User talk:Brews ohare

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

History of science section in centrifugal force

I've now started a section on the historical development of the modern conception of centrifugal force in that article. I am by no means an expert in the history of science, and I'm unsure about how the references I've cited hold together: I'd greatly appreciate it if you could please review the material I have added so far? There appears to be significant work on this topic by Domenico Bertoloni Meli (for example, [1], [2]), however, most of the interesting papers on this subject are behind a paywall and inaccessible to me. -- The Anome (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fictitious force wiki is wrong about planetary motion and Euler forces

Euler forces are tangential forces causing α = dω/dt? These don't go away in a constantly rotating frame-- they stay the same, since the acceleration of the particle is the same in either frame (just as in the linear case where acceleration is the same if you switch to a different inertial frame at a different linear velocity). Euler forces only appear as ficticious forces if you're in a frame with accelerated rotation rate where α = non-zero. But that's not the setup we carefully made for the centrifugal and Coriolis forces where ω is constant and dω/dt = α = 0. So in a way, the Euler forces are a different animal, and we really have to decide if we're going to stay fixed to a coordinate system or fixed on a rotating object which may not be rotating with a fixed rate. The planetary case is interesting: the Euler force is zero there, NOT because of the fact that the revolution rate doesn't change (as it states falsely in the fictious force Wiki)-- because the revolution rate of a planet DOES change for eliptical orbits! Instead, Mr. Tombe's "law of areal velocity" per Kepler kicks in (a consequence of angular momentum preservation) which causes r to decrease as ω increases, so the product stays constant and thus the Euler term stays zero even IF dω/dt is not zero: this is perhaps what confused Mr. Tombe (he as thinking about Euler forces and calling them Coriolis forces; most of what he said about one was true for the other!). Euler force = 0 even with variable rotation, and this happens any time the force is purely central, as with planets and no drag, or (say) when a skater pulls in her arms, etc. All again because of conservation of angular momentum in a system with no external angular momentum-changing influences. SBHarris 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Steven: I find your remarks confusing. Marsden provides a formula for the Euler force for a rotating frame as m r × dω / dt, which certainly vanishes for a constant rate of rotation, not supporting your lead sentence. Then a sentence or so later, you seem to agree with this remark. What are you trying to say here? Brews ohare (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles about Dynamics

I've noticed that you are working a lot on the Kinematics article. A few months ago I compiled a list of all (maybe there are more) articles related to Dynamics. This list is located in the talk page of the Dynamics article. I thought this list would be useful for you if you are planning on working on more articles related to Kinematics. Some of those articles need to be merged. I would like to work on some of these articles but my focus right now is on other topics. Cheers!!! Sanpaz (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

coriolis diagram

I reverted again. Diagram is wrong. Best not to advise others to "take time to think about the issue" -- it assumes bad faith. Rracecarr (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Improved simulation methods for loop gain (return ratio)

I noticed your interest in electronic feedback, so I thought you might be interested to learn about two improved simulation methods for loop gain (or return ratio, as you prefer to call it), which I present on my webpage http://www.geocities.com/frank_wiedmann/loopgain.html. The method developed by Michael Tian is basically an improved version of Middlebrook's method from 1975. Middlebrook's General Feedback Theorem is very closely related to the "Asymptotic gain model" entry on Wikipedia. Regarding the issue of loop gain versus return ratio, you can find some comments from me at http://www.designers-guide.org/Forum/YaBB.pl?num=1124688329.

Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.154.169 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Centrifugal force

In this[3] edit, are you sincerely asking whether you should do some math, or is your intent to be sarcastic and insulting to the other editors? Please beware that it is very easily interpreted as the latter, and people may take offense. --PeR (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done the math; it's time some others did too. Brews ohare (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but please be civil. Besides, I think the issue at hand can be easily resolved without doing any math. See my entry on Talk: Centrifugal force

What is Wiki stance on related articles? (answer)

Answering your question:

Wikipedia:Summary style is the guideline.

Definition has examples.

Awesome illustrations on your user page, BTW.

--Jtir (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lab centrifuge

Hi there

I was wondering about your latest edits. Is a 10 m centrifuge accurately described as a "laboratory centrifuge"? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know: it is for lab experiments and simulations. Is a cyclotron lab equipment? I guess the real question is whether this material fits best here, or would be more easily found elsewhere. Any suggestions? Brews ohare (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Centrifuge might be a better spot for it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this material to Centrifuge. Brews ohare (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tide

I reverted your edit to Tide. Possibly I was too impulsive, so I'll just explain myself and you can rerevert if you really know what you're talking about. The centrifugal force explanation has been debated extensively on the Talk page. I was not involved in that discussion, but it appears that the centrifugal-version lost out. The only other mention of centrifugal in the article is a link explaining why its the wrong way to explain tides. As the intro is supposed to be a summary of the article, it should be consistent with the main body. Spiel496 (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh... you edit faster than I do. I understand your point; the article is not so well referenced. Please do what you can to make the article self-consistent, though. Spiel496 (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, when centrifugal force is used to explain a phenomenon then there is also a valid alternative which does not use centrifugal force. Sometimes, one is much clearer than the other. I'm kind of on the fence as far as tides are concerned. Best of luck... Spiel496 (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force and precession

Brews, I do know that precession can be (and typically is) a rotation about a rotating axis. Sorry for my ambiguous edit summary. But the picture you added showed a rotation about a fixed vertical axis (i.e. a precession with same angular velocity as the rotation about the "south-north" axis of the object). Besides that, the example about precession is too difficult to understand for an introduction about centrifugal force (because people thinks that the instantaneous axis of rotation is the "south-north" axis, which is never true). A much better example about rotation about a non-fixed axis was about the "particle along S-shaped trajectory".

However, I fail to understand the reason why you want to talk about rigid bodies and Newton-Euler equations in the introduction. I suggest to open a new section at the end of the article about this topic. But it would just say that:

1. either you study the motion of the body CM, and in this case centrifugal force is computed as if the body were a point mass, or
2. you study the motion of a particle in the rigid body which does not coincide with the CM; then you just compute the kinematics of that particle, then you again use the formula for particles.

I mean, the same formulas for centrifugal force as those you use for particles can be applied to rigid bodies. IMO, this is not something worth mention in the introduction. By the way, I guess you agree that inertial couples (appearing together with fictitious forces in adjusted Newton-Euler equations used within non-inertial frames) definitely do not belong in this article! Paolo.dL (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please answer in this page, if you want to answer. Paolo.dL (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstandings

Brews, believe me, I have a high esteem for you. I only think that you should clean up your edits on A-class articles, before saving or immediately after saving, and should read with more attention comments on talk pages before answering.

Please read with attention our discussion. I will do the same. It will take some time. Let's both take some time before engulfing the discussion with other useless statements. Paolo.dL (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Moon article image size

Are you are aware that personal image preferences can be set under "my preferences" at the top of this page? Your forced image sizes were causing the image to go over the top of writing in the article from my persepective.Asher196 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Inertial frame of reference

Congratulations for your work in Inertial frame of reference :-)

...is defined as: An inertial frame of reference is one in which the motion of a particle not subject to forces is a straight line.

Isn't "constant speed" missing? 189.6.140.252 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about parabolic dish and coriolis effect

Hi Brews,

about a month and a half ago you posted a question on my talk page. I rarely visit wikipedia anymore, I just happened to notice the posting. Please visit my talk page to read my response. --Cleonis | Talk 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Frame of reference

Hi Paolo: It appears that you have drifted away from Frame of reference to discuss other articles. Maybe it's too much to say you are satisfied with Frame of reference, but are going to let matters rest? Brews ohare (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am too busy right now to read an article with attention. I just quickly edited some articles that I browsed to find information, not with the intention to edit. But I hope I'll find the time in the future to edit frame of reference and centrifugal force. Just one suggestion for you: remove the note about frame of reference from centrifugal force. It is not needed there, and it makes the article messy and unfocused. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Space archeology

Hello. I'm wondering where you came up with this definition. 60 years of space travel do rarely justify the term archaeology, do they? Also, what is there to find other than space junk that is already known? De728631 (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there: This is a work in progress. Please allow a little time for it to flesh out. Brews ohare (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Still, I find the term a bit weird. Can you provide references to read up on this? Because from scratch, I'd rather associate remote sensing with this. De728631 (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi: I am working with an expert in this field, who will provide the meat of the article. My role here is just to introduce Wikipedia and get them started. 22:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, that should become interesting. I moved the page to Space archaeology though, with the correct spelling. This "archeology" was merely a typo in the Hopkins newsletter heading - and later on they also used the right spelling. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Groups

Hi,

thanks for your recent interesting edit to Group (mathematics) (which I moved to the text body). As you also seem to be an image professional, could you think of a way that shows graphically the effect/presence of a group in this band structure stuff you mentioned? In the b.s. article, there are some images, but none of them jumps right into my eye w.r.t. to groups ( is something, but without knowing what goes on, it is hard to grasp). Having something in this direction would be a nice addition to the groups article (we could replace one of the symmetric molecules by this, for this is a bit repetitive). Thank you for your help, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. I'm impressed by your contributions to the group article. However, I'm not sure whether the length and level of explanation is appropriate in an article like this. Pieces like "accompanied by a so-called soft phonon mode, a vibrational lattice mode that goes to zero frequency at the transition" are on the one hand difficult to understand, and, as far as I can tell from reading just this, unrelated to groups. Perhaps you might consider putting most of the explanation to the symmetry or molecular symmetry pages? Otherwise I may do so at some point. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on Kinetics

Thanks for the rework. It's so much more readable now. Can you lend a hand on Dynamics page, too? Even though the word "dynamics" is still used widely, it's no longer a branch of study, just like kinetics. I'm thinking that after clean-up, it makes sense to merge them. Sillyvalley (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Analytical dynamics

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Analytical dynamics, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Dynamics (physics). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/-The Bold Guy-

You feel for it to review me, if you got the time to do so. It might be just a bold question, and I am not expecting a positive reaction, but I really need someone to do so. Thanks in advanche, -The Bold Guy- (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

Brews, first I'd like to thank you for supporting my unblock request. But since I won't be coming back in again, I want to take this opportunity to explain to you where I think that you are going wrong. Centrifugal force is one single topic. It can be described in the most simple terms as the outward radial force that is associated with rotation. It crops up in many scenarios. The classical mechanics topic 'rotating frames of reference' is only one such scenario. I don't see how you can see it any differently. You showed a much greater ability to comprehend matters on the electromagnetism articles. I don't know what happened to you when you came over to the centrifugal force page. One big difference of course was that there were no biased referees on the electromagnetism pages. My own belief is that you were swayed by this factor and that you were hence too willing to buy into the philosophy that centrifugal force is something that only occurs in rotating frames of reference. I know that you were genuinely trying to learn about the subject. But you were writing as you were learning. It's been as if you were learning on the job. And in my opinion you were being taught very badly by those around you. My advice to you is to try and listen more carefully to what Fugal is telling you. He knows what he is talking about. 81.152.111.182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC).

Vector space graphic

Hi Brews, thanks for your work on vector space. I will also join in now with more content. Since you seem to be a graphic expert (among other things), I wonder whether you could help with the following (I'm a bloody idiot with Inkscape and so on, which is why I ask you): I think a graphic showing a vector bundle would be nice. More concretely I have in mind the Möbius strip, which is a line bundle over the circle. The image should show the circle along with the M. str. and, this would be great, "zooming" in a small region and exhibiting the product structure of a little piece of the circle times the line. Could you do that? Cheers Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force (planar motion)

I think it may be a good idea to save the article on your hard disk and then rewrite it a bit to make it slightly more general. The title could be changed, you don't have to mention "centrifugal force", you could perhaps call it "Classical mechanics in general coordinates".

Anyway, I think you have done a lot of positive work here on Wikipedia. Don't waste time fighting stupid disputes :) Count Iblis (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Classical mechanics in planar curvilinear coordinates

I have moved the article, see here:

Classical mechanics in planar curvilinear coordinates

I think we need to put less emphasis on centrifugal force and just focus on classical mechanics. Count Iblis (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Opinion

Looks good! I redirected the article I mentioned above to your article "Mechanics of planar particle motion".

In the Lagrangian methods section, one could also write about imposing the constraint that a particle move along some curve using (time dependent) Lagrange multipliers and then mention the relation between the Lagrange multiplier and the normal force. Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lagrange multiplier and the normal force

I think this can be found in most textbooks. I learned it from college notes at university, so I can't give you a specific ref. right now. This is not so important if a derivation from first principles is given. What matters is that statements in Wikipedia are verifiable. So, a mathematical derivation can serve as the verification of a statement.

Making the derivation itself verifiable by giving a ref. to the literature is then besides the point because we are aiming at readers who can understand the derivation so they would be able to see that it is correct or false. Of course, when we take a derivation from a book, then we should give the ref. to that book.

Then, because we don't need to closely follow any textbooks, we have a lot of freedom to adapt the derivation to the needs of the reader of the wiki article. I have contributed to some thermodynamics articles in this style, see e.g. Fundamental thermodynamic relation and Helmholtz free energy. The derivations there are similar to what you can find in books like the one by F. Reif, my old college notes and my own notes.

The thermodynamics articles contained many elementary mistakes before I started to edit them. I still don't understand how such elementary errors could have remained in these articles for many years. I think that the wiki practice of sourcing statements could be have contributed to this. Erroneous statements were attributed to some source (in some case the source was a clone of the same wiki article) and then no one bothered to check. So, I decided that it may be better to give derivatons from first principles and not even bother to source them so that they will be scrutinized more. Count Iblis (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Derivations and verifiability

This seems to be an ongoing discussion at the policy pages, see e.g. here.

I also think that different wiki editors may disagree because they take a different view about what Wikipedia is supposed to be. There are people who take a very narrow view, who say that wiki articles should describe what can be found in sources in pretty much the same way as is written down in the sources. But I think that we then miss a great opportunity. With some effort we can write articles about physics that are accessible to people with less knowledge than is assumed in university textbooks.

If you think of a (physics) textbook as a linear sequence of text, then wikipedia is a multidimensional sequence. The wikilinks allow you to move in many different directions. So, in principle, it could be superior to a textbook. Count Iblis (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Derivations

Hey Brews. Glad to see you doing more work on the transistor articles. I notice you're adding derivations for the different characteristics - do you really think that's necessary? I think it might be better to omit them and just refer readers to textbooks to see the derivations. Or perhaps show all the derivations in a separate article to keep the main one concise and less intimidating. What do you think? -Roger (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's clear I like some derivation, particularly if it's not too involved. There are a couple of reasons: (i) I don't find textbooks a great source of derivations. (ii) I do find a derivation adds to credibility, which Wiki can use a lot of. Simple statements that such-and-such is so, even when cited, is subject to abuse that simple logic may avoid. (iii) I find writing on the circuit diagram a great way to do it, and texts don't do it that way much; it makes the derivations very straightforward. (iv) A derivation provides insight into the material. Brews ohare (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Vector space

Hi Brews, I remember you made a number of physics-related edits to vector space. I'm currently trying to get the article to GA standard. The last step for this, I think, is providing references for various statements. I'm trying my best to cover the mathematical aspects, but could I ask you to help out with physical facts? I marked the facts/paragraphs where I think we need some references with a -tag. If you could help out, I'd be grateful, since I don't have readily access to a physics library. Thank you, and see you over there, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

nu to theta

Hi. Please don't forget talk:Kepler's laws of planetary motion#Symbol for Angular Displacement. Bo Jacoby (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

I changed the figure. It is not mathematically exact, but I hope it will do. Brews ohare (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you drawing.

See however Talk:Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion#Image:Anomalies.PNG. Bo Jacoby (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

Continuation behind the scenes

Brews, I've just activated the e-mail user option. I've decided that this debate would best be carried out on a one-to-one behind the scenes. It is about trying to master an overall comprehension of the topic. I wouldn't have stayed here so long if I hadn't believed that you were genuinely trying to understand the topic. But wikipedia is not the right medium for that purpose. When you were on the EM articles, I saw that you were interested in the A vector. Basically the -(partial)dA/dt in the Lorentz force is the Euler force. But we can't discuss that here. I had a difficult time even trying to get the third term of the Lorentz force overtly recognized even though it is in modern literature, so there'd be no point in quoting Maxwell to get the fourth term mentioned. The fourth term is centrifugal force grad(A.v). Try and e-mail me. If it doesn't work, let me know on my talk page. There is no point in carrying on on the centrifugal force talk page because there are too many people working at cross purposes. There is a very simple pattern to all this. It is four Lorentz force terms. Two tangential and two radial. In EM, the tangential terms are Faraday's law (and also the radial terms which give zero curl). In Gravity, Kepler's second law balances them to zero. David Tombe (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation requested

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Speed of light, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Physchim62 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Physchim62 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Speed of light. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Displacement Current

Brews, the important thing is to realize that Maxwell's method for obtaining displacement current bore no similarity to the modern 'conservation of charge' method. Maxwell seemed to settle on a linear polarization method, even though the preamble in part III of his 1861 paper indicated that he may have been toying with a magnetization approach. Maxwell did not involve capacitors in his derivation of displacement current. But the subsequent identification of displacement current with linear polarization must have caused future generations to link it to capacitor circuits. The new 'conservation of charge' method must have arisen in the 20th century post-aether era, because there was then no longer any dielectric in space to be polarized, yet they couldn't get rid of the displacement current in the vacuum because it was essential for EM radiation. The problem is that the 'conservation of charge' method doesn't fit with EM radiation because it is the wrong E vector. Interestingly, Maxwell's method still applies in relation to dielectric materials. David Tombe (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolute time and space

I've just removed a chunk of apparent original research from the Absolute time and space article. However, what remains could do with some improvement; I'd greatly appreciate it if you could you take a look at it. -- The Anome (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I modified this article somewhat, adding some historical context. That led to modification of mass; it never ends. Brews ohare (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of free space

Hi Brews,

You seem to believe both of the following:

[A] Free space is by definition a medium in which the speed of light is c₀, the permittivity is ε₀, etc.

[B] c₀ is by definition the speed of light in free space. ε₀ is by definition the permittivity in free space. Etc.

This is a circular definition, isn't it? You haven't defined anything at all.

How do you measure a meter? Well, it's how far light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds in free space. How do you know that your measurement is actually in something close to free space, and not in a far-from-free-space-medium? Well, you could check that the speed of light is close to 299,792,458 meters per second, except that you don't know what a meter is. You could check that ε₀ is close to 9 pF/meter, but again, you don't know what a meter, amp, or coulomb is. So there's no way to know whether your medium is anywhere close to free space. It could be 100 orders of magnitude off. Right??? :-) --Steve (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve: I've taken a while to respond. I had to think about it. Here is my take - tell me what you think of it.

Free space has defined properties and so is beyond experiment. It is a hypothetical medium.

However, measurements of the meter do not take place in free space. To measure the meter, one first sets up an elaborate clock to obtain a second (within a few Herz). Then one sets up a light source and detector in a gas, say, and separates them so time from emission to detection takes 1/c₀ seconds. Then either (i) one measures at several gas pressures and fits some curve to the points and extrapolates to zero pressure, or (ii) one calculates the refractive index of your gas from formula using measured gas pressure (the advantage is NIST does the extrapolation, saving you the trouble); then your measured meter is corrected accordingly using n.

It seems to me there is nothing circular here because there are two definitions involved: the definition of free space and the definition of the procedure used to approximate free space in the lab. If we defined c₀ differently, we'd get a different length for the meter, but who cares: if everybody adopted the same c₀ , everybody would have the same meter.

If extrapolation does not consistently produce the same meter, that is an error in either the theory used for extrapolation, or in the assessment of gas pressure. If the procedure consistently produces different meters for linearly and circularly polarized light, then we'd have to specify the polarization used to measure the meter, but it wouldn't matter whether we picked the speed of one polarization or the other to set the parameters of free space. We probably would ask why dichroism occurred even in the limit of zero pressure, but that is a real-world question, not a question about free space. Brews ohare (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Brews, thanks for bringing that paper to my attention. I will not be getting too involved in the aether debate here on wikipedia, because it is guaranteed to lead to an edit war, with people arguing over the legitimacy of sources. Have a look at this article meanwhile [4]. I did however want to bring your attention to the links between density and magnetic permeability, and between elasticity and dielectric constant in regard to how Maxwell calculated the speed of light using Newton's equation for the speed of sound. Even if we can't write too much about that in main articles, I saw that you were curious enough about the topic to want to know more.

I've now been able to open the link which you supplied. Yes, I am familiar with this paper already. I have communicated with both the authors. They in turn refer to a paper which was written in 1998 by the brother of one of the authors. Here is a direct link to that paper. [5] David Tombe (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin, what are you up to?

I would prefer to have any discussion on the article talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Space archaeology

I have nominated Space archaeology, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space archaeology. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Aether

Brews, I have been involved in this field since the 1970's. I have my own views on the matter. As far as I am concerned, the aether is alive and well. But the aether needs to be rendered into a sea of tiny whirlpools in order to act as the luminiferous medium. I got most of my inspiration from Maxwell's 1861 paper which accounts for my determination to point out that centrifugal force is a real force that is associated with pure aether pressure.

I am aware that there have been many attempts by dissidents to re-introduce the luminiferous medium. Often these attempts are very confused in my opinion. I began with displacement current. My realization that the textbook explanation was unsatisfactory led me to look up how Maxwell himself did it. It was then that I realized that we need to have a dielectric medium pervading what is commonly believed to be the vacuum. Later I realized that the dipoles need to be rotating and that magnetic repulsion is caused by centrifugal pressure between adjacent dipoles in their mutual equatorial planes. You can have a look at my article 'The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field' at [6]. However it has been extended by many follow up papers. One that you might be particularly interested in is the 'The Cause of Coriolis Force' at [7]. You will find papers at that last web link address for all numbers up to 60 with the exception of 1,2,10,34, and 46. The ones that you might find the most interesting are 11, 12, 14, 43,44, 48,49,54, and the last six. David Tombe (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We've edit conflicted, so I've restored all you tweak except one

I just don't know what you did here: [8]. If you could restore it, that would be neat.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong?

Hi, looking over your recent edits, I notice that you think that I am edit warring. I really, sincerely am not trying to war. I am trying to convince you that there are some problems with the text you are inserting. But you sometimes stop discussing with me for no reason. If you have a problem, or feel strongly about a text, let me know. Restore it, and make an argument for its inclusion. It's hard work, but if there is back and forth between two editors with slightly antagonistic aims and good faith, the text invariably improves.

The accuracy of the QCD paper is something you clarified for me, for example. I think we both agree it's somewhere between 1% and 4%, depending on how charitable you are to the authors. If you have problems with this, please let me know.

The sources on photon mass that you insert are decent, except for one, which I pointed out on the talk page. Please read the comment. I think you hit on one bad apple there.

The text you want for photon mass "the photon's rest mass is calculated by analogy with other particles, by subtracting the square of the momentum from the square of the energy", I feel is too technical for this section. But if you feel strongly about that, then reinsert it. This is just a question of clarity for the non-technical reader.

As for the sources you use, they are sometimes too technical, and too far removed from the original author of the result. If you want to say "the photon has this bound for the rest mass", it's best to link to the paper that establishes the bound, so readers can evaluate it. I went through your source in the cavity QED book, but the reference happens to be in a page of the book that is not freely accessible, so I couldn't cite the original author. If you know what this reference is, it would be good to bypass the secondary author.Likebox (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Mass–energy equivalence

Hi Steven: Apparently User:Likebox insists on writing Mass–energy equivalence to suit themselves, and repeatedly deletes cited material. They already have a reputation for such activity. How can it be prevented or ameliorated? Brews ohare (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello--- there is no edit war, the text keeps changing. I put all the sources that this editor insert on the talk page, and start a discussion, but I don't always get feedback. The reason I keep changing the text is because Brews ohare inserts slightly inaccurate stuff. It's mostly OK, but there are annoyances--- for example, the citation he gave for the mass of the photon includes a book which claims that the evidence supports a small nonzero mass for the photon. It's not a good source. The text he inserts for QCD is both too technical for the section (in my opinion) and reflects an unsupported view that the lattice calculations are less accurate than they are.

I would have no objection to inserting sourced material, but the sources that Brews ohare provides are usually very technical, and sometimes they have very little to do with what he is claiming. For example, in the discussion on the talk page, there is a source which claims to discuss the Maiani Testa theorem, which he is using to claim that the lattice results are no good. The theorem is very technical, and would scare off a non-physicist. The theorem has no relevance to mass calculations, as the authors say right in the original paper, but he did not link to this paper. I had to find it and link to it after a search.

The dispute here has not been over a single factual statement, but it seems to be a meaningless haggle over wording. I don't see why we cannot come to compromise.Likebox (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There are QCD, lattice QCD, and photon articles where this stuff goes better. I agree that it's shoehorned in, here. I've said as much on the article's TALK page. It's not that the info is uninteresting, it's just badly placed. SBHarris 07:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Rotation

Brews, I replied to your note on my own talk page. The main problem is that rotation is absolute and so it doesn't fit with relativity. Hence the attempts to mask out the reality of centrifugal force in the modern textbooks. David Tombe (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing the Leibniz bit because it doesn't have a page of its own?

Brews, the existing division of centrifugal force into two pages is a misinformed division based on a lack of comprehension of the topic. When I see two different approaches to centrifugal force which are incompatible with each other, I conclude that one of them must be wrong. You, on the other hand, conclude that there must be two different kinds of centrifugal force, each deserving of its own page. And in this particular case, I conclude that they are both wrong.

In actual fact, at one time, you had three different kinds of centrifugal force. You also had a 'polar coordinates' centrifugal force. The latter was more accurately the Leibniz approach which in my opinion is the only correct approach. Polar coordinates are only the language of expression in that approach.

Nevertheless, there are three different approaches to centrifugal force in the literature and we cannot ignore the Leibniz approach simply on the grounds that no page has been created for it on wikipedia.

The reactive centrifugal force is wrong because it thinks that centrifugal force has to be equal and opposite to centripetal force. It also wrongly thinks that the two constitute an action-reaction pair. And it further wrongly thinks that the centrifugal force is reacting to the centripetal force when we know that the centripetal force and the centrifugal force are totally independent of each other (as when gravity is the centripetal force) or that the centripetal force is reacting to the centrifugal force (as when tension in a string causes the centripetal force). This approach was born out of Isaac Newton being twisted in the face of what was effectively Goldstein's equation 3-12 being shown to him by Leibniz. Newton couldn't stand Leibniz because of the calculus priority dispute. Nevertheless, Newton's approach appeared in textbooks until the 1960's. It was purged from Nelkon & Parker in 1971.

The rotating frames approach is the modern approach that is most in vogue these days. It is the nonsense approach in which the Coriolis force becomes unscrewed from the pole and swings about freely like a weather cock. The truth is that Coriolis force is a transverse force that is tied up with the conservation of angular momentum. David Tombe (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal force

Brews, I'd be happy to have your feedback on my attempt to make this whole area more approachable and less driven by personal squabbles. Ideas on how to improve it? Is the summary style a net win? Where do you stand on this? Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

redshift

Hi, I'm involved in a very strange argument at the redshift article with someone who doesn't seem to want to engage in serious discussion. I note that you did quite a bit of work to that article recently and would be grateful for your input. Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Inkscape

Your diagrams are excellent, and I would like to suggest to you using Inkscape to create new diagrams. That way the files are svg and can be improved by other people. Let me know what you think. sanpaz (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could outline for me appropriate documentation to learn how to use this approach to figures? Brews ohare (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To know about what svg is I think the wiki page svg is good. For learning how to use inkscape go to Inkscape Documentation.

For writing equations in Inkscape I use textext which is an add on for Inkscape. Installing TexText is explained in that website. Let me know if I can help more. sanpaz (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The convenience of SVG is that you don't lose resolution in the diagrams as the image can be scaled (vector file), and that anyone can take the original file and modify its content to improve it. See some of the diagrams I have done using Inkscape for reference. sanpaz (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved this conversation from my page, just to keep it in one place. sanpaz (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Inertial Path

Brews, I conceded to Woodstone that I had made a mistake when I told you that ${\ddot {r}}=0$ is not the inertial path. I was indeed, as Woodstone pointed out, thinking of the scalar equation for the radial direction.

Can you now please repeat the point that you were making in light of me acknowledging this error. I accept now that ${\ddot {r}}=0$ is the straight line inertial path. It contains a centrifugal force, but no centripetal force. David Tombe (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that will help clear up some confusion. I always thought that when David mentioned ${\ddot {r}}=0$ was referring to the scalar distance (making this a circular path), not the vector. Dicklyon (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dick, I normally was referring to the scalar equation. Equation 3-11 is the radial scalar equation with the addition of a centripetal force. On the spur of the moment, I stupidly thought that the only difference with the vector equation was the extra transverse terms, and so I told Brews that he was wrong and that this equation is for circular motion, and not for the inertial path. Woodstone corrected me.

I think that we are all now agreed that the vector equation in question is for the straight line inertial path and that it contains all three of the inertial forces. Two of them are equal and opposite in the transverse direction and one of them is net radial. And the value and direction of these three inertial forces is totally dependent on our choice of origin. Such is the nature of them.

My ultimate point is that the rotating frame transformation equations are essentially one and the same thing. You are in partial agreement with me about this, in that you see them as being the same thing for the case of co-rotation. However, I see them as only applying to co-rotation, and that as such the rotating frame of reference becomes redundant. The textbooks use the idea of rotating frames of reference to cater for the apparent deflections that occur in non-co-rotating situations. I personally see this as nonsense. Those apparent deflections are not what is being described by the inertial terms. That is the big cock up that I trace back to Coriolis himself in relation to his category 2 supplementary forces.

I now further see Brews's point of view that the Leibniz equation is too specific. The Leibniz equation is a specific application of polar coordinates in which we introduce an inverse square law of gravity force as a centripetal force and use Kepler's second law to eliminate the two transverse terms.

Perhaps Brews wants a more general approach in which we merely expose the three inertial forces from the polar coordinates derivation and leave the Leibniz equation as one of a few examples, along with his rotating spheres. David Tombe (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

a comment on your drawing

See Talk:Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion#File:Anomalies.PNG. The drawing on eccentric anomaly is perhaps better? Bo Jacoby (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Centrifugal force

I did not realize that there were so many centrifugal force articles (disambig, reactive, fictitious, plus just regular old centrifugal force). Why not make Lagrangian centrifugal force its own article, in keeping with the rest of them? That would avoid the problems of undue weight. Rracecarr (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rracecarr: That is a good idea. However, it will take some time. It would allow a more extended development and the inclusion of general relativity, which would be very helpful. Are you interested in starting this page? I'll get around to it eventually. Brews ohare (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

Brews, you have restored erroneous and unverifiable content to wavelength three times already today (and I have taken it out three times). So neither of us should do that again for a while. Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Srleffler (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Brews, why not use the talk page to try to fill us in on your thinking, instead of adding a bunch of stuff to the article, backed only by sources that don't even mention wavelength in most cases? I'm at quite a loss still to understand where you're coming from, or where you hope these edits will lead in terms of explanation of the article topic. We've tried to listen, to explain your errors, to point you at sources that explain things better, etc., but you keep coming back to an idiosyncratic conception of connections to Fourier analysis and concepts otherwise unconnected to the topic or unsupported by sources. Slow down, think about it, tell us what you're thinking, and let's figure out where to go with it. There's no need to get this article back up to 20KB of mostly off-topic complexity. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

One way to get unstuck might be to try again with an RfC, but with a better-formed question that "Should the classic analysis of waveforms and wavelength be included in article Wavefunction?" and a less-biased writeup of the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for you to be blocked for violating 3RR after we both warned you. Dicklyon (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bye bye

You two guys (Dicklyon & Srleffler) have worn me out. You make no constructive or concrete suggestions and don't read what is written, but simply jump to conclusions about what is said. Since I know you can behave better, and don't always call people you have disputes with stupid and uneducated and ill motivated, I suppose that is reserved for me. Have fun, I am leaving for an extended visit to real life. Make your own articles and figures. Have a few beers. Brews ohare (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I offered many constructive ideas, but also did feel compelled to question your competence and motivation to edit in this area. Enjoy your beer. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Repeatedly inserting apparently non-standard material into a basic physics article, at Wavelength, per this complaint at WP:AN3. Such changes require consensus, and should not be forced into the article by edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brews ohare (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have no intention of continuing a war at Wavelength. It is amusing to see that I am blocked for not awaiting consensus, while the contribution now located at User:Brews ohare/Wavelength was deleted in its entirety by Dicklyon and Srleffler, with little attempt at consensus (or civility) , but based simply on their personal opinions, some of which contradict cited sources. The claim that this is nonstandard material is unwarranted, as the many citations show. This material, some of which goes back to d'Alembert in the 1700's, is standard in discussion of waveforms in most texts. The Talk page history also shows that they deleted this material within hours of the time a RfC was posted, and again after my objections to this treatment, thereby denying me any opportunity to get comment from other than these two opinionated gentlemen. Perhaps these tactics should not push me to too many reversions, but their high-handedness and incivility certainly do not engender cooperation or advance the projects on Wikipedia. I'd say my record of contributions to Wikipedia, and the nasty behavior of these two editors should result in repeal of the block. Brews ohare (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you'll commit to continuing to work to get consensus on the talk page, rather than continuing to edit war (regardless of how justified you think it might be), you'll likely be unblocked. Otherwise, wait it out. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your "record of contributions to Wikipedia"

Brews, you refer in your unblock request to your "record of contributions to Wikipedia". In fact, this is something I've tried to counsel you on several times before, and you always reject my input as "incivility". The edit histories of Centrifugal force, Centripetal force, Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), Speed of light, Matter, and many other articles show that your usual style is to focus on an article, quickly inflate it 50% to 300% with mostly-unsourced complexification of an idiosyncratic sort, with no cooperation with others, showing off your ability to write long symbol-soup derivations. I'm not saying that you are ill-intentioned, but I am at a loss to understand what motivates this editing style, and I am pretty sure that your contributions do not represent a net win for wikipedia. You alienate all other editors at every other article you work on, as far as I can tell. Very few editors have the patience or willpower to stand up against your persistence. When you started doing this 11 days ago on Wavelength, both Srleffler tried to talk you down, but you kept making it worse; you never found another editor to support you, nor did you find sources to connect your idiosyncratic interpretations to the topic of the article. You seem to be completely unable to understand our feedback, which is why we weren't able to do much beyond continuing to reset to a recent non-errorful version (we did incorporate a few bits of your ideas and lots of references along the way, as we tried to work with you). Please go back and read some of our talk comments, and understand that all of our comments were made in good faith, and rejected by you; give them another chance to soak in. Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Dick. I'd like to believe all that "constructive" criticism (which sounds a lot like character assassination), but I find it to be soap boxing. Your energy would be better spent in trying to improve Wikipedia by actually making constructive comments to subject matter instead of name calling and aspersions. Brews ohare (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that way, as that's how you always react to my advice. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As another example, we have Electromotive force. In a period of three days you applied over 100 consecutive edits, inflating it from 18 KB to 27 KB, with no other editor involvement and with few sources; you left the flaky narrow definition in the lead, rather than fix it to encompass the contents. Much of what you added is either erroneous, unsupported, disconnected, or of just tangential relevance. I've started to work on it, but it's hard to repair such fleshed-out for unsourced work. If you can drop back and take a look, your help there could be useful. I am particularly sensitive to unsourced assertions of confusion, such as "Occasionally, EMF is confused with the electrical voltage that it generates." It might be so, but so far I have been unable to find sources to support the distinction that you are asserting, or any confusion about; if I'm confused, I need to see the sources that help solve that problem. Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dick: The tone of this request, basically an accusation that none of the work I did here has value, does not encourage me to again engage with you in editing: I'm gun shy. Not to mention blocked: how did that happen? I'd tend to advise you to leave it alone until you understand it better, or wait until RGForbes returns. (He assures me he will return, just a bit occupied at the moment.) BTW, unlike your style of editing, I attempted to work with the article as I found it, and much of the organization and commentary in EMF did not originate with me. So please don't lay it all at my door.

The technical point that the article makes clear through several examples (or did before you edited it anyway), the EMF is not itself a voltage, but an expression of agencies that create charge separation. This agency may be, for example, chemical or the non-conservative part of an electromagnetic field. Once the charges are separated by this agency, the separated charges produce a conservative electric field that, by definition, can be expressed as a potential difference. That is, the EMF expresses the conversion of energy from one form (e.g. the chemical bond) to energy in the form of separated charges.

This verbiage is made most clear in a thermodynamic treatment, rather briefly made in the article, and found most commonly in the discussion of batteries. Brews ohare (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get into this debate about EMF, etc., but you ask above how it happened that you got blocked. You reverted the article more than three times in a 24 hour period. See WP:3RR. Reverting an article more than three times in 24 hours is always grounds for a block. I tried to help you out by warning you (above) when you went over the limit, but you reverted the article again anyway. This is one of Wikipedia's few rigid rules of conduct, and is meant to stop edit wars from happening. It also serves to prevent a single editor from continuing to push a specific version of an article despite the objections of a consensus of at least two other editors. Anyway, it looks like your block has expired. Welcome back. Hopefully we can work together productively in the future.--Srleffler (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I do understand the reversion rules, and my question above was really rhetorical. It appears to me that in dealing with Dicklyon at least, the preferred mode of operation is to let him delete and edit at will on the article page, and confine myself to the talk page entirely. Of course, that means Dicklyon is then a de facto gate keeper and nothing can appear on the article page without his OK. I don't like that, because his view of Wikipedia and my own are quite at odds, but what else is there to do? That is not a rhetorical question. Brews ohare (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Brews, the electromotive force article is another chance for us to find a way to work together. I've expressed what think the problems are with it, and have asked for help here and on the talk page. Help needs to include sources to back up a lot of what's there already and to clarify things that we've so far left unclear. It appears to me that the key problem that the notion of emf has many different meaning, and we need the article to clarify the relationships between them, rather than focus on one and call the others confusions. If "agencies that create charge separation" is part of the answer, we need to source that, but also need to not write it in a way that excludes transformer emf, where that concepts appears to not be applicable. Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate collaboration style

Brews, you've left the discussion and instead done 7 controversial edits this morning on electromotive force, removing a lot of sourced material and replacing it by your POV without clear reason for why that POV should dominate; WP:NPOV requires that we make a more balanced presentation. Why not stick to the discussion until we have a framework for proceeding? Dicklyon (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dick: My changes are sourced. Please read the sources. I am not advancing a point of view. Ross's point of view that the whole concept of emf is ambiguous is simply uninformed, and I have indicated why in detail. If you take exception to some points, please identify them and I will go into chapter and verse. Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How can you say you are not advancing a point of view when you remove material representing alternative points of view? I have been asking for more detail and explanation on the talk page; please don't add "chapter and verse" to the article until we resolve this. Dicklyon (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Electromotive force

As you will be aware, I did not make any reverts to that page without proper discussion on the talk page. The fact that you did not see these is itself evidence of the rapid-fire ill-considered editing I referred to on the talk page. I remind you once again that you are already under warning for disruptive editting. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You made no attempt to justify reversion beyond complaining about my editing style. I'm complaining about yours: intervention without understanding. Brews ohare (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read my comments you would have seen that I did outline my reasons both on technical and procedural levels. If you want to make contentious edits then you needs sources at minimum and and ideally a good deal of consensus before you make your change. Changes that do not have these and that actually remove material and sources that do not support your view should rightly be reverted. As for understanding, I really do not want to go there anymore as experience has shown it to be totally unproductive. I refer you to talk:speed of light, where I was among many editors to revert your changes and I spelt out in great detail why this was so. In stead of taking these comments on board you started a completely new thread several days later that completely ignored the previous comments I had made. CrispMuncher (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at the speed-of-light history if you provide me with the links. My recollection is primarily the problems I had with Martin, who could not distinguish between measured values and defined values, and between theoretically perfect vacuum and outer space. Brews ohare (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Such comments do you no credit. It is quite clear from my edits and comments that I fully understand the differences that you refer to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you do now. Brews ohare (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispersion relation

Hi Brews, I put some comments regarding your recent addition of a new section on: Talk:Dispersion relation#Dispersion and propagation of general waveforms. I am having a kind of writers block at the moment (regarding main space), otherwise I could have done part of these proposed changes myself. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your four queries about rotation

Brews, let's look at your four queries,

1. magnetism appears to be always linked to rotation, e.g. via the gyromagnetic ratio
2. rotation about an axis cannot be maintained to arbitrary radii without violating relativity
3. gravitation is associated with rotating systems in fact, and such systems are not explained by standard mechanics (e.g. the galactic rotation curve needs dark matter)
4. clocks cannot be synchronized in rotating systems Rizzi

The first one is easy. The H field is the angular momentum of Maxwell's molecular vortices. The B field is hence the flux density of the magnetic lines of force. Magnetism is steeped in fine-grained rotation and centrifugal force.

The second is also easy in my opinion. Relativity is wrong.

As regards gravitation, although it often arises in connection with rotation, it doesn't have to. The theory of gravity in isolation is a totally irrotational phenomenon. Rotation is only of importance when it comes to the issue of centrifugal force, since it is transverse stress that induces the outward pressure. Centrifugal force depends on rotation whereas gravity doesn't. When it comes to large scale cosmic phenomenon like galaxies, I have got very little to say on the matter. It is quite possible that Kepler's laws break down on that scale due to some aether hydrodynamical effects which are not recognized by the mainstream. The galaxies might even have some degree of mutual repulsion due to their spin. But I simply don't know.

On your final point about the clocks, I was not aware of that. It sounds interesting, but I can't think of any explanation off-hand. Clearly the rotation must be causing some kind of internal stress in the clocks which affects their periodicity mechanism. David Tombe (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brews. Your #2 above caught my eye. I assume you're thinking about the idea of a very large rigid object rotating about a fixed axis, such that parts of the object far from the axis might exceed the speed of light while points near the axis are rotating at a modest rate? This is a well-known paradox. The resolution lies in the fact that nothing is perfectly rigid, and in fact relativity forbids objects from being perfectly rigid. In practice, objects cannot even be perfectly rigid in a classical picture, since forces are transmitted through an object at a velocity around that of the speed of sound in that material.--Srleffler (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Brews and Srleffler, here are some points to consider,

(1) In a Newton's cradle, the final outcome is known immediately the incoming ball hits the row of balls. It couldn't be any other way because the incoming ball has to know instantly whether or not it is to rebound.

(2) If relativity rules out true rigid bodies, then on that basis, and for relativity to be preserved, all rotation of material bodies must be accompanied by a shear in which it rotates at different rates at different radial distances.

(3)If I slide a pen along its length on a table, are you seriously saying that the end of the pen only begins to move after a signal has travelled along the pen at a speed in the order of the speed of sound for that material? David Tombe (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

David, you're just showing what a nut you are. "Immediately"?!? Have you never heard of wave propagation, speed of sound, etc.? Yes on the pen; if you strike it one end, the other end won't move until the shock wave gets there. Don't worry, it's pretty quick so you don't have to worry about your pen distorting too much. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dick, that of course is the automatic first response. But you will need to think more about how the Newton's cradle knows instantly how to react? The incoming ball is hardly likely to wait for a return wave signal before it knows whether or not to rebound. David Tombe (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between fast and instantaneous. Yes, of course if you apply a force at one end of a pen lying on a table, the other end does not begin to move instantly. Similarly with the Newton's cradle: the balls do undergo some elastic deformation during the impact. They remain in contact long enough for a wave of deformation to propagate through all the balls and back to the first ball. --Srleffler (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Srleffler, I didn't come to the 'instantaneous' conclusion lightly. If the incoming ball rebounds, it will rebound due to the recoil of the compression at the contact point. However, if a match is detected up ahead, that compression won't even occur. Something kinetic will leave the incoming ball and travel along the row to the end ball, causing it to continue on as if it were a continuation of the incoming ball. I suspect that whatever that kinetic impulse is that it will be a kind of electromagnetic effect that will travel in the order of the speed of light. However, I suspect that there will be another leader signal which instantaneously recognizes whether or not a match exists. I suspect that there will be three kinds of signals involved in general. There will be mechanical deformation waves travelling in the order of the speed of sound for the material in question. There will be a kind of inertial/EM signal travelling in the order of the speed of light, and also an instantaneous pressure pulse which finds the path of least resistance.

An analogy exists in electric current. The current arcs sideways across the space between the wires when the circuit switch first goes on. Something instantaneously detects the path of least resistance. When matching inductors are in the circuit, waves similar in nature (but not identical) to EM waves travel between the two wires with great efficiency. When there are no matching inductors, the situation then gets more involved with particles flowing in the wire and dissipation resistance. David Tombe (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Brews ohare. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wavelength War

Brews, It has come to my attention that you are involved in a war at 'wavelength'. I had a quick look, but I didn't study the matter enough to discover what the key point of the argument is. I wouldn't have thought that 'wavelength' could have been such a controversial topic, but then likewise, others probably feel the same about 'centrifugal force'. I'm interested to know what the key point of dispute in this argument is. Is it something to do with the complications of multi- wavelengths in complex waves? Does it involve Fourier? If it involves analyzing Fourier, I won't be able to help out. Can you please explain to me, in as simple terms as possible, what the sticking point is. If it's about basic definitions, I might be able to add a comment, but I am unlikely to get drawn in fully. In summary, what are the two sides saying? David Tombe (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal Potential Energy

Brews, you appear to be doing a good job at Lagrangian Mechanics. Bear in mind this very simple fact. In a central force situation, kinetic energy that arises in connection with the transverse motion is effectively centrifugal potential energy. Seeing it like that will help you to comprehend the absolute rotation topic. David Tombe (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Free space and vacuum discussion

I will quote what you said on Talk:Speed of light for ease of discussion, and my points/questions follow:

Hi Pecos Joe: There is no argument that NIST "vacuum" and "free space" are one and the same as far as c is concerned. There also is no doubt that "free space" is used in some contexts to mean propagation in a medium like air, as distinct from a waveguide or the like. There also is no doubt that "vacuum" has a very, very much wider range of meanings, many non-technical, and many meaning again a medium, like terrestrial vacuum. So, I think your argument really comes down to this: “it doesn't matter what a general audience might conclude from its use; if "vacuum" is NIST's selection of term, who are others to argue, a large number of textbooks and papers notwithstanding?” Brews ohare (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

These following is mainly trying to point out why I consider vacuum to be more precise than free space, as a description of media, from a scientific viewpoint. Other points have been responded to on the SoL talk page.

· NIST does not use "free space" in publications as a synonym for "vacuum" (except when you include words like speed of light, permittivity, etc.), but some authors use the term as in Free Space Optics (but I do agree that the "speed of light in free space" is the same as the "speed of light in vacuum"). A reader with preconceived notions may read free space to mean air, or to mean perfect vacuum.

· A reader with preconceived notions may read vacuum to mean partial vacuum, or to mean perfect vacuum (or maybe ask themselves what carpet cleaners have to do with light). (Please note I would not normally use perfect to describe a vacuum, but will do so here for your benefit) Usually, an experimenter will describe the vacuum with a base pressure, or add some other qualifier to indicate the nonzero pressure.

So vacuum could mean 1 <= n < ~1.000001 (if vacuum could be confused to mean pressures less than 1 kPa), and free space could mean 1 <= n < 1.0001 (or whatever you want n_air to be). Thus, vacuum has a smaller worst-case error (same as range of meanings?), in contrast with what you said above. Finally, a reader that doesn't know what either means (general audience) will click a link to find out, if he is interested, and it doesn't really matter what it is called, as long as the name is consistent.

Please respond on this talk page (that is, your own talk page) with comments, as I prefer not to follow a discussion across several different pages. Thanks, Pecos Joe (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I put my comments on the SOL Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

Brews, before your section on Lagrangian was added to the centrifugal force article, the article would have had us believe that there are two kinds of centrifugal force. The first of these was supposedly only observable in a rotating frame of reference, and the second was supposedly the equal and opposite reaction to a centripetal force.

Consider a weight being swung in a circle on the end of a string with the angular speed steadily increasing. When the string snaps, what causes the string to snap? You will see that the answer does not lie in either of the two descriptions of centrifugal force that we had been restricted to prior to your introduction of Lagrangian into the article. The answer is a centrifugal force that can be observed from any frame of reference and which is not a reaction to any centripetal force. That centrifugal force is catered for by the Lagrangian formulation. But it is also equally catered for by the convective term in Goldstein's equation 3-11. David Tombe (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with altering image

I noticed that you are good with images. Do you have the capabililty to easily alter one of the images from the speed of light article, as I outline below, if you have time? The image is File:Speed of light from Earth to Moon.gif (sorry, couldn't figure out the link). The disappearance of the light beam as the animation goes from the last frame back to the first could be confusing (because for that to happen, the speed of light would have to be infinite), so I think a better way would be to have the Earth shoot a pulse of light at the moon. I will show my preferred way of showing this. Below, O represents Earth and o represents the moon.

(Beginning at the current last frame:

O----------o

O ---------o

O  --------o

O   -------o

Thanks, Pecos Joe (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pecos Joe: Unfortunately my skills do not extend this far. I think Dicklyon could help you. Brews ohare (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Speed of Light

Brews, I can see that you are getting into a pro-longed argument at 'The Speed of Light'. I haven't studied this argument in depth yet, but from what I have seen so far, I am unable to figure out exactly what the core point of the argument is. I do know from experience in these matters that when an argument like this occurs, it is usually because there is some fundamental clash over what should be emphasized, and that often, neither side wants to explicitly declare their motives. I haven't been able to ascertain as yet what the fundamental ideaological clash is between yourself and Martin. If you could explain that to me, I might be able to make some suggestions regarding a way forward. I have done alot of work on the speed of light and I hold views on the matter. But I have been keeping out of this debate because there is nothing useful that I could add to the introduction that wouldn't surely be relegated to the history section.

Unfortunately, right now, what I am observing at 'The speed of Light' is two editors in a prolonged argument who are both tip-toeing around their motives. In the centrifugal force argument, I was always open about my motives. I was open about the fact that I wanted the centrifugal force brought to attention in connection with the radial planetary orbital equation in the absence of any involvement of rotatating frames of reference. Those that were opposing me never wanted to disclose their motives even though it obvious that they were clearly uncomfortable with the radial planetary orbital equation, for whatever reason. But they wanted to claim that their interest lay exclusively in ensuring that wikipedia's rules and regulations were being upheld.

I think it would help at 'The Speed of Light' if you would openly declare the underlying point of view that is driving you,and what you think that Martin's opposing point of view is. From an earlier discussion on that page, I rather got the impression that Martin is very much of the opinion that space is empty and that there is no aether. Has Martin's point of view in that respect got something to do with the current argument? Often prolonged arguments digress away from the key point and move into trivia, semantics, and word order. Is that what is happening here, or is there a major point of dispute that I am missing? David Tombe (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi David: Well I've tried to state my "point of view" as one of logical and historical accuracy. I don't know what Martin's point of view is, other than he is always right, even down to where the commas go. His viewpoint has evolved, however, from a belief that c = 299 792 458 m/s was a platonic constant like π, and a related belief that "vacuum" was a god-given medium with the mystical property c = 299 792 458 m/s, to a belief that nobody but himself believes that, so he better back off. Brews ohare (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews, As the introduction stands at this moment in time, is there anything about it that you strongly disapprove of? At the moment, the talk on the talk page seems to be largely about presentation rather than about substance. I'm not inclined to believe that a prolonged argument can ensue merely over the issue of presentation unless there is some more important underlying issue involved that is too uncomfortable for the parties to explicitly highlight.

Secondly, can you give me an example of some input by Martin that you strongly object to? I need to get to the root cause of this dispute before I can give any advice. You have so far hinted that Martin sees the speed of light as being some kind of platonic constant like π. That could certainly be the grounds for a deeper dispute, but from what I can see right now, everybody seems to be tip-toeing around the main issues. David Tombe (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I've been continuing to follow the argument and I'm still not altogether sure of the point that you are trying to make. Is there a danger by any chance that you might be putting too much emphasis on a source that is clearly wrong? I may have picked it up wrongly regarding who is pushing what, but if a source is trying to say that the speed of light has got nothing to do with the speed of light, then clearly something must be wrong.

This topic of course lies right at the gate of special relativity, and so I will not be at all surprised if many illogical and conflicting sources exist about the matter. If however I could get a clearer picture regarding the ideaological difference between yourself and Martin, I may be able to make some suggestions as to how to resolve the dispute.

My own view on all of this is that the speed of light is the speed that light and other EM radiation travels at. There will be an up to date 'most accurate measurement' of that value. I can't see that there could be much more to be said on the matter. I would have thought that the real controversy would have been occuring on the permeability and permittivity pages where people could conceivably be arguing endlessly over the physical meaning of these two quantities and how they just happen to be related to the speed of light. David Tombe (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues: one is the speed of light vs. 299 792 458 m/s. The clearest source on this matter is Jespersen. I think the question here is not substance but presentation. Martin and Steve are afraid to call a spade a spade, and want to phrase things so they have to be read like a legal document to get the drift.

The second issue is the experiments regarding the independence of c from the motion of the source and the independence from the velocity of the observer. The experiments are agreed upon, although Martin insists on the only cited source being an unavailable book by Zhang, even though there are plenty of alternatives with the relevant discussions available on line. Here the present problem is that Martin insists upon an incorrect statement of the postulates of relativity. I don't know why he insists. I think all that is going on is a case of being annoyed at having his words changed, which he dresses up in all sorts of non-reasons. He went through a similar more short lived episode on his version of QED, but combined forces turned him off after a page of self-defense that he was right all along. It's just how he is. Brews ohare (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews, Martin seems to be objecting to the first line in the introduction. If Martin is a relativist, which I'm sure that he is, I don't see why he should be objecting to that line. I would object to it too because I am not a relativist, but that is beside the point.

What about offering Martin some kind of compromise in which matters pertaining to relativity get introduced further down the article. Why not go along with Martin for the first part of the introduction and then make a statement further down regarding the fact that the significance of the speed of light as an actual speed changed with the advent of special relativity and it then came to be viewed in the light of being a universal constant. This could be done in connection with a brief mention of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

In other words, begin by treating the speed of light just as you would treat the speed of sound. Then mention the dilemma associated with the Michelson-Morley experiment and the fact that this was (supposedly) resolved with Einstein's special theory of relativity, and that subsequent to relativity, the speed of light came to represent a universal constant with a significance that goes beyond that of merely being the speed of light.

As you know, I approach the Michelson-Morley dilemma differently. But I think that what I have said above represents an accurate account of how this aspect of physics is taught in the modern universities. David Tombe (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I've been monitoring the situation further and I have come to the conclusion that there are two jokers in the pack. One is of course the old postulate of relativity that the speed of light is a universal constant. But there is also a new joker in the form of the 1983 definition of the metre. These two jokers add together to make nonsense on top of nonsense.

As usual, you are trying very hard to make sense of the situation and to present it in a way that the readers will understand it. But my advice to you here is that it won't be possible to make any sense out of it. I can't help out directly in this edit conflict because anything that I have to say on the matter is purely for the historical section. I wish that we could bring all those 19th century classical values back again. But meanwhile, if it's a game of playing cards with modern sources to try and win a best presentation of modern nonsense, then I don't want to play.

My advice to you would be not to try too hard on this one. I don't like to see people ganging up on you, especially as I know that you are genuinely trying to learn and to improve the encyclopaedia. But this may be a case where if you stand back for a while and take a broader look at it all, you will see that you have merely been drawn into a quagmire about nothing worthwhile, and which you can never fully win because of the illogical nature of it all and the confusion that it has sewn amongst many editors. David Tombe (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks. It is a quagmire, to be sure. I believe the page in its form right now is acceptable, though not as clear as it might be.

The notion of c as a defined value is a point of confusion. At this point, Steve and Martin claim to accept the point that a defined value cannot be a measured value, but in their heart of hearts I don't think they really feel this way.

I gather you think this notion of a defined value for c is not only counterintuitive, but a mistake.

I think it is OK to do this, and the confusion could be clarified if it were made clearer how requirements upon a unit used for comparing measurements arise and are checked. Comparison is all that is involved, not establishment of absolute numbers.

Convenience in comparison favors units based upon easily established standards, so c stands out as very reproducible and convenient. However, the speed of sound in "standard" air could be used just as well, with a sacrifice in ability to reproduce the standard accurately from day to day and from place to place. Sound would have one advantage, though: it would be separated from relativity and electromagnetism and all the superstition surrounding those topics. Brews ohare (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

What's with the pointy edits about the Roche ref at speed of light? You're not replace a ref I removed, you're placing a ref from an unwarranted expansion that I removed. And then you're asserting that is has got the history mangled. Why not decide what you want, and try to do it right instead of just jerking the article, and us, around? Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's jerking who around, Dick? You can't read, and are too lazy to look at the source. Nothing you say in this remark has any bearing upon what I said or what the source says. The source explains how the history of Roemer's work has been mangled, not that the WP article has a mangled version of history. Wake up, and get that chip off your shoulder. Brews ohare (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So in the footnote where you said, "The mangled treatment of the history of these events is found in AP French (1990). "Roemer: a cautionary tale". in John Roche. Physicists look back: studies in the history of physics. CRC Press. pp. 120-121. ISBN 0852740018," you didn't actually mean to say that the source contains a "mangled treatment of the history of these events"? Forgive me for misinterpreting your words. But the source does not appear to include the word "manged" in it, so wtf are you trying to say? It would be better if you'd stop editorializing in footnotes; just say what needs to be said in the article, and cite a source that supports it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your fix is less "mangled", but this footnote doesn't support the text it's attached to, and seems to be an irrelevant aside. So I took it out again. What is its point, in your estimation? Can you fix it? Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your antipathy is showing. Brews ohare (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Gauge theory

Hi -- I thought you might be interested in the recent activity in Gauge theory and Nontechnical introduction to gauge theory. Both articles could still use work. --76.167.77.165 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for declaring an edit war at Speed of light in this edit. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brews ohare (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As any perusal of the Talk page at speed of light will show, I am not at all responsible for edit warring. In contrast, I have steadily employed the talk page for all dispute resolution. However, Martin Hogbin over-rode this discussion to put material under discussion on the article page, based solely upon his own individual viewpoint. I reverted that addition, once, and on the Talk page suggested that Martin seek resolution before amending the article. It is simply wildly irrational to say I am at fault here. I do not understand what action I took that provoked this sudden, unexplained block by Toddst1.

Decline reason:

Your statement that "I will revert any reintroduction of this material again, and if you re-revert you will violate the 3 reversion rule" indicates that you are intent on reverting someone else's contribution that you do not agree with until you get your way. We call this "edit-warring" (see WP:EW), and it is prohibited. You have been blocked to prevent you from acting on this statement.  Sandstein  13:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This decline reason is just fatuous, as instead of my outlining a possible course of events (the possibility of a reversion of repeated insertion of erroneous material under discussion before resolution on the Talk page), an outline which lead to this block, I simply could have followed this action with no warning outline whatsoever, and no block would have occurred. This completely stupid argument to support this block, simply suggests that I am being counseled in future to be less conciliatory and more abrupt in my actions. Brews ohare (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This does seem rather arbitrary and capricious, though in general I'm usually in favor of having Brews blocked for a few days to give others some space to edit without his heavy-handed interference. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "declaring an edit-war" is the most accurate characterisation of the edit in question; 55 hours seems rather long also. Given that the article in question has been protected, I'd be inclined to unblock if Brews ohare gave a good faith pledge to discuss the issues constructively and refrain from reverts.  Skomorokh  00:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Brews has to be unblocked because the whole point of locking the article is to let the most involved editors (which includes Brews) reach a compromize without edit warring. Count Iblis (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a totally one sided block. I don't see anything in the edit in question that states a declaration of 'edit war'. Brews has got a legitimate point which he wants to elaborate on in the article. Martin Hogbin is trying to prevent him from doing so, while accusing his opponents of crackpottery. I support the immediate unblocking of Brews ohare. David Tombe (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not hard to see how "I will revert any reintroduction of this material again, and if you re-revert you will violate the 3 reversion rule." could be interpreted as a declaration of an edit war, but I agree that for this one edit the block is not warranted, and excessively long. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I see this block as kind of harsh, but I do think, Brews, that you need to change your attitude regarding edit warring. The comment was certainly an escalation of a dispute from a discussion to an edit war. I don't like to see edit warring blocks over comments in a discussion but this was a blatant violation of WP:OWN. Mangojuice^talk 06:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The implications of the 1983 definition

Brews, While they are deciding, this is an appropriate opportunity to address your more specific queries. You were asking me about my views on space and how they are affected by the equation c^2 = 1/(εμ). On the 'speed of light' talk page, I didn't want to go ahead to that issue. But my view is very much the view of James Clerk-Maxwell that this equation is simply Newton's equation for the speed of sound, and that the electric and magnetic constants represent the transverse elasticity and the density of his sea of molecular vortices.

But we are not dealing with that in the current dispute. We are dealing with the fact that the 1983 definition of the metre makes the speed of light into a tautology. You want to elaborate on this fact in the article and I am supporting your right to do so.

The latest extension of this dispute has been with regard to the extension of the tautology to the electric permittivity ε. The extended tautology lies in the fact that you cannot define a quantity using an equation that only came about in the first place because of an experimental measurement of that same quantity. David Tombe (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

David, there is no "right to expand on this [tautology] in the article" unless there are sources that do that. The one source that Brews mentioned that included the word "tautology" turned out to represent a POV opposite to his (the "stupid mistake" that I mistakenly attributed also to Brews when he showed that source). So let's focus on stuff that's from reliable sources that connect it to the topic, and keep the complicating details out of the lead, and we'll be able to build a normal good wikipedia article instead of a battleground. Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if one defines a length as λ =ct, with c a defined numerical value, it is perfectly evident (a tautology) that when you measure any length this way, using the transit time t and the defined value of c, inevitably c = λ/t. That is all that is meant by the term "tautology" in this connection. Thus, any source that states that length is defined this way, for example BIPM, NIST, and five or six texts cited earlier, support the notion of a tautology. Brews ohare (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the cited text: Barrow et al. I'm afraid that it can be misconstrued. If several pages around this quote are read, my interpretation of the lines "With this definition it is clear that the speed of light will always be a constant... One does not need to perform any experiment to prove the speed of light: it is built into the definition of the units and so has become a tautology" should be read by replacing the phrase "the speed of light" with the phrase "the numerical value of the speed of light in SI units". This suggested replacement is based upon the topic of this paragraph being the SI definition of the metre, and the topic is not the physical entity "speed of light" as viewed from outside the SI units. Brews ohare (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that it is a tautology. It translates as "The speed of light is k times the distance that light travels in 1/k seconds, per second, where k can be any number, and we have decided to chose 299 792 458 in order to disguise the transition from the old system". But an even worse tautology arises where it spills over into electric permittivity. In that case we use the tautological value of c in an equation to determine a defined value for ε, where that equation only exists in the first place because of a measured vale of ε.David Tombe (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Dick, 'Speed' is the rate of change of distance with respect to time. If we define distance in terms of the speed of light, then the speed of light becomes defined in terms of itself. David Tombe (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, the speed of light is defined in terms of itself, in some sense. I think we get that. Which definition of tautology does that relate to? Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How about Tautology (logic): If length λ =ct where c=1 phoot/ns, and t is the time for light to transit the length λ, then c=λ/t must be 1 phoot/ns for any λ and any transit time t. Any other result is a contradiction, so the statement that this definition of length must produce c=1 phoot/ns is a tautology. Brews ohare (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you ever see that statement, call it a tautology. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I thought you were asking for a formulation of the standard definition in the form of a tautology; the definition does not have to be in that form for it to be a tautology, it just has to be recognized that it is possible to do so. Brews ohare (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Edit War

Brews, I intervened in your dispute at speed of light as a mediator in order to find out what it was about. Basically you wanted to clarify the change that has arisen in the concept of the speed of light as a consequence of the 1983 re-definition of the metre. But you encountered a certain group who had a vested interest in making sure that the matter wasn't clarified.

I made my opinions on the matter clear and the administration have now given their answer to that. FyzixFighter and Physchim62 squealed at ANI and an admin instantly pandered to them, broke the rules, and decreed an indefinite topic ban. It was the typical knee jerk reaction that I have come to expect. The same will happen to you too, so my advice is to steer clear of it and don't play into their hands.

Your point has been more than adequately made, and it would now be in your own interests to leave the matter well alone. If you haven't already done so, read Nineteen Eighty-four by George Orwell. It deals with the whole issue of 'deletion of history' and why deletion of history is so important to propagandists.

If you go back to the page, they will surely steer you into a lengthy block. Don't play into their hands. Let them have their Nineteen Eighty-four physics. Let the public be confused. It's not your problem if the public are confused. I know you wanted to help, but if the system doesn't allow you to help, you don't have to be like Atlas and carry the world on your shoulders. David Tombe (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi David: Yes, I see that the page has been hijacked and there is no attempt being made to deal with the issue. Sources are not addressed, majority rule has been implemented and the whole thing stinks. Brews ohare (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I tried to find you on e-mail at google. Dicklyon recently said that we don't really know who you are, and he's always accusing you of over expansion. Maybe you can give him this secondary source to use for evidence at the next Beeblebrox's Circus. [9]. And by the way, I was reading the wikipedia article Nineteen Eighty-four. It really is a very well written article. But don't let your experiences here tempt you to over expand it. They'll block you, but not until you've first acknowledged the party line. David Tombe (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A mob mentality is evolving where there is no need to use sources or to provide argument for positions. On this basis one has simply to round up a half dozen cronies and descend upon a page to plaster your viewpoint. Brews ohare (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So now it's a conspiracy theory of "a certain group who had a vested interest in making sure that the matter wasn't clarified" and a mob mentality "where there is no need to use sources or to provide argument for positions"? You guys are so cute! Dicklyon (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I've been making a few representations to higher authorities, but this guy Finell keeps interposing himself in the exchanges. An editor on Jimbo Wales's talk page claimed that the sources that are being using at the speed of light talk page are my writings. I have urged him to come back again and put the record straight. Meanwhile, Finell bought the idea. When I put Finell right, he then decided that your sources need to be clearly cited. From what I can see, you have already cited them many times. I have looked at two of them and they contain good quotes that should back up your case. I'm not allowed to go to that page and set the record straight, so I suggest that you yourself voluntarily pull out of this circus and finish with one final statement which includes direct quotes from your sources. Beyond that, you can do nothing more. Don't play into their hands by giving the administration the opportunity to topic ban you for circular arguing. You want to at least retain your right to return to the article some time in the future when wiser counsels are prevailing. Make one final statement, hold your sources up high in the air for the administrators to see, and then leave. That is the dignified option in the circumstances. David Tombe (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

Hi Brews, I have a request for you at Talk:Wavelength#Figure showing interference. Thanks, Awickert (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have updated this figure to use the same vertical scale in all panels. Brews ohare (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry it took me so long to get back to it; busy lately, Awickert (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Speed of Light article

Brews, The speed of light article now lacks any mention at all of the alternative way in which the speed of light is arrived at from the experimental determination of the electric and magnetic constants. It seems to have been purged from the textbooks since 1983, although I did find it in a 1995 version of "Nelkon & Parker". Maxwell's method was still mentioned down in the history section until Tim Shuba removed it a few hours ago. This is an example of deleting history that certain people don't like to be reminded of. It's straight out of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four. And watch your back because they are talking about you at the AN/I again in a new section started by Headbomb. David Tombe (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, David. The connection to Maxwell's pertinent observation that epsilon mu is connected to the speed of light should be in there. I really don't understand the psychology behind this lynch mob. There is simply some delight in pounding as a group, without regard for the sense of it all, or whether it is a proper mode of operation. Quite amazing considering that the speed of light is not actually a religious or political topic. It would be more satisfying to all to arrive at a correct and clear exposition, but this behavior will not arrive there. Brews ohare (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews, The amazing thing is that the history section no longer contains the story that is the most significant of all in the history of the speed of light. That of course is the convergence of the measured speed of light by Fizeau with the experimental results of Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch that showed the linkage between the measured speed of light and the electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio.

Yet instead, we have a re-iteration of the modern post-1983 position in the history section. This clearly proves that your opposition is entirely motivated by the desire to stamp the most up to date position over the top of any explanations as to how we came to be in that situation. The history of the topic is clearly something that they don't want to be reminded about, and so a history section has to be eventually grafted into a repitition of the present. I can go to a library and read about Weber and Kohlrausch in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography by Charles Coulston Gillispie. But in wikipedia, certain aspects of history, some of which are even still part of the present, are being systematically deleted by the likes of Tim Shuba and a group who are going around boldly referring to their opposition as 'crackpots'. And the non-physics readership at AN/I seem to take on board these allegations hook, line ,and sinker. David Tombe (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning over your comments concerning the speed of light

As I've just mentioned on Talk:Speed of light, I find that your contributions on this subject are quite disruptive. You wish to advance a point of view which is quite obviously held only by an extreme minority, that is that most of physics was destroyed by the decision of the CGPM to fix the speed of light in SI units in 1983. I note that you are by far the most prolific contributor to Speed of light [10] and also on Vacuum permittivity, where your "contributions" made it to WP:AN [11]. You are also the most prolific contributor on Centrifugal force, slightly ahead of User:David Tombe: in this case, your efforts led to an inconclusive attempt to get you and David Tombe topic-banned from the article [12]. Should you continue to block up the talk pages and article histories of physics articles in order to promote your personal point of view as to what is physics – a point of view which has been roundly rejected as absurd by other editors – I shall have no choice but to ask for you to be banned from all such pages. Physchim62 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews, Reading the paragraph above by Physchim62, I found a link to your dispute about measuring electric permittivity. I didn't realize that you also have had an argument with Steven G. Johnson about the same thing. It was possible to measure vacuum permittivity before 1983, and I even taught the experiment. It's in the "Nelkon & Parker" 'Advanced Level Physics' textbook (1979 fourth edition). It's actually still in the 1995 (seventh edition) but I did a search at the science library last week and discovered that this experiment has been purged from most modern textbooks. And yet they are all trying to say that physics hasn't changed any following the 1983 re-definition of the metre? What beats me is how some people choose to rally around the new definition of the metre in order to hush out those who have pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes. David Tombe (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Physchim62, your characterization of my position “that most of physics was destroyed by the decision of the CGPM to fix the speed of light in SI units in 1983.” is absolutely a complete fabrication on your part. There is no statement of mine like this made in any venue at all. It is completely a figment of your imagination, and an indication that perhaps Physchim62 is Psycho62. Please do not attribute to me statements of your own invention. Brews ohare (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Speed of Light

Brews, I see that the introduction has been further messed up with inaccuracies. My understanding of the matter is that the supposed constancy of the speed of light was used as a postulate for deriving the special theory of relativity. It now states in the introduction that it is a consequence of that theory. The spacetime concept was Minkowski's and not Einstein's. And there is now a double decker mess, in that it is being billed as a conversion factor between mass and energy. Which speed of light is a conversion factor between mass and energy in E = mc^2? Is it the physical concept of speed of light or is it the numerically defined speed of light that is supposedly a conversion factor between length and time? The introduction truly is a mess now. That's what happens when they bring relativity into the introduction. Relativity should be reserved for a special section. There's no better way to confuse the non-physics readership than to introduce a topic in conjunction with relativity. David Tombe (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Avoid edit summaries that antagonize others

Please don't purposefully antagonize other editors with edit summaries like these: [13] [14] Jehochman ^Talk 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, Once again you demonstrate your bias. You never bat an eyelid at the many insulting edit summaries that have been directed when edits of mine have been reverted. And by the way, your topic ban was unlawfully constituted and therefore has no effect. If the system wants to support you then it only mocks itself and all its own rules. David Tombe (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

Thanks! I think the discussions have been useful so far. Even though we still disagree, the source of the disagreements is now more clear to me. If you agree with the general point made in my latest reply, we could think about making some edits to the article that would more or less make the point you wanted to make. Count Iblis (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. My points relate to usage of "exact" in connection with 299,792,458 m/s, which strikes me as a bit extreme considering that prior to the 1983 decision it was actually measured at 299,792,458 ± 1.2 m/s, and post that the ±1,2 m/s gets buried in the metre. Of course, the definition is exact, but made so by changing the wording "speed of light" from reference to a fact of nature to a fact of committee decision. Abstract gets the point; Martin never will; Finell will follow Martin anywhere; Dicklyon doesn't give a damn, as long as I don't contribute. So I'm going to just sit and watch. Other than that, I've tried to put this subsection into the article, which seems to me to make clearer the implications of switch to transit-time defintions of length. However, the WP:TAG TEAM above aren't going to allow that, no matter how innocuous it is. They will not allow me to contribute anything other than changes of punctuation. It's all a lot beyond the pall, and indicates radically bad behavior with no intention to address content. I get no points for contributing "Speed of light by definition", correcting the history section, adding stuff about cosmology, and making figures, etc. I don't know what I want to do about it. Brews ohare (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that hitting your head against the wall is not productive. My reaction after reading the speed of light was that I didnt understand what the point of the article really was. it just seemed to be a collection of contradictory and confusing ideas. The history section is useless if it doesnt include the work of what led Maxwell to his great discovery. This is probably the most important point in the entire history of the subject, but it is gone now. So I doubt if anyone who wants to learn something will ever learn anything from reading that article. I think the user is always shortchanged by wikipedia articles as they arn't written for him at all.72.84.66.85 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point, or several points. The part of the history section that got fixed was about Rømer (over Martin's dead body; fortunately we had a historian that could read Danish.), but of course you are right about the Maxwell stuff. Brews ohare (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your point about speed of light

Hi Brews, it seems that a topic ban is looming. Now, I think it is possible to more or less make your point in the article, and the topic ban can be avoided. I announced that here. The only thing is that one has to argue in a more concrete way from theory instead of purely phenomenologically, because then you get in these never ending disputes. I think all you have to do is to accept my intervention in this matter. Count Iblis (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. Jehochman ^Talk 03:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Count Iblis: Give it a try, by all means. Brews ohare (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Please attend to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Speed_of_light and comment if you wish. Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hand the article over to Steve Byrnes

Brews, In case you didn't notice, I did actually oppose the motion at AN/I to have you topic banned (6th Sept. at 2.50hrs), but it was removed twice. Anyhow, since the matter is now looking like it's going to go to arbitration, I have suggested that Steve Byrnes write the speed of light article in consultation with written submissions from all the disputing parties, and that all the disputing parties then retire from the scene altogether. What do you think about that idea? Meanwhile, Have you noticed how some editors turn up with so-called evidence of disruptive behaviour, but when you actually open their evidence up and examine it, it turns out to be merely chunks copied out from talk page debates as if that is actually supposed to constitute evidence of disruptive behaviour? I presume that they are banking on the fact that the so-called evidence won't be examined in depth. Was that what you meant by a hill of beans? It's a good expression.

You've worked with Steve Byrnes in the past and you know what he is like. What impressed me most about him recently was the fact that when I raised the query about experimental measurements of electric permittivity, he promptly came forth and acknowledged the existence of the relevant experiment. Everybody else tried to sweep that experiment under the carpet because it isn't compatible with the new unmeasurable speed of light.

Something drastic has to be done to end the deadlock at speed of light and to get you off the hook, and away from it. I think that Steve Byrnes is the man for the job. He knows his electromagnetism. I've been right through Maxwell's equations with him, and I know that he knows them. David Tombe (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi David: I've had a number of engagements with Steve Byrnes and he has often disagreed with me. However, I do believe he understands what discussion is and can distinguish it from diatribe and entertainment. So, yes, I'd agree that his opinion would be acceptable. Brews ohare (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I have had big disagreements with him too. But the ensuing debates revealed his worth to me. He is a good mathematician and he knows how to present things in a balanced way. My big disagreement with him was over how to link up the two aspects of Faraday's law. A the end of it we both saw the full picture. I had to concede that my derivation invoked an archaic use of E as electromotive force, that is no longer used in modern textbooks. But he did see the picture. We both left that argument sadder, but wiser men. I think he'd make an excellent arbitrator in this particular dispute. David Tombe (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing practice

Completely apart from disputes over content, you could reduce one source of your friction with others by a change in your editing procedure, especially on talk pages. It is obvious that you like to be careful in the way that you express yourself, which is admirable. And like all careful writers, you go through a cycle of writing and rewriting. The best place to do this is not on the page where you intend to post, but somewhere in your user space—on a separate page in your user space that you use for drafting, an article- or topic-specific page in your user space, or even on your User or Talk page (you can delete the draft after you finalize and post it). Unintentionally, the number of edits you make in a short period of time (I've experienced it mostly on talk pages) makes it difficult for others to work on the same page. Another solution is to take ample time while composing a post and use the Show preview button often until you have it the just the way you want it; however, user space drafting works better for longer posts, in my experience. A few times when you and I have been active at the same time at Talk:Speed of light, I've had to attempt the same post 2 or 3 times, immediately after one another, because of edit conflicts with your rapid, multiple edits. I am not saying that you should never edit a post after you make it; I (mea culpa) sometimes see mistakes after I post, either right after I save or sometime later, and I correct them. However, it would help if you could change your regular practice of rapid, multiple edits. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

I was considering making the same suggestion. As you know I have some sympathy with your content issue on SoL but your editing style leaves much to be desired ... and I include in that your somewhat challenging edit summaries. Fix your style and you may be surprised at the improvement in the response your ideas get (that's not to say others will agree with you but they may not disagree just because it is you; they may even be willing to cooperate, discuss or simply find a form of words that leaves everyone happy. Abtract (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for your advice. It does constitute behavioral modification, but I'll make effort in that direction. Brews ohare (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

This is a courtesy note to inform you that a notice regarding evidence submission and general conduct has been added to the speed of light evidence page.[15] Please review your evidence submission to ensure that it meets the standards requested. This is not a message targeted at your submission, but rather a general note. You are being informed because you have submitted evidence prior to the posting. Thank you for your time, attention, and understanding. Vassyana (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP: ESCA

Hi Brews,

I'm ok. with your edits. I'll write on the talk page of that page more about my experiences that make these guidlines necessary. Count Iblis (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Response re scope of the Speed of Light arbitrary case

Hey Brews,

Per Vassyana's case acceptance statement, I believe that it is allowed (and useful) to examine broadly the behavior of all parties not only at speed of light, but also at related physics pages. TotientDragooned (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to judge editors based upon partial evidence selectively collected from other venues by editors with an axe to grind and use that biased reportage stripped of all context to make decisions that extend outside the Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light. The evidence and the statements collected are not collected with broader implications in mind, will be only partially oriented toward any broader objective, and will not weigh the considerations properly for a different context. Brews ohare (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman had started the arbcom request with "We've had lengthy discussions at WP:ANI about tendentious editing and disruption at speed of light." But a quick search of recent ANI cases shows several others in the last few months, reporting essentially the same behavior problems, on different articles. I don't know why he asked that the case be called "speed of light". Probably he felt that would be less loaded than calling it "Brews ohare". But let's don't try to restrict the discussion to one small subset of the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dick, If you are talking about Beeblebrox's circus, nothing was proved from that. The decision was made to have an arbitration hearing regarding the speed of light article. It's too late now to redefine it. To do so would involve a whole new set of statements from new witnesses in relation to other disputes. The wish was expressed by one arbitrator to have this hearing concluded as fast as the speed of light. I don't think they are going to want to slow it all down by turning it into the biggest circus that wikipedia has ever witnessed, involving enquiries into past debates on a variety of topics. Where will it end? Do we bring in all the topics that Martin Hogbin has been involved in with other people? Do we bring in the topics that you got blocked at in which Brews and I weren't involved? I can see that one of those topics would be dynamite at such a circus. David Tombe (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dick: If this is to become Case/ Brews_ohare it should be started over again, and all that I have done on WP can become fodder for your mill. However, I think there is no basis for such a thing just because you don't like that I make a lot of edits, don't go for your cryptic one-line Edit summaries, and occasionally force you to actually defend your instant reverts. Brews ohare (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's proposing to go that far, but since the majority of recent contributions to the speed of light and its talk page are from you, and since the majority of the behaviour complaints are about you, you shouldn't be too surprised that the case is largely about your behavior. Dicklyon (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I invite you to read my comment (No. 48) to "Faraday's Law of Induction." Mike La Moreaux (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link and some idea of why I should look this over. Brews ohare (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Retirement

Brews: If you sincerely wish to retire from Wikipedia, you should inform the ArbCom in some formal way. That might be sufficient to avoid ArbCom from making formal findings against you or imposing sanctions. One way might be to make a motion to withdraw as a party to the arbitration on the ground that you are retiring from Wikipedia. There is also the template {{Retired}} that you can put on your user and talk pages to announce your departure, but that probably would not, by itself, stop ArbCom from acting. I am no expert on these procedures (this is my first arbitration). However, if you want to do something like this, you you should contact one of the ArbComm members or possibly the clerk assigned to the case. —Finell (Talk) 03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think retirement during arbitration would change the outcome either way. It would be better to let the user have space to decide how they want to participate (or not). Jehochman ^Talk 04:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell: I am not retiring, just stepping way, way back. The possible outcome of this arbitration has nothing to do with it, but the atmosphere you have participated in creating has everything to do with it. Brews ohare (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, This is wikipedia's moment of truth. The argument has been clearly laid out. We haven't heard from any of the arbitrators yet. It's a matter now of waiting to see what happens. The argument that I put up yesterday is irrefutable. We have seen the usual attempts to obfuscate it and change the subject. The arbitrators have seen one party putting their argument forward and another party going around presumptuous and confident that this whole thing is about getting the two of us expelled for "behavioral problems". Just sit back and wait it out. David Tombe (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK Brews, I've just read through all the recent edits. My advice to you now is to do nothing more until the arbitrators begin their question and answer session. At some stage those who are sabre rattling about 'behavioural problems' will have to elaborate. Just be patient and wait it out. Don't be provoked into behaviour that would play into their hands. You have already made your point adequately. When you stop editing, the others will stop, and the question and answer session will then begin. There are alot of lies being told at the moment. The arbitrators will read through it all carefully. You have to trust them. As I said above, it is now wikipedia's moment of truth. I don't want to see you getting wound up about all the lies. It will all come out in the wash. David Tombe (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Departure

Hi Brews, I hope that you reconsider. There are many topics here on wikipedia that you may be interested in that are not edited by your opponents on the speed of light article. Count Iblis (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

One-way speed of light

Brews, I have been sceptical that the difference in definitions of the speed of light would make any real difference, then I found this: Page 71 of the book The arguments of time By Jeremy Butterfield says that the 1983 definition of the metre has implications for testing the one-way speed of light by virtue of changing the meaning of speed. See also Talk:one-way speed of light. Charvest (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Some Advice

Brews, When unsubstantiated malicious allegations are made, it is important initially that these allegations are strongly refuted. Lies must be kept in check. But if you continue to refute them for too long, it starts to spam the pages up, and it can be counter-productive. The arbitrators need a bit of time to examine the facts of this case. I think that they have already got all of those facts. I'm not happy that so many lies have been allowed to fester for so long, and I can fully sympathize with why you feel the need to keep going back to counteract those lies. But my advice to you now is to leave it all alone until the question and answer session begins. The less that the arbitrators have to read, the better. David Tombe (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. I felt that no response might appear as acceptance of statements made, especially in the case of Dicklyon and Physchim62. However, I will adopt your advice and leave things alone. Brews ohare (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That of course is always a big danger. No response can indeed be interpreted as a tacit admission of guilt, which is why it is necessary for you to respond, as you have already done, and as I have already done. But there is a subtle balance in all these matters. The arbitrators will not be initially familiar with the details of the dispute and it will take them a bit of time to get focused on what it is all about. They will see alot of allegations, and they will see refutations. They then need time to digest it all before asking questions. We are now at the stage when it is best to say nothing more until asked. David Tombe (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence length

Hello, Brews. Your current evidence section on the Speed of Light case is well over the 1,000 word limit. I've already moved some of your posts to the evidence talk page, as it appeared to be largely responses to other evidence and not evidence in itself, however if you could shorten your section that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have moved my comments on Dicklyon here putting me at the 1000 word requirement. Brews ohare (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Civility: a little advertising wouldn't be amiss

Hi Brews: You might want to leave notices on the other policy pages regarding your suggested change to the Civility policy to make sure you have community wide input, generally required for Policy changes since they can affect the whole community. Apologies if you were already aware of this. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

A RFC is great... you could also try Village Pump, then the talk page for NPOV, OR, Verifiability and then maybe some of the bahavioural policy talk pages...(olive (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

Very nicely done!(olive (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

Hi again Brews. To be honest I don't know if I agree with the change you are suggesting or not although with different wording I think it might be fine . What I do dislike and see no excuse for is the tone of some editors on that page. You have a right to ask for civility especially on that page no matter what ever else is going on. You have maintained a civil tone as far as i can, and that's to your credit. I have a deadline today and am also tied up on another discussion so can't do much in investigating your edit suggestion, but best wishes. It looks as if you may have consensus against adding the change, and that is usually what will determine whether the change should be added or not.(olive (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

Hi olive: Yes, it looks to me like any mandatory requirement is an anathema. However, the contribution by Rd232 looks useful, and may be the best that can be done. It's a bit surprising to me that some respondents actually couldn't understand the proposal, making me wonder what their reverts are like.

The spillover of incivility from Talk: Speed of light and how rapidly it snowballs is a serious concern to me. This kind of thing makes editing WP a chore, like hornets at a picnic.

Thanks for the guidance and kind words. Brews ohare (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's degenerated to new depths

Brews, It's degenerated to new depths. Attempts are now being made to steal our position in the argument and to reverse the roles. David Tombe (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary duplication

It's not necessary to repeat essentially the same text (that was recently added to WP:CIV) across several different policy, guideline, and essay pages. Aside from being redundant, posting multiple copies of the same text makes it more difficult to discuss, maintain, or update. Points about civility and etiquette generally belong in the policy pages bearing those names. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding section without consensus

Please don't continue copying that section around until you have consensus to do so. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please

Please ease off on your policy push. Please also note my response and advice to you on my talk page. Trying to implement policy changes based on a dispute while in the midst of it is ill-advised, at best. In addition, the reply heavy approach to discussion, copying the advice across several policies, and the immediate revistation of discussion on a point that received heavy opposition from a variety of editors only serves to support claims of that you have a tendentious style of editing. I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith, but please reflect on how your efforts can be seen in a poor fashion and reinforce negative perceptions of your editing style. Vassyana (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana

1) Trying to implement policy changes based on a dispute: False statement. A normal RfC was presented as below, and has no basis whatsoever in a dispute (namely, in Case/Speed of light):

Proposed addition to WP:Civil:

* Use of guideline abbreviations such as WP:POV as a shorthand in one-line Edit Summaries justifying reversion may prove offensive to the reverted editor, particularly in the case of sourced contributions. If a clear statement of the reason for labeling a reversion WP:POV, WP:Fringe, WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:NOR and so forth cannot be fit into the one-line Edit Summary, a Talk page explanation of the evaluation is encouraged because it is less likely to generate heated debate on the Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely evident that even if this policy change were made, it would have no effect upon Case/Speed of light.

2) The heavy approach to discussion: The "heavy approach" consists in having a discussion: that is, I replied to the comments. I was neither argumentative nor impolite.

3) Copying the advice across several policies: I copied advice implemented by Rd232 from WP:Civil to WP:POV and several others mentioned directly in the RfC in an attempt to make them visible to those who might not think to look at WP:Civil. That action is innocent.

4) The immediate revisitation of discussion on a point that received heavy opposition from a variety of editors: The original proposal made requirements upon the use of the one-line Edit Summary mandatory. The proposal above was patterned after the contribution of Rd232 and did not make any mandatory requirements. Requesting additional input to see if the changes worked seemed a natural thing to do.

5) Reflect on how your efforts can be seen in a poor fashion and reinforce negative perceptions of your editing style. This remark appears to me to be a conclusion as much as a recommendation, especially coming from the Arbitrator of Case/Speed of light. Moreover, my "editing style" on the RfC consists of completely civil, normal responses to comments; there is nothing tendentious about it.

I'd say Vassyana shows no understanding of what has happened here, and has taken the complaints of Jehochman at face value. Brews ohare (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Postings like this, and the comments on my talk page should go to the case pages, where they can more easily be found by all other arbitrators. As an aside, I'm going inactive on your case. Cool Hand Luke 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Some Advice

Brews, When an argument shifts to the issue of the fact that the error must be yours because you are outnumbered, it is usually a sure sign that you are right. A majority who are correct never say this to their minority opponents. They simply ignore them. So don't fear when you see certain self appointed spokesmen for the management who aren't actually part of the management, but who talk in terms of the 'royal we', trying to make you think that your point of view is a behavioural malady in need of psychiatric treatment. That tactic is a sign of fear on their part.

There is no need for you to be bothering with the policy guidelines at this stage in the proceedings, so forget about them. Those who are against you now will always be against you. Those who are for you are unlikely to turn against you. So just wait it out. David Tombe (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, David. I'll do that. Brews ohare (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Also Brews, don't feel intimidated into volunteering restraints upon yourself, or your requests will surely be obliged. Just wait to see what happens. Don't repeat the folly of the geese in Animal Farm who went up to confess. They confessed to crimes that they hadn't committed, thinking that they would be treated leniently for having confessed. They got their heads cut off. And more geese went up behind them to confess, having seen what happened to the first lot. They also got their heads cut off. And even after that, yet more went up to confess, and they got their heads cut off too. David Tombe (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

David, with all respect, you are giving out bad advice and steering this editor into more trouble. Brews, find a mentor, anybody you like who is not actively in trouble. David Tombe is leading you down a very bad path. Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

David, your analogy with the geese may be accurate. We'll see. I would hazard that in fact sanctions will be imposed upon me, which I find ridiculous as my actions have all been well-motivated, within guidelines, well sourced, and my conduct has been no less than saintly. However, my recent experience at WP:Civil as well as my experience on Speed of light and at Case/Speed of light has been disillusioning. Editor conduct has been shocking and disgusting. I suspect WP unfortunately is in a downward spiral to its demise as either another version of the Jerry Springer Show, or as a set of fiefdoms controlled by fanatics. If so, that is a great loss and the end of a noble experiment. I'm very sorry to see it. It could be avoided, I've suggested how, but I don't think it's going to be fixed. Brews ohare (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It will all come down to whether or not the management allow themselves to be steered by the management groupies. The management groupies are not actual management, but they go around behaving like management and interposing themselves and intruding on all representations to management. Management groupies even presume to be spokesmen for management, while carefully making a point of voicing their approval and total unequivocal support for every management decision. Strong managers can see right through management groupies and they either ignore them or kick them out the door. But weak managers allow themselves to be controlled by management groupies. This case will sort out the sheep from the goats. David Tombe (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Heading

Brews, just so you know, I changed the topic heading to "Some Advice 2" (which you reverted) so I could link to it. When more than one heading (of any level) on a page has the same name, linking to the heading name jumps to the first heading with that name. For that reason, the MOS advises against having a duplicate heading (I know, the MOS doesn't govern talk pages). Since you objected to the change (which is your right), I changed my link to the diff. Finell (Talk) 19:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Brews ohare (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Finell (Talk) 22:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

One line edit summaries

I am curious where you got the idea. The reason I ask is because it fits my modus operandi to a tee. Your answer will determine whether or not I take much more notice. CpiralCpiral 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cpiral: This idea came from ny experience in a difficult environment on Speed of light where my attempts to insert a well-sourced contribution has been frustrated by a group of editors who (according to me) don't understand it and are unwilling to discuss it. The wording was largely created by Rd232 at WP:CIVIL where I proposed an RfC. Because I am presently in the dock having cabbages thrown at me on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, I am unable to pursue matters at the moment.

As indicated in the proposal, my feeling is that reversion of sourced material using a one-line Edit Summary is very unlikely to end so simply. It very probably will go to a Talk page discussion and, although one might hope that could happen with all gentility, it very often begins with a skirmish that has a high risk of ending up in various undignified behavior. Although it's hard to assemble any data on this, my hunch is that avoidance of the one-line Edit Summary probably would result in more thought on the part of the reverting editor, and probably would lead to a cooperative stance that would end with a useful contribution and two happy editors instead of a bull fight. Brews ohare (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for expressing this sentiment and advertising the problem at the administrative level. It matches my observations for similar attempts. That's all well and good for the project. OK, but why did you put your idea in the fringe theory article. I don't see you edit there much. CpiralCpiral 21:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was following a suggestion that because the proposal mentioned several different WP pages, it would be wise to alert the affected pages that the proposal was out there. Brews ohare (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Brews, The very fact that you incurred Finell's displeasure by withdrawing your concessions, proves beyond any doubt that you did the right thing. You saw how important those concessions were to Finell, and you correctly noted that Finell himself never offered any concessions. A bureaucracy only likes to use its raw executive power as a last resort, and it will surely do that if necessary. But it much prefers to obtain voluntary confessions and concessions in order to create a veneer of consensus. It can usually obtain these voluntary confessions and concessions by creating an atmosphere of fear that something worse will happen if the voluntary confessions and concessions are not forthcoming. Never allow yourself to fall into that trap, and always remember Sir Winston Churchill's famous sentiment, that nations which go down fighting will rise again. If you make voluntary concessions in order to atone for crimes that you did not commit, believe you me they will rub your face in the muck, and you'll have relinquished all your moral basis for objecting to the injustice. If you complain, they will say 'But did you not agree that you had acted wrongly? Did you not ask us to impose these sanctions upon you?'

Sit back now and watch what is going to happen. My guess is that there will be some arbitrators who have got investigative ability, and who will be able to distinguish right from wrong, and act accordingly. They will brush intruding wannabe administrators aside. There will also be some arbitrators who prefer to be one of the boys and support the mob. They will be more than happy with wannabe administrators running around taunting the opposition about their block records and reading out the 'de jure' purpose of the arbitration hearing, while ignoring the very obvious 'de facto' reality. It's very handy to have a wannabe that can do all the dirty work and allow the actual management to keep their hands clean.

It's now completely beyond your control as to which kind of arbitrator is in the majority. Don't bother making any more amendments to your edits. Let the passages now rest still, so that all the arbitrators can read them carefully in their final form. David Tombe (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't talk so much

Brews, why do you keep doing the behavior that is complained about as being so disruptive? Is it necessary to dominate the workshop page on the RfA (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop)? So far today, 47 of the 56 edits are yours; business as usual. Can you not see how this makes it impossible to have a discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly view you as wanting to have any discussion, so much as wanting to push your view that I am a pain in the neck. Such a pain in the neck, in fact, that turfing me out of WP is the best thing that could happen, on whatever basis that must be laid. Balance is irrelevant. I am unhappy about that turn of affairs, as I initially had a very positive view of yourself. Brews ohare (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that you have to prove us right in the eyes of outside observers. Physchim62 (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If frequent edits are all this is about, it's about very little. Brews ohare (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's hopeless. Even Tombe gave him the same advice above (too bad Tombe doesn't follow it himself). Let's leave Brews alone, as he wishes. He is an adult and is responsible for the consequences of his own actions. He certainly cannot complain that he was not warned. Finell (Talk) 01:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an example of provocation that escalates a (perceived) problem. Dicklyon makes a complaint which is the same as he made previously on other occasions (Brews talks too much). But this is subject to the Arbitration case. Then if Dicklyon himself (and not one of the Arbitrators) tells this to Brews on his talk page, it is likely to have the opposite effect. This is simply normal human behavior. If you are in a dispute with someone that has already escalated a lot and you do not agree at all with the other persons point of view, then a new message by that other person pointing out again that you are wrong and that you have to stick to his rules, is very likely only going to escalate matters even more.

So, Finell is completely wrong to suggest that because "He certainly cannot complain that he was not warned", this would mean that Brews would be at fault if he were to continue with making many posts in the Workshop page. Count Iblis (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What's up with the stalking?

Brews, you've sensibly avoided article-space editing while in arbitration, but all of a sudden you've taken on the oharing of two articles that you can only have been attracted to by my editing there. You've caused a huge discussion of your irrelevant material already at Ohm's law and its talk page, and are provoking a fight about a silly and messy irrelevant reference in the lead paragraph in CMOS. Just back off, dude; these articles don't have any problems for which your help is the solution, and your involvement there is hard to interpret as anything but harassment and stalking. Dicklyon (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you look at things this way. I have had an interest in devices since 1970 or so when I developed the charge-sheet model of the MOSFET, and an interest in response functions since my Ph D work at McGill. I've contributed extensively to WP in device physics and circuit theory. You don't need to warn me off; however, I'd like to see some way to engage with you without a battle. That would be far more positive than anything that is going to develop from the Arbitration disaster. Brews ohare (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean this 1978 paper I presume: JR Brews, "A charge-sheet model of the MOSFET," Solid-St. Electron., vol. 21, pp. 345-355, Feb. 1978. Good work; seems to be widely referenced; I had not realized that's where the usual drift plus diffusion model of the MOSFET may have originated. Is it pretty close to the one that Mead and Maher published a few years later, which they called charge controlled?

In any case, the problem here is that your meddling is not making the article better, and smacks of an intent to bug me. A random "see figures..." statement in the lead paragraph just distracts from the article flow, using your signature technique of adding your favorite or latest distracting or complicating idea into the lead paragraph. If you want to cite Baker for something, find a good place, say something useful that it supports, add a proper citation, remove the silly "further reading", and don't crap up the lead. Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not terribly conciliatory to refer to my efforts as "meddling" and as "my latest distracting or complicating idea". I had no role that I remember in the Further Reading section, and haven't looked at it. Do you think you could tone down the attitude, which tends to raise my blood pressure, and just deal with content? Brews ohare (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon don't WP:BITE. That source (and it doesn't belong in the lead, I agree) can be moved in the "Further Reading" section and it wouldn't be out of place. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been in the further reading section for a long time; my point is that we don't need to add it again as a general ref in the lead. Also, since the author Baker thanks his friend Brews for the help in writing the book, it may be most appropriate for Brews to defer to other editors in any discussion of how appropriate it is or where to put it; of course, if he includes it in the normal way as a reliable source for relevant statements in the article, I don't see why I or anyone would object; that would be better than leaving it dangling in the further reading or adding it as an alternate source for the patent figures, which figures could instead be put directly into the article if they're that interesting. Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick, I've met Jake and spoken with him about a few topics (where he instructed me) and if I have any role in this book it might be suggesting some rewording for clarity to the novice (me). In no way am I a co-author or even a significant influence on its content. If I have to recuse myself from citing a book because of a situation like this, I couldn't mention Sze's "Device Physics", Ng's device book, or virtually any work by any author that ever contributed to Electron Device Letters. Come on. Brews ohare (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Read what I said; nobody suggested you should recuse yourself from citing it; I'd have big problems with that, too, obviously. But when the book is being spammed around, be careful. Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick: I don't understand what your caution refers to. Can you elaborate, please? Brews ohare (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I've said more than enough already. Now that you've told us who you are, would you prefer that we continue to call you by your last name, or something else? Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick: The way the arbitration is going, you won't have to call me anything. Brews ohare (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Electric permittivity

Brews, I assume we are both then in agreement that electric permittivity can still be physically measured, despite the new SI definition of the metre. The problem is though, that the relevant experiment has definitely been purged from the textbooks since 1983. I checked at the science libray recently and that experiment was only found in one book, which was the 1995 edition of 'Nelkon & Parker'. David Tombe (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi David: Welcome back again! What I think is that ε₀ = 1/(μ₀ c₀²) and in the SI units you inevitably will get the defined value. (Of course, the measurement in a real vacuum will have to be corrected to refer it to the BIPM 'vacuum of free space'.) I think that mainly because these three constants all have defined values according to NIST, and if something else were logically possible they would not specify that all three values were exact. (Although I have little regard for how NIST and BIPM express things, I do think they are scientifically capable.) However, I haven't carried through the thought process to see just how this happens in a capacitor measurement. It's easier to see in deriving the wave equation from Maxwell's equations in classical vacuum. Of course, I believe the relative permittivity can be measured. And in a non-magnetic environment where the relative permeability is 1, this measurement is tantamount to measuring the relative speed of light in that material. What do you think? Brews ohare (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews, What I think is that two converging approaches to the equation ε₀ = 1/(μ₀ c₀²) have finally crashed. Historically, permittivity and permeability were measured quantities that led to a value very close to the measured speed of light.

Then they changed permeability to a defined quantity. I wasn't entirely happy about that decision, but it didn't have a major impact because ultimately it is the measured ratio of dielectric constant and permeability that yield the speed of light. So as long as permittivity remained measurable, it was no big deal.

Then in 1983, the speed of light became a defined quantity. When that defined speed of light was then reversed into the equation ε₀ = 1/(μ₀ c₀²), we ended up with a defined permittivity which totally crashed conceptually with the measured permittivity.

At ARBCOM, they are wrongly accusing you of having been opposed to BIPM's 1983 decision. I know that that accusation is untrue. But once you clarified the BIPM decision to me in early August, that set the alarm bells ringing as regards how it was all going to overflow into the equation ε₀ = 1/(μ₀ c₀²).

It is on the grounds of electric permittivity that I have chiefly based my opinion that BIPM badly cocked up in 1983. They overlooked that issue. But they may have recklessly overlooked it because of their contempt for 19th century physics. That contempt is so deep rooted that certain editors here can't even bear to have Maxwell's theories mentioned in history articles, and that is the root cause of all this hysteria. David Tombe (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to go through the analysis for the capacitor measurement but I haven't got round to it. However, I don't think anything radical will come of it. Basically the change in 1983 is from a defined metre to an empirical metre. The defined metre was a certain number of wavelengths, and knowing the frequency the speed of light could be calculated, as you know. With the time-of-transit method, the metre is empirical. You have to see how far the light travels in the standard time interval. Because voltage is field times length and capacity is permittivity over length, the actual length is moot, however you measure it. Hence, the permittivity is not affected. That is so for any real medium. Hence, extrapolation through a series of media where relative permittivity → 1 to a reference medium where the relative permittivity is 1 is a sequence independent of the unit of distance as well. That is not a rigorous argument, but it is suggestive that the change from a defined to an empirical metre really won't affect things. Brews ohare (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews, It's just an exact repeat of your argument at speed of light. In fact it is the extrapolation of that same argument to a quantity that is related to the speed of light.

A defined speed of light leads to a defined electric permittivity through the above equation. That defined permittivity is therefore a number that is beyond measurement. Yet we can still measure permittivity using the capacitor experiment with the vibrating reed switch. But we obviously can't measure it using SI units. And so that experiment has been kicked out of the textbooks in order to sell out to SI units over the top of real physics. That is perhaps what A. di M. has noticed, and why he brought the thread about at WT:PHYS. David Tombe (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the vibrating reed switch measurement: can you explain it? Brews ohare (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews, the basic principles are that a capacitor is discharged using a vibrating reed switch. The frequency of the vibrating reed switch is known, and it is used to make a linkage between charge and current. Current and voltage can be measured, and so we can hence obtain a value for charge Q. The standard equations Q = CV and C= εA/d are then used to obtain an experimental measurement of ε. The experiment doesn't specify that it is restricted to any particular system of units. Hence we have a logical clash with the SI metre because that system already dictates a fixed value for ε which is beyond measurement. We end up measuring something that is already defined as a fixed number in the SI system.

That is why I have been arguing that the 1983 SI definition of the metre becomes exposed as a farce with this experiment. That would explain why this experiment has been quietly shelved from the modern libraries, and it would explain the hysteria which arises everytime I mention this issue at WT:PHYS. Count Ibliss's jitters over my comments at WT:PHYS yesterday were clear evidence of this hysteria. David Tombe (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi David: I don't think the hysteria has this source exactly, in the sense of some kind of cover-up. The source is an intuitive notion of vacuum as something real, corresponding to "nothing there". The idea is that ε₀ and μ₀ also are real corresponding to the real vacuum. Then the problem comes up that if you can't measure them how can they be real? That tension is the cause of the hysteria. I'd say that your resolution of this problem is to say that the defined values are a mistake. My solution is to say that the defined values are hypothetical and you can measure any real medium and see how close to the defined values you can come. The hysterical ones want to believe both in the measurability and in the definition at the same time, which is an impossible situation. That is the hysteria: the agony of doublethink. Brews ohare (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I see what you mean. A lot of them were happy with both the idea that these parameters are defined constants, and also with the idea that they could be physically measured too. They were happy in that state of doublethink until you highlighted it. So now we have to go to the gallows so that they can sweep it under the carpet. Brews ohare and David Tombe never existed. David Tombe (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys can make up silly positions to attribute to others, and agree between yourselves, but that's not a productive step in understanding and resolving the ongoing problems. Dicklyon (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dick: I'm not sure what is silly: certainly there seems to be a faction that says I'm nuts. I think that is silly. That faction also has gone to great lengths to get me off WP because of my views. That's silly. And it is human to try to understand what their problem is: that's not silly. Brews ohare (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What's silly is making up these ridiculous red herrings (silly positions as I called them above) instead of listening to the many people who try to tell you what the problem is. Dicklyon (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You have said the real problem is behavioral, not substantive, and I've agreed with you. However, these behavior problems arose when participants couldn't agree about the measurability/definition issue, and IMO when push comes to shove, despite protests to the contrary, Martin and Steve still believe in both. Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

They still believe that the speed of light can be measured? Who doesn't? Or they believe that such measurements can give a different number of meters per second than the defined 1983 number? Anyone believe that? Martin, Steve, what are your beliefs about this? Brews and David seem to be confused about that. Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick: Your questions might be rephrased: "Isn't the speed of light measured in SI units inevitably 299 792 458 m/s?" "If you want to measure the actual speed of light, don't you have to do it in units other than SI Units?" I'd hope the answers to both were "yes". Yet I expect that Steve and Martin would object to this & even this although there is nothing different from what a "yes" answer implies in these articles. Brews ohare (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't make the mistake of assuming that agreeing on the physics is agreement for your writing or your edits; or that objecting to your editing implies any particular disagreement on the physics. Instead, listen to the objections and complaints, have some empathy for other points of view and for the reader, and try to collaborate instead of just argue. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, your advice about empathy & collaboration is good. That is aided if others do the same thing. Actually, Steve and I have had some very extended disagreements without either of us getting steamed up about it. On the other hand, Martin instantly becomes offended by disagreement and goes off on tangents. Apart from all that, however, it is my experience that disagreement over the above two linked writings of mine is about content, not eloquence or relevance, and despite sources, and any attempt to get to the bottom of it with Martin is hopeless. Brews ohare (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that I don't think the difference is about the content of your writing -- just that you probably haven't heard what it is about the content that they don't like. But I'll let them speak for themselves. Dicklyon (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick, You talk about having empathy for the other person's point of view. When I entered the dispute at 'speed of light', the very first thing that I did was to ask both parties what their point of view is. Martin Hogbin couldn't bring himself to communicate with me in a civilized manner. Within a few days, I got sidetracked to the history section. I made some corrections to the story surrounding Maxwell's role in the luminiferous aether. That section was already in the article. Martin Hogbin instantly removed that correction with the caption 'no crackpot physics please'. Later Tim Shuba removed the entire section.

I don't think that the problem has been lack of empathy on the part of myself or Brews for opposing viewpoints. It's rather been quite the other way around. And right now, despite the fact that evidence was supplied for questionable behaviour on the part of Tim Shuba and Martin Hogbin, we don't see their names on the indictment over at the ARBCOM final resolution page. Time and time again, I have got into trouble for pushing compromises in the face of an opposition who will not remotely tolerate compromise. And now I'm about to be banned. David Tombe (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that while a uniform discipline applied across the board would not bother me, the singling out of Tombe and Brews on the basis of civility and disruption is unjustifiable. Brews ohare (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I don't reside in the same universe as you guys. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick: What is the purpose of a remark like this: is it helpful in some way? Am I to be encouraged that you are not in my universe? Or, maybe you are saying you are of a loftier breed? It's crappy behavior Dick. Brews ohare (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The intent was to convey my feeling that I am completely unable to come up with any kind of mental model of humans as I know them that will allow me to interpret what's behind the comments of you and David immediately above. It's sort like if I accused you both of being delusional, only a bit more s subtle; too subtle, I take it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:PREVIEW

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you.

Then the next time you need to do this, it won't take 5 edits. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I think you will find that it is considered bad form to give templated warnings to experienced users. I don't like ohare's habit of making many edits where one would do but, in the circumstances, this could be taken as baiting. Abtract (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes people who act like newbies get treated like newbies. Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's bit of truculence (see Dick's "universe" comment above) at helping to remove me from WP. An au revoir with the hope of no revoir. Brews ohare (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews, if you review my comments, advice, here and in the arbitration, etc., it has never been about getting you to leave WP, but rather about getting you to change your behaviors to be an editor with whom collaboration is possible. Now I'll have to go look up truculence... Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! A lot of Wikipedians, almost unanimously, find Brews' behavior to be disruptive. Brews should examine these criticisms and modify his behavior to conform to this society's norms. Instead, he contends that the very substantial majority is wrong about what its norms are and whether Brews confirms to them, and compounds that by believing that everyone is biased against him personally. We aren't (or, at least, the ones' who I have most carefully observed aren't, and I know I am not). I argued against the unfair charge that Brews is Tombe's meat puppet, supported by examples (that took me some time to do, by the way—and I work for a living). I have said repeatedly that I would rather have Brews remain on Wikipedia, even editing science articles, and learn to get along in this culture. My proposed remedies for Brews' behavior are less severe than those that all the Arbitrators who have voted thus far have endorsed. I have praised Brews' non-contentious contributions to Wikipedia and his ability to contribute. I have suggested that mentorship could help Brews learn to participate in this community, and specifically how to either handle appropriately or to avoid disputes while still remaining productive and satisfied. Brews withdrew the one concession he did make in his answers to CHL (apparently out of pique or misunderstanding). When I commented on that being a step in the wrong direction and urged Brews to reconsider, Tombe counseled Brews that my motive was to have Brews admit "guilt" and that I was "desperate" that Brews might "win" this arbitration. Well, it is pretty clear how it is turning out for both of them; that conforms to my expectation as to Brews—that is, I really was trying to help Brews and not "desperate" that he might be found "not guilty"—and it is how any reasonable observer would have expected it to turn out. In addition to be frustrated by Brews' stubbornness, I genuinely hoped that Brews would help himself so things would turn out better for him and for Wikipedia. I still harbor a small, irrational hope that it still might happen. Finell (Talk) 20:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Make offline copies of the Arbitration pages

Most of the Arbitration pages will be deleted, so you may want to make copies of these pages for later use (e.g. an appeals process). It is better to (also) store them on your hard disk to prevent them from being deleted from your user space.

Did you see this deleted edit? Could perhaps also be useful for the appeals process. Count Iblis (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, you are unintentionally spreading misinformation. Case pages are not deleted. Sometimes they are courtesy blanked, but the information is still available in the page history. Also, a questionable edit that was immediately self-reverted is not much of evidence generally speaking. I appreciate that you want to help Brews ohare out, but your advice to him (such as misrepresenting case page practices and encouraging him to pointedly test a topic ban) is not helpful. If Brews follows your advice he will be misinformed and take actions that will worsen his situation. I implore you (purely as a normal editor) to shift the focus to better (more standard) avenues of advice or stop, for Brews ohare's sake, if not your own. Vassyana (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the issue of the arbitration pages. However, the fact that the ruling is so extremely vulnerable to WP:POINT should have led to second thoughts. The topic ban from all of physics, is way too much. This may create a lot of problems if you really want to strictly enforce such a ban (and not because I would want to violate WP:POINT).

You could have e.g. imposed a 0RR restriction plus a, say, four edits per day restriction on Brews per article on all pages (including talkpages). That would have made it impossible for him to edit so extremely frequently and dominate the pages, which was seen to be problematic by many editors. Violations would be straightforward to check. And if Brews were to write big texts offline and upload them at one go, nothing would stop others from reverting such edits, so that wouldn't cause problems either. Count Iblis (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis: Your comments about a better crafted remedy are clear and sensible. Evidently, the proposals voted on were drafted without adequate input. As they stand, I believe my interpretation below is correct, and given the vindictive souls in the wings ready to pounce, the most strict enforcement is to be expected. Brews ohare (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Small correction about WP:POINT. I actually never suggested testing the topic ban in a way that would cause disruption. WP:POINT explicitely mentions this disruption aspect of someone trying to prove his/her point. Count Iblis (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• All editors are reminded to be civil at all times and seek consensus where possible, and encouraged pursue dispute resolution when necessary.
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is warned for his conduct in this dispute, and placed under a general probation for one year, under which any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions if Brews ohare fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia or general editing and behavioral guidelines, policies, and expectations, despite warnings.
• David Tombe (talk · contribs) is also warned for his conduct in this dispute and during the course of the arbitration case, and is placed under the same general probation but for an indefinite duration. David Tombe may not appeal his probation for one year, and is limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.
• Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
• Violations of the topic bans or general sanctions may be enforced by blocks of up to a week in length for repeated violations, to increase to one year after the third block. All blocks and other sanctions applied should be logged on the case page here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

The decision states:

Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.

My comments concerning this action may be found here. By extending this remedy to all physics related pages and (as "broadly construed" is interpreted on the Project discussion page) to all Talk pages, I am banned from not only physics but all "physics-related" topics such as: mathematics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, circuits, signals, systems, software, the history of such topics, and any philosophical, economic, newsworthy or humorous aspects. I am banned not only from contributing to these topics, I am banned from discussing them on their Talk pages and from discussing them with individual editors on their own Talk pages, or answering inquiries directed specifically to me on my own Talk page. This ban extends to minutiae like correcting typos or inserting paragraph breaks or providing sources. Any Administrator acting alone can impose further sanctions at any time based upon their own judgment of what is "physics-related, broadly construed" or simply upon their personal priorities, and several Administrators have indicated they will interpret the matter extremely narrowly, and strictly as a procedural matter independent of whatever might be the particulars of any supposed infraction. The above rather substantial restrictions constitute a total ban from WP so far as I can see. Brews ohare (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So, the solution is really for everyone here to stick to physics when discussing things :) Count Iblis (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course: throughout Case/speed of light, as you know, I insisted that strict enforcement of "discuss content, not personalities" would fix things if it were applied to everyone. As you also know, that fell upon deaf ears. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael C. Price's useful remarks

Stop whining, you asked for it. If you'd responded substantively (e.g. to my Socratic kilometre question), instead of sneering or wikilawyering all the time, you wouldn't be in this pickle. Tombe has the "excuse" of being a relativity crank, you haven't. Reflect on it.--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael C. Price: Thanks for this demo of just who you are. It is interesting that even when your efforts have succeeded you find it necessary to justify them after the fact with phony statements. Brews ohare (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's phony about the question, but I'm not surprised that you have to dismiss it as such. It would be rather embarassing for you to find out at this stage that you've been barking up the wrong tree for so long.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course: throughout Case/speed of light, as you know, I insisted that strict enforcement of "discuss content, not personalities" would fix things if it were applied to everyone. As you also know, that fell upon deaf ears. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic advice Brews, shame you don't take your own medicine. So tell me, is the kilometre a defined or measurable quantity? --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael C. Price: Wake up! This discussion cannot be pursued under the ban, and as the tone of your remarks indicate, there would be no purpose served in discussing it anyway. I will not respond to further posts by you on this page, and will most probably delete them. So kindly desist. Brews ohare (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, a non-substantive response - and right after a "discuss content, not personalities" declaration. Truly Brews, your powers of cognitive dissonance are amazing.--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, a non-substantive response - and right after a "discuss content, not personalities" declaration. Truly Brews, your powers of cognitive dissonance are amazing.--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews: Feel free to delete Price's comments. Just ignore him; don't engage. Whatever you do, don't let him or anyone goad you into violating your topic ban. I warned Price on his talk page[16]; Abtract beat me to it by a few minutes. Finell (Talk) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll say the same thing I said to Finell and Abtract, there was no intention to cause a topic ban violation -- I had assumed that someone could talk freely on their own talkpage. I was genuinely interested to see Brews' answer to my kilometre question but, since my actions have been misinterpreted (and are misinterpretable), I shall desist.--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael, it is not proper to corner an editor on their own talk page. Until such time as Brews invites your further comments here, you should not post on this page. Brews, feel free to remove any comments from this page that you don't like. I am sorry you were treated this way. Jehochman ^Talk 02:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Final warning

Risker has already warned that the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FSpeed_of_light is a violation of the topic ban laid down in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews_ohare_topic_banned. You may appeal your topic ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_amendment, but if you continue to post at the above mentioned thread, you will be blocked from editing for violating your topic ban. MBisanz ^talk 16:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this warning. I will so desist. I wish to note, however, that under no interpretation of the Topic Ban that I can understand does my adding to the discussion of the topic ban itself as invited by the posting of the ban constitute a violation of that ban. I interpret Risker's action as an unwarranted intrusion upon discussion based upon his personal beliefs, and not upon WP policies. Brews ohare (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews_ohare topic banned

Remedy 4.2

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

This remedy is likely to pass. If so, I'll leave WP indefinitely.

I want to observe that this "remedy" was not forced upon the ArbCom, but was chosen by them. In my opinion, this is a decision to suppress dissent rather than enforce guidelines. As such it both exceeds ArbCom's resolution to avoid content decisions, and abdicates ArbCom's obligation to enforce good conduct.

A simple effective decision would have been to enforce upon all editors the guidelines that would suppress bad behavior, as amply documented: behavior such as catcalls, incivility, reversion of Talk page content, putdowns, personal attacks on article Talk pages, false attribution of positions not held, refusal to address content and so forth, all adequately covered by WP:NPA WP:Civil WP:Talk and other guidelines, and most clearly broken by editors other than Brews_ohare. Such enforcement requires no understanding of content, but does require impartial across-the-board enforcement. Such action would immediately settle things down and encourage open discussion of content.

Instead, ArbCom has made a call that reinforces this bad behavior by rewarding it, and eliminates the contributions of a good faith editor who has made many contributions to WP, articles and diagrams, and is well qualified, as a Fellow of the IEEE, a former research scientist at Bell Labs, a former editor-in-chief of IEEE Electron Device Letters, an EE professor at the U of Arizona, and an author of technical articles and books. That ArbCom action is considered justifiable based upon my "bad behavior", which primarily is one explicit complaint about some other editors as a group made upon a different editor's Talk page, and a certain insistence on the Talk page to employ an accurate description of the impact of the 1983 CGPM definition of the metre. A very bad move all around: an opportunity for positive action is replaced by destruction as evaluated from any viewpoint. Brews ohare (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My observation is that you are absolutely correct. I think this entire controversy is the result of a group of editors who, contrary to the intended spirit of wikipedia, enforce their opinions upon the result despite the injunction to seek consensus. I have never seen consensius sought by physics editors of wikipedia and I think it is a joke to include that in the ArbCom comments. The fault lies with the editors who ignored that requirement and not with you or Mr Tombe. The ArbCom apparently doesnt follow wikipedia rules, so I think wikipedia to be a fraud.71.251.186.205 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

From ArbCom Noticeboard:

The evidence posted in the links here to support the claim of tendentious debates and soapboxing do not support the claim and are perfectly ordinary exchanges on a variety of topics. It is clear that the Arbitrators had no technical grasp of the discussions whatsoever, and interpreted as tendentious what were simple comments. In any event, the Arbitrators have themselves determined they are not competent to rule on content, and by so doing render their judgment on this matter suspect. The evidence posted in the links here to support claims of incivility are not directed at specific individuals, but are broad statements of dissatisfaction with the editing climate on Talk: Speed of light made, not on Talk: Speed of light but on the Talk pages of two editors thought to be sympathetic to my frustration. This decision has found the editing climate to be hostile and uncivil, so my dissatisfaction is not a personal illusion. These remarks have been taken here to warrant banning my activity for a year, on all physics-related pages (broadly construed to mean chemistry, astronomy, engineering, philosophy, logic, any topic employing mathematics, or whatever) and even on all Talk pages including my own and those of other editors, even if invited by others to comment. Any Administrator may singly determine whether a transgression has occurred and impose sanctions without consultation, based upon their personal interpretation. Besides being inadequately based upon opinion rather than evidence, this remedy is amazingly out of proportion, in my opinion, exceeds the penalties normally prescribed for such offenses, and singles me out for discipline where many others involved in this Case have made more egregious violations of WP guidelines and received no such rebuke. Further remarks may be found here. Brews ohare (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of topic ban is itself an infraction of topic ban!!!

Hersfold: Could you kindly clarify for me the basis for intrusion by Risker and further intrusion by MBisanz into the discussion of the ban itself as a violation of my topic ban against "physics-based topics, broadly construed"? I absolutely fail to grasp how a discussion of the ban implications and propriety constitutes a "physics-based topic". Moreover, the posting of the decision on my Talk page explicitly invites such discussion and provides a link to the location to post it. Brews ohare (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, inquiry to Risker has produced no answers, other than such discussion is redundant, which is debatable, and which also is not a reason to claim violation of the topic ban. Brews ohare (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews: For whatever it is worth, I think that Risker was mainly referring to Tombe's post as violating the topic ban, and was possibly concerned that you might be drawn into it. Further, I don't think the ArbCom notice talk page is considered the right place to reargue what the decision did, why it was right or wrong, etc., which is what that lengthy discussion, which Risker closed, was doing. The Arbitrators considered the evidence and what participants said at Workshop, then reached a decision.

Check the arbitration manual. It should discuss how to appeal (although bear in mind that the final decision was closer to unanimity than most arbitration decisions) and how to seek modification or clarification of a remedy (probably a motion to ArbCom). Proposing a mentoring plan might be a reason for relaxing or even eliminating your topic ban, although that would have been more effective before the decision. Arguing that the Arbitrators were wrong about everything, were biased, or that other editors did bad stuff too, is not likely to be persuasive to anyone, in my opinion.

Mere discussion on a talk page, I am fairly certain, is not the way to appeal or to modify the remedies. Also, nothing is going to happen that will allow you to go back to dominating talk pages the way that you were doing. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are reasonably clear, and you were not in compliance with them—whether you agree or not. Further, you are not going to succeed in an attempt to significantly change those policies and guidelines; they are fundamental to this community's culture.

Further, I suggest that you supply your critical, scientific method of thinking to the process here at Wikipedia. The way you have been going about things has not brought about the results that you want. The scientist's response when that happens is to try something different—not to keep using the same method, over and over, in the hope that it will bring a different result next time. Finell (Talk) 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Finell: I am sure you are at least 98% correct in what you say. Of course, the application of a blanket remedy to material that the blanket doesn't cover is not an indication of subtle thinking by Risker and MBisanz. I do agree with you that my main infraction was too much interaction on Talk pages, although I believe that alone would not cause anything like the reaction seen, and of course, the remedy applied is related to content and not behavior, a total screw-up. The primary reaction was due to an erroneous view that I was a total crackpot, leading to no attention being paid to what I actually said, and a desire to end all interaction on that account. (An exception is Dicklyon, who simply wanted to get rid of me at any cost.) It is unfortunate that not only the Arbitrators (who have no grasp of content) but also those who know better persisted in this characterization and failed to address content. It is also unfortunate that the Arbitrators, whose area of expertise is control of behavior, chose to act on content instead, about which they are incompetent to judge. Brews ohare (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot discount the possibility that you are right, since we are both talking about others' motivations and reasoning. We have a hard enough time understanding our own (or at least I do). Nevertheless, my analysis is different. First, I am not aware of anyone who considers you to be a crackpot or who dismissed what you had to say without considering it. Note that the decision found that Tombe, but not you, advocated fringe views. Likewise, most (perhaps all) of the individuals involved distinguish between Tombe and you, although not all of us recognized that distinction immediately. Second, the decision was not based on content. The Arbitrators made no finding about content and no finding that you advocated "incorrect" content. All the findings and remedies are directed solely at behavior. The topic bans relate to the topics about disruptive editing occurred; if you had behaved the same way on the Baseball article and talk page, your topic ban would have covered the topic of "baseball, broadly construed" (i.e., it would have covered articles on baseball leagues, teams, rules, players, etc.). The same behavior on multiple unrelated topics would probably have led to a project ban. Third, in the discussion at Speed of light, no one said that there was no point at all to what you were saying. The problems that the substantial majority saw were (a) you wanted to overemphasize a particular way of expressing the relationship of the metre's definition to the speed of light; (b) the way you wanted to express it, and the emphasis you would give it, is not found in other encyclopedic treatments of the speed of light (compare Encarta and Britannica, for example); (c) you relentlessly argued for your position for several months, notwithstanding clear consensus to the contrary. Of those problems, only (c) brought you to AN/I and then ArbCom; (a) and (b) would, and more importantly should, have been done with in a few days' discussion. (Please do not consider this an invitation to reopen discussion of the content issue.)

You have a tendency to take one small statement and magnify its significance. You are taking Risker's very brief edit summary, or brief summary reason for closing the discussion, to be all that she was thinking, and from that to conclude that she misunderstood everything. (You similarly overemphasize the significance of 5 words from one source, "never to be measured again", in my opinion. We did not ignore you. We read them and their context.) MBisanz just took Risker at her word, which is not unreasonable. The point is that Risker closed that discussion (for good reason), and you were ignoring that. I also think that you are wrong about Dicklyon; he was more receptive than most others to accommodating article content to reflect the position you were arguing, at least to some extent (and that let to his conflict with Martin).

Turning from what is done and over to what can be done, here are links Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for clarification and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for amendment. I'm sorry, but I really can't devote much more time to this. I have to get back to the work that I am being paid to do. Good luck. Finell (Talk) 21:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews, would you like some useful, practical advice? I recommend that you just drop all these questions for about two to three months. During that time you could go edit some other articles (millions are available to you). Demonstrate that you can work well with others. After that, feel free to place any appeals or requests for clarification. If you follow my advice, I think you'll get the best possible result. Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That is excellent advice. The topic ban does not include math, which is one of your strengths; but you should stay away from specific applications of math to physics, mathematical analysis or proof of specific equations or systems of equations in physics, etc. Likewise, articles about electronic devices as such (not the underlying physics) should be OK.

Ouch!

Contribute more graphics (you seem to enjoy that, and you excel at it). You are not confined to articles about food products or geographic locations. However, there is something to be said for editing articles outside your primary areas of interest. I've done some editing of articles that have nothing to do with my primary interests—Zoot suit, classical Chinese literature, In-N-Out Burger, an area in India were my daughter is doing volunteer work (I don't learn much about it from her letters!), Joseph Priestley, among others—and I've learned some things in the process. But above all, stay out of disputes. Don't enter existing disputes. If you make an edit or statement that you think is non-controversial, but controversy erupts, disengage. There is a lot of satisfying work you can do to improve Wikipedia without ever getting into an argument. In fact, that might turn out to be even more satisfying than banging your head against the wall with other editors who, for whatever reason, are not persuaded see things your way. Finell (Talk) 23:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Gag orders

In my opinion, you are not being wise by injecting yourself into a dispute at AN/I. Remember that you are under probation. Also, your dismissal of Jehochman was unwarranted and borderline (at least) uncivil, as was your remark on Hersfeld's talk page (which he did you the favor of deleting). The advice Jehochman gave you was good, regardless of whether you like it or him. He also supported you against Price's attack on your talk page. You have a tendency to only see what you dislike when you judge others. The arbitration must have been traumatic for you, which is very understandable. Please consider taking a voluntary wikibreak of 2 weeks or so, to calm down.

Iblis said that you are a physics professor. Is that correct? (I did note your impressive work and publication identified on Dicklyon's talk page; he's been on my watchlist for a few years). Regards, Finell (Talk) 05:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Finell: If you read my remarks at AN/I, they are not of a technical nature and in no way approach the boundaries of my ban. They are pleas for cooperation instead of following the gag order approach to dealing with different opinions. The latest remarks by OMCV PBS and the opposition of Admin CBM indicate once more a complete intolerance to compromise. This hostile, even vindictive, approach to dissent is not the way things should work. WP needs more tools in its box than the gag order as , by its very nature, WP is supposed to invite all comers and provide a collaborative atmosphere. Brews ohare (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read my post again, you will see that I did not mention your topic ban. I mentioned your probation, which is purely behavioral. Some things, like unsourced material and original research, are barred from Wikipedia (at least, when an editor challenges them). Keeping that material out of Wikipedia that is against policy is not a "gag order". Arguing for inclusion of material that is clearly against policy is itself against policy. Further, given your recent experience at ArbCom, please consider the possibility that you may not be objective in the way you view things.

I would still appreciate an answer about Iblis's statement that you are a physics prof.

Regarding Jehochman, take a look at his talk page—at entries that have nothing to do with issues that involve you. Perhaps that will give you a better appreciation of his outlook. —Finell (Talk) 18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Finell: I understand you think I am a hot-head who is pretty dense. However, (i) arguing for a wider forum for an editor under siege is not contrary to guidelines, and is not topic specific, and (ii) arguing that the guidelines need work is not against guidelines. If these actions are pushing against probation, it is a jaundiced view of that probation. Mind you, that would not surprise me in the least. Brews ohare (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never said, or thought, that you are hot-headed. To the contrary, you appear to be extremely deliberate; I believe I have said this publicly. You might do well to stop trying to read others' minds or presume their motivations. That does not appear to be one of your strongest abilities. As for dense—certainly not overall, but it does appear to me that you have difficulty grasping certain things, such as good faith disagreements with your ideas or method of argument. Your assumptions that people are biased against you, as opposed to disagreeing with what you say, are not supported by objective fact. —Finell (Talk) 19:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Finell's assessment 100%. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course people can disagree, but they don't have to be disagreeable. As for bias against me, perhaps not, but as to inability to converse without invective, catcalls, sarcasm, putdowns, distortions, red herrings and fake reductio ad absurdum, absolutely. Brews ohare (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the fake reductio ad absurdum is a reference to my socratic you-know-what which we can't speak about. I can only assure you that I saw nothing fake about it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Michael C. Price: I did not have you in mind specifically. Brews ohare (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael: Please don't antagonize Brews. You have been warned by two admins. —Finell (Talk) 23:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Finell, please don't assume bad faith. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with what is said above. Brews: You are taking all the right paths to having your topic ban upgraded to something a lot less pleasant. Please stop getting yourself into bad situations and just do some editing. AGK 23:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

AGK: I have asked you to explain what you mean by this on your talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews, it's clear that you haven't gotten the idea from the arbitration that your behavior is a problem, and you haven't taken the suggested break to cool down and reflect. Let me be the fourth person to suggest that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick: Here is my take on matters: I have been banned from activity on any technical topic that interests me. That ban arose, in my opinion of course, from a hugely exaggerated response to my attempts at proposing a clear statement of the lead in Speed of light, which drew in a bunch of editors unknown to me and yourself. As a result of, according to me, a hugely biased hearing full of absolute disinformation, ArbCom came to a remedy that (i) was incorrectly framed to correct the situation, evne as they understood it and, (ii) was out of all proportion to the infraction. Because I view this proceeding as extremely flawed, I am interested in having the underlying procedures scrutinized from a completely abstract point of view so that future hearings will be more equitable and less likely to occur. This laudable activity stems from the unfortunate history behind me, but is otherwise disconnected from those events.

As I understand the remedies against me, none bears upon such an enterprise. Nonetheless you and many others continue to insist that somehow there is a connection. I'd say it is because the lot of you cannot believe that I can actually let go of the past and undertake to do something new, but are under the impression that somehow all this is going to come round and turn out to be some form of imagined retribution. Although, if I knew how, I'd happily take the bunch of you to AN/I and have you publicly flogged, I can see no way that is likely to happen, and have decided it is water under the bridge. So, put such thoughts to rest. Brews ohare (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I think you're delusional. You obviously haven't let go of what the arbcom case was about, nor understood it even. I recommended a much less severe outcome early on, to simply have you abide by a limit on how much more you could add to articles and talk pages than the next most active editor; I think that would have made your participation more nearly tolerable. But instead they went for a topic ban, though I pointed out that the problem was not very topic related. OK, so you're proving me right. Given a chance now, I'd say a block for a couple of months to let you forget about it and maybe find another hobby for your retirement would be a better idea. But keep it up and we'll likely be back at it, with a stiffer outcome next time. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I was too busy with other things to reply to your postings on my talk page. I also had some unfinished business on William Connolley's talk page about my views on the speed of light.

Let me just react to your involvement now on AN/I. I really do not see what the people here are complaining about. To put things in perpsective, one could perhaps take a look at the topic bans User:Abd received on the Cold fusion page and for postings on AN/I. These were bans for good reasons. I do not see the same type of problem with your postings on AN/I.

What you have to be careful about is to stay focussed on the particular problem under discussion and to be as concise as possible. Make your point once, avoid repeating it over and over again. You can give clarifications if someone asks you, of course. Count Iblis (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Count, you're a huge part of the problem here. You're egging on an editor who has some possibly resolvable problems, pushing them towards a siteban. Would you please recuse yourself from this matter. It will be a big help to Wikipedia and to Brews ohare. Jehochman ^Talk 00:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to hear any constructive critisicm by you or others about Brews' recent AN/I postings. At least I did write above about some things he (and for that matter any editor) should pay attention to. Perhaps more can be said.

But Brews is not a five year old who can be "egged on" at all! In fact, if people write that Brews cannot do X without explaining why not, or what he is doing wrong so far, Brews will not take the people who said that seriously. Count Iblis (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not complaining about Brews' behavior. I am trying to keep him out of getting himself into more trouble. But I've said what I have to say, and Brews can do what he chooses to do—obviously. —Finell (Talk) 01:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would echo what Jehochman said above, and have also asked Count to recuse. AGK 12:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

AGK: Your response here and on your talk page both again fail to indicate specific grounds upon which my engagement regarding WP guidelines at all constitutes a violation of the remedies against me. I have responded in more detail on your Talk page. This baseless intimidation by yourself and other editors on this talk page with refusal to provide a basis, and threats of expanding the sanctions against me is despicable. Brews ohare (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop being a drama queen, Brews.
To repeat myself for the third time: I am not claiming that your involvement in policy discussions is a violation of your topic ban. I am simply saying that involving yourself in heated discussions is an unwise approach for an editor who is walking (as all sanctioned editors are) on thin ice. AGK 17:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

AGK: Repeating yourself three times: let's see. (i) 23:32, 24 October "Concur with above" suggesting I take a WikiBreak,(ii) 12:00, 25 October 12:05 "I echo Headbomb" who said I should "adjust my ways" or expect to land in "more trouble", (iii) 12:05 25 October "I echo Jehochman" who said I was heading to a site ban, 16:07, 25 October (iv) "Please be succinct... I did not say that your participation in the discussions in question was in violation of your topic ban. What I did say is that those discussions are prone to be controversial and/or heated, and are therefore likely to bring trouble your way." This last is the first actual statement of your position, and both a milder and clearer version than those you echoed and concurred with earlier. Is it only a "drama queen" that becomes excited over having their future bandied about without regard? Brews ohare (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've stated my position three times:

• "Please stop getting yourself into bad situations and just do some editing"; 23:32, 24 October 2009, above.
• "A user who has been topic-banned would be expected to be on his very best behaviour… Your recent contributions to the meta discussions that have been cited on your talk page and elsewhere are certainly not the most effective way of [doing so]"; 12:00, 25 October 2009, my talk page.
• "you are, by making a point to involve yourself in heated conflicts, acting without clue"; 16:07, 25 October 2009, my talk page.

If you dislike others being flippant in their attitude to your future, then you would do well to treat it seriously yourself. You're looking for trouble, and my basic point is that it's going to find you, sooner or later. I'm not trying to threaten or bully you; I'm trying to guide you. Am I being clear and being fair in my comments? AGK 21:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your clarity is improving; your openness of mind is not. Brews ohare (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I object to the suggestion that I am being closed-minded in my evaluation of your recent contributions. That is, of course, unless concluding that the seeking out of conflict by a topic-banned user is unlikely to end well is closed-minded. You've answered my first question, but not my second, so I respectfully ask again: am I being fair in my comments? AGK 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity

My cautions to the other editors should not be misunderstood as any sort of endorsement for your own positions, attitudes, or approaches to Wikipedia editing — nor should my requests be interpreted as an invitation for you to re-plead your Arbitration case with me.

I object strenuously to other editors poking you while you're under Arbitration sanction, but I will not be drawn into bickering or badmouthing between you and other editors whichever way the criticism is flowing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood; I am a proponent of enforcing civility across the board for the sake of civility. Brews ohare (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A sanction works two ways, Brews. If you behave well, yet others unfairly provoke you, we will be very keen to protect and encourage you to continue doing well. If on the other hand you disregard the sanction and make further trouble, there will be little patience. Which path will you take? Jehochman ^Talk 18:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope so; my past experience doesn't lead me to take too seriously the "keen encouragement" but I certainly have experienced the "little patience" (and little attempt at justification). Brews ohare (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that you would feel comfortable approaching any administrator to request assistance with another user, or group of users. I certainly would do my very best to help you if you were having trouble on the project; it's the least I could do after criticising you so heavily over the past two days. AGK 18:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Brews ohare (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Commandments for Administrative actions

A few precepts that I think should be obvious:

(i) Admins should not respond to mere clamor about disruption, but to documentable rules violations.

(ii) Admins should maintain a good editing environment on Talk pages: violations of WP:Civil,WP:NPA,WP:Talk & WP:Poll should be prevented, including catcalls, cheerleading, and red herrings, as elaborated below.

Admins should suppress catcalls; by this is meant interjections into a thread on the Talk page that are jeers or boos, such as Buckle your seatbelt, here we go again!

Admins should suppress cheerleading; by this is meant that accolades like "Me too!", "I echo that!", "I concur!", should be taboo, because they are made to snowball or bandwagon a viewpoint, not to add dimension to the discussion. They are intended simply to intimidate opposing viewpoints.

Admins should suppress red herrings; by this is meant injection into a thread on a Talk page a diversionary topic, meant as a distraction to interrupt discussion, or as a means of introducing a pet topic or rant that otherwise would be ignored. Separate threads should be started for separate topics.

(iii) Admins should narrowly interpret and rigidly enforce WP behavioral guidelines regardless of whom Admins believe to be in the right.

(iv) Admins should ride herd on waving about of WP:POV WP:OR WP:SYN WP:Fringe as self-evident labels and insist that the evidence supporting their use be presented explicitly. In other words, these guideline references should not be used as pejorative WP:Peacock terms.

(v) Admins should insure that Main article page rules are not applied to Talk page discussion, which last should be more open and free.

(vi) Admins should not take preemptive action based upon personal predictions of what might happen, but restrict themselves to what actually does happen. They are not fortune tellers.

(vii) Admins say themselves that they cannot address content, and so should not propose remedies that are content specific. For example, topic bans should not be imposed because Admins are frankly unable to distinguish occasions where the topic actually has been discussed (a violation), from other occasions where the topic has been merely alluded to, or has been used only as an example, or in fact hasn't come up at all although some of the vocabulary has been used. Page bans are better, because infractions are readily identified, whether you know anything or not. Behavioral control is even more appropriate, such as strict enforcement of WP:NPA or WP:Civil or WP:Talk.

(viii) Admins' overriding principle should be to catalyze open discussion of content, and rules should be enforced to engender exploration and comparison of viewpoints (not to impose unanimity), especially in the presence of vocal support for a particular view. Wikipedia:Reasonableness should be kept in mind. Brews ohare (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

► … ♫ … ◄

Were you planning on starting another project where these commandments might apply? They certainly don't all square with policy around here.  Frank  |  talk  21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

They are desiderata; they are not followed, at least not always, but it would be better if they were. Brews ohare (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a diversity of views. If you ever decide to run for adminship, you can adopt these principals, and encourage others to do the same. Jehochman ^Talk 01:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As noted, I consider this behavior as obviously desirable, and I am discouraged that one Admin sees them as applicable only to "another project" and still another Admin would consider them so far off base as to constitute a "diversity of views" requiring new blood to encourage their adoption. I feel that WP depends upon open discussion of content and the prevention of activity that inhibits it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they were far off base. We have a great diversity of views on Wikipedia. Each person can follow their own ideals (to a point), and may try to convince others (to a point). Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple logical deductions

FYI - I rewrote and put back into WP:NOR the section "Simple logical deductions" that was deleted, which you originally put in on 26 October 2009. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Hello, Brews ohare. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Block according to Arbcom remedy violation interpreted as literally as possible

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked temporarily from editing Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Just for 1 day... for this edit here: [17]

You were topic banned for 1 year from all physics-related talk pages. This is a trouting. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|This post was not anything of substance: it was a courtesy to the editors in this page to indicate that a link to Free space on Speed of light was not functional. If I had known better, I would have posted it on Village Pump as someone later suggested. Brews ohare (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)}}

Do you promise to not push any boundaries regarding your restriction? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at the case, I would have to agree with the user that while topic banned from physics-related talk pages, I don't think blocking him for bring up a site-issue that was affecting enwp was an intended consequence of the remedy. Q ^{T C} 00:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See the ANI thread regarding this for my reasoning. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OverlordQ, the spirit of the remedy is for the user to take a break from the affected pages altogether - that is why it prohibits any edits. For a site wide issue, there is no justification for posting it on a page you are banned from. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm going to unblock anyway. Just... don't do that again. Talk to a trusted friend if you see an error like that. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Per my post at the ANI thread, Q's comment about unintended consequences is correct, and reporting site problems is good, but I think Brews now understands that talkpages of physics articles aren't the right places to do it. Better places include WP:VP/T, http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org , and IRC #wikimedia-tech . 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews was obviously in good faith and trying to do a good deed. Equally obviously, Brews was prohibited from posting on a physics article's talk page. For what it's worth, in my experience when a valid wikilink doesn't work, it is usually a very temporary glitch. I wouldn't report it, or think about it, unless the problem lasted more than, say, a half hour. None in my experience ever lasted more than 10 minutes, as best I can recall. —Finell (Talk) 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is apparent that common sense has nothing to do with this action, which is just a blunt instrument used bluntly. I will endeavor to avoid any dependence on intelligent Admin behavior in the future. As indicated at AN/I, there are at least 6 other editors who think this block was a great idea, placing them in my highest esteem. Despite claims the block was lifted, it was not. Brews ohare (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You were specifically instructed not to participate in physics issues. I've seen this before: someone is put under remedy, and they push their boundaries. Often, this sets a precedent: well, I did this, so I can do this, too. So why the big fuss?

The fact is there are many 404s, for external links and for Wikipedia. You chose to post at the one place you should not have. Did I interpret this literally? Yes. If I decided to forego that option, there was a chance -- generally speaking -- that it would be a wedge that allowed you further access into the subject. It's over, now. If something is wrong with the technicalities of the unblock, please inform me; the blocking function can be finicky. If this is about the logged block: well, consider it a warning. You were specifically instructed not to participate on talk pages. Had you done it just a bit different, it would be a 1 week block. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing policies is difficult

I agree that there is a lot of resistance to get even minor policy changes accepted. Some time ago I had argued in favor of the science articles being split off from the rest of wikipedia. They would then be subject to different versions of the usual original research and verifiability policies.

I think it is possible to implement this under the current circumstances. The editors on any article can and do already decide by consensus to stick to certain rules they choose, even if they strongly violate some of the core wiki policies. E.g. on the global warming page we only allow peer reviewed articles as sources. Even the BBC is not considered a reliable enough source.

What happened recently was that some editors wanted to link to a BBC article which seemed to support a sceptical POV. They could not get their way and they went to the reliable sources noticeboard. There they got support from most editors. So, the Wikipedia-wide consensus is that the global warming article should allow in the text cited from the BBC. However, because the regular editors on the global warming page resisted, they still did not get their way.

So, it seems to me that the balance of power is already such that it is worthwhile to propose a new draft version of the OR and Verifiability policies. If you get some level of approval from the editors at Wikiproject Math and Wikiproject physics then that will be good enough. You don't need 100% support, but perhaps just 30% or so; a big minority should be enough. Then it is likely that some of these editors will decide that some articles they are working on will stick to the newly proposed variant of OR, instead of the regular version.

This could be the start of a split on Wikipedia. To me it is very logical that the policies that work well for politics pages will not work well for science pages and vice versa. Count Iblis (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am less enthusiastic than are you about your experiences. In the case you mention, of course, it turned out that a minority that shared your view triumphed. However, it appears to me that what you have found, as was evident on Speed of light as well, is that on any page a vocal group can succeed in imposing their views, regardless of sources or accuracy of any kind. They can impose their "local guidelines", which can exclude any WP guidelines they choose (including WP:NPA etc., not just WP:NOR). Moreover, with some Admin support (or perhaps mere ineptitude) they can apply the guidelines to whomever they wish, making some editors "more equal than others", as part of a strategy to maintain hegemony. That is simply the way to mayhem. On a page like evolution, say, an organized group could hijack the process and maintain garbage. It's even easier on pages of less popular interest, where a responsible editor may show up infrequently. It also is easier where the objective is not obviously a bias, for example, where an editor succeeds in forming an alliance that insists that any WP article should be short, and intelligible to 10-year olds with no background, contain no "symbol soup", no "complexity creep", and no "bloat". Brews ohare (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As for Talk: WP:NOR, the discussion of the simple syllogism illustrates why the flag WP:NOR is used successfully to exclude simple syllogisms: many editors don't recognize one when they see it, and some cannot concentrate upon a simple topic on a Talk page long enough to resolve anything. Brews ohare (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this has drawbacks. But if the alternative is that nothing would change at all then perhaps its worthwhile to create forks of the NOR, Synth, verifiability, Reliable Sources and other core policy pages pages that can serve as the de-facto policy pages for some articles. Count Iblis (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That may be the way to go, although very difficult to to do, as those that must be persuaded in order to adopt this policy are exactly those that don't understand any reason for it. Brews ohare (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are articles that are mainly edited by people who are sympathetic to changing the policies (people like me, Likebox, Michael C Price etc. etc.) Then if you were to write up a new version of NOR and call it, say, "NOR-Science" then on these articles we can write in the "infobox" on the talk page that the article follows the NOR-Science guidelines and not the official NOR policy.

There will be plenty of articles were people like Dicklyon, OMCV etc. are not active. Even on some pages were they do contribute, they could be outnumbered by others. In the latter case, it will be the same story as what happened on the global warming page were we do not stick to the official reliable sources policy (we only allow peer reviewd journal articles as sources for scientific claims). Count Iblis (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Its clear the Count and I disagree about a lot things especially the value of WP:OR. But as mentioned earlier on the Counts talk page if Wikipedia:Editing scientific articles switched its focus form "scientific articles" to "mathematics articles" (which would include all science articles with meaningful first principles derivations) the significant content of the policy might get passed through. I might even support such a policy. With that said I think we, as well as other science editors, can agree on there is a need to further clarify the value of a source to a scientific article. The guidelines need to go beyond WP:RS and need to be more generally applicable than Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). That's why I've been playing with User:OMCV/Sourcing science material, while I don't work on the global warming page such a policy would be really helpful in explaining the value of Institute journal (such as those published by the American Enterprise Institute), Peer-reviewed review articles, and research group reports (which need to be added to the draft). I know I just indirectly insulted you on another talk page Brews but I just wanted to say there are no hard feelings. The more straight forward editors behave the better in my mind.--OMCV (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

It is generally considered poor form to specifically (and exclusively) notify sympathetic editors of a poll, particularly when using a slanted, biased notice. If you wish to recruit neutral editors to participate in the discussion, filing a request for comment is generally a much fairer and more transparent method.

My poll regarding the close of the discussion is an attempt to save everyone – including you – some time and heartache. Unfortunately, simply ignoring the new discussions is not an option, as silence is all too often misinterpreted as consent. Many experienced editors have had a significant amount of time to read the discussion, to offer comment, and to evaluate the proposals that have come forward. It's time to listen to their advice, and move on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this advice. I have posted a RfC and invite you to bring your observation there. Brews ohare (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be neglecting the essential content of the straw poll that I posted. Instead of focussing on the process, perhaps you could try to address the legitimate concerns of all the editors who seem to see no point to further discussion of your proposed policy changes — or better yet, to calmly and maturely acknowledge that your proposals are not going to be implemented at this time, and stop beating the dead horse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades: The essential content of the straw poll is intimidation and attempted majority rule. I have followed your direct suggestion to post an RfC on the part of this poll suggesting a gag order. As for the legitimate concerns of the editors, they have been addressed in detail with several examples (at least one of which they have not troubled to read), and the suggestion was made that they take a look into symbolic logic propositional calculus and the work by Whitehead & Russell to understand that no change of policy is recommended, only a clarification of already existing policy. That simple point is never addressed by the opposing editors, who simply do not understand that a syllogism is noncontroversial and doesn't need to be sourced any more than do the principles of arithmetic. In sum, it is not so much a case of my beating a dead horse, but leading a horse to water. Brews ohare (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Friendly warning

Brews, please go improve a few non-controversial articles and stay out of disputes. Or, consider a wikibreak. You are inviting arbitration enforcement. You clearly violated WP:CANVASS, which, in turn, is a violation of your probation. Your volume of edits at Wikipedia talk:No original research, and the number and character of your posts there, is getting into the disruptive range, which is also a violation of your probation. Further, arguing for a policy change where you can't give an example of the need for it because the examples that you have would violate your topic ban if you used them is skirting the topic ban. It also suggests that you are not being objective in the policy discussion, since you appear to be arguing for a policy change based on the findings against you in the recent arbitration. Please observe that I am here, not at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

As for policy, WP:NOR is fundamental; it is the other side of the fundamental Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Wikipedians are justifiably cautious about creating what could become a loophole in fundamental policy. As a practical matter, editors will not object to an unsourced simple syllogism in an article if it is not controversial. If it is controversial, it probably isn't a simple syllogism after all. PLEASE do yourself a favor, stop with the crusades, stay away from drama, and enjoy the peaceful 75% (or so) of Wikipedia. —Finell (Talk) 02:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, Brews has not been disruptive at all. I would encourage Brews to continue with his efforts. It is true that the volume of postings at NOR has been large, but that's certainly not only Brews' fault. To determine the need of changes to the policy by looking at editing conflicts is nonsensical as I just pointed out on the NOR talk page.Count Iblis (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Finell: You now are threatening me. As you can see, I invited two editors to provide their opinion. Next TenOfAllTrades told me this was WP:Canvassing and I should post an RfC. So I did. Apparently that was bad advice. Apparently also, asking two editors for an opinion is not Canvassing. So altogether, I'd say TenOfAllTrades gave me bad advice and you are complaining about my following it. The real problem is setting up a tendentious straw pole in the first place. Brews ohare (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition, your remark that I appear to be arguing for a policy change based on the findings against [me] in the recent arbitration is hogwash. It is dragged in simply to beat a drum, to create a distraction. There is no stretch of imagination that can suggest a connection between stating that a syllogism is not WP:OR, and the fiasco on speed of light. And, as you say, there is no such thing as a controversial syllogism, so the majority in the WP:NOR discussion are out to lunch. Brews ohare (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It sure would be nice if you could treat these well-intentioned polite cautions as the well-intentioned polite cautions that they are, instead of always getting your back up against the wall and claiming to be "threatened". —Steve Summit (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve Summit: As a Rollbacker you must be aware that these are not "polite cautions" but cease and desist orders. Of course Finell doesn't have admin tools, but he likes to think he does, and TenOfAllTrades is an Admin who enjoys Finell's escort services. Brews ohare (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also relevant to the "canvassing" accusation is that on the specific point of closing discussions via some poll, Brews knew that I am not a priori opposed to such an idea. Because that had been one of my proposals on the Arbcom case and Brews voted against this proposal. So, when Brews informed me about the attempt to close the discussion, he knew that I would only agree with him if I would think that continuing to discuss the case was useful, not because I would defend Brews right to continue to argue the same point regardless of results.

Another thing is that Brews informing me does not count anyway, as I was one of the original participants in that discussion on the NOR page. So, Brews only informed one previously uninvolved person and I think he would also not back Brews unless he would think that continuing the discussions has some merit. Count Iblis (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you did well

That was some active discussion the last few days. I think you did well, behaved in a very civil manner, and showed good character. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Caution

Finell has warned you above that you ought to stay away from policy proposals based in physics article conflicts. These edits to WT:NOR are discussing a conflict at free space, a conflict in which you were involved. Your disclaimers notwithstanding, those edits are therefore a violation of your topic ban. Please take Finell's advice and stop testing the limits of your editing restrictions.

Should you persist in this vein, the matter will go directly to WP:AE, and you will almost certainly be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades: Well, of course, subtlety of mind is not a strong point of Admins, so you may be right about this. I would point out however, as I already did in fact, that I am not discussing a physics topic, but providing a specific illustration, because some editors at Wikipedia talk:No original research cannot envision the topic in the abstract. There is no intent here to revisit that discussion at a physics level: it is simply an example of the use of WP:SYN and WP:V that I think illustrates the point of the discussion on Wikipedia talk:No original research. I fail to see how that impacts my ban. The "physics" is not involved. What is involved is the syllogism A = C & B = C → A = B, and the example substitutes particular words for A, B, and C. To call that a physics discussion is ludicrous, but as you indicate, possibly too subtle for Admins. Brews ohare (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

During the ongoing Arbitration, you made a number of attempts to modify Wikipedia policies to reflect, endorse, or enforce your own positions in your physics-related conflicts. Moreover, you yourself acknowledged earlier in the discussion at WT:NOR that you wouldn't be able to bring up issues related to physics for fear of violating your topic ban. Even absent those points, your own actions in bringing up your conflict at free space made the discussion at WT:NOR a physics-related discussion. The decision by ArbCom to use 'broadly construed' in your topic ban was quite deliberately taken.

I would appreciate it if you didn't respond to this caution with further attacks on my intelligence. I warned you as a courtesy, and could just as easily have taken the matter directly to AE without cautioning you. Bluntly — find things to do on Wikipedia that have nothing at all to do with physics, or wait out your ban. You need to get entirely away from the topic. If you can't do it on your own, you will be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades: Of course, as with polite conversation, in my remarks present company was excepted. I will withdraw in view of your threats. Brews ohare (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I find this an absolutely ridiculous warning, considering how other people are dealt with here, e.g. Ottava Rima. It seems to me that Wikipedia has been corrupted by the disputes that go on on the politics pages. Brew' topic ban was an injustice imposed by incompetent arbitrators who know nothing about physics.

You also have to consider that if Brews is to stick to the letter of his topic ban (which he agrees to doing), then the Admins should also accept that Brews can do anything on Wikipedia that is consistent with his topic ban, which would include being heavily involved in Wiki policies. Or should Brews be flexible and accept that you should not take things so literally and look also at the factors that led to his topic ban?

That would be very strange, because there is absolutely no flexibility about Brews being allowed to contribute to, say, Lagrangian dynamics which he could spend many hours per day on for many months without causing any problems. Noooo, that's physics and he is not allowed to do that, says Arbcom who mistakenly thought that the trouble on the speed of light was caused by the physics nature of the topic. Count Iblis (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: New gag orders

Indeed! B.t.w., it is amusing to see how the Admins deal with the real edit warriors on Wikipedia. E.g. ChildofMidnight is an editor who was topic banned from all Obama related pages because of his POV pushing regarding Obama's birth certificate etc. etc. He continues to cause trouble look at the latest incident here. Jehochman closed that AN/I thread by writing:

FPaS, you're an admin. Deal with it. Getting abused is part of the job. Just erase the content from your talk page if it is uncivil.

Ottava Rima often causes trouble. The latest incident was that he made a lot of fuss about the alleged drugs use of some Admin here. He got a mild slap on his wrist by Jehochman: If he were to behave in that very outrageous way again he may be blocked for a while.

So, perhaps User:RickK was right after all:

There is a fatal flaw in the system. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do.

There is no reason to continue here. RickK 04:32, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Above contributed by Count Iblis

Entirely clear

Your remarks of the last two days have been a clear violation of another portion of the Arbitration restrictions placed on your editing. As noted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted, you are required to adhere to Wikipedia's "expected standards of behavior and decorum", and have been placed under a general probation regarding misconduct in that regard.

In order to help you to avoid blocks under the arbitration case, at least three editors have now offered you warnings and guidance regarding violations of your physics topic ban — in lieu of simply requesting a block at WP:AE. In response to these attempts to help you avoid a block, you have responded with gross incivility and insinuations of bad faith. Oddly enough, while your arbitration restrictions did not require you to be issued warnings prior to any block for violations of your topic ban, warnings do seem to be required for violations of your 'behaviour and decorum' probation.

The following recent edits were not in accordance with expected standards of Wikipedia behaviour.

• [18] ...TenOfAllTrades is an Admin who enjoys Finell's escort services.
• [19] TenOfAllTrades: Well, of course, subtlety of mind is not a strong point of Admins...
• [20] As you can see, my caution regarding Admins is well justified. It appears it is not a matter of intelligence or subtlety of mind, but a straightforward power play...

This edit was a violation of your topic ban:

• [21]

This edit was probably a technical violation of your topic ban, though as it responded to a direct question I would have been inclined to let it slide if not for its context.

• [22]

This is therefore the final required warning to you — you've used up the patience and good faith you've been extended, and future attacks, insults, or incivility will go directly to arbitration enforcement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to add some counter-clarity ... imho the first three edits you refer to above are examples of you (10oat) being overly sensitive (as an involved editor it hardly becomes you to warn ohare when he is mildly critical of you); the next is imho not an infringement of ohare's topic ban (they are discussing policy and using a recent example to make their case ... how else would they?) no physics was being discussed; and the fifth edit summary you quote was not an edit summary so I cannot comment but I'm not hopeful that your objection to it was anything other than minor to the point of pettiness. Abtract (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades: You are interpreting the observation [23] ...TenOfAllTrades is an Admin who enjoys Finell's escort services. as an insult: as is apparent from the full context of that remark, it refers merely to the obvious fact that you thank Finell for taking the words out of your mouth. You also take the general remark:[24] Well, of course, subtlety of mind is not a strong point of Admins... to be directed at yourself personally, which simply is not the case. The remark [25] As you can see, my caution regarding Admins is well justified. It appears it is not a matter of intelligence or subtlety of mind, but a straightforward power play... is, in fact, my honest assessment of the actions you and other Admins have taken at the WP:NOR talk page and elsewhere, and is borne out by your own extreme actions to stifle my discussion at the talk page of WP:NOR, ending all participation as a result of a cease & desist order from you. Naturally, you would rather hear glowing praise, but I don't find that appropriate.

The diffs regarding my topic ban already have been defended, and do not constitute a violation even in a very broad interpretation of a "discussion of physics".

This "final warning" of yours regarding behavior is based upon misinterpretation and unwillingness to deal straightforwardly with criticism.

Quite possibly, you will take this mild defense against your charges as a violation of your "final warning", as attempts at defense apparently are not permissible in your eyes, and so use it as a pretext to implement a further ban, not actually specified in detail in your remarks so far. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In sum

It is apparent from a look at my contributions log that stupid disputes have occupied my time for months, beginning with the fiasco at Case/Speed of light, where I would have been well-advised to boycott the proceedings altogether, as all my efforts there were ignored completely, including my good advice about what actions should be taken, which was not even commented upon. As was pointed out in that Case by myself and others, and by other editors elsewhere, the resulting topic ban imposed upon myself was implemented under the misunderstanding by the Arbitrators (contrary to overwhelming suggestions by many editors) that this was a dispute over physics (which it was not). The imposition of a topic ban based upon this misconception was absurd. The ban was implemented despite the statement adopted by the Arbitrators as part of the Case that they were incompetent to judge content. In addition, the ban was imposed upon not just physics but all "physics-related topics - broadly interpreted", for the extraordinary period of one year, eliminating all the hard sciences, engineering, astronomy or whatever.

These limitations upon my participation were arbitrarily extended by cease & desist actions of Administrators to prevent my contributions to guideline and policy matters, although these have nothing to do with the remedies against me, making me feel like the victim of a vendetta. Consequently, I am unable to do anything on WP except argue with Admins who insist upon misinterpreting the sanctions and following me about with prejudicial actions wherever I go.

No doubt, after the sanctions expire, they will continue to be raised in future activity, as all felons are branded for life, even those convicted under dubious circumstances.

Waste, mismanagement, and pettiness!!!! Brews ohare (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I would like to suggest, gently, that you drop all this ... forget about trying to change policy, don't engage in discussion of the past and don't try to skirt round the restrictions. I speak as someone who has been in a not dissimilar position and have finally discovered that it doesn't actually matter. I'm sure you have a life ... live it ... I have no doubt you have lots to do outside wp ... do it. I suggest you sit back and watch your pages for a few weeks and then gradually re-enter the editing world somewhere innocuous ... maybe via mos:dab or random article but don't stray into, say, maths, because that will pettily be linked to physics. You will be released eventually but that time will not be hurried by intransigence now ... if you avoid breaking restrictions it will eventually become a habit and there will be satisfaction in success. Abtract (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Abtract: Thanks for the suggestion. I don't know when I'll return as frankly I don't want to participate with a large number of those who, imo, are not worth talking to, and use whatever acumen they may have just to be disagreeable and throw their weight around.

Much of the pleasure I had on WP was constructing articles and enjoying their evolution as new ideas were raised. That pleasure cannot be had when hornets come in spoiling for debate, not discussion, and anxious to get into procedural matters and AN/I. The idea is to manipulate matters to manufacture the appearance of behavioral issues and call in the Admins, who actually cannot judge what is going on, but like to use their authority. It seems these sorts are much more prominent in WP than I had thought previously. It is WP as drama and entertainment, not as an encyclopaedia. Brews ohare (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course Brews. WP is multidimensional. The challenge is to do something constructive amongst all this drama (actually spelled dramah by the experts, for more dramatic effect) and entertainment. It can be fun but it can also backfire if you take all the peripheral stuff too close to heart. Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 19:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

An interesting perspective. It is what it is, so take it or leave it, eh? That multidimensional aspect mainly means you have to be ready to pack up and run when you see it coming. Or, change teams and switch from being a contributor to being one of the wolf pack. Of course, if you have an investment of a one-line edit or a switch in wording, who cares. If you have actually constructed an article, leaving it to be ravaged is less simple. Brews ohare (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No. I never advocated to pack up and run and of course when you see one of the articles that you wrote being dismantled you have to react. But if you see a consensus forming that the article must develop in a way that is antithetical to your opinion then let it be. It's tough to generalise this but the gist of my argument is don't wear yourself out when the adversity reaches a certain critical mass. And I think in this case it has. Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 20:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think there is room for Brews to be involved in writing new policies. I've argued on the NOR talk page that it is time to think about alternative/parallel policies for science articles. I wrote about this to Brews also here. Ultimately everyone can edit Wikipedia and the IAR policy clearly states that any rule (which including all the core policies, including even Brews' topic ban), can be ignored if sticking to the rule would prevent one from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I will note that invoking WP:IAR to justify a violation of the Arbitration remedy has been tried before, and will not fly. I would strongly discourage you from trying that approach. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I explained in detail on your talk page why IAR is relevant and how it should be applied. In short, Brews should not violate his topic ban. However, since physics is such a huge field, Brews could be construed to have violated his topic ban, even if he stays away from physics. In such cases a reasonable Admin should invoke IAR. Brews should not deliberatly shoehorn his other activities in order to violate his topic ban. E.g. he should not correct typos on physics pages and then invoke IAR by saying that he was only correcting a typo. But if he were to seriously contribute to a policy page and within that context some example of relevance is requested from Brews, then giving a link to his past physics editing history while not discussing that directly, should not lead to a block (note that he only has contributed to physics articles here). Count Iblis (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, It seems like the purpose of the ban should have been limited to protecting the development of physics articles from disruption. Would you happen to know what the admins had in mind when they seemed to extend it beyond this purpose, with the "broadly construed" phrase, so that it would include prohibiting Brews from using physics examples at WT:NOR? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that TenOfAllTrades is not responsive to these requests for elaboration, and his comments on Count Iblis Talk page and regarding the discussion on Talk:WP:NOR indicate he will invoke the prerogative built into the remedies (enabling any Admin to act arbitrarily upon their sole judgment) to thwart any attempt to ameliorate the remedies or work within them. Brews ohare (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob K31416: The words "broadly construed" were not added by admins. They are part of the arbitration topic ban itself. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare topic banned: "4.2) Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months." —Finell (Talk) 22:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Finell, It looks like there's just some miscommunication here. When I mentioned "admins", I was referring to the admins that made the ban. Unless it was made by people who were not admins? In any case I was referring to the people who made the ban.

I should add that I thought I got a satisfactory answer by looking at something Ten had written elsewhere. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Those were arbitrators, as in WP:ArbCom. There are a total of 13 elected arbitrators, although only 9 are active. They are Wikipedia's elite. —Finell (Talk) 02:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Elite? Hmmm. Perhaps they are elite like people in congress are elite? Getting to that position seems like a political process. I know of a former one of those elite folks that was desysopped (by arbcom!) for edit warring and conduct unbecoming an admin. But as far as deciding the fate of other editors, they seem to be OK, although I don't know much about their decisions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob, you say,

But as far as deciding the fate of other editors, they seem to be OK, although I don't know much about their decisions. (Bob k31416)

This is an appallingly naive statement. It says that their actions seem to be OK, but that you don't know what those actions are.

I can tell you that their actions are anything but OK. They judge on one single criteria. They judge by observing which persons are getting the most cabbages thrown at them. With the exception of Stephen Bain, they are nothing but pillory attendants. They are not judges at all. In the recent case, they openly expressed their contempt for examining the facts of the case. The majority side in the dispute were clearly terrified that the content matter of the dispute would be discussed, and ARBCOM obliged that side by rolling the case through on the basis of allegations of phantom disruptive behaviour. The term 'disruptive behaviour' was of course consistently used in the Orwellian sense to refer to the expression of opinions that were not acceptable to the majority side in the content dispute. David Tombe (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Being right and disruptiveness

Hi Brews. Here's a very hypothetical situation for your consideration. It isn't a situation that has necessarily happened, but I'm just putting it forth for the sake of discussing the most productive way that one can choose to behave on the Wikipedia.

Suppose someone makes an edit that is correct on an article. And suppose all the other editors of the article believe the edit is incorrect. And no matter how many arguments the correct editor puts forth, and no matter how many others are called in to participate in the discussion, no one agrees with that editor. Would it be disruptive to that article's progress, for the editor who is correct to continue the discussion on that article's talk page? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A very pertinent question. Of course, the answer will vary. If the opposing editors are obviously thoughtful and interested in a correct presentation, they will consider sources and be logical and creative. If they are full of themselves, and want mainly to see their preconceptions in the article, there is no point in dealing with their rhetoric and no pleasure either. Unfortunately, I had too high an opinion of the editors on Speed of light, and took too long to categorize them.

There also is a content issue: on WP:NOR for example, there is the issue of understanding what is talked about, of course. But the subject also is about judgment and estimation of what will work and what won't. Unfortunately, many editors are incapable of distinguishing these facets, and refuse to consider the logic of the matter at all in their anxiety over the question of whether change will work. In the face of such confusion between what is to be fixed and whether the fix will work, again discussion is not possible.

In short, there are a great many more editors on WP than I had hoped with whom it is fruitless to expect either discussion or judgment. Pursuing article development with them is a waste of time, and they will draw in administrators with even less common sense. Whether or not WP will evolve in a positive direction under the auspices of these editors is a coin toss, but arguing with them is a stupidity I will not repeat.

Acceptance of refusal to engage where nothing is to be gained is a form of self-censorship. It means that I would be far more cautious about engaging again in topics like Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) or Inertial frames of reference or Faraday's law of induction or Electromotive force or Wavelength or Matter or Free space or Electric dipole moment where there was a lot of discussion, some complex, that was ultimately productive but led me to an unrealistic optimism about what can be expected in article development on WP. Case/Speed of light has introduced me to a number of incapable arbitrators and administrators, and that has been an extreme disillusionment. I also encountered a number of editors of dubious character. It's a question whether my lowered expectations of WP leave enough enthusiasm to participate further. During the year, I can mull that over. Brews ohare (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia isn't what I expected either, and it wouldn't surprise me if that is how most editors feel. Too combative for instance. But I think that there are a lot of articles, or parts of articles, that can be edited without problems. It seems that articles in the physics area that have de facto prerequisites on the background of the editors, because they are too abstruse for editors without a sufficient background, have fewer of these types of problems. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob, The answer to your above question is simple. If a person who is correct is outgunned by a gang who are incorrect, then he will not be able to have any effect on the main article. He can however discuss the matter on the talk page. If the gang in question refuse to discuss the matter, then the discussion will soon end, and that will be the end of the matter. If the discussion goes on for many months, it means that there is obviously something to be discussed, and nobody involved in the discussion can rightfully be accused of disruptive behaviour.

But what you have witnessed recently has been nothing to do with disruptive behaviour. I have just explained that over on Count Iblis's talk page. The term 'disruptive behaviour' as it has been used in these debates, has been one big lie. The term has been used in an Orwellian doublethink manner, to apply to opinions that are not acceptable to the party.

All this so called disruptive behaviour on talk pages that got two editors banned from editing physics topics was not disruptive behaviour at all. You witnessed two editors getting topic banned for the sole reason that they were expressing opinions on talk pages. And those opinions did not please the majority group that were active on the article. And those opinions were such that rather than argue against them, they chose to win the argument by default, by making out a false case of disruptive behaviour and having their opponents disqualified. David Tombe (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

David's remarks provide a very clear and accurate summary. Brews ohare (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion. Others thought you both evaded some substantive issues, which was disruptive.--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The only point that I forgot to mention was that if a majority argues against a minority on a talk page for a considerable length of time, then if there is any actual disruptive behaviour going on, it will more than likely be on the part of that majority. If a majority believe themselves to be correct, and the circumstances are such that they don't need to be arguing, then they won't bother to argue for very long. A majority, who are in the position of power, will only continue to argue at length if their belief systems are being shattered by the truth. In that case, the counter arguing on the part of that majority is likely to involve disruptive tactics such as making false accusations of disruption against the minority. This tactic of reversing the true source of the disruption is known as corruption. David Tombe (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael C. Price: Of course that is my considered opinion. The point as far as WP is concerned is whether the remedies stemming from Case/Speed of light and my experiences with other editors during Case/speed of light and afterward will change my behavior, not whether it will change my opinion, and whether any such change in behavior will be advantageous for the goals of WP. It already is apparent that my opinion of the Case/Speed of light and my experience there has not convinced me that I was wrong, but that I was mistaken to situate myself under the whim of arbitration. That result is the major purpose of the arbitrators (which is to instill an abhorrence of arbitration so as to make a threat of their action as effective as its use). It is not, however, a plus for the editing environment, which would be better served by arbitration that was seen to be open minded and proportionate. Brews ohare (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when it became clear that your (illogical) opinion would not change the only recourse was to (forcibly) change your behaviour. I would have preferred rational debate of the substantive issues, but you and DT declined. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael C. Price: It must become apparent to you sooner or later that these argumentative statements of yours are not going to elicit any mea culpa from me, but do serve to reinforce my unfavorable opinion of yourself. Please desist. Brews ohare (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I realised that right from when you declined to respond substantively. BTW I was never after apologies, just understanding, so that this doesn't all repeat next year. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

David, When I started this section, I was already cognizant of the points in your message. In fact, in a previous discussion regarding another editor, I noted that having a minority opinion is not a violation of policy. With respect to disruptiveness, I moved that previous discussion towards using the actual definition of disruptiveness from WP:DISRUPT.

I'm sure you can make good arguments that continuing a discussion when you are correct, without any budging from the majority opposition, is beneficial. But I'm also confident that you could make arguments that it is harmful. Then, in my opinion, you have to use a higher level of thinking at the macroscopic level, rather than the microscopic level, to exercise judgement as to whether or not it is beneficial for the practical progress of the article to choose to continue the discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bob: I doubt that continued discussion is harmful; it is just irritating to the majority. Ultimately, depending upon the composition of the majority, it becomes apparent that (i) they won't disengage. (ii) they are becoming literally mad and (iii) they are going to get the minority exiled. So, unfortunately, it is a matter of self-preservation for the minority to withdraw, whatever the higher purpose may be. Brews ohare (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In this connection, the repeated assertion of arguments however logical or sourced is interpreted as (to quote WP:DISRUPT) an example of WP:POV. Of course, it is. Unfortunately, a correct POV is still a POV, and there is no way (including logic or sources or argument from first principles) to persuade a majority that their POV is less acceptable than the minority POV. After all, what does "acceptable" mean to a majority? It doesn't mean "satisfies standards", it means "satisfies the standards of the majority". Once madness sets in, no evolution of the standards of the majority will occur. Brews ohare (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob, Two guys were booted off the project for expressing opinions on a talk page. That's all there is to it. When you stated above, in relation to whether or not discussion can be harmful,

But I'm also confident that you could make arguments that it is harmful (Bob k31416)

it tells me that you are trying too hard to imagine that bullying and corrupt practices did not take place in relation to the sanctions that were applied against Brews and myself. It is the height of nonsense to start trying to make a science out of when is the right time to end a discussion. And please do bear in mind that in the case in question, I wasn't even involved for three weeks before I got page banned. A discussion will take its natural course. But on this occasion, it wasn't allowed to take its natural course. The discussion was broken up, and ARBCOM legislated dictatorial powers for administrators to bully Brews and myself.

I've seen bureaucrats in real life who will tell no end of lies to themselves in order to delude themselves that the corrupt actions of their colleagues were not corrupt. And it's sheer self delusion to start trying to analyze when a certain discussion should have ended in order to try and convince oneself that disruptive behaviour may actually have taken place, and that hence the behaviour of ARBCOM was somehow justified. It wasn't justified. It was an act of bullying and corruption designed to facilitate one side in a content dispute. David Tombe (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi David: You introduce the interesting concept of a science out of when is the right time to end a discussion, which is what one would like (unrealistically, unfortunately) to achieve. I guess at this point I have a newly acquired sense of when this point is reached, which includes criteria about crowd behavior and mob leaders I had not previously thought necessary for WP. Brews ohare (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

David, I recognize that there are unfair practices by some editors and even admins on Wikipedia. As I mentioned at the beginning of this section, I was only bringing up for consideration a hypothetical situation, not a specific case, where one is correct but opposed by an intransigent majority. BTW, a question came to mind regarding a hypothetical situation. If you were in a situation where you became fairly certain that you couldn't sway a majority that opposed your article page edit, would you continue the discussion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob: I'd like to clarify that David made zero edits to the article page, and by the time the Case was launched I wasn't editing the article page myself. So, does your "hypothetical" refer to Talk page edits? Brews ohare (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Added "article page" to my previous question. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob K31416: That being so, I'd say for myself (although your question is for David), that my first response to an editor questioning an addition to the article page is to request a Talk-page discussion. On Case/Speed of light that was insufficient to defray the charge of tendentious editing however, which was applied to my insistence only on the Talk page (the addition to the main page having been reverted by opposing editors, often with at most a one-line Edit Summary). This criticism of extended Talk page discussion also was followed by TenOfAllTrades on the WP:NOR Talk page, leading to a cease & desist order when that approach didn't seem to be working. Brews ohare (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, you didn't answer the question. Perhaps we have trouble communicating in this matter. In other discussions with you, I felt we communicated better. In any case, I'm only discussing hypotheticals here. I'll wait to see David's response. Cheers. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob, OK. I'll answer your question. But first I should point out that hypothetical scenarios can be dangerous because they can lead others to believe that they are actually real scenarios. And it is clear that your hypothetical scenario is drifting dangerously close to attempting to justify the actions of ARBCOM in sanctioning one party to a talk page discussion, and not the other party.

You have asked me would I continue a talk page discussion if I became fairly certain that I couldn't sway an intransigent majority. Your question in itself implies that I was guilty of pushing an issue beyond an unacceptable duration of time, so you question is a loaded question.

The answer to your question, which we must now emphasize is a purely hypothetical question, is that so long as that majority continue to attempt to defend their position, then they are clearly worried, and it is perfectly in order in my opinion for the minority to keep pushing the issue.

On the recent speed of light case, I pushed the issue sporadically for a period ranging from about 5th August 2009 to 19th August 2009. On all occasions, I was responded to. Had I not received any responses to my assertions, I would have gone away. I made minimal edits to the main article in relation to the controversy in question, and I was not involved in the revert war that caused the page to be protected in mid-August, yet I was singularly page banned on 19th August for the exclusive reason that Physchim62 objected to the opinions that I was expressing on the talk page, and because he had an acquaintance, Jehochman, who was willing to do the honours. And the page ban was later extended in October to an ARBCOM topic ban for all physics articles, even though I hadn't edited the main speed of light article since 12th August.

I don't know what your interest in all of this is. But if you are trying to rationalize with yourself that the actions of ARBCOM were somehow justified, then forget it. ARBCOM's actions were not justified. Only one arbitrator, Stephen Bain, made any serious attempt to enquire into the facts of the case. This latest business of investigating the science of when a discussion has gone on for too long is plain utter nonsense. It is a nonsense science whose only purpose is to try and obtain some kind of false retrospective justification for the corrupt actions of ARBCOM.

I'm sure that you must also have noticed how ARBCOM, who pride themselves on acting through consensus, actually legislated dictatorial powers for the administrators to bully myself and Brews. This dictatorial aspect of the ARBCOM sanctions went out under the euphemism of 'probation', and it has already been abused in a grotesque and disgusting manner by administrators Tzntai and AGK.

All this corruption has been instigated for the sole purpose of assisting one side in a content dispute. And that's not cricket. David Tombe (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I'm only discussing hypotheticals here. My previous question was: If you were in a situation where you became fairly certain that you couldn't sway a majority that opposed your article page edit, would you continue the discussion? Thanks for the part of your response where you answered:

"The answer to your question, which we must now emphasize is a purely hypothetical question, is that so long as that majority continue to attempt to defend their position, then they are clearly worried, and it is perfectly in order in my opinion for the minority to keep pushing the issue."

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

To me that sounds like a school book example appeal for disruption. DVdm (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That may be true if one only considers the minority's actions. But doesn't the majority have a responsibility to end the discussion too? --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But silence by the majority will be interpreted as vindication for the minority POV, who will then edit accordingly, and incorrectly. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a possible scenario. The minority makes the edit claiming consensus from silence. The majority reverts it and points out in the edit summary that the reversion demonstrates objection to the edit and consensus is needed. If there is consensus against the edit, wouldn't the majority dominate the reversions? --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob, Yes. That is absolutely correct. A minority can very easily be made ineffective on main article space by the use of mechanisms such as the three revert rule. So when a minority fails to persuade a majority on a talk page, and that majority decides to stop arguing, then the matter is essentially over. But if the majority keep coming back to argue on the talk page, then I can't see how any side can legitimately be accused of disruptive behaviour.

This whole thing about disruptive behaviour on talk pages is nonsense. It is one big lie that has been used as a basis for justifying corrupt actions and hiding the truth.

Another big lie has been the abuse of the 'assumption of bad faith' card. Why shouldn't somebody assume bad faith? What kind of a tyranny is it if we are not allowed to assume bad faith? The 'assumption of bad faith' thing was actually originally intended to apply in the special circumstances when a new editor begins to edit. We are supposed to initially assume good faith until it becomes obvious that the new editor is not acting in good faith. But the 'assumption of bad faith' card is now being used abusively as a means of preventing free speech in debates, especially in relation to matters where corrupt practices are being exposed. Any attempts to expose corrupt practices are fended off by the abusive use of the 'assumption of bad faith' card. It's time to snap out of these corrupt practices. David Tombe (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

DVdm believes repeated attempts to present a minority view on the Talk page is disruption (presumably in the sense of WP:Disrupt) & Michael C. Price thinks Talk page discussion by a minority cannot be ignored because it will be considered consensus and lead to Main Page disruption. Of course, Main Page disruption by a minority is readily dealt with using 3RR, especially by a majority, and can be further enforced by introducing a motion against Main Page alteration by the majority, violations of which can be taken to AN/I. That means the ignoring of minority opinion on the Talk page is very effective and any confusion about silence = consensus is readily dealt with. As Bob has pointed out, the majority is therefore free to ignore topics they do not find germane. Thus, it is not reasonable to look upon minority discussions on topics in minority threads as disruption. Nonetheless, there are those that sometimes appear in the majority that cannot let any sign of dissent go unpunished, and it occurs that administrators can be found that agree. My view, post Case/Speed of light, is that pursuit of discussion by a minority, even when restricted in its entirety to its own thread on a Talk page, is suicide beyond a few iterations. Brews ohare (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Conceivably, if the majority were informed by some modification to guidelines outlining a procedure to deal with Main Page disruption, based upon 3RR and a motion to kill Main Page edits considered to be disruptive by a majority poll; the majority could relax sufficiently to allow minority discussion of a thread on the Talk page to proceed, uninterrupted by the majority and majority appeals for Arbitration? Brews ohare (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, when the minority had concluded their discussion they could package a proposed insertion for the Main Page for the majority's consideration, which the majority could discuss and "send back to committee" with their reservations and recommendations?

Wow, what a great change in procedure that would be compared to the present rhetorical debates, screams of disruption, violations of WP:NPA & WP:Civil, and moves for arbitration!!! Brews ohare (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a proposal for comment. Brews ohare (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dealing with minority views

The article Dealing with minority views has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Personal essay already present in user space. Potential exists for this essay to be moved to WP space, but it certainly does not belong in article space as written.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it appears that you copied your userspace essay User:Brews ohare/Dealing with minority views into the main article space by mistake, I have deleted the article-space duplicate for you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice of Arbitration Enforcement

I made a request that your ban is enforced by block at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews ohare. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violation of your topic ban. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. MBisanz ^talk 19:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brews ohare (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block has not been justified and is an arbitrary action. The erroneous accusations presented by Headbomb have not been argued and no time allowed for discussion.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but the terms of your topic ban were clear. If you wish to be unblocked before the set expiration time of the block, you'll need to make a convincing argument that you did not violate the topic ban. TNXMan 19:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MBisanz: I do not see how Brews' mere mention of Talk: Speed of light solely as an example of a particular kind of behavior (the diff on which your block was based), with no discussion of physics and not on a physics page, violates his topic ban. The behavioral issues are another matter and require careful analysis, but your block is based solely on one diff and solely for violating the topic ban. A block on that ground is not justified, in my opinion. —Finell (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left a note for MBisanz alerting him to this unblock request. TNXMan 03:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Here I agree with Finell. It is one thing to demand that under the terms of the ban broadly construed Brews abstain from Physics related topics and another to deny him even mentioning Physics related terms in non Physics related contexts. Let's say he disagreed with someone and exclaimed: "Our opinions are light-years apart". Is this a blockable offence? I sure hope not. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 04:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of topics, pages or discussions Brews ohare is welcome to edit on or about; just not physics-related ones. He needs to move away from the battles that stemmed from them. If he is unable or unwilling to comply with this restriction strictly, both in letter and in spirit, then he needs to find ways to remedy this voluntarily. There's no point wikilawyering this restriction because this is his second block; after another block, the duration of the blocks will be substantially longer to the point that they will represent site-wide bans. If you do not wish this to happen, then perhaps you both can help Brews find ways to avoid violating his remedy, rather than (unintentionally) letting him to push the boundaries. This means directing him to topics, pages and discussions that are not just unrelated to physics, but those where he will not be tempted to continue to bring up physics (or the old battles that came about from there, even the ArbCom case), broadly construed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is really a nonsense; the poor guy is trying his best ... but still wriggling on the end of the line. Let him be. If he wants to write essays of make mention of past cases without being disruptive or particularly aggressive/offensive for goodness sake don't keep kicking him. For an admin to come out of the blue to block him everytime he strays ever so slightly will be very demoralising and he will disappear which would be a shame because he has a lot to offer. I know from bitter experience how badly a sanctioned editor can feel especially in the immediate aftermath and in the secure knowledge that you were 'right' ... but I also know that the hurt heals if left alone. Please don't hound him to every corner of wp; let him get on with his own salvation. What purpose are these blocks supposed to serve? They certainly don't protect wp because he isn't being disruptive. "Broadly construed" mustn't be used to nit-pick. Abtract (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Frivolous block

The possible reasons underlying this block are (i) violation of my topic ban, and (ii) serious failure to adhere to expected standards of behavior. I will deal with these in order:

Violation of topic ban: the topic ban is physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed. The cited violations are a general discussion of an essay on my User pages which have nothing to do with the topic ban at all; a nonspecific link to the WP:ESCA talk page, which is about suggestions for editing, not about physics; a link to my Talk page referring not to my actions, but to a comment by an editor involved in Case/Speed of light who chooses to suggest that my discussion on AN/I is "inadvisable" and another link to my Talk page in which I was told to desist in my AN/I discussions (which I did, having no recourse), advice that was contested by other editors, and which again has nothing to do with my topic ban. Finally, an open letter to Jim Wales about what I see as an unfortunate editing climate on WP, again unrelated to my topic ban and concerning WP in the abstract. In sum, none of these links provided by Headbomb are in any way related to the topic ban.

Serious failure to adhere to expected standards of behavior: No inappropriate conduct is cited as evidence. However, three links are supplied about prior warnings that are conduct related. a commentary by Headbomb on AGK's talk page suggesting that it is not "very best behaviour" to engage in "meta discussions" , which strikes me as a total logical disconnect as meta discussions are not ipso facto bad behavior, a link to my Talk page by the editor involved in Case/Speed of light (previously mentioned) suggesting that policy discussion is inappropriate, and a follow up on my Talk page. All these cautions suggest that "meta discussions" are somehow inappropriate, but provide zero substantiation of these claims. Moreover, my topic ban makes no such provision, these discussions are not physics related, and they are not disruptive in the least (never mind "serious disruptions"), being discussion only of policy, where brainstorming is going on: that is not disruptive - it is just normal WP activity.

In short, the links provided by Headbomb do not refer in any way at all to the subjects of my bans and certainly are not disruptive in any way to WP activity. They are, in simple, contributions to efforts to improve WP editing environment, and to contribute constructive suggestions to ongoing discussion. No evidence of contentious behavior, incivility or anything of the kind is evident and there is absolutely no discussion of physics related topics involved. This action by Headbomb and enforced by MBisanz is frivolous and misconceived and should be dismissed. The justification by MBisanz is based upon inclusion of a link to Talk: Speed of light used as a noun in a single sentence replying to an editor's comment on my own User page; mind-boggling! Brews ohare (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This action was subsequently upheld by Tnxman307. Brews ohare (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked to see the treatment that has been dished out so arbitrarily against a good contributor. Sometimes I wonder how Wikipedia functions when this sort of thing occurs. Brews, I wonder how you still have the stomach to be involved. LittleOldMe (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Note

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FSpeed_of_light. MBisanz ^talk 13:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)