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

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

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

Request from Cool Hand Luke

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jehochman

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

Abtract

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

Brews ohare

First, as I understand it, and so far as my remarks and evidence are concerned, the scope of this examination is /Case/Speed of light, and the objectives are therefore limited. Proposals like that of Physchim62 for one year bans of myself and D Tombe from English Wikipedia in its entirety go far beyond fixing behavior on Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light, and exceed the scope of this inquiry. To propose the Depleted uranium case or the Sadi Carnot case as precedents shows an acute lack of judgment in discerning parallels, and a failure to recognize the scope of the present inquiry and the different nature of the present problem. The only party to this dispute that may be accused of deliberate distortion and misrepresentation is Physchim62 himself, and even that egregious misbehavior occurred only on Talk pages. The justification for any drastic remedies affecting activity on WP outside Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light should be based upon individual, separate inquiries into the behavior of the affected editors where their overall contributions can be examined widely and a proper presentation of evidence organized. Moreover, any allegations or issues brought into this case from other venues, not only from activities on other pages of WP, but activities outside WP altogether, have bearing only insofar as they illuminate Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light, because the objective here is not an evaluation of these (or any other) editors per se but an examination of how to improve overall behavior at Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light. Moreover, allegations dragged in selectively from outside the venue of Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light by editors with an agenda require special evaluation as remarks based outside this venue are very likely to be presented without the appropriate context and are on that account readily distorted, whether deliberately or by accident.

It might also be noted that the situation at Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light has unfortunately escalated to the point of extreme polarization and development of deaf ears on all sides. Although there may be a tendency to scapegoat individual editors, the problem is one of controlling the editorial process, not the editors one by one. There are two separate problems to face: first, how to restore Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light to a working atmosphere, and second, how to learn from this experience so it will not be repeated.

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

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

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

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

My Summary of Events and Remedies

Having had some time to let things fall into perspective, I'd summarize the events at Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light like this: a particular topic on this page related to the significance of the SI Units number 299,792,458 m/s arose, and led to opposing camps. Unfortunately, civility was lost in the discussion, and it became a "your side" and "my side" kind of debate. This is not really a problem of content, or WP:OR or WP:POV or WP:Fringe, all of which are bandied about in the flurry of debate as a way to stigmatize the opposing views. The problem is one of escalating polarization leading to Pavlovian responses, not to civil and reasoned responses. It is true that the conduct of some participants increased the polarization. However, even supposing all the bad actors are banned forever from WP, there will be recurrence of this behavior involving entirely different participants, as is evident from the WP history. The problem to solve is how to set up regulations and enforcement of regulations so that this kind of circus cannot develop because a lid is kept on bad behavior as it occurs. Banning or blocking new participants episode by episode is not getting to the bottom of things. My suggestions to ameliorate the situation are described above. Brews ohare (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Charvest

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

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

Count Iblis

This is a good start.

What kind of physics articles do we really want?

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

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

How to conduct technical discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Tombe

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

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

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

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

Dicklyon

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

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

DVdm

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

Finell

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

Headbomb

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

Martin Hogbin

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

Physchim62

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

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

Steve (Sbyrnes321)

Proposed principle: Editing with unconventional beliefs

I think a principle that could get to the heart of (what I see as) the problems with David Tombe would be something like:

Although it is possible to write a neutral and encyclopedic article on a topic in which you have unconventional, fringe, or original beliefs, you should be very skeptical of your ability to do so, even if you are trying in good faith.

Maybe there's a better way to say it. Here's what I'm getting at. Jim Marrs is knowledgeable about the events surrounding JFK's death, and for all I know he could put aside his conspiracy theories and write a great, neutral, well-sourced article on the death of JFK. But I'd be surprised. Even if he tried hard, he probably does not know what is incontrovertible fact and what is his own controversial beliefs. For example, maybe he thinks it's incontrovertible that the bullet trajectory in JFK's body is inconsistent with Lee Harvey Oswald's position, but that it's controversial that the real killers were the CIA. So he would write about the bullet but not about the CIA, and proudly declare that he's put aside his biases. But he would be wrong about that. And he would always be in a poor position to know what is NPOV and what isn't.

Another example: An intelligent design advocate might try to write neutrally about the unexplained phenomena in evolution theory. He or she probably wouldn't do a good job, because he or she probably doesn't know what scientists regard as being unexplained, versus what intelligent design literature regards as being unexplained. He may think they're putting aside biases and writing a neutral article, but he would likely not be successful; he would probably put aside some biases but be unaware of others.

More fundamentally, if you believe in intelligent design (or aliens, or psychic communication, or whatever), you almost certainly don't have a good understanding of evolutionary theory (or human perception, or statistics, or whatever), and therefore you probably can't write a good mainstream NPOV article on the topic.

I view David Tombe as being in this category. He proudly declares that he has kept his unconventional views, like "special relativity is false", out of the article space. This is true, and good for him. But he has put many other unconventional views in. More importantly, he doesn't always know, and is in a terrible position to judge, which of his views are unconventional and which are not. It's not surprising: For example, he believes that gauss's law for magnetism and the biot-savart law are mathematically inconsistent. That means that he misunderstands some aspect of either gauss's law for magnetism, and/or the biot-savart law, and/or math. (Let's leave aside the possibility that every physicist on earth is wrong.) But he doesn't make that inference, and therefore he doesn't hesitate to edit these articles as if he understood both of the laws perfectly. All he does is refrain from writing that the two laws are mathematically inconsistent, which is better than nothing but not good enough.

Moreover, I think this principle isn't really well covered in existing policies on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, pseudoscience, etc. It has some a similar spirit to WP:COI perhaps.

Thanks for reading and considering my proposal! :-) --Steve (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim Shuba

The root problem

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

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

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

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

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

Questions from arbitrators

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

Question about presentation of this topic in other authorities

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

I feel I must propose this harsh measure, given the recent actions of the two editors concerned. David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is already covered by a topic ban from the speed of light article. Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided to go against the spirit of dispute resolution with thirteen talkpage edits to Talk:Speed of light in less than two hours, none of which address the question originally raised by the talkpage section:[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Despite the topic ban, David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to add another three edits to the same section over the same (less-than-two-hour) period: [16], [17], [18], Arbitrators might feel more inclined simply to read the talkpage section as it currently appears: here. Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Template

2) Insert text here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Jehochman

Proposed principles

Proper use of talk pages

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Topic Bans

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Proposals by Brews ohare

Proposed findings of fact

Incivility

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Dicklyon: First, the underlying issue is not the technical meaning or usage of "idiosyncratic", but that editors have been uncivil. So to a degree your remarks are off-topic. Second, your accusations about my dominating the main article page certainly do not apply to Speed of light and arguably apply nowhere else either. Third, your arguments about sources are completely unsubstantiated and unsupportable. In fact, on Talk: Speed of light I am the editor that has actually introduced sources into this debate, and it is pulling teeth to get anyone to go beyond doubtful generalities to make specific comments about them, or to engage in discussion about them. Brews ohare (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reversion without adequate comment on Talk page

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Response to CrispMuncher: For an example, see here. See also Edit summaries like: 1; 2 3. Brews ohare (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

False statements of position

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Physchim62 has misbehaved

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

The one-line Edit Summary is misused

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Prompt action to arrest uncivil activity on Talk page

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Attribution of positions held by other editors must be supported

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Physchim62's status as autoreviewer should be revoked

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:TotientDragooned (talk)

Proposed principles

Righting Great Wrongs

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Verifiability

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Appropriate Use of Talk Pages

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Good Faith and Disruption

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Tendentious Advocacy of Fringe Views

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Proposed findings of fact

David Tombe has edited tendentiously

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noting in contrast to Brews ohare's comments that when voting to accept this case I explicitly noted that I saw the scope as including speed of light, centrifugal force, vacuum permittivity, and related areas of dispute.[19] The conduct concerns leading to this case were not limited solely to the speed of light, though that is the main area of dispute leading to this case. Vassyana (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

General Incivility

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

David Tombe topic-banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Brews_Ohare

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

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

Comment by others:

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

David Tombe was already banned for 1 month, then 3 months, then permanently, until he successfully appealed to get his account back (8 October 2008).[20] Most of the problems on discussion here are after that happened. (Here is his edit history starting after the permanent ban was lifted). This is already his "last chance". If he should be topic-banned, he should be topic-banned permanently. We know from experience that temporary bans do not change his behavior much. I support a permanent topic-ban. --Steve (talk)

Correction (interjected): Tombe was blocked, not banned, successively, eventually leading to being blocked (not banned) indeffinitely. Another admin unblocked Tombe after the indefinite block. Much more recently, Tombe was page banned from Speed of light and its talk page at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Disruptive_editing_at_Talk:Speed_of_light. When Tombe continued to press his arguments about the Speed of light article on several other pages, the blocking admin upgraded the page ban to a topic ban[21]. —Finell (Talk) 22:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editors reminded

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Physchim62

Proposed principles

No original research

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Obsessive or tendentious editors may be banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Neutral point of view as applied to science

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Serious encyclopedias

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

No ownership of articles

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Wikipedia is not a platform for personal views

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Template

7) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Pseudoscience and the speed of light

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soapboxing by Brews ohare

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Count Iblis

Proposed principles

Professional behavior

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Tolerance against criticism

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Editors can decide by consensus to close talk page discussions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Editors can appeal a closing of a talk page discussion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Disrespecting the closing of a topic amounts to edit warring

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Editors have behaved unprofessionally on the speed of light talk page

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Editors have neglected the speed of light article on important points

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Implement, or overturn, a "community ban" as I seem to remember it ;) Only two editors in this case were involved in the Sadi Carnot case: myself and Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Both of us were criticized during the arbitration process, although not in the final decision. Having worked with Jonathan on several occasions since then, I think we've both taken those criticisms on board. The "Sadi Carnot problem" was discussed at WT:PHYS in October 2007 [22]; if there was a delay in correcting articles, it is maybe down to the fact that we have so few editors who know the difference between an "intensive quantity" and an "extensive quantity" (for example). I would be interested in your proposals for alleviating that problem, but here isn't really the place to discuss them. Physchim62 (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Editors reminded

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Cool Hand Luke

Previous principles that may apply to this case

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

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Reliability of content

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Neutrality and sources

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Advocacy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Citations

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Scientific focus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Communication

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Proposals by User:Vassyana

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

Principles

Principle X

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Findings

Finding X

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Remedies

Remedy X

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement

Enforcement X

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of incivility

An example of a catcall is this and this and this. A catcall (i) contains no contribution to the discussion thread, and (ii) is phrased in a disruptive or even inflammatory fashion. An example of attribution of a false position to an editor is here and here and here. An example of a threat is here and here. An example of inflammatory discussion is here and here. These behaviors do not add to the the discussion, tend to foster an atmosphere of confrontation, and tend to promote a circus. Considerably greater control over this kind of nonsense is needed. Brews ohare (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not really analysis of evidence. Normally editors would analyze multiple party's submissions. This is just a repeat of your own evidence section, and should be posted there. At any rate, your some of your remarks are no less personal attacks than references to "misconceptions," "idiosyncrasies," and "nonsense." Cool Hand Luke 01:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Insufficient critique of reverted submissions

A completely sourced contribution to Speed of light was reverted here based upon no specifics, but an assertion of consensus. Later, unsupported observations were made that "it seems irrelevant and makes the article worse" "This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and should be removed." My objections to this characterization are (i) no specific text is identified that fits the guidelines, and (ii) the editor's opinion that the material is "irrelevant" is unsupported. Nonetheless, I undertook myself to weed out anything that might be construed as satisfying these claims, and presented a revised submission. This section was rewritten from the previous version, as noted here. It was reverted, with no attempt at comment. Dicklyon opined that "the reasons are all discussed above" and so no further examination was indicated. However, aside from the fact the material was rewritten, so earlier reasons might not apply, the earlier "reasons" all were nonspecific. A request for justification was made, and ignored.

Quite apart from the merits of this particular case, this example IMO illustrates the need for more specific reasons for reversion; reasons that indicate just what is objected to, and in what way cited guidelines are violated. Otherwise, there is no idea of what can be done to fix it. Also, an reversion supported only by a flag-waving reference to guidelines like WP:SYN, WP:NOR; WP:POV or whatever, seems to be nothing but suppression of a subsection to satisfy the reverting editor's whim or prejudice. It does not add to the merits of such reversion to have other editors simply voice their approval and cheerlead, still providing no reasons. Brews ohare (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nonspecific discussion wanders off-topic

In response to a suggestion of Count Iblis, I wrote a piece for WikiProject Physics at User:Brews ohare/Speed of light (Example) and invited discussion. To my amazement, most of the editors' comments on this piece actually were unrelated to its content, although the editors themselves were not aware of that. Examples of such unrelated comment are Brews, that argument just show your lack of insight in modern physics, which goes off on a discussion of General Relativity that has no connection whatsoever to what was written, it makes sense to choose a standard..., which discusses metrology, not a topic in the article under discussion, Enough, Brews, which suggests "the real speed of light doesn't change, but is constant, for you to say otherwise is contrary to physics and of all experimental observations", something that not only I never said (or thought), but is completely off subject and unrelated to the article, and so forth and so on.

Although amusing, this problem is more serious than it might seem, because these off-topic ramblings are picked up by other editors as a correct portrayal and become pasted in editors' minds as facts that color their views from that point onward. That incorrect picture distorts later discussion on the Talk pages.

Whatever the merits of the original article, these examples show that comments by editors frequently are related only to their pet subject at the moment, and the text under examination becomes simply an excuse to mount their hobby horse and critique the text as something it absolutely is not. This nonsensical behavior needs to be capped, and one way to do this is to require that commentary cite verbatim from the text and be directed toward that quote, not toward the editor's imaginings about what has been said. Brews ohare (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Physchim62 has violated WP guidelines and normal ethical standards of behavior

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dicklyon has incorrectly portrayed Brews_ohare

Dicklyon has accused Brews_ohare of incorrectly asserting that "speed of light" has two different meanings, and of pushing to put subtle definitional complexity into the lead sentence, against the consensus of all the other editors.

These assertions are incorrect. Brews_ohare's analysis is provided here. A sourced summary of his views is here, and in different words, here. Brews ohare (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: