanction is handed out by an administrator, it essentially devolves to "this is the conduct I'm holding you to, and if you don't, I'll block you, and I encourage other administrators to do so." I'm not sure if "lesser" is actually true. Community consensus can impose pretty much anything, and one way of gauging such consensus is the lack of objections, especially by those with the same access level to the block button (compare with the second prong of the community ban). I think there is a benefit to actively inviting community discussion before and after creative sanctions are employed, (and the committee may want to take a position on that) but what Jehochman describes is actually inherent in the nature of what we do.--Tznkai (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably an administrator who imposes a page ban for disruptive editing will have to give evidence of the actual disruption that was caused. It's no good supplying a hundred diffs that amount to a hill of beans. It's no good drawing attention to a block record because that would indicate that a person can be blocked simply on the grounds that they have been blocked before. It's no good citing an AN/I thread that came to nothing and which was instigated maliciously by somebody with an axe to grind. It's no good doing what Christopher Thomas did in bringing attention to a perfectly reasonable debate at WT:PHYS and claiming that it somehow represented evidence of disruptive behaviour. One would expect that an administrator who page bans an editor should be able to show a single diff that clearly demonstrates wrongdoing, and/or definite evidence that the debate had been disrupted as a result of a malicious edit. As it stands right now, Jehochman has a page ban on his hands which is absent of any of these justifications. It's hard to imagine how any proposal is going to retrospectively vindicate Jehochman's actions. Right now, we are seeing a group of editors running around whipping up the idea that two editors (one of whom is myself) have been engaged in disruptive editing, but so far no evidence has been provided. And all this merely draws attention away from the questionable reversions that were carried out by Martin Hogbin and Tim Shuba as detailed on my evidence. David Tombe (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Brews ohare

Proposed findings of fact

Incivility

1) Incivility has been exhibited on Talk: Speed of light in the form of catcalls interjected in serious discussion simply to derail that process, smart-aleck or wise-guy derisive remarks intended to change the atmosphere from serious exploration to one of hostility to some points of view, and use of pejorative adjectives such as 'pseudoscience', 'crank', 'idiosyncratic' to characterize views not accepted by some parties. Brews ohare (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose as written: Brews confuses legitimate comment on content, proposed content, and conduct (behavior) with incivility and personal attacks. As Brews misconstrues these principles, the ArbCom ruling on pseudoscience was uncivil. Idiosyncratic is not necessarily pejorative: Albert Einstein's theories were idiosyncratic until physicists read, considered, and appreciated his them; Wikipedia would not have published Einstein's theories until physicists recognized them as within the realm of serious physics. Using crank as a noun, to call someone a "crank", is insulting and in some circumstances could be a personal attack (although the term is in common use by scientists and science writers). Brews complains of using it as an adjective, which is applied to describe a syndrome of behavior by some non-scientists who expound on science (see Crank) and to a type of non-professional writing that results from this behavior. —Finell (Talk) 01:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Finell: This is a finding of fact about behavior on Talk: Speed of light, and supported by same. It is beyond "misconstrual". The word "idiosyncratic" may have non-pejorative meanings, but that's not how it's being used. Brews ohare (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I had pointed out a definition of idiosyncratic ("peculiar to a specific individual; eccentric") to you before, so you'd understand my point. It is critical, since one is supposed to respect sources and consensus, but I don't think that makes it pejorative ("disparaging, belittling or derogatory") or incivil ("rude, impolite, uncivilized, barbarous"). Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Dicklyon: The purpose of using the word "idiosyncratic" to characterize an editor's views (or as you put it, to label them "eccentric" or "peculiar to an individual") is definitely an attempt to marginalize those views rather than deal with them on the same basis as "mainstream" views (that is, the views you support). Your perspective is blinkered when you are so certain that views are "idiosyncratic" that to you that is simply a matter-of-fact, incontrovertible truth, and not a point of view. This characterization is even more annoying when the view so described is in fact a complete misconception (whether deliberate or accidental) of the actual views expressed. Brews ohare (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, your position is often idiosyncratic on two fronts: first, you stand alone among editors (except recently you do have some support from David Tombe and Count Iblis); second, you are unable to show support in sources, so rely on citing multiple sources that inspire your point of view. You have every right to advance your point of view on talk pages; but when you put it into an article, and other editors object due to its lack of verifiability in sources, the ball's in your court to find and present a source that backs it up. When you fail to do that, but instead keep on pushing by dozens of article edits per day and dozen of talk page edits per day, in an attempt to overwhelm your opposition, your pushing of your idiosyncratic position becomes disruptive. If we were having a normal discussion of a POV shared by several editors and backed up by sources, we wouldn't be here. If you didn't have a long history of doing this in multiple article, leaving a trail of complaints and accumulating enemies along the way, we wouldn't be here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Dicklyon:

First, the underlying issue is not the technical meaning or usage of "idiosyncratic", but that editors have been uncivil. So to a degree your remarks are off-topic.

Second, "idiosyncratic" means "not mainstream" and to the contrary my views are sourced by mainstream publications.

Third, your accusations about my dominating the main article page certainly do not apply to Speed of light and arguably apply nowhere else either.

Fourth, your arguments about sources are completely unsubstantiated and unsupportable. In fact, on Talk: Speed of light I am the editor that has actually introduced sources into this debate, and it is pulling teeth to get anyone to go beyond doubtful generalities to make specific comments about them, or to engage in discussion about them. Brews ohare (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reversion without adequate comment on Talk page

2) Sourced material on the main page has been reverted with little or even no comment on the Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There is no requirement for an explanation on the talk page: if the rationale is clear enough to fit in an edit summary (either in a freestanding manner, or by referencing an existing policy or previous discussion) that is sufficient documentation for the change. In any event, in this case I do not think there is a single issue under dispute that has not been discussed to death. If a reversion was made in round 383 of a particular problem area without comment, then maybe it can be read the argument from round 382 still fits. The proponent has seemingly infinite amounts of time and patience at his disposal and has been quite relentless in advancing his particular position. Other editors may not have these things at their disposal and deal with with argument by refernce to prior discussion rather than remakign the same arguments against yet another rehash of an old argument. CrispMuncher (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to CrispMuncher: This is a finding of fact about behavior on Talk: Speed of light and Speed of light supported by evidence. It is not about guidelines nor proposal of guidelines. Brews ohare (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is a proposed finding of fact. Whether it is accepted or not depends on its accuracy. A consideration of what constitutes "adequate" is pivotal to that determination, and can only be done with reference to policy and established practice. CrispMuncher (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to CrispMuncher: For an example, see here. See also Edit summaries like: 1; 2 3. Yes, "there is no requirement for an explanation on the talk page"; but there should be. Brews ohare (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

False statements of position

3) Erroneous attribution of a position not in fact ever held or advocated has been attributed to some editors. Brews ohare (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Brews_ohare has been accused by Physchim62, Dicklyon, Finell and others of holding silly positions such as “that most of physics was destroyed by the decision of the CGPM to fix the speed of light in SI units in 1983.” Repeated requests for the basis of these ridiculous claims have been ignored. Brews ohare (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've found it often quite hard to understand what Brews is saying, as if he's using physics terminology but everything means something different! For example, he has used "speed" to mean something like "numerical value" [29], he always uses "free space" to mean "an imaginary universe where quantum mechanics doesn't exist" [30], and so forth. I find Brews to be bad at "speaking physics", even though he's not stupid. Almost as if he were early in his physics education, or a specialist in a different field. Therefore I'm not surprised that Brews should find his views so frequently caricatured inaccurately. (That's just my perspective, and of course I don't know Brews's actual background or education.)

That said, there's some merit in Brews's complaint, certainly the example he posted above. :-) --Steve (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I'm going to have to come in on that one. There have been far too many instances here of editors offering their criticisms about Brews and myself, as if it is taken for granted that they are already in some elevated position with the authority to make such qualified judgements. The truth is that there are alot of editors involved in this whose knowledge of physics leaves alot to be desired. My experience has been that these are the very kind that conspire to dominate the articles, and to restrict input to their own limited knowledge. And when they do finally learn, they will still never concede the original point. There seems to be a mutual appreciation society at work on alot of the physics articles.

I don't see Brews as falling into this category. I don't see Brews as somebody who would revert an edit out of spite. I was somewhat mystified as to what was going on at speed of light when I heard that Brews was taking alot of flak. The true cause of the impasse at speed of light is now beginning to emerge as we witness some editors trying to sneak over to the other side in the light of the Colonel Warden source. And you yourself indicated clearly in a recent edit that you could quite clearly see the point that Brews has been making [31]. You could see that the SI defined speed of light has got nothing to do with the physical speed of light. You should be backing Brews up here rather than slicing chips off him. David Tombe (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Steve: Your statement that I always use "free space" to mean "an imaginary universe where quantum mechanics doesn't exist" confuses me much. I do not do that. My view of free space can be found at this article, which I wrote. Extrapolations to weird theories that I am supposed to hold but have no connection to are really annoying. Brews ohare (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to reply Brews, here and here are two of many places where you say that Maxwell's equations in free space are not empirical laws of physics but exactly true by definition. The real universe, the one we live in, is fundamentally governed by quantum mechanics, not Maxwell's equations. (Maxwell's equations, like all of classical physics, are very good approximations but not quite right, as we all know.) Therefore, your "free space" is not part of the universe we live in...It's an imaginary universe with different laws of physics, not based on quantum mechanics. By the way, I don't mean the term "imaginary universe" to be insulting, I think it's the clearest description.

And now we have a new example of exactly what I'm arguing: I'm trying really hard to accurately characterize Brews's position, including links and explanations and drawing on my many hours of debate with Brews about this exact point. Yet Brews thinks I'm accusing him of holding a silly position that he doesn't really believe. Q.E.D. :-) --Steve (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Steve: The diff you provide does not refer to Maxwell's equations. The second link simply states the implications of Maxwell's equations for a medium governed by the electric constant and the magnetic constant. I fail to see how these links establish any opinion of mine regarding the real universe or that Maxwell's equations are true by definition. I am not sure what you refer to by your "new example". Although I would not be so blunt, you are driving me to the position that indeed "Yet Brews thinks I'm accusing him of holding a silly position that he doesn't really believe." In any event, I don't believe these things you attribute to me. Brews ohare (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Physchim62 has misbehaved

4) Physchim62 has demonstrated behavior not in keeping with WP guidelines, and gross lack of judgment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Summary of supporting findings: Physchim62 attacks my views using violations of WP:NPA and WP:Talk. A recent example is his intemperate interjection concerning Speed of light set by definition section, responded to by me at this link. Another example is here, responded to here, where Physchim62, actually attributes to me a ludicrous view never expressed or supported by myself, all to justify a threat that is way beyond WP:NPA. He makes another completely unsupported, unsupportable, erroneous, outright fabrication here. Requests for retraction or evidence for such assertions were ignored. Other examples of bad behavior are pandering to vociferous soapboxers, if you don't shut up I'll ask that you be banned & so forth. These activities violate WP guidelines and standards of normal civil and ethical behavior.

In addition, in this workshop Physchim62 he has claimed a parallel exists with the Sadi Carnot case. He was himself involved in this case, and so is very familiar with the issues, and should understand full well that there is no parallel with this case. Citing this case as a precedent is misrepresentation, either deliberate or because of a gross lack of judgment. Physchim62 also commented upon the Depleted uranium case, and should have an understanding of the issues here as well; he states the issues as involving misrepresentation of sources and disruption of the main article page. These behaviors are not an issue in this Speed of light case. Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Like myself, Physchim62 has become frustrated with the disruptive editing of Brews. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Martin Hogbin exhibits extreme resistance to compromise

5) Martin Hogbin resists modification of text he has been involved with to the exclusion of even moderate compromise. Brews ohare (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

An example is an odd obsession about having the unexplained, isolated occurrence of the word exact appear in the lead despite violation of WP:ASTONISH and opposition from Dicklyon, Abtract, TimothyRias, myself and others. This debate occupied Martin and the Talk page for weeks, including a poll, and its use in violation of WP:POLL, and continual attempts to ram his wording down everyone's throat. Brews ohare (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I ever objected to that word; certainly not in the cited diff. I partially agree that Martin resists compromise, and I've told him so, but it's absurd to have this particular pot calling the kettle black≥ Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Dicklyon: I've provided an example supported by diffs; Dicklyon has provided his notions. Brews ohare (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I do resist compromise, when it is between established science and fringe science or between a clear consensus and the opinion of one tendentious editor. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I will have to agree with Martin here. The problem is that you (Brews) see the BIPM definition as Martin's "pet theory", something to be "corrected" (WP:GREATWRONGS). One can't compromise on a yes or no question because it's impossible to do so. Is the speed of light exactly 2,99..? The answer is yes, by definition of the meter. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The one-line Edit Summary is misused

6) One-line edit summaries made using the textbox at the bottom of the editing screen have been used to justify edits that require greater discussion on the Talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose: There is nothing inherently wrong with a one-line edit summary to justify an edit, including a revert. An edit summary without talk page discussion is the norm, rather than the exception. Further, talk page discussion of the subject of the present disputes has been absurdly excessive, rather than insufficient. Finell (Talk) 18:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Agree with Finell in all respects. There are reams of argument in the talk pages, much of it from the proponent debating every single aspect of the article. Most editors have neither the time or energy to expend on such projects. A nonsensical argument is still a nonsensical argument even if it is 100 pages long. A strong argument may still be strong when expressed as a setence. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose There is a limit to how many times you can discuss the same subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Response: In any event, the initial reversion requires a detailed appraisal, not a one-line Edit summary, and this has not always been the case at all. If editors believe a revision of a reverted submission is subject to the same objections as the earlier reversion, it is only civil to explain to the submitting editor why the requests previously made are not satisfied. Avoiding this advice is less likely to be avoidance of undue repetition by the reverting editor, and more likely to be avoidance of actually digesting what changes have been made, resulting in a a knee-jerk reaction. A major objective in requesting careful advice is to maintain civility and to insure a fair reception of alternative views. Brews ohare (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Precisely who "requires" that? If a complete argument can be given inside an edit summary why should it be given elsewhere? CrispMuncher (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC).

Response to CrispMuncher: The Edit summary is necessarily short. My experience has been that entire sourced discussions have been dismissed with a ten-word Edit summary (ranging from an unsupported WP:SYNTH to reverted nonsensical contribution). My reaction to having several hours of composition and tracking down of sources reverted in this way is annoyance, at the least. It leaves me feeling that the editor couldn't be bothered looking at the contribution, couldn't be bothered suggesting changes, couldn't be bothered period. It is uncivil, suggests the reverting editor thinks the contribution is garbage based upon a hunch, not a fair reading, and escalates tempers. At a minimum, the reverting editor should consider that a sourced contribution is a thought-out piece, and if it seems to be off-the-mark, some suggested corrections might fix things. That kind of response is not possible in an Edit summary. It is far better in terms of tempers and in terms of a better article to err on the side of a longer critique. The one line Edit summary should be used primarily to allow easy identification of edits, not to provide curtailed consideration of sourced contributions. Brews ohare (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyond these remarks, it may be noted that follow-up requests for proper Talk-page discussion related to sources and content have been ignored with impunity, or scuttled by diversionary tactics like red herrings, catcalls and putdowns. Brews ohare (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Differences with Dicklyon extend to additional issues

7.) Dicklyon has expanded the scope of this inquiry beyond Speed of light to become a forum for discussion of all his past experiences with Brews ohare. In effect, that extends the scope of this inquiry to become a new Case/Brews_ohare versus Dicklyon. Such extension brings up matters not a primary source of difficulty on Talk: Speed of light.

Among other issues is a difference in views about what is germane to an article and what constitutes "bloating". An example is Wavelength, which prior to my edits appeared like this. I thought the topic had further ramifications, preferring something like this, which involved the notion of the wavelength of a nonsinusoidal wave, the idea of a local wavelength in a water wave approaching shore, wavelength of the envelope of a modulated waveform or a wavepacket, and so forth. I made or dug up a number of figures to support this version, along with a host of references. The reconstruction of the article took seven edits. That struck Dicklyon as horrible "bloating" of the article, which was limited to a single sinusoidal wave previously. He then reverted most of this in five edits with one line Edit summaries "no apparent connection to the topic", "unrelated links" etc. He was joined in his efforts by Srleffler, who had contributed to the earlier version. The treatment of the wavelength of an irregular waveform involved the standard textbook d'Alembert formulation of a wave in the form f(x-vt), which led to a bitter dispute (this standard material found in all texts on waves became "POV pushing"), based IMO on a lack of understanding of what this background was about. It was a totally frustrating mess. The substantive differences were technical and differences over how broad a context should be provided for the wavelength concept. At my own extreme I'd have liked to include much more than the other two editors (see this for example), and I don't know how that type of dispute can be resolved. Unfortunately, it evolved into an unproductive battle. Everybody was exhausted. Dicklyon decided to make a federal case out of it, using his famous 'idiosyncratic' characterization. Looking for a broader context, I tried to add some of this material to Wave and got hit by another federal case. These issues are difficult to resolve, but I think they are different from those at Talk: Speed of light. Although they may explain Dicklyon's hostility, they do not support his allegations. Brews ohare (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As the coordinator of WikiProject Physics, what Dicklyon did is pretty much a routine non-controversial request for help (certainly not fitting of your "Federal Case" hyperbola), and it's certainly what I expect editors to do. If there's a problem at a physics-related page, come to WP:PHYS, request opinions by uninvolved parties, extra sets of eyes, etc... If anything, the behaviour was exemplary. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editor Jehochman has misbehaved

8) Admin Jehochman has interrupted a RfC posted by Brews_ohare at WP:Civil to support Physchim62 in his gratuitous incivility described as follows:

Physchim62 interrupted discussion of a proposal concerning use of the one-line Edit Summary to make unwarranted uncivil attack. This interruption is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the RfC, and interferes with a normal WP process. It seems pretty clear to me that the phrasing "pander to the aggressive spinners of pseudoscience" is inflammatory.

Jehochman's support of Physchim62's incivility is not the first time Jehochman has intruded to support Physchim62, as he also intervened at Physchim62's request to ban D Tombe based upon his sole judgment.

Jehochman's flippant remark concerning unwarranted inflammatory attacks made on Talk pages unrelated to this case is further indication of lack of sensitivity to incivility.

Jehochman also has presumed to advertise the conclusions of Case/Speed of light on WP:Civil before adjudication has occurred. That is a premature and gratuitous statement in that context. Brews ohare (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

These actions by Jehochman fall directly into the pattern of snowballing accusations that plagues Talk: Speed of light, and indicate that Jehochman has no grasp of the very violations that are being examined in Case/Speed of light. Brews ohare (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Recuse Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Brews decided to seek another forum and opened an RfC at WT:CIVIL. Jehochman, like almost everyone else who has commented, opposed the proposal; I did too. I don't see how his remarks can be construed as "interrupt[ing]" the RfC. Further, Brews cannot reasonably expect other editors not to express some exasperation, given his own behavior. It is unfortunate that Brews genuinely does not recognize that, or why, his behavior is TEndentious and WP:DISRUPTive. Comments by other editors and admins have no impact. I tried, again, at User talk:Hersfold#Request to enforce length limit in Speed of Light evidence section; Brews blew me off. I don't know what, if anything, will get through to him. I urge the Arbitrators to look at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Add civil reversion of text as an issue as additional evidence of Brews's approach to discussion in the face of overwhelming consensus.

Speaking of forum shopping, Brews raised the same complaint about Jehochman elsewhere: User talk:Vassyana#Attack by Jehochman, User talk:Cool Hand Luke#Attack by Jehochman, and User talk:Hersfold#Attacks on other WP pages by Physchim62. Finell (Talk) 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I also would propose that Arbitrators examine Add civil reversion of text as an issue from this perspective: it is a discussion of a proposal in which various editors provided their opinions and I simply and civilly responded to their concerns. In some cases some conversation developed. There is no requirement that such a discussion should lead to agreement: it is an exploration of a proposal. The outcome was an addition to WP:Civil by Rd232 that struck me as useful. I haven't contributed since that happened. However, somehow Finell thinks this example illustrates some kind of egregious behavior on my part.

Up to that point, there was no hectoring and there were no impolite exchanges, but then Physchim62 & Jehochman intervened to create a circus opposed by some others and added to by Finell. Brews ohare (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To Brews's credit, he closed the RfC himself, realizing that the opposition to his proposal was overwhelming. Finell (Talk) 23:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment:Brews has drawn attention to the very axis that has caused this entire arbitration hearing. Jehochman page banned me at the request of Physchim62 for expressing an opinion at the talk page of speed of light. That opinion now seems to be getting more popular, and editors can be seen rushing to adopt it while trying to make out that I never held that opinion. We are starting to see a scramble to reverse the roles. Jehochman's actions were illegal, as can be seen from reading the wikipedia banning policy here [32]. However, none of the authorities seemed to be in the slightest interested in picking Jehochman up on this point. It was actually pointed out at the relevant AN/I thread by a feweditors, but it was ignored.

Physchim62 has more or less admitted that he requested to get me banned because he thought it would be easy, presumably because I have a block record [33]. These are the kind of bully boy tactics that the arbitrators need to be dealing with. These are the only kind of tactics that have caused actual disruption at speed of light. David Tombe (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Following arbitration, controversial edits to Speed of light are planned

9) According to Martin Hogbin there may be considerable changes to the content after the decision. Also, Some of us are waiting for the dust to settle from the current arbcom case before doing any significant editing here. Apparently the expectation is that Brews_ohare & D Tombe (at a minimum) will be prevented by Arbitrators from opposing changes such as reversing the present text on the main page of Speed of light to a form preferred by Martin Hogbin and some others. Supposing this does happen, the resulting introduction will again violate WP:Astonish, and the notion that 299 … m/s is the exact speed of light will rise again, despite the observations made here. There is an additional likelihood that the sourced sub-section Redefinition of the metre will be revised to reintroduce the rigid views of Martin Hogbin and his entourage, which are based upon only a partial understanding of the subject. Brews ohare (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Martin Hogbin's firm opposition to modification of his version of the lead is very clear, and is not limited to opposition to Brews_ohare and D Tombe. See Dicklyon & Abtract & TimothyRias & Martin Hogbin's use of a poll to stifle discussion. With the addition of Finell, Physchim62, DVdm and various other supporters, it is quite possible that the opposition will tire of the battle and just let matters proceed. Brews ohare (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a gross characterization of what would happen, of what has happened. The poll did not stiffle discussion, it allowed the rest of us to [finally] gauge what phrasing was the best to convey what we wanted to say, and see if there was any problem with the various phrasings. It allowed to cut through the sometimes several hundreds edits per day made on the talk page. Also the idea that the speed of light is exactly 299... is not controversial by any meaningful measure of the word (it's controversial to the extend that creationists say evolution is controversial). Nor would it "violate WP:ASTONISH". All the other articles on units and quantities have their exact definition in the lead. Take second for example, which has "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" in its lead. If anything the only thing that would happen is the SoL article finally fall back in line with all the articles on units and quantities. (This may or may not already have happened, I have unwatchlisted the SoL article because there was/is too much unfocused editting going on).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb's referral to the "exact definition" and parochial summary of events indicates he still has not grasped the points outlined here despite a common view that the arguments are not about the physics & I don't think we have an issue that will provoke disagreement on the physics, and that the unadorned use of the word "exact" or "exactly" requires a bit of explanation to avoid conflict with WP:Astonish (see here& here, for example) as has been discussed at great length on Talk: Speed of light and ultimately led to the existing reasonable introduction. Headbomb's remarks are an added indication of the threat of radical revision of the article. Brews ohare (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews, you accuse me of trying to stifle discussion yet you may remember that I set up this page for us, and others, to continue discussion on your topic without disrupting the article talk page. The discussion proceeded for a while then just as it started to get interesting you stopped responding. Is there a reason for this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried for a while following your approach on this page, and found you were simply trying to tie me up in knots with strict "yes" or "no" questions of your own devising, and allowing not even a one word revision or comment of any kind. I decided it was not a discussion at all, but a game you wanted to play. Brews ohare (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so let's do this. Read my list at Talk:Speed of light#Let's make sure we're not talking at cross-purpose. Do you agree with those points? If not, why? Note that the second question is not a yes-or-no one, and you can ask clarifications or make comments on any one of them. ___A. di M. 01:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no point discussing the article further with Brews, as others have been doing for 9 months. He is an immovable object. Anyway, this arbitration is not about article content. It is about restoring an environment conducive to collaboration and building consensus. I am confident that the Arbitrators will do that. Finell (Talk) 01:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that controversial changes are being planned. This is more conspiracy talk. (NOTE: Conspirators do not signal their plans in public.) Martin's suggests that editors should not work on the article until the Arbitrators restore order. Several of us are not following Martin's very reasonable suggestion and are continuing to work toward improving the article. However, lots more work obviously must done to bring the article back to FA. It will be easier to discuss what needs to be done and to work toward consensus when the talk page isn't being disrupted, as it has been, by one or two editors' focus on one minor issue. One beneficial side-effect of this controversy is that it has brought more physicists to Speed of light, who are contributing to the article's improvement. There are many eyes on the article, and no editor can get his or her way without consensus.Finell (Talk) 01:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others

I understand Ohare's point, that the speed of the light is not known exactly (whatever "knowing exactly" a dimensionful constant might mean) or, equivalently, the length of the metre is not known exactly. But the perimeter P of a square of side l is P = 4l exactly; even if we don't know P or l exactly, the 4 is exact by definition. Now replace "P" with "c", "4" with "299,792,458", and "l" with "m/s"; that will make no difference whatsoever; the speed of light is c = 299,792,458 m/s exactly, even if we don't know c or m/s exactly. ___A. di M. 16:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(And by the way, the current version of the lead makes it as clear as daylight that it's the numerical value which is exactly fixed, and I don't think anyone could possibly misunderstand that or disagree with that. ___A. di M. 18:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

Reply to A. di M.: I like the present lead and agree with A. di M. that it is clear. However, I don't share any optimism that it will stay that way should the radical fringe be enabled to take control of the page. A. di M.'s explanations about the use of the term "exactly" will be buried out of sight. Brews ohare (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering that, after I pedantically explained what I meant by each word I used to avoid misunderstandings, two editors from what you call the "radical fringe" agreed with all or almost all of my points, I can't see a reason why they'd want to change my wording of the end of the fourth paragraph of the lead. ___A. di M. 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Prompt action to arrest uncivil activity on Talk page

1) All uncivil activity (including catcalls, snide or sarcastic comments, and pejorative descriptions) will be promptly discouraged by Admins. Discouragement will be applied universally, upon all participants, and applied promptly to avoid development of polarization and a circus atmosphere on the Talk page. A link to assist filing complaints in this regard is to be provided as part of the boilerplate on every Talk page, to relieve Admins from any need to be on patrol duty. The overriding objective is to catalyze discussion, not necessarily consensus. Brews ohare (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See also Violations of WP:Talk. Brews ohare (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Brews proposes overturning the entire system of admins enforcing policies and guidelines in specific incidents at an editor's request, without thinking through the consequences to the Wikipedia project. Admins don't have time to act as nannies on every talk page. Further, when action by an admin is warranted, "discouragement" is not always a sufficient remedy. Admins have repeatedly "discouraged" the behavior of Brews and Tombe, and have imposed blocks and topic bans, but without evident effect on the problematic behavior. —Finell (Talk) 02:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Finell: Admins already undertake this activity to a degree. Something has to be done to beef up control of rampant incivility and evolution of a circus atmosphere, and increased Admin action in some form seems to be a requirement. "Discouragement" is a broad term; its exact nature is not specified here. Brews ohare (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reversion of sourced material should always be accompanied by specific discussion on Talk page

2) Reversion of sourced material must be accompanied with specific reasons accompanied by identification of specific text or sources objected to. Broad generalizations are not a substitute for identification of specific text and sources. Referral to WP:OR. WP:POV, WP:Fringe or other guidelines by themselves are insufficient explanation of reversion, and must be accompanied by identification of the offending text or sources that fit the guideline mentioned. One-line Edit Summaries briefly describing changes are inadequate justification for reversion of sourced material, regardless of content. Offensive characterizations like pseudoscience, crank, idiosyncratic, etc. are unacceptable in such discussion and will be dealt with as incivility. Brews ohare (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is practically the definition of rules creep. I doubt that we'll pass a finding so detailed. I think it has other problems besides. Cool Hand Luke 04:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See also Violations of WP:Talk. Brews ohare (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose As I indicated in my submission before this case was formally accepted I believe it is the repeated failure to follow policy that is at the very crux of this dispute. The polices quoted are at the very core of the project and must always be borne in mind. WP:OR imposes onerous requirements for sources. This slams the brakes on anyone trying to use Wikipedia for advancing their own particular "developments" in the field. Again, WP:POV prevents the encyclopaedia being used for soapboxing. The proponent has a history of taking an area of legitimate scientific dispute, and editing to advance his preferred viewpoint. While full rationales of reversions would be a gold standard, it is not always possible or even desirable: most editors, the proponent possibly excepted, quickly grow tired of repeating the same arguments. Forbidding inclusion by reference essentially removes those policies from the discussion over time and means that eventually they do not apply if the same argument is repeated frequently enough. This is particularly true where an editor acts so frequently that other editors have difficulty keeping up, or even documenting their actions before the fresh wave of new editing. In my evidence submission I have referenced such an incident. CrispMuncher (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Crispmuncher: The use of WP:POV, WP:OR without confrontation with specific offending text or sources is simply flag-waving and an abuse of guidelines. Such abuse is rampant. The claim that "repeating the same arguments" to support reversion occurs again and again, and therefore re-justification is not needed, may be an indication of failure to read reverted material, as the WP:3RR guideline makes reinsertion of the same text unlikely, and it is more likely that the editor complaining about repeating their objections really is complaining about actually having to read what has been inserted. Brews ohare (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of the one-line edit summary to justify reversion of sourced material never is adequate, is a source of great annoyance, and is, very simply, lazy editing. Brews ohare (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Brews material is invariably sourced but often with irrelevant sources or ones that do not support the statements made. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Martin Hogbin: These claims that my sources are irrelevant or do not support the arguments is tendentious at the least, and unsupported by examples. More commonly, Martin Hogbin prefers to simply ignore sourced material that doesn't suit his preconceptions. Brews ohare (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Attribution of positions held by other editors must be supported

3) If a position is to be attributed to an editor on Talk pages, the basis for that attribution must be provided by a verbatim quotation from edits by that editor, or a link to a diff. Any unsupported attribution of position will be considered a distortion and will result in reprimand and immediate deletion of such attribution and any discussion concerning it. Repeated abuse of this nature will result in blocking the offending editor from participation on the Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose: Unworkable in ordinary, collaborative discussion, and without support in existing policy or guidelines. Most Wikipedia talk pages get along fine without this proposed, painstaking, time-wasting requirement. When there is abuse by misstating another editor's statements, that can be easily pointed out on the talk page. If abuse is persistent, willful, or can't be resolved on the talk page, admins have ample remedies at their disposal to enforce policy. —Finell (Talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaning to oppose: It sounds a nice idea on paper but I question what the point ultimately is: readers can see editor's statements of their own position. It imposes an additional layer of bureaucracy that can only harm the project by discouraging open and frank debate. Finally in the case of some editors (and I am not speaking of the proponent here) someone needs to distil reams of waffle down to a couple of salient points. It can be very difficult finding exact references in such cases. Of course, you always still have the problem of ambiguity: a given sequence of words may mean entirely different things to different people. CrispMuncher (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Finell & CrispMuncher: This abuse is the very source of escalation of nonsense and is used frequently to attribute ridiculous statements to an editor to discredit them. These attributions then become glued in other editors' minds and poison all discussion. This practice is sometimes accidental, but nonetheless requires extreme action and eradication. It will burden the editing process, but Speed of light shows that this cost must be incurred to maintain a functional editing atmosphere. It might be kept in mind that the existence of such a rule does not force its use: it will be invoked when conditions warrant its use. Brews ohare (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Physchim62's status as autoreviewer should be revoked

4) An autoreviewer is granted privileges based upon demonstration that they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Physchim62's use of fabrications and distortions to misrepresent editor's positions, refusal to justify such misattributions upon request to do so, failure to make rudimentary checks before parading these distortions as fact, and his incorrect citation of unrelated cases as precedents in this Workshop when fully aware of their inapplicability, indicate he does not meet these standards, and should therefore be stripped of this status. Brews ohare (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See evidence here or here. Brews ohare (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: I see no evidence of willful distortion by Physchim62 or other misconduct. Finell (Talk) 00:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Me neither. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Completely irrelevant. Being an autoreviewer simply marks the new pages you create as being patrolled (aka nothing that can be speedy deleted, or that has BLP problems, POV problems, tone problems, and so on) and save trouble to the new page patrollers. Wikipedia shouldn't be penalized because Brews takes issues with Psychim on an issue unrelated to the creation of new article. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The one-line Edit Summary for reversion of sourced material should be strongly discouraged

6) Reversion of sourced material using only an Edit Summary and no Talk page discussion should be discouraged. In view of the effort involved in preparing a sourced contribution to a main article page, reversion of such a contribution deserves a critique that demonstrates that the piece has been understood by the reverting editor, by explicit confrontation of any guidelines used in justifying the reversion with specific text and/or sources in the reverted material. The objective is to insure that reverting editors do actually take the time to read and to understand submissions, and do attempt to think how changes might make the submission acceptable. Additional objectives are to make reverted editors aware that they have received careful attention, to avoid extreme irritation of submitting editors, and to prevent knee-jerk reversion based upon snap judgments or prejudice. Brews ohare (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose: "One line-edit summaries" often contains all there is to say about the reversion. When something is reverted 10+ times with and edit summary akin to "Irrelevant and off-topic section, does not belong on this article" or "POV, non-mainstream section", with 4+ archives dedicated to Brews/Tombe vs. everyone else. The speed of light talk page is unusable, and no editor is interested in engaging Brews or Tombe for the 25th time on the same issues they didn't get the first 24 times. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Headbomb: Headbomb has not indicated that he understands the proposal is to apply to reversion of sourced material on the main page. A one-line Edit summary justifying reversion as "Irrelevant and off-topic section, does not belong on this article" or "POV, non-mainstream section" is obviously inflammatory for the reverted editor whose lengthy attempt at composition and tracking down of sources and (in cases of my own) drafting of figures is summarily dismissed by an apparently off-hand few-word description. It is pretty clear that the contributing editor did not think the contribution was "off-topic" or "POV", and that the reverting editor has got it wrong. Simple civility and assumptions of good faith editing require more explanation than flag-waving: in the absence of more specific guidelines, such unjustified reversion is a violation of WP:Talk and WP:Civil. Headbomb raises Talk page discussion of issues unrelated to reversion, and without actually looking at even these issues in any detail. If discussion of a reversion really evolves with further exchange into WP:DEADHORSE on the Talk page, that kind of thing can be dealt with using Talk page guidelines, and has no bearing upon the initial reversion justification itself. Brews ohare (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as per Headbomb. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Added note: I made an RfC at WP:Civil RfC to explore reactions to restrictions on the one-line edit summary. It appears that Angryapathy has a well-reasoned reaction to this proposal. A useful suggestion by Rd232 is to create an article Edit summaries to avoid. Physchim62 took the opportunity to make an unwarranted uncivil attack on that Talk page, and Jehochman took it upon himself to support Physchim62 in that attack, a clear indication he does not understand the significance of incivility in destroying constructive conversation. Brews ohare (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Following arbitration, rigid control of civility. focus on content, and careful Talk page discussion of reversions will be enforced

9) Following arbitration, additional constraints and much more careful supervision are necessary to insure the following of guidelines and to avoid reassertion of an unhealthy editing atmosphere. Sanctions should be imposed in a way that insures open discussion on Speed of light, and deals severely with tactics like misdirection, catcalls, sarcasm, putdowns and other behavior intended to bully through a limited viewpoint. Characterization of arguments on the Talk page as WP:NOR, WP:POV, WP:Fringe, etc. should require associated detailed text supposedly found to violate the criteria, rather than allowing flag-waving of these acronyms as justification in themselves. Brews ohare (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See also Violations of WP:Talk. Brews ohare (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: I fail to see how this differs substantially from proposed remedy 2 and thus I refer to the same arguments again here. This proposal is actually a further demonstration of the problems with this proposal if it were needed. Restating exactly the same thing again in subtly different terms does not form a new argument. As such there is no need to create a fresh rebuttal for what is essentially the same argument. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:TotientDragooned (talk)

Proposed principles

Righting Great Wrongs

1) Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or research, and as such is not the place to set the record straight or Right Great Wrongs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I've never seen that part of the TE essay before. Nice. Original research is one of the main issues raised in this case. Cool Hand Luke 04:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Nor the place to Write Great Wrongs. Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. —Finell (Talk) 00:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is already taken for granted and it doesn't in any way address the root cause of this particular problem. See my comments on the talk page. David Tombe (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no attempt to place original research into the article, and no evidence whatsoever has been presented to suggest that is happening. Rather there has been a lot of cheer leading and waving of the WP:NOR and WP:Fringe flags (whose application to discussion on Talk pages is dubious anyway) with no serious attempt to address the sources, the arguments or the issues. Rather, fake persona have been attached by some editors to Brews_ohare and D Tombe that somehow justifies a total disregard of common-sense discussion and examination of sources. An example of this absurd situation is the attacks upon User:Brews ohare/Speed of light (Example) at Project Physics based upon no reading of the article under discussion at all, but discussion of what is assumed to be in the article. Brews ohare (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this in full. I note that Brews' opposes this on the grounds that it is not happening, but this appears to be based on a false assumption as to what constitutes original research. Brews' seems to apply a kind of ladder argument, where sourced statements are applied to create a new fact. The problem arise when that new "fact" (which is unsourced except by derivation) is applied as a component of a fresh round of reasoning. In this way it is possible to create a complex argument without the underpinnings of full referencing and claim the result to be not original research. This is a fallacy of course, because the derivations themselves are what constitutes the original research. If original research did not include derivations then I note there would be nothing "original" about either theory of relativity, since both were purely abstract mathematical treatments of facts that were already known. CrispMuncher (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to CrispMuncher: Again, there is no evidence to support appearance of original research. All one finds is bald assertions of WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:Fringe, WP:SYNTH without any explicit reference (e.g. diffs or verbatim quotes) to the origin for such claims. In some cases, these tags are attached to distortions of position invented by the critiquing editor, and not actually espoused by anyone at all. Brews ohare (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability

2) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (from Wikipedia:Verifiability).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. —Finell (Talk) 00:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is already taken for granted and it doesn't in any way address the root cause of this particular problem. See my comments on the talk page. David Tombe (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate Use of Talk Pages

3) Article talk pages are not a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic or defending pet theories.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly support. See my comments below under #Good Faith and Disruption. —Finell (Talk) 00:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The topic must be discussed on the talk page. How can you possibly discuss improving the article without discussing the topic? But we must distinguish between discussing the topic on the one hand, and soapboxing and defending pet theories on the other hand. This issue is not particularly relevant to the current problem in question. See my comments on the talk page. David Tombe (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This topic duplicates the first topic above:"Proper use of Talk pages". I have commented there. Brews ohare (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Faith and Disruption

4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Users acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly support based on WP:DISRUPT. This has been the biggest problem at Speed of light, in my opinion, especially on the Talk page. According to the evidence and prior AN/I's, this has also been a problem at other physics articles, particularly with David Tombe and Brews ohare. —Finell (Talk) 00:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope that this is referring to disruptive tactics such as going to AN/I with vacuous allegations, in an attempt to have opponents sent off. David Tombe (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not. I am referring to the persistent, long term, disruptive behavior of David Tombe and Brews ohare. The criticisms of their conduct, which Tombe calls "vacuous allegations", are well founded, as the Evidence page demonstrates. Almost everyone else who has interacted with either of these editors has eventually reached the same conclusion. If the allegations were vacuous, Tombe would not have been page banned by a good, conscientious admin at the AN/I of which he complains (and Tombe has been blocked before for disruptive behavior and sockpuppeting). Tombe's sarcastic comment immediately above is just another example of his dismissive and intollerant attitude toward other editors. Of course, it is understandable that neither of them would be able to accept these facts. To the extent that other editors have become testy, that is largely due to the frustration, waste of time, and deterioration of the Speed of light caused by the disruptive conduct. —Finell (Talk) 23:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: This topic is a difficult one for me. WP:DISRUPT is not exactly the issue (the problem is on the Talk page, not the article page). The situation I see at Talk: Speed of light is one of a number of editors of the same opinion (in my view an incorrect opinion) opposed by a much smaller number of differing opinion. [The controversy appears to be over the fundamental significance (or lack thereof) of the SI units conversion factor 299,792,458 m/s. This controversy has spread throughout the article.] It is inevitable that the majority view (right or wrong) will prevail, but it is hard to decide not to try to persuade the majority. I think that rather than impose some sanction in a case like this, the matter would settle down if civility and attention to actual statements made were enforced upon all editors (not a subset of editors judged to be "the problem"), as I have suggested under "Proper use of Talk pages". The probable result would be (in this example) that the WP article will be incorrect and the majority will eventually simply fail to respond to the minority view. That is just an unfortunate result of a democratic WP: the majority view will prevail, sources and argument notwithstanding. What's more, over time the participants will change, and the majority view will shift back and forth, so the WP article will oscillate between the extremes of dead right and dead wrong over time. Brews ohare (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words, Brews believes that the consensus is wrong (which is his prerogative), and he is determined to edit the article against that consensus and to continue arguing against the consensus, repeating the same arguments that others have responded to for months. That is not is his prerogative; that is prohibited disruptive editing. —Finell (Talk) 23:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell has intruded to make a statement that I am "determined to edit the article against the consensus", which is a completely false expectation, and that I intend "to continue to argue against the consensus", which I am myself uncertain about, but, if made, certainly would confine any such argument to the Talk page, where I believe it is appropriate. WP:DISRUPT applies primarily to main page article editing behavior, not Talk page discussion, and is not designed to discourage attempts to persuade others on the Talk page with additional examples, sources, quotations. I would like to see some across-the-board enforcement of civility and substantive response to catalyze discussion and assist a better outcome. That does not require Admins to understand arguments or content: it requires that they extirpate certain readily identifiable types of activity such as slurs, flag-waving, bandwagoning, smart-alecky editing, and reversions of content with superficial or supercilious remarks. Brews ohare (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Brews edits in good faith but he is obsessed with one particular subject. This includes the talk page, where his continual discussion of the same subject prevents the normal dialogue between editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongest possible support. This is WP:POINT phrased differently, and the core of this entire arbcom. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From Abd-William M. Connolley. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious Advocacy of Fringe Views

5) Although consensus can change, repeated or prolonged challenges to established consensus are disruptive to the Wiki process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not commenting on the other points, but noting that WP:TE and WP:DE would apply to such behavior: Under Wikipedia:TE#Characteristics_of_problem_editors both "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people." and "You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors." would apply to such a principle. It is worth nothing that "TE" is an essay, though a widely cited and referenced one with some weight in discussions of conduct. "Disruptive editing" is a conduct guideline and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing notes behaviors that would related to this kind of principle. Vassyana (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Strongly support per my comments above under #Good Faith and Disruption. —Finell (Talk) 00:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is already taken for granted and it doesn't in any way address the root cause of this particular problem since nobody has been advocating fringe views. See my comments on the talk page. David Tombe (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: WP:TE & WP:DIS normally refer to the article, not to the Talk page. WP:TE & WP:DIS do not refer to an editor's repeated attempts to get a point across on the Talk page, to the annoyance of those who don't want to participate in the discussion. It refers to trying to push a partisan or biased viewpoint on the main page. Challenge on the Talk page should be free; the Talk page is intended as a forum for change; those who do not wish to participate in such discussion are free to ignore such arguments; those who think an issue is worth discussing should be free to do so. Already this behavior is common. The partition of topics on Talk pages is common already, and those who wish to engage or to ignore a topic do exactly that. Catcalls within a topic intended only to interrupt, not to add to the discussion, should be forbidden.

Hostility to Talk page discussion is primarily a reaction from those unwilling to be challenged: their best option is just to not engage. It should not be permitted to inject smart-alecky comments on the Talk page simply because one has decided not to participate in further discussion.

In the case of edits on the article page, editors are free to revert subject to WP:3RR. However, I believe such reversion should be subject to a mandatory review on the Talk page with specific arguments based upon specific wording from the reverted work. Vague pronouncements about WP:Fringe or WP:OR or WP:POV or WP:V should be considered insufficient without serious confrontation with the actual wording or sources in the reverted material. Brews ohare (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Support And let me record that I have not "decided not to participate in further discussion" as Brews claims. Indeed I still await a substantive response on the "kilometre question". --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

David Tombe has edited tendentiously

1) David Tombe has tendentiously pushed fringe and original interpretations of a wide variety of physics topics, including Faraday's Law, speed of light, centrifugal force, and special relativity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noting in contrast to Brews ohare's comments that when voting to accept this case I explicitly noted that I saw the scope as including speed of light, centrifugal force, vacuum permittivity, and related areas of dispute.[34] The conduct concerns leading to this case were not limited solely to the speed of light, though that is the main area of dispute leading to this case. Vassyana (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Vassyana on the scope of the case. With this editor, at least, it seems to be a broader problem. I would probably list different topics, but this sort of finding should be used. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose: This case is Case/Speed of light. Dragging in the Faraday's law, centrifugal force etc pages is not within scope except as it may illuminate behavior on Speed of light or Talk: Speed of light. I find that on Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light the sometimes protracted discussions of these other pages did not occur, and that bringing up the activity on these pages simply prejudices judgment of what is going on here. D Tombe's actions on Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light do not in themselves support any claim of tendentious editing WP:TE on these pages. Brews ohare (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The dispute on vacuum permittivity seems to be the same as the one at speed of light. David Tombe has certainly behaved questionably at centrifugal force as well (OR and EW, to say the least); he doesn't appear to believe in special relativity (the theory, not the article), although he's careful not quite to say so in the diffs I've looked at. There's also the parties' behaviour at WT:PHYS, WP:AN/I and this arbitration page: anything I've missed? Oh yes, I assume that TotientDragooned is referring to Faraday's law of induction, not the disambiguation page which is Faraday's law, but I would be nice to have this clarified! Physchim62 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I find no great similarity between occurrences Vacuum permittivity and Speed of light. Some of the subject matter overlaps, but we are presumably discussing behavior here. The dynamic is different. Also, the venue is only Talk: Speed of light, and not Speed of light. I object to dragging in material from Faraday's law of induction out of context and without proper opportunity for full discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I don't even recall ever making an edit at special relativity. These lies need to be faced down as a matter of urgency. David Tombe (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as to Speed of light and Tombe's unusual views about special relativity that are the basis for some of the pseudo-scientific notions that Tombe promotes concerning the speed of light. I (fortunately) have no personal knowledge of disputes about centrifugal force or vacuum permittivity, so I won't comment on those. However, if similar disruptive editing of articles or talk pages about those topics occurred, it should be within the scope of this arbitration in the interests of economy. —Finell (Talk) 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Support David has consistently pushed fringe views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Per evidence by Steve Byrnes and Tim Shuba. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is effectively 'contempt of court' on the part of editor Totientdragooned. Totientdragooned has butt into the court room to parrot some unsubstantiated allegations that were made by Tim Shuba and Steve Byrnes, and which have absolutely no bearing on the case that is being heard. The case that is currently before the arbitration committee relates to the impasse at the speed of light article and how to resolve that impasse. I put it to Totientdragooned that he knows absolutely nothing about the debate that took place over a year ago at Faraday's law of induction in which Steve Byrnes tried to argue that there are two Faraday's laws. Totientdragooned should be binned up in the wiki-cells for the remainder of the hearing, for actions that serve only to create an atmosphere of intimidation. David Tombe (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

David is right that special relativity should be off the list. David has never edited it. He has expressed fringe views on the topic of special relativity, but he has nothing to do with the article special relativity. Sorry if I made this unclear. :-) --Steve (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

General Incivility

2) Tempers have flared on all sides during discussions at the speed of light talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per evidence by Physchim62, Brews_ohare, Dicklyon, and Tim Shuba. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

David Tombe topic-banned

1) David Tombe is banned from physics-related article and talk pages, construed broadly, for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Brews_Ohare

The purpose of this inquiry is not to examine D Tombe himself, which would necessarily involve a proper presentation of his entire activities across WP, placed in context, with adequate opportunity for evidence and discussion. These proceedings become a kangaroo court when editors with an agenda are allowed to drag in "evidence" from far and wide, stripped of context and counterexample, to suit their own arguments. The purpose here is limited to Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light for which statements and evidence were properly solicited. The goal is to settle down these pages and to determine if some general policy changes or changes in enforcement might prevent future repetitions of the circus on these pages. D Tombe's involvement has been limited by a ban, and his contributions on Talk: Speed of light have been civil and often very clear statements of argument. Within the context of this Case, there is absolutely no basis for any kind of censorship of D Tombe. The heat he has generated is due to the unfortunate climate on these two pages, and evidence should not be considered that originates outside of the scope of this inquiry, as outside evidence is not placed in context and commentary has not been solicited properly. Brews ohare (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Support: Enough is enough. An indef block didn't work and was lifted too soon. I hope ArbCom will retain enforcement jurisdiction after a topic ban expires, so that if Tombe resumes disruptive physics editing, it will be a matter of enforcing the arbitrators' decision rather than starting all over. Although the misconduct and prior enforcement record would support a one-year or indefinite block, Tombe may be able to edit Wikipedia productively where science is not involved. —Finell (Talk) 02:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Support: It is the only way to stop him from pushing his fringe views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe was already banned for 1 month, then 3 months, then permanently, until he successfully appealed to get his account back (8 October 2008).[35] Most of the problems on discussion here are after that happened. (Here is his edit history starting after the permanent ban was lifted). This is already his "last chance". If he should be topic-banned, he should be topic-banned permanently. We know from experience that temporary bans do not change his behavior much. I support a permanent topic-ban. --Steve (talk)

Correction (interjected): Tombe was blocked, not banned, successively, eventually leading to being blocked (not banned) indeffinitely. Another admin unblocked Tombe after the indefinite block. Much more recently, Tombe was page banned from Speed of light and its talk page at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Disruptive_editing_at_Talk:Speed_of_light. When Tombe continued to press his arguments about the Speed of light article on several other pages, the blocking admin upgraded the page ban to a topic ban[36]. —Finell (Talk) 22:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again we see the need for a bit of order to be brought into this hearing. This hearing should not be allowed to serve as a venue of revenge for Steve Byrnes. About a year and a half ago, I had a debate with Steve Byrnes at Faraday's law. Steve Byrnes wanted to claim in the article introduction that there were two Faraday's laws in electromagnetic induction. I succeeded in holding him back from doing so. We now see Steve jumping on the bandwagon of Tim Shuba's unsubstantiated allegations of original research in order to try and get his revenge for that episode. This kind of behaviour must be stopped immediately in order to prevent this hearing from degenerating into a total farce. This hearing came about because of an AN/I thread that was initiated by editor Headbomb for the sole purpose of getting Brews ohare page banned from speed of light. Headbomb's actions were mischievous and they constituted disruptive behaviour, in that it added to the atmosphere of intimidation on the talk page at speed of light that had already been started by Physchim62's earlier AN/I thread which had got me page banned from speed of light. It is these kinds of disruptive behaviour, on the part of Headbomb and Physchim62 that need to be investigated. Meanwhile, this hearing has absolutely no business whatsoever in venturing into issues that went on at Faraday's law well over a year ago. This hearing is about how to solve the impasse at speed of light, and I have already suggested that Steve Byrnes should be allowed a free hand to write the article. It would give him an opportunity to redeem himself for his errors at Faraday's law. I think that he'd do a good job at speed of light.

It is also contempt of court to raise a person's previous convictions, as Steve Byrnes has just done. That in itself should be sufficient grounds for the arbitrators to swiftly throw out Totientdragooned's proposals David Tombe (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is normal practice on Wikipedia for a user's past conduct, good and bad, to be considered when the user's alleged misconduct is in issue. It is not "contempt of court". —Finell (Talk) 22:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The user's alleged misconduct should not be an issue in any global context, but only within the context of Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light. If the Case is one of judging an editor's conduct throughout all of WP, that should be made the subject of the case very explicitly, and evidence and statements made with that goal in mind. If instead the Arbitrator allows the dragging in of "evidence" out of context from other venues in an unbalanced way that is filtered primarily by those with an axe to grind, what this proceeding becomes is simply a kangaroo court. Brews ohare (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell, For the record, my succession of blocks between May and August of 2008 related exclusively to the issue of editing main articles against a consensus. It was accepted about a year later that I was in fact correct as regards the content of that material. Those who had been trying to reject the planetary orbital equation in 2008 clearly knew nothing about the topic. That entire episode was a gross miscarriage of justice that was allowed to escalate well out of proportion. It was a consequence of wolfpack tactics where the wolves simply didn't have a wider reading of the topic. I was unblocked on the undertaking that I would in future refrain from pushing material into an article against a consensus. I have honoured that undertaking since then. This current situation bears no relation to the issues surrounding that block record. In fact I am now suggesting to the arbitration committee that the whole issue of block records being on view should be reviewed. The current situation is a case of 'glasnost' gone over the top. It is clear that a person with a block record becomes vulnerable to bully boy tactics as is being evidenced here right now. I am suggesting that block records be stored exclusively by Jimbo Wales himself and a few of his trusted advisors who can then monitor cumulating block records. Administrators who are inclined to block an editor should do so, only on the evidence that is immediately in front of them in relation to a particular situation. If the person in question is a recidivist, that will then show up in the control room of a higher tier of management where appropriate action can then be taken. It doesn't say much for your sense of natural justice that you have been dwelling on my block record. As for the recent page ban by Jehochman, that was simply a complete abuse of the administrative tool, no doubt influenced by my block record. It's a shame on you that you feel comfortable about quoting this ban as if it was in some way warranted and actually represents evidence of past misbehaviour. There was no need to even have this arbitration hearing in the first place. Either the administrators want to know the facts of the argument or they don't. If they don't want to know the facts, and there is an ongoing revert war on the article page, then all they needed to do was protect the page for a lengthy period. If they do want to know the facts of the case then they can start asking questions, and the sooner the better. Meanwhile, it is rapidly turning into a sham with some editors going around sabre rattling and bringing up people's block records and making hollow accusations that there has been some kind of behavourial problems that need to be addressed. It is all a load of hype, and I hope that some of the arbitrators will be able to see right through these sabre rattlers. David Tombe (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

David: Wasn't it also for sockpuppetry? —Finell (Talk) 18:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

David, please answer. —Finell (Talk) 02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the penalty for perjury here? --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that Tombe claimed so rather weird things about me and my reasons behind ANI thread. So to set the record straight (again, because I was accused of the same things on that very ANI thread). I did not, as Tombe claims, make that ANI thread "for the sole purpose of getting Brews ohare page banned from speed of light". In fact, if he actually read it, he would have seen me explain, on two occassions, that I did not go to ANI to have heads chopped, but rather to get feedback and advice on what to do.

• [I'm] looking for advice (whether admin action is necessary, I'll leave up to the admins to decide).
• I came here looking for advice, not [for] heads to be chopped.

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors reminded

2) Editors are reminded to remain civil during discussions with others who hold opposing views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support as to all editors, including myself. —Finell (Talk) 02:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Support: this isn't really contentious is it? I would add something along the lines of "...and develop a thick skin when faced with incivility." Whether a slight is real or perceived, malicious or merely a robust debating style, endless slanging matches over who wronged who and when undermine goodwill within the community and ultimately the project as a whole. CrispMuncher (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Physchim62

Proposed principles

No original research

1) Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing, or promoting original research in any way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

See #Neutrality and sources, from another previous case. I think it captures more of the terrain here. Cool Hand Luke 05:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

From the Sadi Carnot case Physchim62 (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: The Sadi Carnot case is not a parallel to the present case. Discussion upon Talk: Speed of light is a free forum, and cannot be compared to the Sadi Carnot case. There has been no distortion of fact or sources, and it is very debatable whether any "fringe' views have been placed there either. Simple name calling, waving about unsupported claims of WP:Fringe or WP:OR or WP:POV, is not critique, is not proper use of these guidelines (which are not intended to be used without supporting evidence, and which are directed primarily at main pages, not Talk pages), and is not based upon real discussion of the issues; simply put, it is based on a chorus echoing each others' refrain. Brews ohare (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Support: This is a correct statement of policy and is applicable to the issues in this arbitration, notwithstanding the contrary views of Brews ohare and David Tombe, regardless of whether the Sadi Carnot case is "parallel". —Finell (Talk) 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Finell: This is not the place to repeat WP policy unless it appears that policy has been violated. There is no supporting evidence to show "original research" has been promoted, either on the main page (where WP:NOR is meant to apply), nor on the Talk page (where application of WP:NOR should not be used to squelch dialog). Brews ohare (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes. TotientDragooned (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Obsessive or tendentious editors may be banned

2) Editors who tendentiously edit subjects which they are obsessed with may be banned from editing those articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From the Depleted uranium case Physchim62 (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Activity on the talk page, which is an open forum for discussion, cannot be taken as indicative of "tendentious" editing, which does not mean repeated attempts to persuade editors on the Talk page of views they do not wish to discuss. Rather, WP:TE refers to activity on the main page intended to place partisan, skewed or biased material there. That has not happened. To the contrary, anything on the main page that upset the majority view (even if was well-sourced and main stream) was instantly reverted, often without comment, and never with the kind of careful examination on the Talk page that civilized discourse would demand. Of course, the majority believe their view to be nonpartisan and unbiased, although no support for that notion is provided. Brews ohare (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as a correct statement of pertinent policy. The policy is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and it expressly applies to talk pages. Permitting one or two editors to drone on and on and on and on about the same thing, and to demand a disproportionate share of other editors' time and attention, is disruptive to building an encyclopedia. After an editor has had a reasonable opportunity to present his or her views, policy does not permit the editor to continue arguing against consensus. On Wikipedia, the right to persuade does not include the right to harangue or filibuster. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —Finell (Talk) 18:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, on the grounds that this is irrelevant to the case at hand. The other editors have to say on the talk page that the discussion on a topic is closed, but as of today the so-called "disruptive" discussions are still ongoing. So, how can those discussions be said to be disruptive at all?

If you had a vote on the talk page to get a consensus to not engage Brews or David on certain topics and then Brews would continue to raise the same topic, then you could say that Brews is behaving disruptively.

Brews would have the right to object to the closing of the discussion by raising it at AN/I, but he would not be allowed to start new discussions on the talk page on the topic pending the outcome of his appeal.

But lacking any such process, it is not ok. for a few editors to demand that Brews and David be banned. If Brews can be banned just because a few editors are irritated by the ongoing discussions, then all of us could be banned if we were to get involved with some wiki article on some pseudo scienctific topic, say, Astrology or Homeopathy that is edited predominantly by believers who reject all of the scientific arguments that have debunked these theories.

Suppose you continue to raise your scientific argument, explaining it every time a bit differently in the hope that your opponents would see your point, while backing up the main pillars of your argument by citing the scientific literature, some editors will continue to discuss with you, while some others will be fed up. The situation will then be exactly analogous to the current situation on the speed of light talk page. Therefore, if Brews can be banned, all of us could be banned if we tried to put forward scientific arguments against Homeopathy, Astrology or other pseudoscientific or Paranormal topics and seriously engage the editors active on the wiki pages of these topics.

I think Editor ScienceApologist had been banned for a while from editing wiki pages on pseudoscientific/paranormal topics, but he did a lot more wrong than just talking too much on the talk pages :) Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that I don't understand your point Count Iblis. Obsessive editing is obsessive editing whether or not other users declare that a topic is closed or any vote is taken. I agree that putting forward scientific arguments against Homeopathy, etc.. is analogous to this case, at least if it is done obsessively.; I think that a topic ban is appropriate for both, though. The term obsessive is neutral with respect to being right or wrong. Being obsessive and right should be just as bannable as being obsessive and wrong. I can understand why that bothers you. It is natural to always want the correct view to win. TStein (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Brews seems obsessed with one particular issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree, but at least judging by the current evidence, it's behavior on talk pages that's the problem, not on the articles themselves. TotientDragooned (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose statement even though I agree with many of the words in the first sentence and a good portion of its spirit; I would state that 'Obsessive editing of an article or articles to make a point(s) is a form of tendentious editing subject to topic bans. Editors incapable of editing without leading to obsessive editing are subject to blocking.' The main problems with the principle as it now stands is threefold. First tendentious editing is already a banning offense. Second, the statement 'edit articles they are obsessed with' implies that we should use information outside what the editor is doing in the article (and talk pages). It also requires us to make a judgment call about an editors state of mind; is the editor obsessed or not? Disciplinary action needs to be based on actions such as did the editor 'edit obsessively over a topic or point' rather than is the editor obsessed. Third, the last sentence is too vague about what is to be considered extreme. An editor can be extreme case in one topic and make valuable contributions in another area.

It should be noted, that this principle cuts two ways. Many who support it may be surprised to see that it also applies to them. TStein (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view as applied to science

3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From the Pseudoscience case Physchim62 (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: There is no pseudoscience issue with, for example, User:Brews ohare/Speed of light (Example). There is difference of opinion, and a failure of the editing environment to catalyze real discussion; instead name-calling and mindless reiteration of dogma is permitted or even facilitated. These failures of environment extend to issues beyond discussion of User:Brews ohare/Speed of light (Example). Brews ohare (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as a correct statement of pertinent policy. —Finell (Talk) 18:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Serious encyclopedias

4) Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From the Pseudoscience case Physchim62 (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Here again, editors differ about what "respected scientific thought" is on this subject. I would hold that User:Brews ohare/Speed of light (Example) is entirely in keeping with "respected scientific thought" and that this would become entirely apparent if editors actually read this material and responded to it, instead of jumping to conclusions about its content based upon some (I would say totally erroneous) notions they entertain about the prejudices of the author. See Reply 1; Reply 2. It would also be helpful if the critics actually read and discussed the sources cited. Brews ohare (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as a correct statement of pertinent policy. The guide here is following what the reliable sources say, not whether some "editors differ about what 'respected scientific thought' is". —Finell (Talk) 19:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes. TotientDragooned (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No ownership of articles

5) Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From WP:OWN Physchim62 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Absolutely no evidence of an "ownership" issue has been established. Brews ohare (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposed principle is a correct statement of policy. However, although some have alleged an ownership issue, I don't think the evidence supports it. It would be ownership if some one, or some group, de facto exercised complete control over the entire article and reverted everything that they personally disagreed with. The primary problem here is that David Tombe and Brews ohare relentlessly push to have their take on one issue included at various places in the article. That is a problem, but I don't think it is ownership. —Finell (Talk) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree with Finell's comment. TotientDragooned (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for personal views

6) Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From WP:TALK Physchim62 (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: There has been no attempt to present personal views on the Talk: Speed of light page in the sense of unsourced opinion. Rather, the problem on Talk: Speed of light has been an unwillingness of many to discuss reputable sources and an unwillingness to discuss differences of opinion regarding the meaning of the BIPM & NIST actions in the 1983 definition of the metre, including secondary sources on this topic. Wheeler; Jespersen; Sydenham. Brews ohare (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as a correct statement of pertinent policy. —Finell (Talk) 03:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: "Template" should be replaced with a descriptive heading. —Finell (Talk) 03:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)  Done

Comment by others:

Yes. Although during these disputes sources have been cited for certain facts, it's the interpretation of these facts that's at the root of the dispute (as Brews points out in his comment), and these interpretations are largely unsourced personal views. TotientDragooned (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Template

7) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Pseudoscience and the speed of light

1) The idea that there is a "true" speed of light, distinct from the physical constant used to define the metre since 1983, is not a "significant alternative to scientific orthodoxy": it is pseudoscience.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I suspect this is true, but this issue does not need to be reached if there are more basic problems with OR and tendentiousness. This is very close to ruling on content besides. Cool Hand Luke 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Physchim62 (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Physchim62, You have misunderstood the controversy. The physical speed of light is what was used to define the metre in 1983. However, the speed of light that then follows when expressed in terms of that metre is a defined speed of light, and as such it is a different concept from the physical speed of light that was used to define the metre in the first place. The defined speed of light is beyond measurement. You'll have to stop making all these allegations about 'pseudoscience' for issues that you simply haven't grasped. David Tombe (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Erm, no, the speed of light is a physical constant. End of story. It doesn't change simply because it is used to define a unit of length. The "defined speed of light" is nothing more than the defined metre. You have wasted vast amounts of time at speed of light, vacuum permittivity and WT:PHYS – not to mention WP:AN/I and the various pages of this arbitration – trying to pretend otherwise: that you can use the speed of light to define the metre, then use that exact same metre to define the speed of light, and somehow end up elsewhere from where you started. Physchim62 (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No Physchim62, You are the one that opened that AN/I thread and not me. You keep misrepresenting my position on this issue through your own misunderstanding of the topic, yet you are presumptuous enough to go to AN/I and ask for me to be banned. I'll say it to you for one last time. The physical speed of light can be measured. The defined speed of light cannot be measured. David Tombe (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: The statement 1) leading this section is entirely contrary to fact, contrary to sources, and contrary to logic. The BIPM has defined the "speed of light" within the SI Units as 299,792,458 m/s, and has stated explicitly that this number is defined and beyond any attempt to measure it because it is a definition. To then state, as does Physchim62, that this defined number is "the true speed of light" is simply to focus upon this defined value to the exclusion of any other usage of the term "speed of light". I doubt there is any "scientific orthodoxy" that would deny that light travels at some speed, and that it is possible to measure this speed, and that no measurement known to man is equivalent to a definition. The matter is described carefully, with supporting sources at User:Brews ohare/Speed of light (Example). Brews ohare (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Support if ArbCom is going to decide the central content dispute. It is a correct statement of the science, and of what Tombe and Brews either don't understand or won't accept. —Finell (Talk) 03:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Brews comment above shows the single misunderstanding by Brews which has essentially resulted in this RfA. I still do not understand what his point is and it has reached the stage where I no longer care. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree in principle, but I don't think Arbcom traditionally makes judgments about content. TotientDragooned (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto TotientDragooned. --Steve (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Brews's post of 20:08: No-one denies "that light travels at some speed, and that it is possible to measure this speed"; but a consequence of the definition of the metre is that by doing that you're essentially measuring the metre. If you measured the speed of light and found it to be 176161980±60 smoots per second, that'd mean that one metre is (176161980±60)/299,792,458 smoots; or equivalently, that one smoot is 299,792,458/(176161980±60) metres. But the value of the speed of light in metres is exact by definition; if you measured the speed of light in metres per second and found the value 301,291,420, it'd mean that your ruler isn't exactly one-metre long, but rather 0.995 m long (or that your stopwatch is too slow, or both). Anyway, I agree with TotientDragooned. --___A. di M. 16:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A. di M., The motion above misrepresents the dispute at the speed of light article. As it is worded, even I would have to agree with it. The physical speed of light that is used to define the metre is the one and only true speed of light. Nobody here has ever said otherwise. What Brews and I have been saying is that if we then express the speed of light in terms of that metre, we lose the physical significance and end up with a defined number which is beyond measurement. We are merely saying that light travels 299,792,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds, per second. So it is neither here nor there that you agree with Totientdragooned on this proposal. So do I. But Totientdragooned has been in contempt of court for trying to invoke an alternative indictment from the public gallery in relation to a dispute at Faraday's law of induction over a year ago that he knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about. David Tombe (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

But Brews seems to have been claiming that there is something which he refers to as ‘actual speed of light’, and which, unknown to us, might differ from 299,792,458 m/s. (AFAICT he's never told what observable differences there would be if the ‘actual speed of light’ was greater (or less) than 299,792,458 m/s, and how we could find that out experimentally; until he does that, his ‘actual speed of light’ is a metaphysical concept, whose existence can't be proven or disproven, and Occam's razor suggests that we'd better not use that concept in physics.)

By "I agree with TotientDragoneed" I meant specifically that I too agree in principle with Physchim's proposal but I too don't think Arbcom traditionally makes judgments about content. I didn't mean that I agree with what he said at Faraday's law of induction or wherever; matter of fact, I haven't even read what he wrote there. --___A. di M. 18:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A.di M.: You say" Brews seems to have been claiming that there is something which he refers to as ‘actual speed of light’, and which, unknown to us, might differ from 299,792,458 m/s." That is not exactly what I say. What I say is this: there is no doubt that light travels at some speed. There is no doubt that this speed can be measured, and that if measured, its numerical value can be ascertained only within some error of observation. In the SI units the term "speed of light" refers to the exact numerical value 299,792,458 m/s, with no error bar. The reason this is possible is because it is not the number 299,792,458 m/s that is uncertain; rather it is the metre itself that is not exactly known and has an error bar of observation associated with it. As the metre has an error bar, stating the speed of light is "exactly" 299,792,458 m/s is technically accurate, but creates the misleading impression that somehow the speed of light can be known without any error of observation. Therefore, the presentation in the article of the "exact" speed of light as 299,792,458 m/s should be accompanied by some further explanation. Brews ohare (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A.di M., OK. I'll explain that to you. The real physical speed of light is what is used to define the new SI metre. The new metre is defined as the distance that light travels in 1/ 299,792,458 seconds. I'm sure that we are agreed up to this point. It then follows that if we express the speed of light using this new metre, that is in turn defined using the speed of light, we end up with 299,792,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds, per second. Hence this SI manner of expressing the speed of light becomes a number that is based exclusively on the arbitrarily chosen number in the definition of the metre. It becomes a quantity that cannot be measured. It is merely a definition. And yes, it is still the speed of light, but only because of the way that the metre is defined. In this respect we are dealing with a different concept than when we express the speed of light in other systems of units. That is what Brews has been saying. He wants to make this distinction clear in the introduction. He wants it to be known that this exact value of 299,792,458 m/s in SI units, that never changes, is because of the way that the metre is defined. On the contrary, the measured speed of light in other systems of units is a measured physical quantity with error bars. Physchim62 above, has misrepresented the distinction that Brews has been making. Physchim62 has drawn attention to a distinction which does not exist, and implied that Brews and I think that that distinction does exist. Brews and I were talking about a different distinction. As regards relativity, one of the postulates used for deriving special relativity is that the physical speed of light is a universal constant. This constancy, if you believe in it, is not the same thing as the constancy that would be associated with the new SI speed of light. This of course has further confused the matter because some of the editors here have failed to see the distinction between these two kinds of constancy. It does of course profit the relativistic camp to have this distinction blurred, but the current argument at speed of light has got nothing at all to do with relativity as such. David Tombe (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

But they defined the metre that way because they did know that the speed of light is constant, as required by special relativity; not because they were lunatics. --___A. di M. 01:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A. di M.: Nobody says CGPM is lunatic. Of course the speed of light is constant, assuming SR, regardless of the units you pick. And all that has nothing to do with why the "speed of light" in SI units is defined as 299,792,458 m/s. That definition has everything to do with switching to a time-of-transit definition of length in place of a fringe-count definition of length. Instead of excusing yourself from thinking this through by saying D Tombe & I are nuts and don't understand the CGPM, pause for a minute and ask: "What if we have it right?" "What does the CGPM really say (not: "What do other editors in a mad frenzy say")? Brews ohare (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, does it ever occur to you that A. di M. and the many other real physicists who disagree with your analysis aren't "excusing [themselves] from thinking", in fact think for themselves, and do not blindly follow what "other editors in a mad frenzy say"? Do you ever pause to ask yourself, "What if all the other editors, including those who have more education and practical experience in physics than I do, have it right"? Why are you (and Tombe) so sure that you have figured out something that no physicist has figured out or published in the 26 years since the 1983 redefinition of the metre? —Finell (Talk) 03:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell: Where do you get this stupid and false idea that D Tombe & I are "so sure that we have figured out something that no physicist has figured out or published in the 26 years since the 1983 redefinition of the metre?" What I have figured out is that there are several editors (yourself one of them) who have no idea of what the CIPM has said or what it means. You haven't analyzed the sources, you haven't discussed the sources, you may not have read the sources, you simply chorus hearsay, gossip, and slurs that you have picked up unthinkingly from this particular fluff up. However that may be, there is absolutely no doubt at all that comments like yours making silly accusations instead of substantive remarks does not advance your understanding, nor add to the clarity of the issues. Brews ohare (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, you didn't answer the first two questions. —Finell (Talk) 03:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A. di M., I have just explained the situation at the speed of light talk page. The issue has no bearing on the constancy of the speed of light as is used in deriving the theory of relativity, although I wouldn't at all be surprised if the BIPM decision was influenced by a belief in that theory, even if that was never officially stated as being one of the reasons. David Tombe (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In any event, the page is about the speed of light, not about the metre. The fact that the speed of light is constant as required by special relativity is a central issue; the fact that its numerical value in metres per second is constant due to the definition of the metre is less important. --___A. di M. 09:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A. di M., The physical speed of light that you believe to be more important is in fact the physical speed of light that Bews wanted to deal with in the introduction. But Martin Hogbin wanted to deal exclusively with the defined speed of light. As to the importance of the physical speed of light in relation to relativity, you can write what you like about that as far as I am concerned. But first you need to establish your right to actually have it in the aticle at all. That is exactly what Brews and I have been pressing for. So I'm inclined to agree with your first sentence above. David Tombe (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing by Brews ohare

2) Brews ohare has attempted to use Wikipedia to promote his personal objection to the 1983 definition of the metre.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This diff about says it all. We could go on about the obsessive and disruptive evidence across multiple articles, the personal attacks, the manipulation of sources and the pseudoscientific "other definitions", but it all stems from his objection to the definition of the metre. Physchim62 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Brews has been soapboxing for his own views about the impact of 1983 redefinition of the metre. However, I don't believe that this proposed finding accurately represents Brews's opinion (although, given the amount that he has written on the topic, it is difficult to distill succinctly Brews's main points). I don't believe Brews objects to the 1983 definition of the metre as a matter of metrology; I am perhaps more sensitive about this because I had understood that Brews objected to the definition, and he corrected me. The opinions that Brews has been pushing, as I understand them, are about the consequences of that definition for the speed of light and for the statement of its value in SI units—opinions that most of us do not agree with and for which we do not see support in the sources that he cites. Finell (Talk) 00:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Physchim62: The above diff points out that I don't agree with a particular sub-subsection heading in the Speed of light article, namely Meter defined in terms of the speed of light. This objection does not fit the criteria for WP:Soap and Physchim62's suggestion that it has a bearing is an indication of inability to identify what is relevant and what is not in a Case, as brought forward here. Brews ohare (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Finell: A succinct statement of my technical views can be found here. No WP:Soap has occurred: views are firmly documented. Brews ohare (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I have absolutely no " personal objection to the 1983 definition of the metre." This statement by Finell is another example of his attribution to me of opinions and views that I absolutely do not have, have never expressed, and for which he has absolutely no evidence whatsoever. He is simply echoing false statements made by others, without taking any responsibility to establish veracity. Brews ohare (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to see how one editor's objection to the 1983 definition of the metre could cause so much disruption - but it has. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to MartinHogbin: After my explicit denial of holding this view, you continue to attribute it to me. Why? Brews ohare (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As a somewhat bemused spectator (mostly) of the goings-on at the Speed of light article and its talk page, I have to say I have never seen any statement by Brews ohare which I think could be reasonably described as a "personal objection to the 1983 definition of the metre", not even in the diff which Physchim62 provides above, nor in any of those he has provided on the evidence page. As currently formulated, this proposed finding of fact doesn't appear to me to be supported by any evidence whatever, and I don't think it stands a snowball in hell's chances of being adopted. I agree with Finell that its chances of being adopted would be much better if the word "objection" were to be replaced with "views". Even then, though, I haven't examined the evidence in sufficient depth to convince myself that Brews ohare's defence of his views on the matter does amount to soapboxing.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Count Iblis

Proposed principles

Professional behavior

1) Editors should edit and discuss edits in a professional manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Support —Finell (Talk) 03:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Factual correctness of articles on core subjects taught to students is important

2) Editors of an article on a core subject taught to students should be mindful of the damage an error can do to students and to Wikipedia's reputation. The focus of the editors should be to make sure that no such damaging errors are present in an article. This should take precedent over improving the article on other points or discussing issues that are less relevant from an educational point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I appreciate the sentiment, but this just seems to be an invitation for whole new arguments over which topics and points contain "damaging" errors and are most important from an educational point of view. Also, I would note that accessibility issues also cause misunderstandings and erroneous conclusions from students. Many of our basic/core/introductory academic topic articles are written so "accurately" (that is, technically and at an advanced level) that they are only comprehensible for those already familiar with the topic (and even difficult to follow for people who have been exposed to the topic). Anyone who's been in enough classes, even as a student, should know that an overly dense or advanced explanation will be just as misleading as inaccurate presentations to students. Both amateur inaccuracies and unreadably advanced expert explanations are problematic for readers and students. Both concerns should be taken into consideration when editing academic topics. I might support a principle along these general lines (broadly speaking), but not one that opens whole new realms of arguments and/or is likely to cause equal problems with reader understanding. Vassyana (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Support first two sentences, but not third. The goals aren't mutually exclusive. —Finell (Talk) 03:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral. I'm not sure I like the emphasis on "students", although I agree that we need to be particularly careful on core topics. Physchim62 (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Support the proposition that factual correctness is important in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tolerance against criticism

3) Criticism of statements in an article that is not valid in the opinion of one or more editors should still be discussed professionally and not rejected out of hand, even if there already exists a strong consensus for the statements in the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with the sentiment against "ownership", but as written this is highly problematic. The general community consensus against tendentious editing and beating dead horses needs to be taken into account. Without that balance, this is an open invitation to talk page disruption. Vassyana (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, but once the criticism has been fairly heard and discussed ("not rejected out of hand") and a consensus is reached, that should be the end of it unless someone brings something substantially new (not restating the same points in a different way) to the discussion. Similarly, if another editor who did not participate in the discussion later raises essentially the same criticism, it is appropriate to refer the editor to the prior discussion. If the editor has a genuinely new point or a WP:RS that supports the criticism by saying something substantially different from previously invoked WP:RS, the new material should be fairly heard and discussed. —Finell (Talk) 04:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Qualified support. I like the idea behind this proposal: it seems to combine what I was thinking of when I invoked WP:OWN along with NewYorkBrad's comments that there is a certain leeway for talk pages. I'm not sure about the term "discussed professionally", however: according to who's professional standards? and what about editors who are not "members" of a "profession"? We should at least try to get a guideline that would work for everyone from the tenured university professor to the high-school student, while also including the unemployed car mechanic who's fanatical about World War II military vehicles and the effect of sand-grain size on Rommel's North Africa campaign. Such is our editor base, and all are welcome if they contribute to an encyclopedia, IMHO. Physchim62 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editors can decide by consensus to close talk page discussions

4) Editors can decide by consensus to close discussions on certain topics, if they feel that it has been already been discussed sufficiently, particularly taking into account points 1) and 2). Editors who dissent are free to continue discussions on private talk pages. In case the closed topic is raised on the talk page of the article, any editor has the right to revert the talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This cuts both ways very badly. It will spur whole new arguments about what constitutes consensus, of which we already have far too many. If there's consensus to close a discussion, then just have consensus resolving the content issue, which effectively closes the discussion. We don't need people arguing about whether the discussion was closed with consensus in addition to arguing about whether a content point has consensus. On the latter point, it is a welcoming avenue for forum discussions and soapboxing. Vassyana (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Talk is not parliament. Cool Hand Luke 17:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Opposed: This proposal is not necessary. Its effect is to allow a majority to stifle an unpopular view by substituting a poll for discussion WP:POLL, and instituting administrative action to suppress any further discussion. A better approach is simply to partition the discussion threads on the Talk page with headers. Any topic that is considered unimportant to the majority, or settled in their opinion, can simply be ignored by them. All this is already common practice. The disinterested majority should refrain from entering this shunned thread with smart-aleck summaries, catcalls, sneers, and sarcasm intended to derail discussion by the minority that still maintains an interest. Brews ohare (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be that a minority editor insists upon interjecting views in threads where they do not belong, attempting to derail unrelated discussion. That can be dealt with as incivility, and should be subject to Admin action. Brews ohare (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Support in broad principle, but not as written: First, a clearer standard is needed to avoid a quick consensus unfairly closing discussion. Second, if a discussion is closed, it should be boxed and preserved for future reference. Third, I think reverting talk posts solely because the issue was previously decided by consensus goes too far, and may be hostile to editors who didn't participate in the prior discussion. I don't believe that on-topic posts should be deleted, even if contrary to consensus, unless the posts are WP:DISRUPTIVE in the totality of the circumstances. Fourth, once an issue has been closed after a full discussion, an editor who opposed the decision should not be able to replay the same discussion on the consensus editors' talk pages. Unless this can be drafted very tightly, I fear that it would raise more enforcement problems than it solves. —Finell (Talk) 04:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page of the article on Global Warming, we've implement a similar policy. This is to prevent sceptics using the talk page to argue that "global warming has stopped" or similar things. We do have a link to a FAQ page on the talk page that addresses most of these issues raised by sceptics. Before that policy was implemented, quite a lot of space on the talk page was devoted to trying to argue with sceptics, usually you had one sceptic arguing against the rest.

Stopping those discusions turned out to be more of a problem for the regular editors. It is a sort of discipline problem to stick to the guidline to not discuss a topic, because if you're interested in the topic you tend to like to discuss the topic. And it only takes one of the regular editors to be undisciplined to keep the discussion going. We found that removing off topic discussions was the best way to deal with this problem. Count Iblis (talk)

Oppose as out of place in the current dispute(s). There is no RL reason for Speed of light to be contentious in the same way that Global warming or Barrack Obama are obvious contentious articles. The problem at speed of light is that we have a nasty, time-wasting dispute without any reasons that is clear to non-physicists (and even then!) Physchim62 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editors can appeal a closing of a talk page discussion

5) Editors who feel that they should be allowed to discuss a certain topic after it has been closed by consensus, can raise their objections by contacting an uninvolved Administrator. The Administrator has the right to annul the closing of topic. Pending such an annulment, editors should not start discussions on the closed topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Not supported by existing policies or guidelines. Too draconian. Imposes too great a burden on admins, and involves them too much in pure content disputes. —Finell (Talk) 04:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disrespecting the closing of a topic amounts to edit warring

6) Editors who repeatedly violate a consensus on the talk page to not raise a certain topic can be blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. For one thing, it seems to violate WP:CCC. It's a weird idea anyway; if editors are a problem on one topic, they should be topic banned, not blocked. Cool Hand Luke 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose As discussed earlier, consensus using a poll of editors stifles discussion and imposes majority rule; this is contrary to WP:POLL. Although unpopular views irritate the majority, who inevitably think the minority are misguided (to be polite), unpopular views can be correct and a mechanism to present them should be protected. Brews ohare (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Brews's reasoning. WP:Consensus, by definition, is neither WP:POLL nor majority rule. —Finell (Talk) 04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Not supported by existing policies or guidelines. Too draconian. —Finell (Talk) 04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Editors have behaved unprofessionally on the speed of light talk page

1) Discussions with Brews Ohare and David Tombe have degenerated into name calling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence presented by editors. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support: Some editors have focused on the professional status and the wikipedia block record of their opponents, as well as making unsubstantiated allegations about a pattern of misbehaviour at other articles and the insertion of original research. These shameful tactics would not be used by somebody who has confidence in their own powers of argument. David Tombe (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Support The facts presented elsewhere support this conclusion beyond all doubt. Pejoratives, misattributions and distortions, catcalls, and threats pervade the Talk: Speed of light page. Brews ohare (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors have neglected the speed of light article on important points

2) While disputes with Brews Ohare and David Tombe on a minor issues were going on, factual incorrect statements that are more relevant to students were not corrected. Factual incorrect statements on causality, on non-inertial frames, were noted and corrected by previously uninvolved editor Count Iblis, while the erroneous statement made here: "Some of these situations involve entities that actually travel faster than c in a particular reference frame but none involves either matter, energy, or information traveling faster than the speed of light in vacuum.", has neither been corrected, nor discussed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While I would be wary of this formulation, Count Iblis' point and Headbomb's statements below, as well as comments from other editors in this case and at other places, do make it clear that other content issues have suffered for the dispute. Vassyana (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Asks arbitrators to decide on content that is not involved in the disputes in issue. Editors don't have enforceable duty to correct erroneous statements, although that is one thing that most editors try to do. Why hasn't Count Iblis corrected the thus-far uncorrected erroneous statement? —Finell (Talk) 04:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My statement in this section is about a "finding of fact", it is not directly related to some policy that is not adhered to. But this puts the complaints about Brews and David in the proper context. You have a article on which quite a few editors are active and one or two raise certain topics tat already have been discussed quite often. Surely the editors could focus on more relevant points if they wanted to do that?

I will make the correction today or tomorrow, but note that I'm not the most active editor on the speed of light page. Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We can't focus on content because the talk page is unusable and dominated by the Brews and Tombe related discussion. We have to keep fighting off the insertion of weird idiosyncratic views rather than on improving the page. You can't improve what you're too busy defending. As someone once put it, it takes time to build, but very little to destroy. When you're preventing destruction, you can't build. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be possible for the editors to collectively decide to stop discussing the topics raised by Brews and David. It was possible on the global warming page, see my reply to Finell on my proposal to close discussions above. Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If only. I know I refrain from making new threads on the SoL page out of fear that they will shoehorn them into the old dicussion. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Headbomb: Of course, Headbomb is free to entertain fears of his choosing, but there have been no WP:diff's provided to show that a new thread on a different topic has been (or will be) diverted away from the new topic back to the old discussion (that is, back to discussing how the lead sentence should handle 299,792,458 m/s). Brews ohare (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb is absolutely right and this is the root of this whole problem. The Brews'/Tombe discussions so dominated the talk page that normal cooperative editing became impossible. This even seemed to me to result in a few 'friendly fire' incidents, in which editors who essentially agreed with one another started arguing. If you want evidence just look at the page editing statistics. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Support: Of course it is possible to open new threads on the Talk page at any time, and that has happened. And it is true that the issues to which so much time is devoted are related mainly to the lead, rather than the many subsections dealing with particular topics. That behavior could be stopped voluntarily at any time. No evidence has been presented to show every thread is diverted to this one by injection of diversionary material where it does not belong. No evidence has been presented that the time spent upon the lead section debate must occur at the expense of other topics: it's just the preference of the editors involved. So I interpret this finding of fact as indicative of poor judgment on the part of the editors involved, or (more likely) a predilection for argument rather than improvement of the article. It is simply one more sign that editors have piled into Speed of light because they like blood sport, not the topic. Brews ohare (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb's allegations above don't stand up to scrutiny. I was only involved in all of this for a relatively short period of time, so it is quite wrong to suggest that I have been dominating the talk page. And when I first got involved in early August, it was about a different matter altogether. My first involvement was to correct the material about Maxwell in the history section. While that was going on, I ran a parallel thread on the talk page. That totally disproves Headbomb's argument that other aspects of the article have suffered as a result of Brews's argument. I made some important corrections to that paragraph in the history section, and the fact of the existence of the other argument did not impede me in any way. So if Headbomb has some unrelated corrections in mind, then I suggest that he casts his irrational fears aside and goes ahead now and makes those necessary corrections. As regards Brews's argument, I have to repeat again that I fully support his argument, as do others, and as such Headbomb has absolutely no right to complain. Headbomb can choose to ignore the argument if he so wishes. Headbomb cannot assume rectitude as regards the argument. The ongoing debate is not disruptive in any way. It has served to highlight a major issue of confusion. I think that we are witnessing here a major case of shooting the messenger. I think that Brews raised an unwelcome truth, just as I did at WT:PHYS. David Tombe (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yeah, that was my original reaction, but I've since decided that just continuing to improve the article without giving a fuck about this drama is a much wiser think to do. --___A. di M. 22:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors involved in the 2007 Sadi Carnot case did a poor job editing thermodynamics articles

3) While the Sadi Carnot case was a serious case in which Sadi Carnot was pushing a fringe view and advertising his books, the very fringe nature of that issue also made it of lesser importance from an educational point of view. Important errors that were much more relevant were not even noted and remained uncorrected until 2008. For details see here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is off topic, and also the Sadi Carnot disputants were administrators concerned about the process for implementing a community ban. We were uninvolved in the editing of the article. I'm not sure why you're trying to blame us for not cleaning up those articles. As volunteers, nobody here has duty to do work. Jehochman ^Talk 09:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Implement, or overturn, a "community ban" as I seem to remember it ;) Only two editors in this case were involved in the Sadi Carnot case: myself and Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Both of us were criticized during the arbitration process, although not in the final decision. Having worked with Jonathan on several occasions since then, I think we've both taken those criticisms on board. The "Sadi Carnot problem" was discussed at WT:PHYS in October 2007 [37]; if there was a delay in correcting articles, it is maybe down to the fact that we have so few editors who know the difference between an "intensive quantity" and an "extensive quantity" (for example). I would be interested in your proposals for alleviating that problem, but here isn't really the place to discuss them. Physchim62 (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm now not making a statement about Carnot's ban. Rather, the point is that however serious the problem Carnot caused was, what was far more serious i.m.o. was that you had erroneous statements in the core thermodynamics articles like dU > TdS - PdV (the reasoning given was that in general T dS > dq, while dW = P dV), which is flatout wrong (because in general you wou,d have dW < P dV if the pressure can be defined at all, so the reasoning isn't valid. You only have to consider the fact that U is a thermodymamic state variable to see that you must have dU = T dS - P dV, even if the change in U is a result of irreversible processes.).

These sort of errors are really damaging, i.m.o. far more than anything Carnot has done. But in this case, you can't really point to one editor and put the blame on him/her. It was a collective failure of all the involved editors. But the attention always seems to be focussed on individual editor conduct.

This means that only those problems that are attributable to individual editors get addressed here on Wikipedia. It also means that we tend to frame problems in terms of single editor misconduct. So, something goes wrong and we ask: "who is to blame?". But perhaps that's the wrong question to ask. Count Iblis (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Outside the scope of this arbitration. The Sadi Carnot case was a different arbitration and was already decided. I agree with the comment of Jehochman above. Finell (Talk)

Comment: This case was brought up by Physchim62 in an attempt to increase the gravity of the present Speed of light case by misrepresenting the Sadi Carnot case as a parallel. Brews ohare (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Editors reminded

1) Editors are reminded to behave professionally. Editors are reminded to focus on those points that are important to students. This takes precedence over settling disputes on other points. It is the responsibility of editors themselves to close discussions by consensus that have been settled.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This first point seems valid. However, the rest would be creation of policy from whole cloth by ArbCom and additionally invite whole new classes of disputes (as I've noted in other comments). Vassyana (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: My personal editing practice is, wherever practical, to try to make technical content accessible to non-specialist readers, including but not limited to students. This is especially important in an article's lead, and in the lead paragraph of some sections. However, current policy does not require that Wikipedia have a student-centric focus, and I would not support a policy change to this effect. Finell (Talk) 19:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Cool Hand Luke

Previous principles that may apply to this case

These are principles from past cases that might need to be tweaked here. Comments on how to do this is welcome. Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Truncated version of this boilerplate. Could perhaps have a more specific final clause, but I'm finding it difficult to concisely describe the primary issue here. Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Standard and good. I think a closing statement, or greater specificity, might be more appropriate for a distinct principle. Vassyana (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Finell (Talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: I would insert , collaboration, after "camaraderie" in the first sentence. In my opinion, if you change the WP:BATTLE pipe to engaging in battles, the second sentence is well adapted to this case. Finell (Talk) 08:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit: In the second sentence, (1) insert or before "publishing"; (2) insert a comma after "original research". Finell (Talk) 08:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with Finell just above; however, I also agree with Vassyana that it might be better to spin out each of the violated principles into a separate header. I realise that it isn't simple to say exactly what's gone wrong, but I think it's important that we try to do so, rather than simply saying "such behaviour isn't acceptable." Physchim62 (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Not pertinent to this case except for the clause "atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors", which needs to be stated separately and with much more detail. Brews ohare (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reliability of content

Maintaining the reliability and accuracy of article content is extremely important. Where the accuracy or reliability of an edit or an article is questioned, contributors are expected to engage in good-faith, civil discussion and work toward a resolution of the concern.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Very common boilerplate. Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the concerns raised, this particular principle is somewhat worrying. Some of the worst violations of soapboxing and original research call upon almost this exact rationale. It needs some qualifier about our basic content principles and what Wikipedia is not to avoid this potential for misuse. I understand the previous principle addresses this point, but arbitration principles are often cited by discussion participants in isolation. Thus, I feel it is important to consider the potential for misuse and misunderstanding on an individual basis. Vassyana (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I sense there's some redundancies in these past principles anyway. Cool Hand Luke 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Finell (Talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as pertinent to this case in its emphasis upon civility. If insistence is placed upon sourced opinion, not personal opinion, and focus is on content, not personalities, it is not likely to be abused. Brews ohare (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I support this principle but it is not that easy to apply in this case. The subject 'The speed of light' covers a wide range of issues form mainly philosophical questions such as, 'What is speed?', 'What is distance?', 'What is time?' and even 'What is light', through a range of theories of physics (from very well verified theories to speculative ones) to the mainly practical considerations of metrology. This makes it particularly difficult to determine which sources are reliable. Potential sources also cover a very wide range from philosophical musings by eminent writers through arXiv to the most prestigious peer reviewed journals, and respected text books.

For contentious issues, I believe that the best sources are good quality secondary sources such as well-regarded physics text books. Very little in the article should need to be supported by primary sources. For metrological issues the word standards authorities (such as BIPM) should be taken as the definitive sources. Even when supported by reliable sources issues may still be contentious because of different interpretations of the sources. In this case a consensus must be reached based on a civil discussion of editors interpretation of the most reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think this is an important background principle to the dispute. Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Standard, solid principle. Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Finell (Talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on the basis that "undue weight" is in the eye of the beholder. It may be that clear exposition of one view can be succinct, while a more nuanced view takes more explanation. Brews ohare (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Support: I don't see that this can ever be a problem. A minority argument, no matter how complex or nuanced, can always be summed up succinctly even if only by reference (e.g. "... but this view is not a universally held one [reference to exposition of alternate theory]" If no such complete reference for the theory in its entirety exists that itself is reason not to include as per WP:SYNTH. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Neutrality and sources

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ditto, from Scientology. Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Spot on. Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Finell (Talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as not an issue pertinent to this case. No evidence for trying to snowball a viewpoint using polarized sources has been presented. No sources have been critiqued as unreliable. Brews ohare (talk) Brews ohare (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fine in substance, but this (and the above) principle could do with a bit of combining and some of the sentences could also be written in a different order to make it more concise. See my proposals below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Advocacy

Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Fringe science. I'm not sure this one applies well. It's more of an undue weight issue (or even a misleading presentation) than a neutrality problem. Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a principle about soapboxing may be relevant, but I think we need another expression of it in this case. Any such principle that we invoke should focus on the talk page disruption aspect of soapboxing, rather than the mainspace expression of the issue. Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment I think the situation we've been seeing at Speed of light is closer to what is seen on controversial political articles (say, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution) than what we usually see in disputes over scientific articles, which is what prompted me to start trying to look at it as a WP:SOAP problem. It would certainly be unfair (and I don't think it would be accurate) to consider "misleading presentation" except from the viewpoint that the parties (all of them) honestly believe, in good faith, that their sources say what is claimed, even if the particular reading may be less than obvious (to say the least) to someone else. As for undue weight, I've tried to address it in my proposals: several comments have come in that is dangerously close to ruling on a content issue, although such "content rulings" have been implicit in the past in several fringe science cases. Physchim62 (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Finell (Talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as irrelevant to the case at hand. There is no advocacy going on. There is considerable misinformation going about due to misrepresentation of positions. Brews ohare (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with Vassyana. Having a well-written (preferrably concise) principle on talk page disruption is important, and would be worth tackling in this case. Even outside of this case, in general, some newer users are making it difficult for sanctions to pass purely because they don't understand what talk page disruption is (even after explanations from other established users and admins). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Citations should not be used disproportionately to the prominence of the view they are citing or in a manner that conveys undue weight. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Fringe science. Perhaps we could add: "Similarly, if high-quality sources do not reflect controversy about an fact, that fact should not be presented as controversial." Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent with the proposed addition. Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Strong support with the suggested addition. That would be a statement of principle that would be useful far beyond this dispute. Physchim62 (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Finell (Talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And support CHL's proposed addendum as equally important. Finell (Talk) 17:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as not relevant to this case, and as a bad idea in general. The notion that providing multiple sources for a view adds to its gravitas is nonsense. Multiple sources may be provided for many reasons: historical priority, different level or angle of exposition, ease of access, and so forth. As many references as seems helpful should be included. Brews ohare (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Huzzah for Cool Hand Luke's proposed addendum... it sometimes seems like a constant struggle simply to describe HIV as "the virus which causes AIDS", as opposed to "the virus which conventional scientists claim causes AIDS (although some scientists argue that HIV is in fact a harmless passenger virus)." Not a healthy situation for an aspiring serious, respectable reference work, so this would definitely be a step in a positive direction. MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Scientific focus

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Fringe science. With words "and quasi-scientific" deleted. Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple and correct. Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Finell (Talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as not relevant to this case, and as a bad idea in general. Of course, mainstream ideas should be presented. That doesn't mean that minor or specialist topics should be excluded, nor that ideas that are in a state of active controversy like MOND should be omitted. So this principle seems like a non-statement to me. Brews ohare (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

That's the aim, I suppose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Communication

Imbalances in methods, quality and volume of communications can both overwhelm and underwhelm attempts at communication on Wikipedia. This applies in all areas, not just dispute resolution. If an editor refuses to communicate, or is not communicating with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or fails to focus on the topic being discussed, then this can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Abd and JzG. Ironically, this is not a very concise principle. In this case, I would revise it to say: "High volumes of messages can overwhelm communication on Wikipedia. An editor who posts excessive or lengthy messages can impede collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should strive to communicate concisely, clearly, and with minimal repetition." Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare: I agree in part. Edit counts are never a good measure. That said, when I look at Talk:Speed of light/Archive 10, or several of the other archives, I see the same points being raised again and again in section after section; it's not just you either. At any rate, I agree that this finding might not be relevant to the case. Cool Hand Luke 13:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, relevant, and correct. Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This notion of "volume" overwhelming discussion on a Talk page needs to be examined critically. First, is an edit count indicative of "volume"? I'd say in my case it is not, as my actual responses are only as numerous as the points replied to, but the edit count is larger because of edits for punctuation, second thoughts, grammar, adding links and so forth. Second, in my case the responses are definitely not ramblings on various topics, but are very specific responses to points raised. Third, in many cases the responses include links and sources to support points raised. I'd say these traits of my responses argue in favor of communication, not against it, even if it irritates some to see their views challenged, and as a result, they would like to see those efforts arrested on whatever pretext. It is hard to understand how such response to points raised can "overwhelm" discussion.

In this particular Case/Speed of light, a far greater impediment to communication than volume of edits is the volume of incivility, including pejorative remarks, insulting injections (without other content), threats, distortions of fact, and attribution of false and fabricated positions. Brews ohare (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. To say that the amount of traffic on Talk:Speed of light is not a factor in the dispute is to ignore the elephant in the room. It might not be the only factor, but it's certainly one. WP:DISENGAGE is policy, after all. Now I requested mediation on a separate dispute over the article in December 2008: the request was quickly rejected after the refusal of other parties to participate. In the following six months, I made only a single edit to the article, and only ten edits to the talk page. Comparing the article before and after that period, during which time there were well over 1000 edits to the article as well as an RfC related to the current arbitration and about an archive and a half of talk page discussion, I can see that sections of the article have been shifted around a bit and there's a picture in the top corner, but otherwise, little changed. The speed of light has gone from being "exactly 299792458 m/s" to being "299792458 m/s exactly"… Since mid-June, there have been about four archives-worth of talk page discussion, with little lasting fundamental change to the underlying article. Physchim62 (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support as a correct statement of principle that is very pertinent to—indeed, at the heart of—this case. While edit counts are not the whole story, they are a very important part of this story. If Brews objects to using his edit counts, because of the extraordinary number of times that he reworks most of his posts, compare the number of lines that Brews writes with the number of lines that other editors write, either individually or in the aggregate. What Brews calls his "very specific responses to points raised" were

1. mostly responses to points raised in reply to the many repetitive discussion threads that Brews himself started;
2. often very, and unnecessarily, lengthy;
3. often repetitions or restatements of his previous arguments, and often without directly addressing the other editor's point to which Brews was ostensibly responding. Finell (Talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Christopher Thomas below, I specifically asked Brews to stop his many, rapid-fire edits to tweak his posts and suggested alternate ways that he could perfect his posts before clicking the Save page button, and Brews cooperatively said that he would try here. However, Brews did not change this editing practice at all, as his contribs and the edit histories of the pages that he has edited since then demonstrate. The edit history of this page and the /Evidence page is demonstration enough. Finell (Talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Finell and Christopher Thomas: I agree that my editing tweaks are numerous, and interfere with the practice of using WP:diffs to follow changes, instead of actually reading the threads. However, I don't think this inconvenience is the real subject of this case. Brews ohare (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support, possibly with emphasis on "conciseness" in this case. Sheer volume of traffic can be disruptive (as it was at the relevant WT:PHYS threads), but is arguably justifiable if it results in improving the articles under dispute. Making ten edits to the same reply with nine of them being minor formatting tweaks compounds the problem enormously, as it makes it extremely difficult to identify (and read) threads that are not part of the high-volume thread. I assume that people have already repeatedly tried asking User:Brews ohare to use the preview feature to do his revising without actually leaving an edit trail. If this is not the case, then consider this comment a formal request to do so, because as it stands, considerable disruption (with the best of intentions) has already occurred. This is orthogonal to any complaints of "tendentious editing" or "soapboxing" on the part of any of the users involved in this dispute. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I like CHL's revision. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, particularly with CHL's revision. Chris, your assumption is correct that Brews has been repeatedly politely asked to use the preview feature better, here is one example where I did so two months ago. --Steve (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Vassyana

Principles

Reliability and content

Maintaining the reliability and accuracy of article content is extremely important. Where the accuracy or reliability of an edit or an article is questioned, contributors are expected to engage in good-faith, civil discussion and work towards consensus. Participants in the discussion should remain mindful of our content principles and avoid debates that are inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed alternative to address my concerns noted above. Vassyana (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Article talk pages need to be used primarily to discuss article content. They are not to be used to discussed the topic in general or the editors. FloNightξξξ 23:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Finell (Talk) 18:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as not pertinent to this case. Although some editors have misrepresented the views of others to make them appear controversial, in fact there is really no reliability or accuracy issue here. Brews ohare (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Decorum

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposal. Based on standard principles. Vassyana (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Focusing discussions on the content and sources, not the editor, is the way to resolve issues. FloNightξξξ 23:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Finell (Talk) 18:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as a principle extremely pertinent to this case. There are many examples of (i) name-calling and pejorative remarks (ii) attributions to editors (with no evidence) of distorted positions not held by these editors to enable heaping of disrepute upon them (iii) injection of catcalls into discussions intended to derail ongoing discussion and with no other purpose, (iv) threats of banning or blocking to intimidate discussion, (v) waving about of WP:POV, WP:SYNTH, WP:Fringe WP:OR without support for purpose of intimidation, (v) injection of irrelevant commentary and attitude carried over from encounters on other articles. Focus upon specific content is replaced by focus upon the contributor and motivated by past encounters, not present article. Brews ohare (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Support The only behaviour in this entire affair that has caused actual disruption to the debate on the talk page at speed of light has been the threats to ban or block, as well as one actual case of banning. David Tombe (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Talk pages

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Talk pages are not for forum-like debates, proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, or so forth (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). There is limited tolerance for more general discussion, but not when it becomes tendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwise disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposal. To address the comments under CHL's "Advocacy" principle. Vassyana (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Revised, per comments below.[38] Vassyana (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. A more specific principle that reminds about the purpose of talk pages.

Comment by parties:

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Finell (Talk) 18:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I'd prefer a wording more in line with Newyorkbrad's observation "There is limited tolerance for more general discussion, but not when it becomes disruptive, or overwhelms the substantive work of the page." (to which I subscribe). Physchim62 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as amended. Physchim62 (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Opposed as not pertinent to this case. The Talk page behavior here has not been disrupted by "general discussion", "original points of view" and so forth. Rather the behavior has been disrupted by a number of editors that do not wish to see certain other editors contribute to the article, whatever the merits of their case. Rather than discuss sourced opinion, these opposing editors resort to tactics of: false attribution of ideas, catcalls, threats, and claims of WP:Fringe, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POV (that apply primarily to contributions to the main article) as bare adjectives without specifics to denigrate the Talk page discussion and to justify avoidance of specific comment on content. Brews ohare (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Support This is the only thing needed in this case. The rest could look after itself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Behavioral remedies are also necessary. The disputes at Speed of light are a continuation of disputes and disruptions that David Tombe and Brews ohare have been causing on several science pages continuously since 2007. The policies and guidelines that this principle restates did not curb these two editors' DISRUPTive editing, BATTLEs, and pushing FRINGE pseudo-scientific POVs (which, like all fringers, they sincerely believe not to be fringe). Neither has the consensus of other editors, warnings by admins, and blocks deterred them, and they are unpersuaded by the remarks and warnings of two Arbitrators and the Clerk. Both insist that all the other editors and all admins who have intervened are wrong, and now they find fault with the arbitration process, which Tombe volunteers to reform (step 1: adopt English common law procedure; step 2: blindfold the admins and the community).[39] Tombe's misconduct also includes blocks for sockpuppetry and block evasion. In Tombe's case, an indefinite block, later lifted, was not a deterrent. Stronger behavioral remedies than those previously imposed are necessary to protect the Wikipedia project from further disruption. Finell (Talk) 10:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell is prone to summarize events from his viewpoint as though from some elevated objective position. I don't agree with his assessments and find them to be his personal unsupported opinions arrived at by listening to other editors, and not by any independent assessment. Brews ohare (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as improperly focused. The emphasis upon WP:TE and WP:DIS is misplaced on a Talk page. What is required is the promotion of genuine discussion, which requires rigid across-the-board enforcement of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:Talk upon all participants. In addition, the Talk page is a forum for justification of reversions from the main page, and such justification should be forced to be pertinent and detailed, not vaguely based upon the misty imaginings of reverting editors who may not have digested what they have reverted. Inadequately justified reversion should be viewed as a form of incivility and failure to assume good faith. The notion of "limited tolerance" of discussion is simply censorship, whatever nice name you attach to it. Brews ohare (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews: You oppose this principle twice? Finell (Talk) 10:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed yes, on various grounds. Brews ohare (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

While I think the second part of the last sentence is good, the first part needs some work. It's really vague to say "There is limited tolerance for more general discussion [on talk pages]"; what sort of general discussion do we mean here? And limited tolerance? My attempts to clarify this would probably fail as I'm not sure what is the intended meaning. Does it refer to discussion about the subject of an article? Or about particular editors working on the article? Or...? Perhaps this wording may help a bit: "Although more general discussion may be permissible in some circumstances, it will not be tolerated when it becomes tendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwise disruptive." Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good faith and disruption

Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A previously invoked principle that may be worth noting in this case. Vassyana (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Important point. The bottom line is that the Committee provides remedies that help the Community write a NPOV encyclopedia. If an editor can not follow policy then remedies will be needed no matter how good the intentions of the person. FloNightξξξ 23:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Finell (Talk) 18:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Still support, as I did above ;) Physchim62 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Support I understand that it can be very frustrating for a person who wishes to make what they consider too be a perfectly valid point in good faith to be told that they must stop but in some cases this is necessary for normal progess and editing to continue. Can I suggest that an exception is made which allows a special talk page to be set up to the subject so that only editors who are interested in discussion of that subject need participate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Martin's suggested exception. Productive discussion about an article should be centralized on the talk page. Non-productive discussion should not be. Editors who care about the article would, as a practical matter, be compelled to monitor pages set up for discussions not deemed worthy of the "real" talk page, and then drawn into a wasteful time sink. Finell (Talk) 10:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It always is possible to set up an aside discussion. No special action is needed to "allow" such an arrangement. Brews ohare (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as a principle not pertinent to this case. I would imagine the expected application of this principle here would be to say that repeated attempts to present an unpopular view on the Talk page are disruptive and merit some administrative action to turn it off. I'd suggest that under normal circumstances various threads appear on the Talk page with their specific headers indicating subject. There is no need for uninterested parties to deal with these threads, and they can simply be ignored. However, in the present instance, even separate threads raising topics for discussion are entered by parties that have no intention of adding to the discussion, but rather, wish to prevent discussion developing. These intruders introduce catcalls, irrelevancies, wandering digressions on unrelated topics, personal attacks, and so forth to derail discussion, and then protest that their impolite activity is required by the disruptive actions of those trying to discuss the topic!

If as an outcome of discussions on the Talk page, a contribution to the main page is made, perhaps some issues arise of interest to previously uninterested parties after all, and they can be dealt with differently by specific commentary on the inserted material. Administrative action on the Talk page in the case of debate prior to insertion of material on the main page should have different ground rules than those governing discussion of reversion of material inserted on the main page. In this last case, Administrative action may be needed to insure that discussion of the actual material reverted takes place, not discussion of general statements about content, which often are the imaginings of the reader, not actually contained in the reverted material at all. One way to do this is to insist that verbatim quotes and actual sources from reverted material be addressed, not (possibly incorrect) generalizations about content, and not editors' unsupported personal opinions about the reverted material. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose With all due respect Vassyana, this is the one that worries me. It looks too much like paving the way towards punishing the innocent. This proposal looks very bad. It suggests that all track of justice has been lost. To me, this proposal is symbolic of everything that has been wrong with this arbitration hearing from the outset. In plain English it reads "if Brews ohare and David Tombe are right in the argument, we will punish them anyway". David Tombe (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, David, that is not how it reads in plain English. First, as has been repeatedly explained, dispute resolution is not about punishment. Second, thinking that you are "right" (who doesn't?), or even being "right" about something, is no justification whatsoever for a pattern of disruptive editing. Yes, David, even an editor who is "right" can be blocked or banned for persistently violating Wikipedia's behavioral policies and guidelines. You know that from your own experience: You have been blocked several times for your disruptive behavior, even though you "know" that you are right and that those who disagree with you are, always, wrong. You have been engaged in WP:BATTLEs throughout your entire career on Wikipedia, and it is time to put an end to it. Finell (Talk) 22:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell. We're all still waiting for you to point out the disruptive behaviour. You haven't shown us any examples yet. And you're once again degenerating down into the gutter level tactic of drawing attention to my block record, which rightly or wrongly was a result of putting edits into articles against consensus. It has got nothing to do with this case, so don't keep bringing it up. And spare us all the bureaucratic white washing about what dispute resolution is theoretically supposed to be about. I'm seeing too much here of Goebbels's famous tactic. If you throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick. David Tombe (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not equate me or others here with a Nazi war criminal! Or is that just BAIT? Your disruptive behavior is established on the Evidence page, in the several AN/I's involving you, and even on the pages in this arbitration, where you are presumably on your best behavior. You refuse to learn from your experiences through your entire career on Wikipedia, during which you have been in constant BATTLEs with almost everyone with whom you have interacted. And you are claiming, for the second time in this arbitration, that your prior blocks were "only" for repeatedly editing against consensus. That is untrue because, as you know, you were blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and block evasion.[40] Finell (Talk) 09:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. As is quite common, both in arbitration cases and in real life, we see here that the people how cry the shrillest about mistreatment are those who actually have the most despicable behaviour themselves. The people throwing s**t around the place are Brews and David, the same two who complain the loudest that mere mud is being thrown at them. Physchim62 (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's law. You lose. ___A. di M. 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Physchim62: I have seen no diffs to support an accusation that I am "throwing s**t around the place". In contrast, there is evidence replete that Physchim62 invents positions for myself and refuses to make amends when these misattributions are drawn to his attention. Brews ohare (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A. di M., About this Godwin's law. Does the reference to Hitler or Nazis have to be in their capacity as dictators? Does a reference to Goebbels as a wizard of propaganda come under the jurisdiction of Godwin's law? David Tombe (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is, remain civil. Further attacks will result in a block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard principle worth noting here. Vassyana (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. FloNightξξξ 23:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose as worded. It seems like an invitation to parties to try to prove bad faith, which would make arbitration proceedings even more unpleasant for all concerned than they already are. As I've mentioned above, I'm not sure that the distinction between "content" and "user behaviour" is quite as watertight as the Committee has traditionally tried to pretend. Physchim62 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Editors' compliance with Wikipedia's behavioral and content polices and guidelines is sufficient to prevent or resolve most content disputes. However, it is the role of the Arbitration Committee, when necessary, to enforce content polices and guidelines, including the ones most pertinent to this dispute: Verifiability, Reliable sources, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Fringe theories. Finell (Talk) 19:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. Administrators in technical disputes will be unlikely to have the expertise needed to "settle" a technical dispute. The correct role of Administrators in such cases is to insure that an equitable discussion between parties actually takes place, and to keep tight reign over slurs, catcalls, and personal remarks between parties. Where a difference of opinion cannot be settled, the main article should contain a sourced presentation of opposing views and a summary statement that a difference of opinion on the matter prevails. Brews ohare (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Findings

Scope of the dispute

The dispute encompasses the areas of physics coverage devoted to the 1983 definition of the metre and its relation to the speed of light; and to a lesser extant the coverage regarding forces in curved motion, electromagnetism, and the nature of free space. This prominently manifested at the articles Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Centrifugal force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Electromotive force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Faraday's law of induction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Comment by Arbitrators:

This appears to be the topic scope of the case. Alternate suggestions for prominent manifestations are welcomed. Vassyana (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Good to point out the scope in case topic bans or article probation is needed. FloNightξξξ 23:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It would be a mistake to not treat the Brews ohare problem across a much wider scope, just because the problem came to arbitration via speed of light. For example, yesterday he began yet another example of his disruptive editing style at Ohm's law, doing a dozen rapid-fire edits, pushing barely-relevant concepts like constitutive equations into the lead and adding quite unrelated creeping complexity like the Kramers–Kronig relation, and adding lots of extra noise in the form of main links to things not on the main topic and see-also link in sections where the target is already linked. I'm pushing back on selected parts of his contributions there, and he's making his pointless arguments against my pushback on several talk pages already ([41] and [42]), and accusing me of motivations other than improving wikipedia. If he's not restrained, he'll probably make this article into something more like his centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), a model of bloat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 October 2009

Response to Dicklyon: Dicklyon's remarks above indicate very clearly his impatience with myself and his desire to paint that impatience as a violation of WP guidelines. However, examination of the cited diffs shows that this hostility stems from other causes that I am not trained to diagnose, and that have nothing to do with WP guidelines or, indeed WP. My "pointless arguments" should be read for themselves, and Dicklyon's summary of them ignored. Brews ohare (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The exchange on Ohm's law illustrates Dicklyon's very common uncooperative stance, in which he exercises passive resistance to all changes, sniping at proposed contributions instead of trying to cooperate proactively to make something useful. Brews ohare (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Locus of the dispute

The locus of the dispute is the quality and validity of the edits and statements of David Tombe (talk · contribs) and Brews ohare (talk · contribs) at physics articles, especially at Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles concerning the 1983 definition of the metre.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This appears to be what is at the center of the ongoing dispute. Vassyana (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. FloNightξξξ 23:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is a largely incorrect assessment, in my view, as most of the problems arise from behavioral issues, such as threats, incivility and distortion used to intimidate properly sourced and civil opposition arguments. Although there may be some residual disagreement over technical issues, I suspect that most editors would agree with the summary presented here. However, the phrasing of the lead of SOL to reflect these facts caused difficulty. IMO the lead eventually reached a suitable form under the hands of editors other than myself, although it seems likely that after this arbitration is settled Martin Hogbin will return to force his formulation of the lead, which differs not so much in technical detail but in summarizing the matter in his particular wording that violates WP:Astonish. Obviously, that is not a technical issue, but a judgment call. The details of this are found elsewhere in this Case. The fact is, this entire Case has no technical basis, but has a significant behavioral basis, and those issues cannot be attributed to myself or D Tombe as the main causes. Brews ohare (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editing environment

The editing environment surrounding the disputed matters is hostile. Assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, "battleground" expressions, and other incivility are commonplace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There have been legitimate complaints about the editing environment and associated conduct from all sides. Vassyana (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Ncmvocalist, true, and too often the reason that sensible editors stay away from the article. FloNightξξξ 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment: The editing environment is hostile. However, I personally do not think all parties are responsible for this environment. Attempts by myself to enter normal discourse of content on the Talk page have been rejected with catcalls, putdowns, cheerleading, sarcasm, distortions of fact, and unsupported accusations of WP:POV etc. and are justified by saying that I have bored the others with too many attempts to get them to dialog. Less severe reaction of the same ilk was applied to Abtract, who had the misfortune to try to present a modification of Martin Hogbin's lead. Brews ohare (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

OK, but I think most matters that have escalated to ArbCom involve that sort of environment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe and incivility

David Tombe (talk · contribs) has been uncivil, such as engaging in personal attacks comparing users to fascists during the course of this case ([43][44]) and accusing them of gross bad faith in perpetuating great wrongs ([45][46][47][48]). He was previously advised about such conduct ([49][50][51]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

I support Ncmvocalist's revised proposal. Vassyana (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. Please note that what Tombe calls "current orthodoxy" is commonly known as science, as distinguished from pseudo-science. Also this sarcastic gem, in which he points Headbomb to a news article about O'Hare Airport as "evidence that you can use against Brews" in this arbitration, is another example of Tombe's utter contempt for other editors and for Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 01:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm not comfortable with the first diff for "accusing them of great wrongs", and I think the wording (and heading) could be improved. I'll try to draft a proposal on this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I've drafted a proposal below to reflect those changes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe and fringe advocacy

David Tombe rejects large portions of modern physics, inappropriately promoting this fringe view on Wikipedia and violating Wikipedia's principles against original research, soapboxing, and creating battlegrounds ([52][53][54][55][56][57]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

It seems to me that the basic issue with David Tombe's editing on speed of light is that it consistently confuses issues surrounding human-made definitions with the underlying physical reality. As I understand it, David Tombe is very concerned that the current definitional convention in force since 1983 defines the meter by reference to the speed of light, while at the same time the speed of light in a vacuum is customarily quantified in meters, so that there is now a circularity of definition. (I recognize that I am surely oversimplifying.) Now, this definitional structure may or may not pose an issue relating to the appropriateness or logical structure of the definitions; I have only a layperson's background in physics and in the philosphy of science and am not qualified to evaluate this issue. But what I am confident enough to be sure of is that whether the meter should or should not have been redefined by reference to the speed of light rather than to a specific object as took place in 1983, this change has no effect on the underlying physical reality of the speed of light, which exists independent of human definitions or conventions, and would be unchanged whether or not there existed sentient human beings at all. So I can't help seeing much of David Tombe's controversial editing on speed of light as being primarily based on a category mistake, which would translate in wiki parlance to issues of either original research or at least of undue weight. Comments welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. FloNightξξξ 00:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Newyorkbrad's attempted summary of the issues on SOL is correct or pertinent to this case. It is clear however, that D Tombe does entertain unusual views about some physical concepts. However, despite an earlier phase where he tried to get these views into WP, he has since relaxed about this, and now these views crop up on Talk pages. I don't think that is much of a problem: those that find discussion of D Tombe's views pertinent can discuss them, and those that do not, can avoid them. There is no need for any Admin action at this time. Brews ohare (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, With all due respect, you have got it completely the wrong way around. I am saying exactly the same as you are saying. I am saying that human definitions about units have got no effect whatsoever on the underlying physical meaning of the speed of light. It is the opposition who want to blend the two issues together. Brews and I want to clarify the distinction. There is nothing worse than being accused of the very thing that one has been arguing against. David Tombe (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Newyorkbrad doesn't quite understand this issue, and has fallen into the trap of believing that there's a difference of opinion about the physics underlying the problems here. As far as I can see, that's not the case, and it bewilders me that given that there's "nothing worse" that such confused accusations, David is turning around and asserting that "the opposition" are making such erroneous statements about the physics. This is such nonsense. I understand physics, and I've watched everyone's edits, and I've said repeatedly that the arguments are not about the physics, but about how to describe the physics in the article. Brews pushes his idiosyncratic point of view; this is, he makes up his own way of describing and emphasizing bits of physics that he likes to think of as confusing or something, and others push back, and David jumps in to defend Brews. The behaviors they use in doing this is what causes problems, in most cases, not the physics (in some cases, David has also pushed fringe physics, but not here so much except in wanting to focus on aether vortices in the history). Dicklyon (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We're back to "Brews pushes his idiosyncratic point of view", which is a mischaracterization. An "idiosyncratic" view is one out of the mainstream. My views (see here & here are documented by the most reliable sources available, and could not be more mainstream, being the views of NIST and the BIPM. The person who has found all this confusing is Dicklyon, who seems to agree with me that the physics is clear, but cannot understand my explanation of it because he cannot hear (or read) anything I say. Instead, his instant reaction to my contributions (of whatever nature) is calumny. Brews ohare (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Dicklyon: Thanks for backing me up as regards Newyorkbrad's misunderstanding. But then you claimed that I turned it all around. I undid the reversal that Newyorkbrad did. Brews and I are the ones that want to highlight the distinction. The opposition are the ones who want the two issues to become confused, whether deliberately, or because they are confused. And then you bring up the phantom behavioural problems again. And the aether vortices have always been in the history section in relevant articles, and you know that fine well. David Tombe (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If there's an issue of physics that you belief Brews is on the correct side of and that others oppose, perhaps you can state it clearly and invite others here to say if they agree or disagree. I don't think we have an issue that will provoke disagreement on the physics; rather, the problem is that Brews wants to "highlight the distinction," as you put it, between things that are simple enough that a belabored highlighting is not generally needed and is against the consensus of editors and the usual presentation in reliable sources; this unique need to "highlight" things that he finds interesting and turn them into complexity and controversy is one hallmark of Brews's editing style that makes his participation so disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

An obvious example is the plain-vanilla, sourced material here and its summary dismissal by Martin Hogbin (later saying Not only will I continue to delete your own personal and inaccurate views on this subject but I will suggest that other editors do the same), and by yourself, without so much as reading it. Presumably you both intuit that it is technically incorrect, and immune to all appeal. My view is that the only reason for refusing this contribution is that it is so obvious that nobody needs to be reminded about it (with a few exceptions, apparently). Brews ohare (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support proposed finding. @Newyorkbrad: I would hesitate to call David Tombe's attitude WP:OR, as his views seem to be a pretty good approximation to the state of physical theory in the mid-nineteenth century. As a gross oversimplification, he believes in the luminiferous aether. Indeed, he has the knowledge to write a very good article, or several very good articles, on the topic, but I couldn't trust him to do so without pretending that it was the One True Physics instead of scientific history. I've seen a couple of examples of original research (in the WP sense) in his interpretations of certain sources, but that in itself would not justify an ArbCom case. Indeed, I believe that his misconceptions about centrifugal force stem from his belief in the luminiferous ether. As for WP:UNDUE, the due weight to be given to these ideas as modern descriptions of nature is zero: to prend otherwise can only be described as a fringe view, yet it is this view which David Tombe has been promoting across many articles, at least through the disruption of their talk pages and occasionally in the article text itself. Physchim62 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Support: More examples could be cited, but these are sufficient. In reply to Newyorkbrad, Tombe's "discovery" of what he views implications of the 26-year-old redefinition of the metre to the foundations of physics is just his latest battleground and, frankly, doesn't hint at the extent to which he rejects modern physics, including relativity, in favor of utter pseudo-science. He has been battling about centrifugal force and other fictitious forces (in my opinion, apparent or inertial force are more descriptive terms) in several articles from 2007 through June or July 2009; he rejects the way all modern texts reach the subject. Finell (Talk) 02:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Physchim62 is starting to get closer to the truth in his analysis of my position, but he still has a long way to go. Physchim62 is absolutely correct in stating that I believe in the luminiferous medium of the 19th century. I have a theory which is an extension of Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices, and I have written articles about it off-line. But I challenge Physchim62 to show where I have ever attempted to introduce such ideas into wikipedia articles. I have however on a number of occasions introduced accurate information about Maxwell's own views on this topic into history sections. I have an extensive knowledge of Maxwell's original papers. I was directed to Maxwell's original papers many years ago through summaries that appeared in secondary or tertiary sources, and I believe that wikipedia readers have the right to know about this important historical information. I am fully aware of wikipedia's policies on original research and I don't believe that any sanctions against me are necessary in this respect. Had I ever been in breach, I would have been sanctioned long ago. Even Physchim62 has admitted above that he believes that I haven't done anything in that regard that would warrant ARBCOM action. The current dispute at speed of light has actually got nothing whatsoever to do with my own private research. And as we speak I have been in a prolonged debate at the talk page of Faraday's law of induction trying to persuade a genuinely interested editor of the veracity of Faraday's law. I have been trying to defend the current orthodoxy on this page. It is a total travesty to suggest, as some have done, that I have been inserting original research into the Faraday's law article. My net contribution to the Faraday's law article has been to ensure that it is stated in its standard form in the introduction, and then to draw attention to the two aspects further down the article. As regards centrifugal force, I never attempted to put anything into that article that wasn't in Goldstein's 'Classical Mechanics' textbook. I also attempted to put Maxwell's views on centrifugal force into the history section. My motivation in any of my physics edits has never been any different to my motivation as regards any of my 'currency history' edits or any of my other edits. My motivation has been purely to simplify difficult topics and make them more accessible for the average reader. As regards centrifugal force in particular, I encountered enormous resistance from a group who had no knowledge of planetary orbital theory, and that was the beginnings of all my troubles at wikipedia. David Tombe (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Good; solid finding. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare and incivility

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) has been uncivil, such as engaging in personal attacks and accusations of bad faith ([58][59][60][61]) .

Comment by Arbitrators:

I support Ncmvocalist's revised proposal. Vassyana (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. FloNightξξξ 00:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment: I wish to emphasize once more that these comments of mine did not appear on Talk: Speed of light, but on the Talk pages of D Tombe and Dicklyon as part of a search for solace from these editors where I sought to get a pat on the head and some sage advice about what I saw as egregious treatment on Talk: Speed of light. These comments take the form of generalities about my treatment on Talk: Speed of light, and do not refer to particular editors at all, with the exception of the second from last comment.

It will be noticed that in contrast to my behavior, other editors directly insulted me specifically on my own Talk page and directly on Talk: Speed of light.

I'd argue that these comments are not pertinent to the case, and fall into a category far less inimical to the atmosphere on Talk: Speed of light than the behavior of other editors who clearly violated WP:Civil and WP:NPA. To single out my complaints about general malaise and place them higher on the list of problems than the egregious behavior of others directed specifically at myself is not impartial judgment. Brews ohare (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. The civility policy and prohibition of personal attacks apply to all of Wikipedia. And we have to see these insults when we go to user talk pages, which definitely does erode the collaborative editing environment and also is reflected back in negative comments to and about Brews (and Tombe). Finell (Talk) 02:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See my proposals below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare and disruptive editing

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) has edited disruptively, engaging in tendentious debates and soapboxing ([62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is a mischaracterization to say the cited diffs illustrate either soapboxing or tendentious editing. For example, Citation 1 is simply an amicable exchange about dispersion, unrelated to any of the disputes on SOL. Citation 2 is about trilateration, again, an entirely uncontroversial exchange. Citation 3 is an exchange with CrispMuncher in an attempt to understand each other: this conversation is entirely amicable: no-one is complaining about it being tendentious. Citation 4 is an isolated thread that no-one contributed to but me, and so forth. This "evidence" is irrelevant to the claims made, and this finding is bogus. Brews ohare (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. The diffs reveal a crescendo, beginning with civil, but ending in frustration and exasperation. Finell (Talk) 02:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No "revelation" here; proceeding further down the line of citations, the second last citation contains a section Reply to Finell, written in response to his observations that "Jimbo looked at this talk page and agrees that neither side has addressed the other's points or supported their own position by showing what the RSs actually say on the subject". This Reply explains very civility and clearly what my position is, with sources. That effort was simply met with derision. The "crescendo" mentioned by Finell as illustrated by these citations is the revelation of the incivility of Headbomb, DVdm , Hogbin and others, not mine, as a response to straightforward sourced explanation. Brews ohare (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Another good solid finding. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin and incivility

Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) has been uncivil, such as inserting inflammatory comments into article discussions ([72][73][74][75][76]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

I support Ncmvocalist's revised proposal. Vassyana (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Although some of these exasperated comments would have been better left unsaid, I'm not convinced at this point that they rise to the level of warranting an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edits in question and agree that some of the comments were more heated than needed, but I'm not sure that an user specific Fof is needed here. FloNightξξξ 00:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I am extremely concerned about how these diffs are presented. Being involved, I can vouch that these are expressions of exasperation after months of not getting anywhere more than something designed to be inflammatory after the first interactions, and it would be IMO unwise to call being exasperated being uncivil. Whether these are actually inflammatory can be debated, but its certainly mild stuff when taken into perspective. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Headbomb: To justify inflammatory comments as a way of dealing with arguments that one cannot oppose with logic or sources is unwarranted, and promotes the notion that incivility is a useful weapon in bullying through an unsupportable point of view. Brews ohare (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb, thanks for you support. My comments do seem to be being blown out of proportion in the circumstances. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: I was not involved in months of dispute. I had no involvement until 15 August 2009, when I saw that Speed of light, a former FA, was protected due to edit warring. On the talk page, most editors were mostly arguing at one another, not discussing issues with one another. Some while later, after I looked into the history (including talk page archives), I discovered that other editors had already exhausted their patience. Brews had been pushing his point about the 1983 redefinition of the metre (by then ancient history in "science years") since January 2009 (see Talk:Speed of light/Archive 6), persistently and unrelentingly (Tombe didn't join Brews on this issue until July or early August, but when he did Tombe added his own twist and hyper-combative style. According to Talk Archive 6, in January 2009, Tombe began trying to push more about the luminiferous aether, an old theory that was discarded early in the last century, into the article). Brews brushed aside everyone else's points and would not, or could not, budge from his own take on this despite overwhelming opposition; the discussion began civilly, but frustration eventually set in. When someone does not respond to reason and puts up a brick wall, others try increasingly harder to break through. So after months of trying futilely to engage Brews and discuss the issue rationally, other editors had exhausted their patience. Headbomb summarizes the history accurately. When you look at Talk: Speed of light in August and September 2009, as the proposed finding does, you are seeing the effect of months of tendentious, disruptive editing by one or two editors. It is a textbook illustration of why Wikipedia defines Disruptive editing as it does, and how disruptive editing destroys the environment that collaborative editing and building consensus require.

As for the diffs in this proposed finding, all but the first are accurate descriptions of behavior or of the scientific validity of content that Brews (and later Tombe) were relentlessly trying to push into the article. Objectively, the content they propose is "nonsense"; you don't see anything like it in any other encyclopedia (although Brews and Tombe snatch a stray quote here or there from primary sources to support their novel conclusions). After months of someone arguing the same point over and over and over, but getting nowhere, it is reasonable to ask, "[H]ow many people's time can one person waste?" or to roll one's eyes when the same person does it again. As for the first diff, it is a mystery to me why Brews hasn't seriously "considered the possibility that [he] could be wrong" in the face of such overwhelming disagreement, and it is a reasonable question to ask someone. Martin correctly describes what was called the "crackpot test" in Usenet science groups; he did not call Brews a "crackpot". Further, it is common among scientists and science writers to refer to actively and persistently pushing pseudo-scientific views in the face of all reason and opposition as "crank" or "crackpot" behavior. Finell (Talk) 20:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC), revised 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also for your support Finell. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Another of Finell's long revisions of history, a string of red herrings unrelated to this topic and peppered with inaccuracies such as … the scientific validity of content that Brews (and later Tombe) were relentlessly trying to push into the article. Objectively, the content they propose is "nonsense"; you don't see anything like it in any other encyclopedia (although Brews and Tombe snatch a stray quote here or there from primary sources to support their novel conclusions)., which is incorrect and posed as slam without regard to accuracy. Even Dicklyon says there is no technical dispute involved here. There is nothing exculpatory of violations of WP:NPA WP:Civil WP:Talk here. Brews ohare (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this finding of fact, and the proposed remedies that are based on it, are overkill in the circumstances. Let's not forget that Martin proactively requested an RFC back in February over additions by Brews ohare which form part of the subject matter in dispute. If there have been more uncivil comments by Martin than by other editors – comments that I couldn't condone, but that I can quite understand should that statistic be true – then maybe it is because he has been the person most involved in trying to contain these disruptive editors, and for nine months or so now. Physchim62 (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose – I've had my differences with Martin, who can dig in and be rather stubborn and uncompromising sometimes, but the diffs shown here are, in my opinion, reasonably civil and very well justified given the relentless provocation from Brews ohare. I know I've said a lot of similar things to Brews out of exasperation in trying to work on an article that he is engaged in "contributing" to. Dicklyon (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon is quite correct in asserting that he is guilty of the same type of violations of WP:Civil WP:NPA and WP:Talk. No doubt a green light on such behavior would be a relief to him. Brews ohare (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See my proposals below. Also, am not comfortable with one of the diffs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I can't believe that the diffs can be seriously regarded as uncivil. Even floating this proposal makes ArbComm look ridiculous. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Remedies

Editors reminded and encouraged

Editors are reminded to be civil and seek consensus whenever possible. Editors are encouraged to seek dispute resolution assistance as needed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. A lack of civility and consensus building was problematic in the circumstances leading to this case. Vassyana (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. FloNightξξξ 00:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Absolutely the core of the problems on SOL. The entire atmosphere degenerated into one of catcalls, sarcasm, and putdowns. Brews ohare (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. We can all benefit from reminders. Finell (Talk) 02:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. Physchim62 (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe warned

David Tombe (talk · contribs) is warned to adhere to talk page standard and the content policies, and avoid working counter to the purposes of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Warning to match findings. Vassyana (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose as insufficient, as warnings throughout Tombe's Wikipedia career, including an indefinite block and a "last chance" reprieve, have proven. Finell (Talk) 02:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Prefer to be broad on this point; talk page guidelines only encompasses one facet of the misconduct that occurred in this case. Noting also that this remedy is independent of other remedy-proposals for this editor. See my proposals below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe restricted

David Tombe (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. A possible lighter sanction. Vassyana (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Opposed: In the (somewhat distant) past D Tombe has gone overboard in his reaction to opposing views. However, I'd say that his approach has changed significantly, and that on SOL he has conducted himself appropriately. Brews ohare (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm not sure whether this should be an alternative to the topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe topic banned

David Tombe (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed as an alternative sanction. Vassyana (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This proposal goes overboard. Although D Tombe has unusual views and sometimes supports them with more enthusiasm than others appreciate, he remains a cogent editor who often has presented valuable insights into Talk page discussion, and provoked some useful thought that otherwise would be missed. As of the more recent past, he has avoided intruding unusual views into main pages, and his comments indicate that it is his personal decision to continue to do that. Brews ohare (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Minimum. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe topic banned

David Tombe (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed as the main sanction. Vassyana (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that ban from topic related talk pages and all related discussion pages is needed. FloNightξξξ 00:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A reminder that Tombe was blocked several times for exactly this sort of behaviour, and was indef blocked for evading these blocks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I see this as unnecessary and a bad precedent. The main support for such a thing comes from editors with very low tolerance for opposing or minority views and no appreciation of how ideas evolve through back and forth. If these editors were witness to the Bohr-Einstein debates over quantum mechanics, they would view the whole thing as an uncivil debate, and depending upon whether they believed QM or classical mechanics they would vote to censure the other side as WP:POV or WP:Fringe. WP needs to be tolerant of dissension and to promote open exchange, not to present an environment where severe sanctions intimidate such openness. Brews ohare (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And Einstein and Bohr would have been banned and blocked if they held such a debate on Wikipedia rather than in Bohr's home. See WP:ISNOT and WP:SOAP. I don't know whether you identify as Bohr or Einstein, but no one here compares to either of them. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the object here is not to compare the present participants with Bohr & Einstein, who conducted themselves in a civil and thoughtful manner with the goal of clarifying the presentation of QM, and not to score points, unlike the present participants on SOL, who demonstrate none of these qualities. Brews ohare (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this main sanction is insufficient, and out of line with previous sanctions imposed in similar cases. Tombe's behaviours would not be acceptable in any area of the encyclopedia, so I see no reason to restrict his ban simply to physics articles. This has been the line the Committee has taken in the past with editors who disruptively edit Wikipedia to promote their fringe views. Physchim62 (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe that he is likely to be disruptive in other areas or that he is so disruptive entirely that he needs to be prohibited from editing the entire site? Do you believe his views would affect his editing in other hard sciences? Are you concerned that this restriction would be circumvented or not properly enforced? What makes this insufficient, and why? Vassyana (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that David Tombe's abuse of Wikipedia for the soapboxing of his personal beliefs, and the associated incivility that has been shown in this very arbitration case, would continue whatever subject area he were editing. As Headbomb points out above, there is a long block log going back more than a year for similar behaviour, including an indefinite block for sockpuppetry linked to attempted block evasion. David Tombe got unblocked on 9 October 2008 asking for a "last chance", according the summary by Antandrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): if it was his last chance, he seems to have blown it. Yes, I believe that this editor is so disruptive that he should be banned from the entire site for the maximum period, which by ArbCom tradition is one year. Physchim62 (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Physchim62, Please tell everybody exactly what fringe views I was inserting. What is the point in topic banning me from editing physics articles? Take for example Faraday's law of induction. What have I done there to deserve to be banned from editing that article that Steve Byrnes or FyzixFighter haven't done? Has it been shown that Steve Byrnes's or FyzixFighter's knowledge of this topic is considerably superior to my own? It seems to me that a momentum has built up that I have to be punished, yet nobody is quite sure why, or what punishment it should be. Those crying for the draconian punishments such as Finell, Physchim62, and Headbomb, are those that I have confronted in arguments about the SI units speed of light. The pointing out of the fact that it is a tautology seems to have wounded them, and their cries for execution seem to be cries for revenge? I would say that there are those arbitrators who know fine well that I have done absolutely nothing that needs to be punished. What worries me is that mild punishments are being suggested in order to appease those who want draconian punishments. And like I have just said, those who want the draconian punishments are those who have had their belief systems shattered on the talk pages. David Tombe (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Although David has been generally civil, he seems to have a mission to insert his own brand of physics throughout WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For reference, here is the thread where David Tombe supposedly "asked nicely" with "copious explanation and discussion" for his indefinite block to be lifted. As copious as the explanation and discussion is, it is sufficiently distorted and incomplete as to give a misleading impression of why Acroterion imposed this 3-month block on him in the first place.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare warned

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is warned to adhere to talk page standard and the content policies, and avoid working counter to the purposes of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Warning to match findings. Vassyana (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose: Of course, I would accept any warning of this kind and adhere to it. However, I do not believe I actually have violated these policies. Any warning should be accompanied with a clear description of my transgressions, and not simply unsupported allegations. Otherwise, I may not understand what the issue really is, and take the warning as simply a repetition of what I think is unfounded calumny from editors participating on Talk:Speed of light with an axe to grind. IMO Brews_ohare has very seldom failed to adhere to these policies, while the opposition has regularly and obviously violated them right and left. There is no evidence to justify this warning. Brews ohare (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I oppose any sanctions or warnings against Brews ohare. As in the case of myself, he is merely being used as a scapegoat. This thing has got totally out of proportion and there is obviously the feeling that somebody has to be sanctioned to justify it all and save face. The root of this lies in Jehochman's page banning of me on 19th August 2009, totally contrary to the wikipedia policy on banning. That is the offence that requires a warning. Picking on myself and Brews is merely a sign of weakness on the part of the management. We have both been proved right as regards the content matter of the dispute. That should be the end of the issue. David Tombe (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Prefer to be broad on this point; talk page guidelines only encompasses one facet of the misconduct that occurred in this case. Noting also that this remedy is independent of other remedy-proposals for this editor. See my proposals below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare restricted

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed as a preferred sanction. Vassyana (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I find this proposal egregious and way beyond any justifiable proposal. There is absolutely no evidence that would warrant this action. It is very simply based upon the unsupported assertions of some editors disgruntled with Brews_ohare for reasons having nothing to do with WP conduct or guidelines, and much to do with their objections to having to actually defend arbitrary positions and editing actions. Brews ohare (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Noted. This is also fairly standard, though I would prefer a slight change in wording: "fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum." Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare topic banned

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed as a preferred sanction. Vassyana (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A topic ban from all physics-related pages and topics is not appropriate. Apart from this speed of light issue (in which I do not support Brews' point of view), Brews has made many positive contributions to physics articles. If the problem is that Brews raises the same point over and over again, then that calls for the Arbitrators encouraging the other editors who complain about this to manage the discussions. This means that editors on the speed of light page should stop moaning and instead behave just like did on the global warming talk page right now.

This means that the other editors have to be disciplined enough not to argue their point and instead recognize that the discussion is closed and act accordingly. If it is necessary, Brews could be put on a 0RR restriction which would ban him from reverting the talk page back. Now, I suggested this in my own section above and it was more or less shot down, but this is still the normal practice on some articles, e.g. the Global Warming page as I pointed out earlier. Count Iblis (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What areas do you feel Brews has been most helpful in? Which topics has he encountered the most difficulty in? Vassyana (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have seen for myself many positive contributions by Brews on Classical Mechanics topics. Other editors have said here that Brews has made positive contributions to topics on electronics. Brews has encounterd difficulties with other editors when discussing things that are not a pure matter of physics or mathematics only. For example, the article on waves needs to have a definition of "wave" and Brews and Dicklyon were fighting about that. I did not follow that discussion in detail, but what is clear is that that discussion was not so contructive just like what happened on the speed of light page. What I think was happenening there was that Brews tried to make the definition of wave better (on general physics grounds, his arguments were sound), but then that would lead the article to come into conflict with standard textbook definitions.

Now, I have been contributing to physics articles here on Wikipedia for quite a long time now, so I can understand the urge Brews is feeling when he tries to edit in his changes that he feels are necessary. But I have learned to restrain myself in cases where such changes would lead to resistance. In most such cases, the changes would affect conventions, definitions and would not a be a pure matter of physics/math. When I get involved in vigorous discussions on talk pages this is usually if the discussed changes are operationally relevant from a pure math/physics perspective.

This "operational relevance" is lacking in the debate Brews is engaged with now. You can put c = 1 in all physics equations without any contradictions. What is phyically real or not is almost always a moot philosphical/metaphysical issue in physics. So insisting on some point of view when that is not accepted by other editors will lead to friction.

A good example of how to act is what happened recently when I added in a table on the speed of light page the fact that in Natural units c = 1 and that this is exact and dimensionless. A few days later the word "dimensionless" was removed. I argued on the talk page that it can be considered to be dimensionless (and it is by many physicists) and that perhaps a new section should be added to the article explaining the different point of views. I feel very strongly about this issue, nevertheless I have yet to start writing that section. The discussions on the talk page are just a few sentences in total.

However strongly I feel about this, if you take the other point of view, the physics does not change. Then, there are always other Wikipedia articles that have problems on points that are more important, so that's where I went editing. So, I think the right attitude is not to focus too much about any metaphysical points of view in articles that are mainly about physics, to recuse oneself when there is a dispute about that and to focus on operational physics. As I wrote on my own Workshop section, the main focus of editors should be what the typical student (in high school or university) who vists Wikipedia would most likely want to read about. Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The description by Count Iblis seems to fit the facts. I am inclined to believe Count Iblis' approach based upon letting things go when the going gets tough is a wise course, something I did not fully appreciate until Speed of light. I had, up to this point, a Utopian view that editors on WP mostly held allegiance to a mode of discourse based upon logic and sources, and the back and forth eventually would converge. That worked OK even in the rather lengthy exchanges on Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), which involved very extensive arguments with D Tombe and with Dicklyon, among others. These were both "philosophical" discussions about what should be included, and technical, regarding in particular a third definition of centrifugal force according to the Lagrangian formulation of mechanics. However, on Speed of light a new dynamic appeared that involved the arrival of a cadre of editors who had no intention of engaging in anything but enforcement of a position at any cost. I was not prepared to accept that nothing can be done in such cases, particularly where matters of addressing sourced technical contributions are involved, and not broader philosophical issues. Now I am prepared to accept that nothing can be done. For me, engagement on Speed of light has been very disillusioning, and IMO failure to reign in untoward behavior that prevents discussion of content is indicative of a very, very, very major problem. This success of misbehavior, already influencing how Count Iblis edits, will be noted and carried all through WP. (TStein has made similar observations about avoiding editing of certain pages.) I myself will no longer put up with violations of WP:Civil and WP:NPA, and total disregard for sources, and will remove myself from such venues. That may lead me to abandon WP altogether. Brews ohare (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The common occurrence of non-productive environments like Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light dominated by violations of guidelines like WP:Talk, WP:NPA, WP:Civil is marginalizing editors all across WP who are interested in an encyclopaedia, not a brawl. Brews ohare (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews_ohare's "repetitive" presentations are not all that repetitive. Some involve new threads, some new quotes or sources, many are replies to new entries in the discussion from other editors. Rather than deal with such responses on their merits, some prefer to seek Admin action (labeling this Talk-page activity disruptive) or to indulge in uncivil behavior such as catcalls & sarcasm, or other disruptions of normal dialog such as diversionary red herrings and crowd pleasing cheerleading. Brews ohare (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems an odd solution to a behavior problem; it would likely just shift the behavior to non-physics topics. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems mainly confined to a particular swath of physics articles. Do you believe there is evidence that the problem is more widespread? A lot of editors have difficulty in some areas but are quite stable in others. In combination with the probationary measure, if there is disruption in another area it would be easy to rectify the issue. It would also in part allow time for the area to settle down and get back to constructive editing. Vassyana (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon appears reluctant to answer this inquiry. Some problems with Dicklyon occurred on the various pages related to centrifugal force, which actually settled down pretty satisfactorily. Others occurred on wavelength where issues of my behavior were brought to WikiProject Physics. Count Iblis thought the problems with my editing behavior were overblown. TStein thought the problems about "bloating" could be solved by splitting the article into separate articles, which Count Iblis supported. The problems here stemmed from (on my part) a continued attempt to broaden the scope of the article and lay out more of the underlying concepts, and (on Dicklyon's part) a very determined resistance to expanding the article beyond the treatment of the sine wave. The resulting article is better as a result of all this, falling somewhere between the two of us, but the process was exhausting to all. I am unsure how to handle this kind of thing. I think we both had a point, but neither of us knows how to deal with the other. It is exasperating, but maybe we can figure it out. I don't think Admin action can be based upon what happened, but Dicklyon thinks it is all my fault, and cannot see how his behavior contributed. Consequently, he has mounted several cases against me (so far finding no support) and has carried this attitude to Speed of light, where the hugely uncivil atmosphere has provided an opportunity to expand his attempts to censure me supported by some unexpected allies. Brews ohare (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not needed, in my opinion, if the restriction above is enacted. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare topic banned

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed as alternative sanction. Vassyana (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Prefer topic ban, I think. FloNightξξξ 00:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I fail to see any point to this ban. It simply will remove me from any future participation in WP, as I will doubtless find better things to do. It doesn't address the actual issues here and is not responsive to the facts of the Case. It is a bad precedent on that account, as its enaction simply is an admission by arbcom that they are powerless to fix the underlying general issues of bad conduct in the face of challenges, and failure to address content, that will persist independent of the participants left standing. Such a decision is an exacerbation of the already evident tendency of editors to simply abandon pages where this kind of opposition to discussion crops up, restricting editors who play by the rules to an ever smaller corner of WP. Brews ohare (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• A topic ban of Brews ohare is the best way to prevent further disruption, as his participation during this case shows. Not once has Brews ohare acknowledged his leading role in the incivilities, ownership, and disruption, instead simply providing rationalizations and attacking others. It's complete and obvious hypocrisy, and shows a level of immaturity that is not likely to change any time soon. Brews ohare gives lip service to a desire to enforce civility, but that doesn't apply to himself or the appalling disruptions of David Tombe. Brews ohare gives lip service to wanting not to drive editors away from articles, yet has a months-long campaign of ownership and ignoring consensus that has done just that. Brews ohare's opinion of other editors is clear: a group of belligerents who cannot read, cannot understand the issues in physics, and in general are lesser human beings than himself. Brews ohare has had ample opportunity to take the high road in this case, which would have resulted in an increased level of support from others, yet has chosen the low road at every turn. A topic ban from physics articles is necessary, assuming the purpose is to avoid future disruption, though its length is relatively unimportant. Or just forget about his behavior and allow him to disrupt as usual and demean others, that is okay with me as well. Life is too short to get hung up on the immaturity of one particular disrupter of an online project who has shown zero respect for the other people involved. Tim Shuba (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tim Shuba:

1. The above claim of incivility is unsupported.

2. The above claim of ownership is unsupported.

3. The above claim of disruption refers to my attempts on the Talk page to get editors to address content and sources in place of attacking ridiculous positions erroneously ascribed to me again and again, despite protests that they were invalid.

4. The claim that I have attacked others is not supported.

5. The claim of hypocrisy is not supported.

Tim Shuba has no regard for accuracy in the above. Brews ohare (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not the evidence page; Tim Shuba's evidence is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Tim_Shuba; his comments here are likely based on that as well as on the evidence presented by others; "unsupported" is not right. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether something is supported or not is the Abritrators' call, not yours, not mine, not anyone else's. No need to repeat it 20 times on this page alone (and yes, I counted). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Dicklyon and Headbomb: Apparently you two are nervous that my claim of Shuba's lack of support might be mistaken as definitive in this Case. Would that that were so. My claims of lack of support do not refer to the bald assertions by Tim Shuba in his paragraphs above, but to lack of supporting evidence more generally, throughout this Case. Brews ohare (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the arbs will come to their own conclusions, based on the evidence explicitly presented as well as the perception of the way the participants act during the case. Having Brews ohare chime in to give a good example of what I meant by taking the low road is actually rather helpful in that regard. Tim Shuba (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Noted, and preferred in duration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin admonished

Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) is admonished to be civil, avoiding personal attacks and other inflammatory comments.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed as a preferred sanction. Vassyana (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a remedy is warranted against this editor based on the diffs cited to date. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Newyorkbrad. FloNightξξξ 00:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I am unclear about the differences between "admonishment" and "warning". However, I believe this admonishment should contain the wording that if WP:NPA, WP:Civil and other such guidelines are violated, that Martin Hogbin would be forthwith barred from the articles where the offense occurred for a succession of ever longer periods as the violations accrue. Brews ohare (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: In my opinion, Martin's conduct, even if less than saintly, does not warrant any sanction, especially given the long history of WP:battles that he had to endure, described in my comment at #Martin Hogbin and incivility above. Martin's record shows that he has never been blocked for any kind of misconduct, unlike Brews (twice) and Tombe (many); his "clean" record should be taken into account. However, if the Arbitrators conclude that some remedy is appropriate, it should be no stronger than a reminder, warning, or admonition. If he over-reacted or lost patience, it was understandable and forgivable in the face of months of provocation. Finell (Talk) 00:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The battles Martin endured were largely of his own making through a stubborn refusal to address content and the resort to incivility and reversion without explanation. In any event, his "less than saintly" conduct is not justifiable on this basis. Brews ohare (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How can anybody possibly see any fault in the actions of myself or Brews, if they can't see any fault in the actions of Martin Hogbin? Once again, we are witnessing gross bias on the part of some editors. Although I myself have opposed any punitive action against Martin Hogbin, and fully explained my reasons below, Martin was a belligerent in the dispute. If the arbitrators are not willing to rule on the content matter of the dispute, then they have absolutely no basis whatsoever to start suggesting that Martin is the good boy that only acted under provocation. David Tombe (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Noted; a reminder may work otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC) That said, remedy 1 may serve as an implict one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin restricted

Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) is placed under civility probation for six months. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Martin Hogbin repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed as potential additional sanction. Vassyana (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Disproportionate and unnecessary, in my view. As I noted above, some of this editor's exasperated talkpage remarks would have been better left unsaid, but I do not see evidence of a chronic problem, and I think that the editor's comments below confirm that there is unlikely to be any repetition. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not needed. No need to escalate to the point that blocks are given without warnings which is essentially the difference between all editors and one under a civility sanction. FloNightξξξ 00:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I have to admit to being somewhat shocked at this proposal. The evidence provided is of mild incivility, as is often seen throughout WP in many talk pages. It is very difficult to remain completely dispassionate when progress on an article is completely wrecked by tendentious editing over a period of a year. The evidence presented relates only to the two editors who have been the main cause of this dispute; there have been no suggestions of incivility towards other editors.

Resolution conflict was sought on some issues but failed to achieve anything. Rather than bringing every case before arbcom I was attempting to defend the page against what all other editors have considered to be tendentious editing by, admittedly overheated, comments directly aimed to those concerned, this is not that uncommon in WP.

Whereas I would be prepared to accept a level of admonishment for occasionally losing it in the face if extreme provocation, I consider this proposal heavy-handed and unnecessary. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally consider that mitigating circumstances, but at least a couple of your comments fall outside those. When you commented here, did you understand that you'd only receive sanctions if you continued with that sort of commentary? If so, why do you believe this proposal is heavy-handed? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I guess that it is a matter of reputation. Before the advent of this dispute I believe that I had a reputation for civility (along with many other editors here), even in discussions regarding contentious issues. I accept that some of my comments went beyond the highest standards of civility but I have seen a lot worse in WP, with no action being taken, no doubt because there was no complaint made or no arbitration in progress. Bearing in mind that the source of the problem is now being addressed here, I do not think any action against me, even of a probationary nature, is necessary. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See my remarks at #Martin Hogbin and incivility. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per my comments at #Martin Hogbin and incivility and in response to other remedies proposed for this editor. Finell (Talk) 03:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. While I welcome this proposal as being the first signs of neutrality, I am opposed in principle to restrictions on any parties to this dispute. There are better ways of dealing with this. There are effectively two separate disputes to be resolved here. There is the dispute between Brews and Martin. I came in late and backed Brews up in that dispute and I am prepared to defer any wishes as to the outcome of that dispute to Brews, as I have personally lost interest in it, even though I am still adamant that Brews is absolutely correct. Then there is the dispute between myself and Martin over his interference with my corrections in the history section, although that dispute was effectively over until Tim Shuba removed the relevant edits in Martin's favour after I was banned. As regards the dispute between Brews and Martin, the arbitrators should be asking them both to supply their versions of how the introduction should look. Martin should then be asked what it is about Brews's version that he most opposes, and vice-versa. The arbitrators should then use their own judgement and write a compromise version. All involved parties should then be asked to refrain from interfering with the introduction for six months, or indeed maybe forever. As regards the other dispute, Tim Shuba should be asked why he removed the section on the luminiferous aether from the history section. I didn't put that sub-section there in the first place, but I did correct it. I believe that this would get to the entire root of whether or not I was inserting original research into the articles as Tim Shuba has alleged. This is a black and white issue. The arbitrators will have to decide whether or not that passage should be included. There is no case here for punishing individual editors. A further reason for opposing this motion against Martin is because of the relatively mild approach that has been taken against Martin as compared to against Brews and myself. Judgements should be based on examination of facts and not based on the relative numbers in each camp. We cannot allow bias, based on levels of numerical support. David Tombe (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose Martin has not been uncivil, as per my earlier comment. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that restriction, or any user subject to discretionary sanctions in this case violate a restriction imposed by an uninvolved administrator, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All discretionary sanctions and blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard enforcement, with wording tailored to the two kinds of applicable proposed remedies. Vassyana (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. FloNightξξξ 00:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Any topic ban should be restricted to the main article page, and not to the Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Banned users ordinarily are not permitted to participate on talk pages. All the evidence and discussion in this arbitration makes clear that most of the disruption at issue has been on talk pages. Brews' comment, unfortunately, reflects on his own unwillingness to recognize that there is a problem with his behavior, especially on talk pages, and how that problem affects the project. Finell (Talk) 00:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. However, I suggest a quicker escalation of blocks. Tombe has been blocked repeatedly, for as long as 3 months and then indefinitely, for conduct similar to what brings him to this arbitration; the long series of blocks did not correct the behavior. If anything, Tombe's conduct in the arbitration is more defiant and offensive than his prior disruptive conduct. Finell (Talk) 00:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Noted, though prefer proposal below after looking at the block logs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Ncmvocalist

Principles

Neutral point of view

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Finell (Talk) 19:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as not a relevant issue in this case. Brews ohare (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Changed ordering of wordings in CHL's proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and sources

Wikipedia articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Similarly, relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is contrary to the neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. Finell (Talk) 19:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as irrelevant here. None of the proposed sources have been challenged as unreliable. The suggestion of "snowing" a point with multiple unreliable, polarized sources has no application here, and no evidence supporting this kind of abuse is presented. Brews ohare (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Changed ordering of wordings in CHL's proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Talk pages are not for forum-like debates, proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, or so forth (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Although more general discussion may be permissible in some circumstances, it will not be tolerated when it becomes tendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwise disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: Irrelevant to SOL. The claims that such things have occurred on SOL are unsupported. What is complained about using these terms is the presentation of sourced opinion not accepted by certain editors, who refuse to engage in discussion and wish to railroad their particular formulations into the article. Having no argument, and refusing to engage, they brandish claims of WP:TE to tarnish requests to justify their views. Brews ohare (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Support as a correct statement of principle pertinent to this case. I prefer this formulation. Finell (Talk) 00:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternative to Vassyana's equivalent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Findings

David Tombe

Unseemly conduct

David Tombe (talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks (for example, by comparing users to fascists during the course of this case [77][78]) and gross assumptions of bad faith (for example, by unjustifiably accusing users of perpetuating great wrongs [79] [80][81][82]). He was previously advised about such conduct ([83][84][85]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Better than my draft. Vassyana (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. FloNightξξξ 00:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose: In assessing these matters it is important to consider the timeline because D Tombe's attitudes have changed. Brews ohare (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. That his conduct should become even worse during this arbitration, and required a 48-hour block after repeated warnings by 2 Arbitrators and the Clerk did not deter him, demonstrates his contempt for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Finell (Talk) 03:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OpposeI'm seeing things being brought up that occurred a long time ago, and which have already been dealt with, rightly or wrongly. I can see no evidence of uncivil behaviour on my part in relation to the speed of light dispute. One of the warnings listed in a diff above was not even directed at me. The issue about comparing other editors with fascists is a total misrepresentation of the facts, and it only arose in this arbitration hearing as a consequence of gross assumptions of bad faith on the part of editor Finell. Editor Finell has been consistently accusing me of disruptive behaviour. He has been repeating his allegations over and over again, and it has become clear that alot of people here actually believe him. Finell has not supplied any evidence of disruptive behaviour on my part. It would seem here that Finell has been given unlimited freedom in this arbitration hearing to assume bad faith and to repeat lies over and over again. And it would seem that any attempts on my part to put the record straight are instantly viewed as constituting 'assumption of bad faith'. Nobody compared Finell to a fascist or a nazi. Such claims are totally opportunistic and based on an over extrapolated linkage. We have been witnessing opportunistic crocodile tears. Finell was repeating lies over and over again. He was using past convictions as his evidence to back his lies up. He was using general gutter level tactics. And it was obvious that nobody here was very concerned about Finell's gutter level behaviour. So as regards the issue of uncivil behaviour, I have to say that I am detecting bias. David Tombe (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternative to Vassyana's equivalent finding. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare

Unseemly conduct

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks and accusations of bad faith ([86][87][88][89]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Better than my draft. Vassyana (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Again, these diffs all appeared on the Talk pages of Dicklyon and D Tombe in an attempt to gain some counseling about the egregious treatment I received on Talk page of light. None of these diffs appeared on Talk:Speed of light or as criticism of a particular editor on their personal Talk page.

This behavior of Brews_ohare is in stark contrast with direct personal attacks against Brews_ohare on his own Talk page and specific personal attacks on page Talk:Speed of light made against him by other participants directly on page Talk:Speed of light, as documented thoroughly in this Case.

It is unwarranted to single out this behavior of Brews_ohare as somehow on the same level or worse than the more heinous crimes of other editors. Brews ohare (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. It is unfortunate that Brews will not or cannot recognize that his behavior has been disruptive. Finell (Talk) 03:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This is nothing. I can't take these allegations seriously in an environment that totally ignores Finell's gutter level behaviour. Finell has a private opinion about the speed of light which can be seen on Steve Byrnes's talk page. He has a strong view on how the introduction to the speed of light article should be written up. And he is trying to disqualify all opposition using gutter level tactics. I refuse to condemn Brews for any of these mild accusations in view of the blatant blind eye that has been turned as regards Finell's behaviour. David Tombe (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternative to Vassyana's equivalent finding. Please note diff order. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin

Unseemly conduct

Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including assumptions bad faith and inserting inflammatory comments into article discussions ([90][91][92][93]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Better than my draft. Vassyana (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary in my view. Please see my comment on Vassyana's proposal above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose for reasons stated in my comments on Vassyana's comparable proposals. Finell (Talk) 03:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Support: This proposal is accurate. Brews ohare (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternative to Vassyana's equivalent finding. Please note diff order. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what I found most concerning was where where the user makes a comment, despite admittedly making no effort to read what is being said, yet deems it as something that is not going to be taken lightly. Even if an user attempts to ignore conduct concerns, that sort of comment makes it directly impossible to deal with any content issues raised - and that can lead to the type of editing environment needlessly worsening. I'm not sure where the principle on talk pages allows for that. However, my view would be different, if the user, in good faith, did read what was being said, and then came to a conclusion (even if it was the same). But I appreciate what you're saying. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I find the above analysis by Ncmvocalist to be very to the point. I agree with it. Brews ohare (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose No substantive difference from earlier proposal, so opposed for same reasons.--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply You really need to look at the sheer volume of Brews' edits on this one topic. When one editor has attempted to push the same point many times over a period of months, and when I have (along with many others) discussed the point in detail with him on each of the earlier occasions, including setting up a page (which Brews abruptly abandoned) in my own user space to try to take the pressure off the article talk page, and then you see yet another statement which, at first glance, seems to be the same thing yet again, there is a natural assumption that it is going to be the same thing yet again. Perhaps I should have read it carefully all the way through just to make sure, but I think most people would, in the circumstances, have made exactly the same assumptions that I did. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK; the question is how will you handle the same situation if you encountered it again in the future? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Remedies

David Tombe warned

David Tombe (talk · contribs) is warned to adhere to content policies, as well as the expected standards of behavior and decorum outlined in this decision, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Wikipedia.

David Tombe (talk · contribs) is warned to adhere to content policies and the expected standards of behavior and decorum, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ncmvocalist, I have no objection to being warned about transgressions which I have committed. But let's start with the speed of light article. There are those who suggest that the problem is more wide ranging than just at the speed of light, but nevertheless, the speed of light is the centre piece of this arbitration hearing and so one would expect that any examples of the so-called behavioural problems should be easily found at the speed of light. If I am going to be warned, can you please supply the best example that you can find of an edit which I made at speed of light that is such that it warrants a warning from ARBCOM not to be repeated. I think that it's very important that you produce an example of what you have in mind. One can't just go around warning people to behave simply because they argued about the subject matter on the talk page. You need to be more specific. I have asked this question before to different accusers in the past, and I am still awaiting the replies. I don't want to see a whole row of diffs, that when opened up, prove to be nothing. I want to see a single diff which illustrates unequivocal bad behaviour on my part. It's also notable how you only made this warning proposal for myself and Brews ohare and how you didn't make up a similar one for Martin Hogbin. If you are going to pursue a policy in which dispute content is not examined, then it is impossible to treat Martin Hogbin, who was is a belligerent in the dispute, in any different a light to that which you are treating myself and Brews. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We have seen the expressions of sympathy that have been posted above for Martin, and the understandings that his alleged uncivil behaviour was caused by shear frustration at having to argue with Brews ohare. But it works both ways and I am detecting bias here. It is very important that you produce a single diff of an edit that I made at speed of light that warrants a warning. I want to see that edit and to discuss what exactly is the big problem with it. I strongly suspect that you will not be able to produce any such edit. David Tombe (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I share D Tombe's concern that diffs provided should actually support the claims they are supposed to. I agree further that Martin Hogbin is a belligerent here, but would add Physchim62 as a thoroughly disreputable actor. Both have engaged not only in violations of WP:NPA WP:Civil and WP:Talk but, in addition, have indulged in creation of false statements of my views (far beyond any excusable misinterpretation), which they have attached to myself in order to pillory me, and they have refused to justify these distortions when challenged (indicating no interest in accuracy, and leading me to think their acts are simply malicious). Brews ohare (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If the warning to David had been for incivility I would support him, but it is not, it is for his continued attempts to add content to WP that does not adhere to its policies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternatives to Vassyana's equivalent; prefer the latter as the nature of the conduct standards are broad, yet may have minor variations from this case over time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare warned

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is warned to adhere to content policies, as well as the expected standards of behavior and decorum outlined in this decision, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Wikipedia.

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is warned to adhere to content policies and the expected standards of behavior and decorum, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose: Of course, I would accept any warning of this kind and adhere to it. However, I do not believe I actually have violated these policies. Any warning should be accompanied with a clear description of my transgressions, and not simply unsupported allegations. Otherwise, I may not understand what the issue really is, and take the warning as simply a repetition of what I think is unfounded calumny from editors participating on Talk:Speed of light with an axe to grind. Brews ohare (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternatives to Vassyana's equivalent; prefer the latter as the nature of the conduct standards are broad, yet may have minor variations from this case over time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe banned

David Tombe (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; I'd prefer resolving this via arbitration, unless other means will cause less delay to the outcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Support End the time wasting. I expect we'll be back in a year.... --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: This action is nothing more than an admission of failure to solve the problems and bring the parties together. Although I have suggested some across-the-board actions that might improve the atmosphere, no-one has indicated interest in either the methodology or the goal. All they want is to get rid of D Tombe and Brews_ohare. A far better outcome would be to enforce the guidelines and return the Talk page to a discussion of content. However the views of D Tombe and Brews_ohare may be regarded, there is no excuse for intolerance and refusal to enter normal dialog, and instead to continue to pillory and petition. Enforcement of guidelines would end this nonsense and in no time 90% of the participants would depart as there was no more fun in it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Remedy X

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that restriction, or any user subject to discretionary sanctions in this case violate a restriction imposed by an uninvolved administrator, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All discretionary sanctions and blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. I think stringent enforcement is necessary if, as Vassyana proposes, there are only to be topic bans. Physchim62 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocks should be restricted to main pages, not applied to Talk pages. Brews ohare (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternative to Vassyana's proposal. Although I would usually not encourage more stringent enforcement usually, in this case, I am concerned that the community will need to sort this out through other means if it takes too long (and even that will take a while) - accordingly, this proposal may allign both types of enforcement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Dicklyon

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

Findings

Disruptive editing needs to be stopped via this arbitration

The long history of problems with Brews ohare and David Tombe needs to be brought to an end.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I've re-labeled this as a finding. Ir's not a site principle. Also, we don't normally include statements like this in cases. The workshop is for discussing alternatives to wrap up the case. This is the sort of statement you'd make when we're considering accepting a case. Cool Hand Luke 01:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment: I agree with the sentence as a correct statement of fact ("long history of problems with Brews ohare and David Tombe") coupled with an expression of the need for a behavioral remedy for the conduct of these two editors. However, it is not a principle, as I understand that term. Finell (Talk) 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: First of all, I object to singling out Brews ohare and D Tombe as the editors "with a long history of problems". They are not the only editors here with problems, and in the case of Talk: Speed of light their main transgressions are being civil in the face of tirades and invective, and in being persistent despite opposition rants, raves and fabrications (rather than reasoned discourse). I'm inclined to see these two editors as the symbols of the WP ideals of sourced and civil discussion, and the opposition as the Romans out for crucifixion. Secondly, I object to the vagueness of the allegation of "problems", amounting to little more than a slur.

I am discouraged that Dicklyon cannot see his own role in his problems with these editors, stemming from his own personal quirks of editing such as: a very personal view of what is pertinent to an article, how long it should be, how complex it should be and so forth; nitpicking requests for exact parroting of verbatim statements from sources when it comes to things he doesn't want in a WP article; reluctance to modify his personal opinions about technical matters regardless of sources; and a tendency toward sarcasm, personal attacks and rhetoric when he doesn't like how things are going. Brews ohare (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Aggressive pushing of idiosyncratic POV is disruptive

The problem with Brews ohare and David Tombe is that they focus their attention on an article, typically with dozens of edits per day, to try to get their way, bloating the article and talk page with huge volumes of noise, and thereby overwhelming the ability of any normal part-time editor to keep up with them and moderate their impact. They need a speed limit to limit the disruptive effect of their pushing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The title of this section refers to aggressive pushing of idiosyncratic POV. No evidence has been presented in this Case to substantiate the existence of a POV, never mind its "idiosyncrasy" or its "aggressive pushing". As documented in this Case, however, Dicklyon has persisted, despite numerous atttempts to explain matters to him, in attributing to Brews ohare a viewpoint constructed entirely in Dicklyon's own mind that he will not relinquish. Brews ohare (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's break down Dicklyon's "problems":

1. they focus their attention on an article: not so bad?

2. dozens of edits per day: um, we don't wait for Dicklyon to respond on an edit-by-edit basis?

On the other hand, for issues that you know are contentious you could wait for some response before proceeding. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However Dicklyon also objects to a lot of edits per se, regardless of their nature. On the Talk page, I don't see waiting as much of an issue. On the main page, I'd say discussion of controversy on the Talk page before installation is desirable. Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

3. try to get their way: no evidence, and pejorative - suggests an agenda outside the WP goals

This means 'try to get your way' after your 'evidence' has been rejected by the majority. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Getting one's way" refers to installing material on the main page, not to Talk page discussion. There is no indication that has happened. Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

4. bloating the article: this means, includes things that Dicklyon thinks are not important or not sufficiently simple for a high-school student to get with no background; this is not a glib remark but is based upon my experience at Wave and Centrifugal force; also, "bloating" refers to examples in the case of Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) - who needs examples??

'bloating' means including unencyclopedic, rambling expositions of your POV in the article, especially the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is one meaning, although it is a bit hard to believe that "a rambling exposition of a POV in the lead" is a good description of adding at most a sentence about the meaning of "exact" in the lead, which has turned out to be in the present lead without any action on my part. This meaning is not the one meant by Dicklyon, which refers to adding material that he feels personally to be too advanced, or too detailed, or too mathematical, or in the nature of examples. Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

5. huge volumes of noise: no evidence, and no definition of noise; from my experience again, refers to things Dicklyon doesn't want to get involved in because they involve more engagement than he likes; noise also refers to equations, which Dicklyon calls "symbol soup".

This refers to a continual attempt to discuss a dead topic.

That is your meaning. Of course, I'd say that your view of a dead topic is one that has arrived at the point you wish to see it stop. IMO there is no reason to stifle further discussion of a point on the Talk page if some wish to do so. Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

6. overwhelming the ability of any normal part-time editor to keep up with them: maybe means that Dicklyon will actually have to read the final text rather than clip through a few diffs to identify the changes and make his decisions

Yes Brews, your actions have kept many editors away. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

During the weeks of my absence from Talk: Speed of light that have occurred several times, no huge influx of interest from discouraged parties has appeared. The fact is, anyone can contribute to any existing thread or start a new one whenever they wish, regardless of my activity. Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Altogether, these remarks are not of a seriousness to require any admin action: they all are about Dicklyon's personal comfort zone. And, none of this has anything to do with the subject title: pushing a POV. Brews ohare (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, your editing style has resulted in complete disruption of cooperative editing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin: The disruption of cooperative editing is due to the fact that slurs, catcalls, putdowns, cheerleading, distorted attributions, falsified summaries of position, scorn & derision, and failure to address content and sources do not aid discussion. You and many others have indulged in all these disruptive activities. Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews: Your sarcasm is not helpful to deciding this arbitration or to your case. The reasons it is necessary to read through each of your diffs on the talk pages you edit are: (1) you often revise your posts well after you post them, and sometimes after others have replied; (2) you interject replies out of chronological order without announcing that you are doing so; (3) you make so many posts all over a talk page that reading the diffs is the only practical way to spot your multiple additions and revisions. That is the only way that I can follow the progress of the pages in this arbitration, and it is a time-consuming chore. Also, you ask rhetorically, "um, we don't wait for Dicklyon to respond on an edit-by-edit basis?" I don't think we do. Please supply the diffs to support your claim, as you demand of everyone else, and a comparison of your reply ratio to Dicklyon's. Based on what I have seen of the talk page's edit history, yours reply ratio appears to be substantially higher, even without counting you multiple revisions of your replies. But rather than either of us speculating or estimating, please supply facts to substantiate the conclusion that your rhetorical question implies. Finell (Talk) 00:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Finell: No rhetorical question has been made. If my remarks appear sarcastic, I apologize. Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Remedies

Speed limit on two disruptive editors

A simple proposition, really: Brews and David must agree to limit their volume of editing. A specific proposal: each of these editors must agree to limit their edits on any article (including its talk page) to not more the two edits more than the next most prolific editor on that article (if nobody else is editing, that's two edits per day per article, but if there's a conversation going on, they can get a bit ahead); and further, to avoid huge rewrites, they agree to limit the size of their edits in a day to not more the 5 KB more than the next most prolific editor; and third, they can't count each other as that next most prolific editor, so if they're the only two involved, they only get to 2 edits and 5 KB per day each, per article. This limitation on their volume will make them much less disrputive and allow other editors to keep up and allow a consensus to form and be seen rather than buried.

If anyone else is similarly disruptive, they should be added to the list of editors subject to this rule; but I don't see any that I'd say fit the bill.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. Not remotely worth the rules creep. Cool Hand Luke 16:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose: I don't think that something like this is workable: Each editor's daily limit increases throughout the day; too much measuring; no reason why, in the abstract, each of these two should automatically be allowed 5 KB per day per article more then next most prolific editor. In my opinion, traditional remedies are more appropriate, such as bans, blocks, topic bans, and an injunction against Disruptive editing. Finell (Talk) 20:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the best scheme I could think of; it doesn't mean that they always will or should edit more than others, but it will restrain how much they can do so. I won't object to stronger restraints, blocks, or bans, if there's support for that; but the solution definitely needs to be not limited to this one article, since the problem is much more widespread. Dicklyon (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I think this would be unworkable in practice. If we're going to have to be running around after every edit that's made, we would be better off simply banning them. Physchim62 (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: First, there is no need for any remedy at all. No basis is laid. Second, Dicklyon is annoyed, in part because he immediately jumps to the conclusion that anything Brews-ohare says is off the wall; this opinion of his is largely due to his very quick read of edits that leads him to entirely erroneous conclusions in many cases, and huge arguments that eventually settle down once it sinks in what I am actually saying. Here on Speed of light he still believes I am somehow involved in a crusade against the BIPM and false dichotomies about the speed of light. Just when the dust will settle who knows. He's been arguing with his version of myself which is actually Dicklyon himself for months already. So he'd like to bottle me up so maybe I'll just go away. He may succeed. Brews ohare (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose: I doubt a relative limit would be workable, as a) it's a pain to evaluate (and so enforce), and b) it'd pretty trivial to game such limits. If they're the most prolific editors, they'd satisfy the limit if both were making the same number of edits irrespective of the total number of edits. The same applies if someone enters a debate with either of them. A "speed limit" in general might be a useful remedy (that's for the arbitrators to decide), but would have to be unambiguous, easy to evaluate, and relatively inflexible if it's to achieve the intended purpose (which would amount to a watered-down page- or topic-ban, in this case). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Read it again. Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment stands. Even assuming no meatpuppets are brought in, all they'd have to do is entice someone into debating with them for this remedy to be nullified. You are also overlooking the first part of my objection. Are you volunteering to track the day-by-day quantity of editing done by everyone who touches a contentious article, indefinitely? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The enforcement is very simple and distributed as described; anyone who feels they are going overboard can check and warn them. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a total kangaroo court. Here we see Dicklyon, Physchim62, and Finell running around trying to decide on what the best sanctions would be for myself and Brews ohare, prior to any actual findings of guilt. We've all been waiting for a long time for somebody to actually give an example of a single disruptive edit on the part of either myself or Brews. The only thing that in anyway disrupted the debate at speed of light was the attempts by Physchim62, and others to get their opponents banned from the debate. These proposals by Dicklyon are merely an attempt to divert attention away from the actual content matter itself, because he is not confident that his own position would hold up. David Tombe (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think guilt is an issue here. The goal is to prevent continuing problems, not to be punitive. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well of course Dick, guilt is never an issue at a kangaroo court. Guilt is taken for granted. David Tombe (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tombe distorted what Dicklyon said. Dicklyon said that guilt is not in issue, not that it is "taken for granted". Dicklyon explained, correctly, the purpose of arbitration and of remedies, which "is to prevent continuing problems, not to be punitive". Unfortunately for Tombe and for the rest of us, Tombe won't accept that simple statement because to him Wikipedia is not a battleground. Finell (Talk) 10:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

David: This case is in the Workshop phase, where Arbitrators, parties, and others can propose applicable principles, fact findings, and remedies based on the evidence presented on the /Evidence page. Nothing has been pre-judged. You yourself proposed some "principles" on this Workshop page; an Arbitrator moved them to the talk page because they weren't principles, but rather were "a rant". Finell (Talk) 10:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell, We haven't seen any evidence yet. There's nothing to beat a judge walking into the court room and giving nods and winks to the prosecution council and then turning to the defendants and telling them to tie their shoe laces and pull their socks up. When that situation arises then we all know that anything that the defendants say in their defence will be deemed to be a rant. The rants that you have made on the workshop page are acceptable soley because they are directed at Brews and I. You have resorted to gutter level tactics. You have indulged in ad hominem attacks and drawing attention to my block record. This whole episode is appalling, and it has turned both Brews and myself sour about wikipedia. This fiasco is the result of an administrator abusing his power and obliging Physchim62. Physchim62 was already familiar with Jehochman from a previous engagement, and Physchim62 is the kind of person that tries to get his opposition in a debate eliminated. And the very fact that my so-called rant was moved to another page simply demonstrated the total contempt that Cool Hand Luke has for exposing this fact. So don't try to pull the wool over my eyes and read me the 'de jure' run down on what the workshop is supposed to be trying to achieve. And don't try to white wash what Dicklyon has said by trying to tell me that proposals to restrict my editing on wikipedia are not punitive. I'm too long in the tooth to listen to bureaucratic white wash language like that. There's nothing to beat skipping the trial and going straight to the sentencing. That's what a kangaroo court is all about. All this 'Principles' and 'Findings' business is just a front for the mob to throw cabbages, so long as the cabbages aren't being thrown at Jehochman or Physchim62. David Tombe (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Physchim62 and I had our disagreements. He then taught me how to process deletion requests after we made up, but he's not on the top 10 list of people I'm friends with at Wikipedia. Since I've been hanging around for nearly 5 years, I've met most of the regulars. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'd do something improper to help out P62. I've been involved in quite a number of arbitration cases. The Committee members know me pretty well, and I've learned to be careful because they'll hold me accountable if I screw up. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement

Warn on exceeding limit, then block if continued

If they exceed the limits, to the annoyance of another editor, they get a warning and then no more edits that day. It's simple, not punitive, easy to enforce when someone is bothered by their behavior, and unobtrusive otherwise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Any implementation of action such as that proposed should never be applied until it is clear that a civil atmosphere prevails on the page, and that all attributions of position to an editor under fire actually are that editor's opinion. At the moment, hysteria reigns at Talk: Speed of light over supposed (not actual) positions, and the atmosphere is poisonous. No mention of some topics is possible because of a conditioned Pavlovian response that turns off the brain and turns on the invective. Brews ohare (talk)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Sbyrnes321 (Steve)

Proposed principles

Editing with unconventional beliefs

1) Although it is possible to write a neutral and encyclopedic article on a topic in which you have unconventional, fringe, or original beliefs, you should be very skeptical of your ability to do so, even if you are trying in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'm not sue that this would be a useful principle in practice. My experience is that editors with "unconventional beliefs" actually believe that their beliefs are the most logical and conventional in the world: as such, they would never think that this advice applies to them! Physchim62 (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: This principle is very prone to abuse when not a private principle meant to encourage introspection, but ammunition for the opposition. I have seen abuse in at least two ways already. The first is the misconception of what has been said, and the attribution of extreme views where none is actually held. This misattribution leads to hostility and flag-waving of WP:POV WP:Fringe, WP:SOAP and other guidelines (presumably this one too) without confrontation with actual text or diffs. The second is the labeling of what are actually sourced views as crackpot or fringe by a vocal minority with a narrow view of the subject. One example where this often happens is where different usages of technical terms leads to camps supporting the different usages instead of a balanced presentation of the alternatives (see WP:ESCA). A second example is where some editors wish to make an article as focused as possible, with the view that topics outside their preordained model are fringe topics, and if they can be stigmatized, so much the better. This focus actually is destructive of the main advantage of WP: scoping out a subject and enlarging one's view of interconnections.

Rather than emphasizing exclusion of contributions or contributors, I would prefer to see movement toward better catalysis of discussion. That means enforcement of careful scrutiny of contributions (no off-hand judgments) and insistence of confrontation of guidelines with actual verbatim text or sources, along with severe disciplining of violations of WP:CIVIL WP:NPA etc. in order to maintain a positive atmosphere for exploration of ideas, and to discourage supercilious, scornful, smart-aleck behavior. Brews ohare (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think a principle that could get to the heart of (what I see as) the problems with David Tombe would be something like [this]. Maybe there's a better way to say it. Here's what I'm getting at. Jim Marrs is knowledgeable about the events surrounding JFK's death, and for all I know he could put aside his conspiracy theories and write a great, neutral, well-sourced article on the death of JFK. But I'd be surprised. Even if he tried hard, he probably does not know what is incontrovertible fact and what is his own controversial beliefs. For example, maybe he thinks it's incontrovertible that the bullet trajectory in JFK's body is inconsistent with Lee Harvey Oswald's position, but that it's controversial that the real killers were the CIA. So he would write about the bullet but not about the CIA, and proudly declare that he's put aside his biases. But he would be wrong about that. And he would always be in a poor position to know what is NPOV and what isn't.

Another example: An intelligent design advocate might try to write neutrally about the unexplained phenomena in evolution theory. He or she probably wouldn't do a good job, because he or she probably doesn't know what scientists regard as being unexplained, versus what intelligent design literature regards as being unexplained. He may think they're putting aside biases and writing a neutral article, but he would likely not be successful; he would probably put aside some biases but be unaware of others.

More fundamentally, if you believe in intelligent design (or aliens, or psychic communication, or whatever), you almost certainly don't have a good understanding of evolutionary theory (or human perception, or statistics, or whatever), and therefore you probably can't write a good mainstream NPOV article on the topic.

I view David Tombe as being in this category. He proudly declares that he has kept his unconventional views, like "special relativity is false", out of the article space. This is true, and good for him. But he has put many other unconventional views in. More importantly, he doesn't always know, and is in a terrible position to judge, which of his views are unconventional and which are not. It's not surprising: For example, he believes that gauss's law for magnetism and the biot-savart law are mathematically inconsistent. That means that he misunderstands some aspect of either gauss's law for magnetism, and/or the biot-savart law, and/or math. (Let's leave aside the possibility that every physicist on earth is wrong.) But he doesn't make that inference, and therefore he doesn't hesitate to edit these articles as if he understood both of the laws perfectly. All he does is refrain from writing that the two laws are mathematically inconsistent, which is better than nothing but not good enough.

Moreover, I think this principle isn't really well covered in existing policies on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, pseudoscience, etc. It has some a similar spirit to WP:COI perhaps.

Thanks for reading and considering my proposal! :-) --Steve (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed, see above. --Steve (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, Gauss's law for magnetism (divB = 0) has no singularities. The Biot-Savart law, which gives the function for B, has got singularities. We were talking about the circumstances when a divergence is zero and whether or not we can infer from divB = 0 that it is a curl A = B situation for sure, or whether it might be an inverse square law function. The crux of the matter came down to singularities. The argument was about the issue of whether or not we had to emphasize that divB = 0 everywhere. That led us unto the issue of the Biot-Savart law which seemed to swing both ways, but I never even contemplated drawing attention to this dilemma in the main article. If I recall, my contribution to the main article was something to do with the link between the Biot-Savart law and Ampère's circuital law. I seem to recall that we agreed on a formula, and that the other issue was a talk page side issue of interest. I don't recall being out and out against the Biot-Savart law. I seem to recall that I expressed my doubts whether or not it adequately expressed the complex physics that it was supposed to be expressing. Having said that, I can't think of any better way to express it myself. It is probably the best that mathematical language can do in the circumstances. I thought long and hard about it and I wrote a special conclusion paper on the issue which I gave you a while back. There really is a dilemma about having singularities in solenoidal lines of force within the current state of knowledge in physics. You are suggesting here that I should be skeptical about my ability to write neutrally about something that I have got strong beliefs about. Well you saw it for yourself. You saw that I didn't say anything about it on the main article. I certainly never attempted to put anything in the main article that I wrote in my own follow up article off-wiki. David Tombe (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Martin Hogbin

Proposed principles

Disruptive editing must be prevented even if it is done in good faith

Overzealous, obsessive, or tendentious editing of the article or the talk page, even if done in good faith, can disrupt communications between editors and normal cooperative editing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Brews ohare's editing style is the cause of all the problems

I am sorry to have to put it this way but there is no other way to explain what has happened. Brews appears to have what I have described as idiosyncratic views on a few, relatively minor, topics but the way he has expressed these views has had disastrous consequences on the article for many reasons.

Please note that I do not intend this to be a personal attack on Brews, it is an attack on his particular editing style in relation to specific topics only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit storms

Brews frequent periods of rapid-fire editing make cooperative editing impossible. If you want evidence, just look at the edit history of this page. Bear in mind that Brews is operating under a significant constraint (to keep to his own section) here. When he acts in this manner on an article, the only way to find out which edits are minor or corrections and which are are important changes is to look at all the diffs. This is a laborious and time consuming task which effectively sabotages cooperative editing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Opportunity for fringe views

Because of the distraction created by Brews editing style, supporters of fringe views have been able to get their views into the article. Editors who might normally revert these immediately are reluctant to do so because, after dealing with Brews, they may be accused of edit warring.

Fringe editors also have the opportunity to join in discussions, ostensibly to mediate between Brews and others.

General frayed tempers

Continual warring with Brews results in a loss of patience and frayed tempers between editors in general.

Long detailed pointless discussions

The discussions on Brews topics between other editors have been much longer that usual since they become drawn in to levels of detail, in a vain attempt to deal with Brews misunderstandings, that are not relevant to the article

Friendly-fire incidents

Because such a large proportion of Brews' extensive editing concerns one or two points, there is a natural assumption by editors, including myself, that every edit by Brews is about his pet topic and thus there is a tendency to revert his edits on sight. This, to some degree, spills other editors who may be perceived as supporting Brews. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Findings of fact should generally cite evidence for each point. Cool Hand Luke 20:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

With the exception of Brews ohare's "rapid fire" edits, there is no "fact" or "evidence" to support any of these assertions.

Although this editing style may make reading diffs more complicated, one can always read the displayed text using the title of the section in the History line. Usually the "rapid fire" edits are a sequence of typo corrections and afterthoughts in the same section. Brews ohare (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, 'Usually the "rapid fire" edits are a sequence of typo corrections and afterthoughts...', but sometimes they are not, and they include important changes to contentious topics, that is the problem. It is possible to pick through the diffs to find out exactly what has been done, I have done it a few times, but it is vary laborious and does not make cooperative editing easy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Martin Hogbin: So far as Speed of light is concerned the vast majority of these edits, and the ones that sparked this controversy were on the Talk page. The changes to contentious topics were proposed, not implemented. My last changes on Speed of light were 14:03, 11 September 2009 (adding a link) 21:59, 5 September 2009 (adding the word "relative" in "relative error") 20:35, 4 September 2009 (Attempting to reinstate an unjustified reversion of a sourced paragraph example). Not exactly rapid fire, and reverted in short order by Finell and others. In any event, objections to rapid fire edits is hardly grounds for major Admin action. Reading the actual paragraph in the article instead of diffs may be a change in style for Martin & Dicklyon, but it is very far from difficult, and I do it routinely myself. Brews ohare (talk)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Brews ohare should be asked not to edit or discuss certain topics, namely: the decision to base the length of the metre on the speed of light and related ideas, free space and is relationship with real media, the symbol for the speed of light in a vacuum. If he persists with these topics or edits other topics in a similar manner and a number of editors (say three) object he should be banned from the topic altogether. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Implementing this one simple remedy would allow the discussion and editing process to proceed normally which would solve all the other problems listed by other editors on this page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews should be banned from editing this topic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a little wonky. More likely we would use a topic ban. Cool Hand Luke 20:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by 'wonky'. I was trying to avoid a complete topic ban on a good faith editor who is, unfortunately, the cause of all the problems on this page. As I have said elsewhere, if it were not from the distraction caused by the sheer volume of Brews' edits, the other problems could have been dealt with by the normal cooperative editing process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose. This is getting too much like Mussolini's Italy. David Tombe (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: These draconian measures are primarily an attempt to stifle discussion and to impose Martin Hogbin's fervently held and rigid beliefs upon the article Speed of light. Among these is an odd obsession about having the unexplained, isolated occurrence of the word exact appear in the lead despite violation of WP:ASTONISH and opposition from Dicklyon, Abtract, TimothyRias, myself and others. This debate occupied Martin and the Talk page for weeks, including a poll and continual attempts to ram it down everyone's throat. Brews ohare (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, you have rather shot yourself in the foot here. My proposed remedy was far from draconian, it was intended to be a compromise that would let you continue editing the page, despite the opinion of many others here. Unfortunately you see attack as the best form of defence and have continued your editing style here. As you will see I have changed my view on the best remedy to agree with others that the only way forward is for you to be banned from editingthe topic at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as ineffective. Brews and David have a long history of disruption well outside these narrow topic areas. Dicklyon (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, reluctantly as to Brews, as insufficient to address these editors' unwillingness (Tombe) or inability (Brews) to conform to Wikipedia's behavioral and content policies and guidelines. The list of topics is too narrow, but even if it were all of physics, a topic ban is not sufficient, in my opinion. I am on record agreeing with a physics-wide topic ban early in this case. However, these editors' disruptive editing of the pages in this arbitration has convinced me (for whatever that's worth) that a broader remedy is necessary. That these two editors genuinely do not (Brews) or will not (Tombe) recognize that their behavior is disruptive is a big part of the problem, and of the reason why a broader remedy is necessary. Based on Tombe's history on Wikipedia, it is unlikely that his current 48-hour block will have any more effect on his behavior than his prior blocks or topic ban. The repeated warnings by Arbitrators and the Clerk had no effect—if anything, it made Tombe more defiant—and that resulted in the current block. Finell (Talk) 16:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Having seen Brews reaction to this process, In this page and elsewhere, I agree with Finell that I was being to tolerant of Brews and I now prop0se that he is topic banned. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by David Tombe

Proposed principles

Allegations of disruptive behaviour should be accompanied by evidence of actual disruption

1) Behaviour is only disruptive if it causes disruption. Disruptive behaviour will therefore always be accompanied by evidence of actual disruption. Allegations of disruptive behaviour that are not accompanied by evidence of actual disruption should be frowned upon. Repeated allegations of disruptive behaviour without the necessary accompanying evidence should be dealt with by disciplinary proceedings.

Comments by Arbitrators

Comments by parties

This proposal should be self-evident. I'd add to it that "evidence of disruption" is not constituted by introduction of a Talk-page thread on a topic that some or even many editors do not wish to discuss: they are free to ignore the thread. On the other hand, it is evidence of disruption if a thread is interrupted by a red herring or misdirection to an unrelated topic with a view to either (i) obstructing further discussion or (ii) trying to re-open an unrelated thread that is not of interest. It also is not "evidence of disruption" when a question is raised and it is answered by a view that the majority do not wish to have presented. Brews ohare (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others

Proposed findings

That this arbitration hearing was a result of Physchim62 and Headbomb trying to have their opponents in a content dispute disqualified

1) The content dispute was over whether or not the speed of light is a tautology when it is expressed in SI units. Physchim62 believes that it isn't a tautology, and he went to AN/I to request that I be page banned for claiming the contrary. Administrator Jehochman obliged. This had the effect of disrupting the discussion at the speed of light talk page since the opponents of Brews ohare became over confident in the belief that Brews would also soon be pagebanned if he continued to argue. Headbomb then went to AN/I to try and get Brews ohare pagebanned. The ensuing argument at AN/I led Jehochman to seek arbitration. The only disruptive behaviour in this entire episode has been the attempts to get opponents page banned.

Comments by Arbitrators

Comments by parties

The use of the word "tautology" here has come up, and has resulted in an effort to dismiss the issue by claiming the exact definition of the word "tautology" is not met. However it is described, however, the underlying issue is not whether a "tautology" in the strict sense has been used. The underlying incontrovertible fact is that a change in procedure has been implemented in 1983 involving the replacement of an actual length measurement (fringe counting) with a time-of-transit measurement. An ineluctable consequence is that length then has to be computed based upon the measured time and a defined value for the speed of light. This defined value is arbitrary, but is called the "speed of light". That situation is different than previously, where the "speed of light" was a measured quantity with a measurement error bar, and not a definition. This matter is described carefully here. Brews ohare (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The way you measure lengths has little to do with the way the metre is defined. I can measure the length of a sheet of paper by placing a ruler along it, by measuring the time light takes to go across it, or even by cutting a piece of bass string to the same length as the sheet and using a scale to compare its mass to that of a one-metre bass string of the same gauge. And that's true regardless of the way the metre is defined. Of course, if the most accurate way of measuring a length is through the time of transit, the most convenient way of defining the metre is in terms of the speed of light, much like if the most accurate way were weighing bass strings, the most convenient definition would be "the length of a piece of such-and-such string whose mass is such-many grams". But saying that a particular definition of the metre forces you to use a particular measurement technique is putting the cart before the horses.

Anyway, what this has to do with an article about the speed of light (rather than one about the metre, or one about interferometry or something) is beyond me. ___A. di M. 18:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Further, this has nothing to do with the proposed finding, which is rather silly anyway and stands no chance of being listed on the proposed decision page. Just ignore it. Tim Shuba (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to A. di M.: I thought we'd come to the same ideas about this on Speed of light. Of course, I am not saying that "a particular definition of the metre forces you to use a particular measurement technique" but exactly the contrary. Do you actually disagree with this? Brews ohare (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly you mean by "The pre-1983 metre is a specific length"? It was defined in terms of the wavelength of a particular transition, like it is now. Essentially, before 1983 it was 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of krypton-86; after 1983 it is 9,192,631,770⁄299,792,458 wavelengths of caesium-133. There's no logical difference between the two definitions, except that if the same radiation is used as the one used to define the metre, then the numerical value of c in metres per second is fixed; whereas before 1983, the numerical value of c in metres per second was a fixed multiple of the ratio between the caesium-133 transition and the krypton-86 transition. The ±1.2 m/s was due to the uncertainty in the ratio between these two transitions. If there had been a way to exactly compute the ratio between these two transitions, the numerical value of c in pre-1983 metres per second would be fixed, too. ___A. di M. 20:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Without going into a lot of detail that we probably both agree upon, and without getting into some debate about what a "logical difference" is, we had agreed that when Sullivan said: a consequence of the definition is that the speed of light is now a defined constant, not to be measured again he meant that the number 299,792,458 m/s used to convert a measured transit time to a length in metres was now a defined constant. That situation differs from the pre-1983 situation where the metre was defined in terms of fringe counts, and the "speed of light" was not a defined quantity but a measured quantity with the value 299,792,458 ± 1.2 m/s. Whatever words you wish to use to characterize the difference in the role of 299,792,458, there is a different role, eh? That's about all the technical details boil down to. Brews ohare (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that "it was defined in terms of fringe counts" and now it isn't; only that at optical frequencies such as that used by the old definition it is easier to count fringes than periods. But if it were possible to make krypton atomic clocks counting periods of the krypton transition, you could measure times of transit relative to that transition period, and you'd automatically have lengths in pre-1983 metres. Apart from that, I agree about the meaning of the number 299,792,458. (You didn't always correctly distinguish between the two different concepts "299,792,458" and "299,792,458 m/s" in the post above, but I hope I got the point you were trying to make.)

• As I mentioned earlier today here, and twice in the original thread, I did not try to get anyone banned with that ANI thread. I went there for advice and have been crystal clear that I was not looking for heads to be chopped, as evidenced by these two comments:

• [I'm] looking for advice (whether admin action is necessary, I'll leave up to the admins to decide).
  • I came here looking for advice, not [for] heads to be chopped.

• Second, that tautology rant (repeated here for the 10th or so time on this ARBCOM case, and for who knows how many times on the SOL talk page) has nothing to do with the proposed finding. But that should be rather obvious, so I'll assume there's no need to comment further on that issue.

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others

Proposed remedies

Presentation of source

1) A source has now been provided 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

The arbitrators should show this source to Physchim62, Headbomb, and Jehochman. The debate at speed of light should then proceed as normal. If edit warring becomes an ongoing problem at the main article, the main article should be protected. David Tombe (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Arbitrators

Comments by parties

You read that quote improperly as usual. Is it a tautology? Yes. Is it a problem? No. It's simply the definition of the unit system. Speed of light = 2,998,... m/s. Other notable "tautologies" are the mass of carbon-12 in atomic mass units, the frequency the radiation emitted by the hyperfine splitting of a single caesium-133 atom, at rest, isolated from all gravitational effect but its own (which defines the second, thus the frequency of that radiation), the ratio of the mass of grams and kilograms, and so on. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The importance of establishing that the SI Units "speed of light" is a tautology is that the SI Units speed of light is not a measurement. See here. Brews ohare (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb's acknowledgement above, that the speed of light when expressed in SI units is a tautology, should be contrasted with the circumstances which initiated this arbitration hearing. The circumstances can be read here [94] at this AN/I thread. Note in particular how Physchim62 claims that nobody in 26 years has ever pointed out this tautology. Having now conceded that I was correct in pointing out the tautology, Headbomb attempts to shift the emphasis to the issue surrounding the merits or lack of merits of this tautology. I am not aware that anybody at any stage was attempting to insert critical material in this regard into the main article. David Tombe (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Tombe's comment: 1. Headbomb did not initiate this arbitration; Jehochman did as a disinterested admin. 2. The absence of reliable sources is still an issue. The reason for their absence is, as Headbomb says, it is not a problem and is inherent is metrology for any standard used to define a unit in a measurement system. 3. I don't believe that it is a tautology or that the consensus of editors is that it is. 4. Most important of all, as has been stated repeatedly in this arbitration, including by two arbitrators and the Clerk, this arbitration is not about who was "right" about a content dispute. It is about a) whether editors violated Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially disruptive editing and battling; b) what remedies are necessary to restore an editing environment conducive to collaboration and building consensus. Finell (Talk) 04:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Finell, I'm sure that Headbomb would have been more than capable of answering for himself. You have played the source card too far this time. There is an unambiguous source quoted a few paragraphs up, which even Headbomb had to concede to. And Jehochman was not a disinterested admin. He pagebanned me at speed of light at the request of Physchim62, and for the reason that I had stated what was in that source. Jehochman's pageban was totally illegal, as can be seen from reading the banning policy here [95]. It clealy says that admins cannot directly impose bans. It was Jehochamn's actions which destabilized the entire talk page at speed of light and led to this arbitration hearing. David Tombe (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am more than capable indeed, but I don't see the point of restating what Finell so eloquently said. Likewise, I am also more than capable of speaking for myself if I felt the need to disassociate myself from Finell's words. You're wrong on the physics, and you're wrong on behaviour. That you're wrong on the physics is not very relevant when it comes to ARBCOM, it simply explains why you're on the wrong side of consensus. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman is disinterested by any normal definition of the word. As used on Wikipedia, a disinterested admin is one who was not a participant in the underlying dispute. In the real world, a cop does not become biased just because he or she makes an arrest. Nor, for that matter, is a judge (or, in this case, an Arbitrator or Clerk) biased because the judge makes a ruling for or against a party. If Jehochman violated policy, I am sure that the Arbitrators will take appropriate action. The article was already "destabilized" to use Tombe's word before the first AN/I (the one that page banned Tombe): the page was full-protected for edit warring around 15 August. The two AN/Is were brought to stop disruption of the Talk page, so discussion could proceed to consensus, so the article could be improved to reflect a reasoned consensus. Finally, for the umpteenth time, neither the AN/Is nor this arbitration are about article content; they are about editors' behavior. Finell (Talk) 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb, You'd need to clarify your own position in relation to this consensus that you are referring to. Your ally Physchim62 went to AN/I to report me for disruptive behaviour, and here is a quote from his allegation,

The speed of light in SI units has been fixed since 1983, <sarcasm>yet the scientific community seems to have been totally unaware of the tautology for 26 years until David Tombe decided to expound on it at length on Wikipedia.</sarcasm>

Physchim62 was mocking the idea that the speed of light in SI units is a tautology and he was alleging that the fact that I was pointing it out constituted disruptive behaviour, soapboxing and pseudoscience.

I have now shown a source above which confirms that it is in fact a tautology, and you have also acknowledged above that it is a tautology. So whose side are you on in this consensus?

As for the page protection at speed of light in the middle of August, neither Brews nor I were involved in the dispute surrounding that incident. David Tombe (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My comments are crystal clear. If you want to selectively read what I write, up to you. Me clarifying will only mean that you'll selectively read something else, which I'll again need to clarify, and so on. I'm not biting. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

David, you're funny. The sarcasm was about your silly thinking that you were revealing truth to the community, not that the metre's definition has fixed the speed of light in SI units, which is fact everyone knows and agrees with. Whether someone wants to call that a "tautology" or not is hardly worth discussing, yet you (and Brews) go on at length about it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I see Dick, so I got page banned for arguing against you all about something that you all already knew about and agreed with? Would it not then have been more appropriate if Physchim62 had said 'OK David, we understand what you are saying and we agree with you, but we don't want to mention it in the main article'? And why all the demands for sources, and the accusations that Brews was interpreting the sources wrongly? That wouldn't have been happening if they were all in agreement with him.

I don't think that that is the situation that we are dealing with at all. This looks too much like a case of an opposition trying to change their position in the face of undeniable evidence that they were wrong all along, and who succeeded in fooling alot of people along the way. And Finell has just stated on the other page that he doesn't think that it's a tautology.

Dick, your statement above is not going to wash. And I seem to remember you on Brews's talk page denying the tautology. Now you're saying that you knew it all the time and that it's hardly worth discussing. But it was obviously worth resisting! David Tombe (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others

It seems to be necessary to point out that what João Magueijo is calling a tautology in this quotation is not the speed of light, as David Tombe repeatedly asserts. The antecedent of the pronoun "it" in the final sentence of the quotation—"it is built into the definition of the units and so has become a tautology"—is quite clearly "the constancy of the speed of light" (emphasis mine). So what Magueijo is calling a tautology here is the statement that the speed of light is constant, not the speed of light itself. The latter is not in fact a type of thing that can be a tautology, in any sense of that term. Calling it such is a category blunder, and quite likely to be a sign of muddled thinking.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

David W., This is a very nasty deception on your part. Neither Brews nor I ever suggested for one moment that the actual physical speed of light is a tautology. I would fully agree with your statement that the physical speed of light

is not in fact a type of thing that can be a tautology, in any sense of that term. (David Wilson)

The tautology refers to the fixed number that is associated wth the expression of the speed of light in the modern SI units, and that is what Brews, myself, and Colonel Warden's source are saying. So you have misrepresented my position. In your first sentence above you claim that I am calling the speed of light a tautology. I am not. What I am calling a tautology is exactly the same thing that Colonel Wardens' source is calling a tautology.

Brews's entire purpose has been to highlight the distinction between the physical speed of light and the tautology that goes along with the SI units speed of light. Obviously you can now see that distinction, so it would be much more appropriate if you would do the honourable thing and back Brews and I up, rather than coming over to our side and then misrepresenting the facts and trying to make out that we had never been saying what we had been saying.

I think that we're now starting to witness a few cases of people crossing the floor and trying to throw Brews and I off our own platform. I think we're starting to see attempts to steal the winning position from the original proponents. It would be very convenient for my opponents if the arbitrators could be deceived into believing that Brews and I are at loggerheads with Colonel Warden's source. David Tombe (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe wrote

"David W., This is a very nasty deception on your part."

No, you have simply misunderstood what I wrote.

Next:

"Brews nor I ever suggested for one moment that the actual physical speed of light is a tautology."

But nowhere in what I wrote above did I say or imply that you have suggested such a thing. Whatever it is that you and Brews mean by "the actual physical speed of light", João Magueijo was very clearly not referring to that concept in the above quotation when he used the term "speed of light", and neither was I when I used it. By "speed of light", both he and I mean "speed of light in SI units". The speed of light in SI units can no more be a tautology than its speed in any other units, and it's still a category error to call it one.

Next:

"The tautology refers to the fixed number that is associated wth the expression of the speed of light in the modern SI units, and that is what Brews, myself, and Colonel Warden's source are saying."

No, Colonel Warden's source does not say that. As I have already pointed out above, it says that the constancy of the speed of light (in SI units) is a tautology, which is not the same thing at all. Just as it is quite a different thing to say that the statement "David Tombe is who he is" is a tautology (which it is) than it is to say that David Tombe himself is a tautology, so also it is quite a different thing to say that the statement "The speed of light in SI units is constant" is a tautology than it is to say that the speed of light in SI units is a tautology.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

David W., The tautology that I was referring to was the SI units speed of light, which is a fixed number. It is a tautology because it is a consequence of the definition of the metre, which is defined in terms of that fixed number. You are saying that Colonel Warden's source is talking about something different. Colonel Warden's source is talking about the constancy of the speed of light when expressed in SI units. So I am talking about a fixed number that is obviously constant otherwise it wouldn't be a fixed number, and Colonel Warden's source is talking about the constancy of the speed of light in SI units which is constant because it is a statement of that fixed number. In other words, his source is talking about that fixed number, and you are saying that we are talking about two different things? Colonel Warden's source and myself are both talking about exactly the same thing. We are both talking about the constant number 299 792 458 that has been arbitrarily chosen. It is a tautology to state this constant number as the speed of light in SI units.

This was just a last ditch attempt on your part to try and dissociate Colonel Warden's source from my assertion that the speed of light, when expressed in SI units, is a tautology. David Tombe (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If this discussion shows anything, it shows how impossible it is to have a production discussion that involves David Tombe. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick, That depends on the issues. The issue here is the speed of light when expressed in SI units. It is a constant that is beyond measurement, and it is a tautology because that constant is based on the constant that is used to define the metre in terms of the actual physical speed of light in the first place. David Wilson attempted to argue that Colonel Warden's source, by talking about 'the constancy of the speed of light in SI units' was talking about something different than what I was talking about. At the most, there was a difference of emphasis. I was talking about the fact that the SI units speed of light is a constant that is beyond measurement and that it is a tautology because it falls straight out of the definition of the metre in terms of the speed of light. Colonel Warden's source talks about the constancy of the speed of light in SI units being a tautology because it falls straight out of the definition of the metre in terms of the speed of light. It was incorrect of David Wilson to argue that I was talking about a different thing than what Colonel Warden's source was talking about. And this confusion demonstrates clearly why Brews was right to want to elaborate on this issue. An article about the speed of light cannot simply begin by stating the speed of light in modern SI units without any further qualification about what that means in real terms, or in lack of real terms.

This whole impasse came about because attempts were being made to stifle Brews's attempts to make that clarification. Brews had every right and every good reason to want to clarify this issue in the main speed of light article. David Tombe (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And Tombe's last comment proves Dick's point. Despite a 48-hour block (!) for disruptive editing of the pages in this arbitration (see WP:MOON), Tombe is back to form. As a tag team, Tombe and Brews have limitless endurance and lots of time on their hands. The number, frequency, and length of their posts overwhelm any discussion and wear everyone else down. It doesn't, however, persuade anyone else (except the occasional newcomer who doesn't know the subject and hasn't yet figured out the discussion's peculiar dynamic). It's just WP:BATTLEing for its own sake. It needs to be stopped. Finell (Talk) 01:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) proposed enforcement provision

Comments by Arbitrators

Comments by parties

Comments by others

Proposals by User:Finell

Principles

A few additional proposed principles. I attempted not to duplicate principles proposed by others.

Casting aspersions

1) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Copied from final decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Principles. Finell (Talk) 17:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Opposed: It is hard to know what will be considered "misbehavior" and a "reasonable cause" for such misbehavior, and who will make the judgment, and how it will be arrived at. How great a provocation justifies distortion of an editor's position for the purpose of discrediting that editor? How often can a mistaken majority view be confronted with sources they will not read before the confronting editor is accused of "misbehavior"? How many catcalls are allowed by majority participants to hector a minority??

I'd prefer to see specific crimes described by existing guidelines WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (for example) rigidly dealt with. Brews ohare (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Misbehavior on Wikipedia means serious violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Finell (Talk) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support. I couldn't agree more. I hope that you'll now refrain from your own sustained tirade of malicious and unsubstantiated allegations against me. David Tombe (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Tombe was a party to this arbitration, not an "other". Finell (Talk) 04:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved, you could have just done that yourself... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Grievous personal attacks

2) Comparing a Wikipedian to a person or institution known for horrific acts, such as Nazi leaders, Joseph Stalin, Nazi institutions, the KGB, the Red Guards, witch trials, torturers, and the Inquisition, is a grievous personal attack, for which Wikipedia has no tolerance. An editor who engages in conduct of this nature will, without warning, be blocked immediately. An editor who commits a second act of this nature will, without warning, be permanently banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Finell (Talk) 17:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: There is no need to single out specific incivilities when guidelines that include such cases already exist. Brews ohare (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This seems like overkill. While I recognize that the above-mentioned comparisons can be touchy subjects, I don't quite see how the comparisons would be any worse than the streams of invective or allegations of sexual impropriety more commonly seen in personal attacks on-wiki. By that reasoning, WP:NPA's penalty structure would seem to be an appropriate guide (warnings, then blocks of increasing duration). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How about, as an alternative, just a principle that states that such comparisons are unambiguously personal attacks, and subject to the penalties outlined in WP:NPA? If I understand correctly, that addresses the core of your intent with this proposal (that such comparisons are unacceptable). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a grievous personal attack. Often people call somebody else a 'Hitler' as a metaphor for bossiness. The metaphor is normally understood without any extended assumptions regarding the graver actions of the Third Reich. This proposal would need some elaboration along with examples of a statement in which an editor has been compared with a nazi leader in a manner that unambiguously relates to the more serious wrongdoings of that leader. We cannot go over the the top with political correctness, otherwise the talk pages would degenerate into a humourless tyranny riddled with tripwires. A bit of give and take can be healthy. David Tombe (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever considered apologizing for anything? No one in my circle of friends makes such allusions. Jews certainly don't. We have family members who died in the Holocaust, and have friends who lost family members to it. In the context of a dispute over verbal behavior on Wikipedia, with no real world consequences, comparing people to Nazi war criminals is beyond uncivil, tendentious, disruptive, aggressive, or even pugnacious and defiant. It is offensive to a degree that makes Wikipedia's standards of conduct beside the point. So far, no one else has laughed as you do. After a few editors quickly objected to your offensive remark, you persisted. You implied that by accusing us of using "Goebel's [sic] famous tactic"[96], you wre complementing us by comparing us to "a wizard of propaganda".[97] Your next "joke" was to switch to Mussolini.[98]. The Clerk then warned that you would be blocked if you repeated such offensive behavior. Arbitrator Cool Hand Luke reaffirmed that "if he compares anyone else to a fascist, he should be blocked". That you regard this merely as a matter of "political correctness" is a reflection of your insensitivity and lack regard for anyone else's feelings. Finell (Talk) 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Finell, You have made malicious allegations against me, and you have repeated them over and over again to the extent of poisoning the jury. Your allegations contain lies. An example of these lies is contained in this recent edit of yours [99]. You say that Brews and I have been causing disruption at the speed of light article, and that it is a continuation of disruption that we have been causing at other articles since 2007. This is a downright lie. We have not caused any disruption at the speed of light article. The recent protecting of the page at speed of light was due to an edit war that did not involve either Brews or myself. You are trying to win a scientific argument by default. You have got some vested interest in concealing the fact that the speed of light, when expressed in SI units, is a tautology. As such, in the context, it is impossible to discuss the above issue with you in a balanced and rational fashion, and I will be drawn in no further on the matter. David Tombe (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What possible "vested interest in concealing the fact that the speed of light, when expressed in SI units, is a tautology" could I possibly have? Finell (Talk) 04:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Finell, On Steve Byrnes's talk page, you have exposed the fact that you have some private views on the speed of light which are not held by the mainstream. The tautology doesn't sit very well with your private views. At any rate, I'm glad to see that you have now joined Headbomb and Dicklyon in acknowledging the tautology at last. David Tombe (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with what I wrote at Steve Byrnes. That comment has to do with a) constancy of c in all inertial frames (which has nothing to do with units, and makes most sense to my notion in natural units where c=1); b) all mass-less particles travel at c; c) while traveling at maximum speed in space aspect of spacetime (c), light (and everything else that travels at c) stands still in time aspect. I also said it is a poetic notion, that the math doesn't work (velocity is vector, time is scalar), so I don't edit based on it, or do anything based on it, and won't publish it because I know it isn't science. Anyone is free to read it for themselves, but do not expect enlightenment. And you are contradicting yourself. You say, in the same post, that that "tautology doesn't sit very well with [my] private views" and that I am "acknowledging the tautology at last". It can't be both, can it? In fact, I still don't believe it is a tautology, as I said above, Headbomb's viewpoint (which I respect) notwithstanding. I was quoting your statement that I have a "vested interest in concealing the ... tautology". And this is just what you do in your various BATTLEs over science on Wikipedia, going around in circles and trying to tie everyone else in knots. It doesn't work, and it doesn't persuade anyone. Finell (Talk) 05:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK Finell, So you don't think it's a tautology, but Headbomb does. So is Headbomb on your side, or is he on the same side as Brews's and myself? David Tombe (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Finell's side, obviously. If you read the entirety of my comments, that much would have been clear. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Headbomb, It's all becoming very clear. 124.107.110.18 (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser, please: Now another IP pops up out of nowhere to support, sarcastically, Tombe's position. Finell (Talk) 12:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

See comment below. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no "sides" here, just the same old nonsense. As I said at the outset, the physics is pretty much not in dispute; we all understand that the 1983 definition of the metre fixes the SI value of the speed of light; only the strange POVs of a few individuals who want to portray the situation as bizarre is what's causing all the disruption. Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick, Is this another attempt to change sides? It was all very much in dispute at the time when I got pagebanned. One side were trying to deny the tautology. David Tombe (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can give me a link to where I've taken sides, I can tell you if my position is still the same. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick, On 16th August 2009, you said this on Brews's talk page,

Can one or both of you explain how you see this definition of the speed of light relating to either Tautology (rhetoric) or Tautology (logic) or some other definition? What exactly are you saying is the tautology here? Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That suggests to me that you were opposing our position that the SI inits speed of light is a tautology. David Tombe (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be absurd; being bewildered by your hangup on "tautology" is not the same as siding against it. Didn't I pretty much agree with you there about what kind of statements could be called tautologies? I still don't agree "that the SI units speed of light is a tautology", since there's no logical statement there that could be called a tautology. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick, Now you are becoming ambiguous. You are now adopting the position that you don't agree that the SI units speed of light is a tautology. So you are therefore disagreeing with Colonel Warden's source? But a few messages up you were saying that the physics is not in dispute.

You are now on the same side as Finell but on the opposite side of Headbomb. David Tombe (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Dicklyon: You say only the strange POVs of a few individuals who want to portray the situation as bizarre is what's causing all the disruption. I have explained the situation to you repeatedly; an example is here. There is no "POV" here, everything is sourced. As you say yourself As I said at the outset, the physics is pretty much not in dispute and elsewhere you say the real problem is the editing style that makes it so difficult to collaborate and approach a consensus. So what are you arguing over here? Some real problems are Dicklyon's incivility (rants & turds), attribution of imagined positions, and failure to read what is said. Brews ohare (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough. This page is for discussing the merits or demerits of the proposals, not for debating other issues. I do not see what this discussion has to do with the Grievous Personal Attacks proposal above. Take this discussion elsewhere. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

@Finell: Speaking as a checkuser, I can confirm that no abusive sockpuppetry has taken place here. Please regard the IP comment above as you would a comment from anyone else participating in this case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Evaluating user conduct

3) An editor's positive and valuable contributions to Wikipedia do not excuse misconduct by the same editor. Because editors are responsible for their own conduct, misbehavior by others is no justification for an editor's violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. However, an editor's positive contributions will be considered in evaluating the editor's overall record of participation in Wikipedia. Provocative misbehavior by others may be considered in evaluating the totality of the circumstances in which an editor's misconduct occurs. An editor's overall record and the totality of the circumstances in which an editor's misconduct occurs may be considered as mitigating factors in determining the remedies for an editor's misconduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Adapted from final decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Principles, but very substantially rewritten. Finell (Talk) 17:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm glad to see that you have acknowledged the concept of agent provocateur. That is very relevant to this case. David Tombe (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Repetition of improper conduct

4) Users who have been sanctioned or legitimately criticized for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that behavior in their continued participation in the project. Similarly, a user who has promised to discontinue a certain type of problematic behavior on-wiki must make every effort to avoid returning to that pattern of behavior. Failure or inability to do so may necessitate imposing further restrictions or sanctions, or in the most serious cases, loss of the privilege of participating in the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Copied from final decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Principles. Finell (Talk) 17:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as worded. The notion of "improper conduct" is altogether too vague. I'd guess, for example, that if I make some number of edits on Talk: Speed of light within a short time, regardless of their nature, Finell & Dicklyon would call that "misconduct", and if they told me on my talk page to cut it out, any subsequent editing of this kind would be considered a "repetition of improper conduct", which they would then use to justify blocking my activity. (This Case is such an example.) So, another issue besides what constitutes "improper behavior" is just how "improper conduct" is deemed to occur, and by whom. Brews ohare (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Mentorship and similar arrangements

5)In certain limited circumstances, formal mentorship and similar voluntary and involuntary arrangements may be suitable to provide advice and support to people involved in disputes, or needing advice on how to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. The long-term aim of such arrangements should be for those involved to improve their conduct and work collaboratively without the need, or with a reduced need, for such advice. Such mentorships or similar arrangements may be agreed to as an alternative to more serious remedies, such as bans or paroles, or they may be an end result of the dispute resolution process itself. Users may voluntarily place themselves under such arrangements, or be placed under such arrangements by the community, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. Any such formal arrangements should be recorded and documented in an appropriate place.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Copied from final decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Principles. Finell (Talk) 17:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: The proposal is not mentorship but some kind of forced probation with periodic review to see whether the controlled party has been rehabilitated. Depending upon the composition of the probate committee, such a forced arrangement would probably have the same effect as a ban, as no-one will put up with it. Brews ohare (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Refusal to 'get the point'

6) In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Copied verbatim from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Finell (Talk) 18:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Opposed No evidence provided. Most probably the idea here is a perversion of WP:DIS intended for main pages to squelch argument on the Talk page, which assists a closed mind (for example, the case of an editor who is always right, or the sycophant who wants to wave the flag of majority opinion). Introduction of a thread on a Talk page does not require participation by those who think the topic is a WP:DEADHORSE, and is not disruptive per se. Uninterested editors simply can ignore the discussion, and most certainly should not enter the thread with no intention of contributing to it, but instead the intention to derail the discussion by catcalls (booing), misdirection (introduction of red herrings to divert the thread), & putdowns ("everybody knows …"). It is these "spoilsport" activities that are truly disruptive, and tend to occur when the undisciplined closed minds are out to obstruct any discussion that invades their cherished beliefs. Brews ohare (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Most of the last three archived talk pages are evidence in support of this claim. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Remedies

1) David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned and blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: The reasons are summarized in the discussion of #David Tombe banned from further public participation in this case above. This user has proven himself to be ineducable and incorrigible. On 9 October 2008, he was granted a "last chance"[100] reprieve from an indefinite block. He used it up. (NOTE: He won that reprieve by evading the indefinite block, going directly to a sympathetic admin without logging in after his formal unblock requests were denied.[101][102] The unblocking admin's unblock justification shows that he was unaware of Tombe's other socking after the indef block, documented here: David Tombe's proven sockpuppetry and block evasion.) Finell (Talk) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support ; as per Finell. Plus Tombe perjured himself in the course of this case. We can do without this unproductive distraction. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of incivility

An example of a catcall is this and this and this. A catcall (i) contains no contribution to the discussion thread, and (ii) is phrased in a disruptive or even inflammatory fashion. An example of attribution of a false position to an editor is here and here and here. An example of a threat is here and here. An example of inflammatory discussion is here and here. These behaviors do not add to the the discussion, tend to foster an atmosphere of confrontation, and tend to promote a circus. Considerably greater control over this kind of nonsense is needed. Brews ohare (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not really analysis of evidence. Normally editors would analyze multiple party's submissions. This is just a repeat of your own evidence section, and should be posted there. At any rate, your some of your remarks are no less personal attacks than references to "misconceptions," "idiosyncrasies," and "nonsense." Cool Hand Luke 01:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Response to Cool Hand: Regarding my remarks, I point out that none of these appeared upon the Talk: Speed of light and none were placed upon editors' talk pages to whom I was referring. All were placed upon editors' talk pages from whom I sought some solace. As such they cannot be viewed as at all equivalent to direct attacks on Talk: Speed of light or as direct attacks upon an editor on the editor's own talk page. It is exactly such attacks, either on Talk: Speed of light or upon my own talk page, directed at me personally, to which I object.

Regarding analysis of evidence, such evidence is no less pertinent because it pertains to my own experience and is not a statistical weighting of everybody's opinions. The fact is, bad behavior occurred, as evidenced, and bad behavior needs correction, as analysis of even this limited evidence is substantial indication. Brews ohare (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean something like this this, where you accuse one of the parties to this arbitration of "distortion (whether deliberate, or due to various forms of intellectual limitation)". That's just from this afternoon, there are plenty more examples. Physchim62 (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Physchim62: This diff you provided is an accurate description of Dicklyon's response, as Dicklyon's version of my position is not mine, has never been mine, and there is no diff to support anything like it. Moreover, his comment has nothing to do with the proposal under discussion at the beginning of this Talk page section, because he is talking about a view existent only in the mind of Dicklyon, which view is unrelated to the proposal of this Talk page section. I believe all this should be evident to Physchim62, and his misjudgment regarding this comment may fit well with his pattern of behavior already documented here. The parenthetic phrase picked up here by Physchim62 is generic, and is not directed specifically at Dicklyon. Brews ohare (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I admit to having considerable difficulty understanding what your point is in some of these long-winded arguments. I thought I had previously varified and seen confirmation of my hypothesis that your main point that you were trying to push was that the speed of light in SI units and the "real, physical speed of light" (quoting you by memory) were not really the same concept. And yes, I have been operating somewhat beyond the limits of patience, and not always staying as civil and polite as I should; has anyone been able to do so in the face of a discussion with you? Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Dicklyon: I have explained my position carefully here and directly to you a number of times. I don't find these presentations nor the subject matter particularly challenging, and you would not either if you would simply read what is said. Much of the furor on your part is about your imagined views of where I stand, and a reflex that whatever I say is nonsense, simply out-of-hand, and requires no real attention beyond your instinctive reaction. Further, you tend to pigeon-hole everything I say into categories regardless of content, and argue about misconceptions that are not even on the table simply because you have jumped to conclusions about what is at issue. Even when your identification of the issue is correct, you simply assume what my stance is, without regard for what it really is. Brews ohare (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Insufficient critique of reverted submissions

A completely sourced contribution to Speed of light was reverted here based upon no specifics, but an assertion of consensus. Later, unsupported observations were made that "it seems irrelevant and makes the article worse" "This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and should be removed." My objections to this characterization are (i) no specific text is identified that fits the guidelines, and (ii) the editor's opinion that the material is "irrelevant" is unsupported. Nonetheless, I undertook myself to weed out anything that might be construed as satisfying these claims, and presented a revised submission. This section was rewritten from the previous version, as noted here. It was reverted, with no attempt at comment. Dicklyon opined that "the reasons are all discussed above" and so no further examination was indicated. However, aside from the fact the material was rewritten, so earlier reasons might not apply, the earlier "reasons" all were nonspecific. A request for justification was made, and ignored.

Quite apart from the merits of this particular case, this example IMO illustrates the need for more specific reasons for reversion; reasons that indicate just what is objected to, and in what way cited guidelines are violated. Otherwise, there is no idea of what can be done to fix it. Also, an reversion supported only by a flag-waving reference to guidelines like WP:SYN, WP:NOR; WP:POV or whatever, seems to be nothing but suppression of a subsection to satisfy the reverting editor's whim or prejudice. It does not add to the merits of such reversion to have other editors simply voice their approval and cheerlead, still providing no reasons. Brews ohare (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nonspecific discussion wanders off-topic

In response to a suggestion of Count Iblis, I wrote a piece for WikiProject Physics at User:Brews ohare/Speed of light (Example) and invited discussion. To my amazement, most of the editors' comments on this piece actually were unrelated to its content, although the editors themselves were not aware of that. Examples of such unrelated comment are Brews, that argument just show your lack of insight in modern physics, which goes off on a discussion of General Relativity that has no connection whatsoever to what was written, it makes sense to choose a standard..., which discusses metrology, not a topic in the article under discussion, Enough, Brews, which suggests "the real speed of light doesn't change, but is constant, for you to say otherwise is contrary to physics and of all experimental observations", something that not only I never said (or thought), but is completely off subject and unrelated to the article, and so forth and so on.

Although amusing, this problem is more serious than it might seem, because these off-topic ramblings are picked up by other editors as a correct portrayal and become pasted in editors' minds as facts that color their views from that point onward. That incorrect picture distorts later discussion on the Talk pages.

Whatever the merits of the original article, these examples show that comments by editors frequently are related only to their pet subject at the moment, and the text under examination becomes simply an excuse to mount their hobby horse and critique the text as something it absolutely is not. This nonsensical behavior needs to be capped, and one way to do this is to require that commentary cite verbatim from the text and be directed toward that quote, not toward the editor's imaginings about what has been said. Brews ohare (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems more like evidence, rather than analysis of evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ncmvocalist: The examples provided are, of course, evidence. The analysis consists of the extraction of the causes leading to the bad behavior in the examples and what should be done about it. Brews ohare (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Physchim62 has violated WP guidelines and normal ethical standards of behavior

Summary of supporting findings: Physchim62 attacks my views using violations of WP:NPA and WP:Talk. A recent example is his intemperate interjection concerning Speed of light set by definition section, responded to by me at this link. Another example is here, responded to here, where Physchim62, actually attributes to me a ludicrous view never expressed or supported by myself, all to justify a threat that is way beyond WP:NPA. He makes another completely unsupported, unsupportable, erroneous, outright fabrication here. Requests for retraction or evidence for such assertions were ignored. Other examples of bad behavior are pandering to vociferous soapboxers, if you don't shut up I'll ask that you be banned & so forth. These activities violate WP guidelines and standards of normal civil and ethical behavior.

In addition, in this workshop Physchim62 he has claimed a parallel exists with the Sadi Carnot case. He was himself involved in this case, and so is very familiar with the issues, and should understand full well that there is no parallel with this case. Citing this case as a precedent is misrepresentation, either deliberate or because of a gross lack of judgment. Physchim62 also commented upon the Depleted uranium case, and should have an understanding of the issues here as well; he states the issues as involving misrepresentation of sources and disruption of the main article page. These behaviors are not an issue in this Speed of light case. Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editor Dicklyon has distorted Brews ohare's positions and editing activities

On Speed of light I don't believe there is much factual disagreement between us. I supported his efforts to rewrite the lead on several occasions, and do not recall any disagreements about this. However, there was a little fluff up over the history section, leading to a turd on my Talk page. He also undertook to label me a troll. Dicklyon frequently makes abusive responses to my contributions on the Talk page, referring to them as rants, for example, and makes up distorted summaries of my positions to justify scornful replies. He also insists upon calling my positions violations of WP:Synth or 'idiosyncratic' and refuses to confront requests for evidence to support this description.

For some reason, Dicklyon has instigated a number of motions against me on the Projects Physics page based not upon physics, but his reaction to my mode of editing. I've been defended by Count Iblis here and here, and by Headbomb here. The conflict has been summarized by TStein as My sense of the problem is that Brews has a more detailed oriented editing style that is conflicting with other editors who want the article to be more concise and focused. In assessing Dicklyon's allegations, I would like this motion and the responses to it by other editors to be reviewed.

Dicklyon has expanded the scope of this inquiry beyond Speed of light to become a forum for discussion of all his past experiences with me. That extends the scope of this inquiry to become a new Case/Brews_ohare versus Dicklyon. If I am to engage in a discussion of Wavelength and Wave and Electromotive force and Centrifugal force and Coriolis force and anywhere else that Dicklyon shows up, the evidence that must be presented on my overall activities becomes very extensive before it can be properly examined in full context. Among other issues that must be examined is a difference in views about what is germane to an article and what constitutes "bloating", whether examples are useful or "bloating", whether background and context are valuable or "bloating", and above all whether such disputes should be accompanied by insulting remarks and derision, and nitpicking requests for supporting sources that state details verbatim in the exactly the same wording to avoid WP:Synth or WP:NOR claims. I do not feel that I can adequately defend myself in this venue; the issues are specific to Dicklyon and myself, not similar to the widespread chaos on Talk: Speed of light. I do point out that attempts by Dicklyon to interest other editors in these other disputes were dismissed by other editors. See the previous paragraph. Brews ohare (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon has entered a new phase of attack upon me suggesting that this Case is really Case/Brews_ohare, but to avoid more controversy Admins called it Case/Speed of light. Aside from the ethics attributed here to Admins, I have not interpreted this case in this way. Dicklyon has brought up other venues where I have contributed, and suggested that edit wars occurred in all of them. There is no evidence for his remarks, and they should all appear on the Talk page where they can be publicly shredded, not on this Project page. Brews ohare (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Following recent exchanges on Talk: Free space & Talk: Ohm's law, coupled with earlier experience on Wavelength and Wave, I am inclined to think Dicklyon has only one aim in his interactions with me and that is to oppose me at every possible step, and if possible to get me permanently banned from WP. His justifications for suppressing my edits range from "complexity creep", "bloating" and "symbol soup" (usually unsupported by comment or suggestions for improvement), and requests for verbatim quotations from "impeccable" sources expressing exactly every possible point. None of these suggests technical inaccuracy or lack of relevance: simply his personal preferences. He also enjoys convoluted debates in which his personal confusions are expressed in attacks accusing WP:POV WP:SYN and WP:NOR, accompanied by violations of WP:Civil and WP:NPA.

That attitude, IMO, stems from irritation over having to think about technical issues (possibly instead of depending upon a remembrance of things learned many years ago), and irritation over interruption of his preferred hit-and-run editing style based upon editing up to 100 articles a day with cryptic one-line Edit Summaries. Brews ohare (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is interesting to see that many of us at WP:PHYS "sided" with Brews (or at the very least, I did) when Martin/Dicklyon first raised their concerns, in the sense that we didn't see how Brews' editing pattern was problematic. It's even more interesting that most of us now agree that something needs to be done about Brews' editing, having experienced it first hand. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the "many" that changed their position consists of Headbomb alone. Brews ohare (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon has played a very negative role. He contributed to the bad atmosphere and I think that Brews may have (perhaps subconsciously) reacted to that by doing exactly those things that Diclyon finds irritating to the point of irritating others as well. To make clear that this sort of thing is not that uncommon, let me give another example.

Consider the way Likebox and OMCV interacted with each other, see here for details about their conflict. OMCV's way of interacting with Likebox provoked reactions like this. Then this later led to Likebox crossing a red line and getting banned for a few days. But it is clear that OMCV's way of interacting with Likebox caused a bad atmosphere that allowed tensions to increase a lot to the point where Likebox did become a problem also according to a few other editors (judging from a narrow Wiki-Legal way in which OMCV's provocations cannot be addressed).

In this case, there is no question that Likebox, an expert in physics, is a good wiki contributor. So, clearly, a bad chemistry like that between Dicklyon and Brews can have similar effects and once that is dealt with, things can return to normal without anyone being banned. Count Iblis (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Blame me for Brews's bad behavior if you like, but the history suggests an anti-causal relationship there. Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you had the intent to cause harm. All I'm saying is that the way you have interacted with Brews has contributed to the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Analysis of dynamic on Talk:Speed of light

Of particular importance to the Case/Speed of light is the conduct of discussion on Talk:Speed of light. A specific example of this dynamic is presented here. In my responses during this example exchange, I have identified various bad behaviors that corrupt civil discourse. The arbitrators might consider how to suppress such attempts at deliberate derailment, and how to prevent an atmosphere developing on Talk pages in which such disruptions are the rule, not the exception. Brews ohare (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A factor on Talk: Speed of light and throughout WP Talk pages is that any discussion that lasts long enough will attract additional editors, and some of these inevitably are those that "like a good fight". Thus, it is important that incivility be clamped down fast to enable a rapid settlement of issues before the vultures assemble, and to assiduously squelch these "professional" debaters. Brews ohare (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In the above example, as in fact throughout exchanges on Talk: Speed of light, editor Brews ohare has remained civil and has not violated behavior guidelines like WP:NPA, WP:Civil, WP:Talk. On the other hand, violations of these guidelines by other editors are very evident on this talk page. (See, for example, here & here & here & here). The editors engaged in these violations have not been reprimanded by Admins for this conduct, and an atmosphere has developed in which such behavior is typical. This action Case/Speed of light was instigated, not to control this circus on Talk:Speed of light, but to suppress comment on the Talk page by Brews ohare with regard to several topics that the vocal minority did not wish to talk about. (Some of these issues have subsequently been resolved, problems with the lead, in particular.) They therefore claim the attempted discussion by Brews ohare, even though presented on the Talk page, to be actionable according to the guidelines WP:Soap, WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:Fringe & WP:Dis, without actually presenting any WP:diff's as evidence to support these claims, claims better applied to edits on the main page, not on the Talk page. Instead of using WP:diff's of statements by Brews ohare (which are nonexistent) as evidence to support these claims, to advance their resistance to his discussion they have engaged in fabrications of ersatz positions for Brews ohare as documented here & here & here & here. Admins have taken no action to reign in this distortion and the use of guidelines without supporting evidence. The lack of Admin action has abetted cavalier flaunting of all standards of discourse, and the evolution of a Pavlovian reaction to contributions by Brews ohare reminiscent of piranha. Inasmuch as no new guidelines are to be developed as part of this case, a more diligent enforcement policy for existing guidelines should be developed. This enforcement must be applied to all editors, across-the-board, to catalyze discussion rather than to force unanimity, to force address of content (not red herrings), and to put a lid on polarizing tactics like putdowns, catcalls, and cheerleading. Brews ohare (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: