Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:16, 12 September 2009

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, the scope of this examination is /Case/Speed of light, and the objectives are therefore limited. 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. The justification for any such drastic remedies affecting activity on WP outside Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light should be based upon individual, separate inquiries into the behavior of these editors where their overall contributions can be examined widely and a proper presentation of evidence organized. Moreover, any allegations or issues brought into this case from other venues, not only from activities on other pages of WP, but activities outside WP altogether, have bearing only insofar as they illuminate Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light, because the objective here is not an evaluation of these editors per se but an examination of how to improve behavior at Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light.

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 is restricted to commentary specific to verbatim excerpts from proposed contributions, 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. Brews ohare (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Headbomb

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

Martin Hogbin

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

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)[reply]

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. 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: [14], [15], [16], Arbitrators might feel more inclined simply to read the talkpage section as it currently appears: here. Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) Insert text here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

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:

Comment by parties:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Indeed, Talk page discussion should lead toward the improvement of articles. I am faced with a lack of comprehension on 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. There is no way to fix this problem, as reference to sources and logic do not persuade. Repeated efforts to express things from different standpoints and using different examples simply irritate those that have made up their minds and are beyond all argument. So I will have to abandon my efforts. 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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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}

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}

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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:

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 === Brews ohare ===
+First, the ''scope of this examination'' is /Case/Speed of light, and the objectives are therefore limited. Proposals like that of [[User:Physchim62|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. The justification for any such drastic remedies affecting activity on WP outside [[Speed of light]] and [[Talk: Speed of light]] should be based upon individual, separate inquiries into the behavior of these editors where their overall contributions can be examined widely and a proper presentation of evidence organized. Moreover, any allegations or issues brought into this case from other venues, not only from activities on other pages of WP, but activities outside WP altogether, have bearing only insofar as they illuminate [[Speed of light]] and [[Talk: Speed of light]], because the objective here is not an evaluation of these editors ''per se'' but an examination of how to improve behavior at [[Speed of light]] and [[Talk: Speed of light]].
 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, [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] has associated me with statements [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brews_ohare#Warning_over_your_comments_concerning_the_speed_of_light that I have never made]. My [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Speed_of_light#Physical_quantities_and_their_units attempts] to introduce a sub-sub-section have been resisted based upon generalities that do not apply to the material submitted, and by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speed_of_light&diff=311905993&oldid=311898163 reversion of sourced sub-subsection without comment].