Requests for amendment

Initiated by Likebox (talk) at 05:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC); Case affected : Speed of Light[reply]

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Finding1: Scope of the dispute
2. Remedy 4.2: Brews ohare topic banned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Brews ohare
• David Tombe

Amendment 1

• Finding1: Scope of the dispute
• User:Brews ohare's contributions to the content of pages other than speed of light have not proven to be controversial, and did not lead to significant dispute. In particular, the content of pages other than speed of light were not directly impacted by remedy 4.2.

Statement by Likebox

This finding of fact refers to two classes of edits made by two different editors, User:Brews ohare and User:David Tombe, about several different subjects.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that User:Brews ohare made many pedestrian edits on other physics pages, in addition to more contentious edits at speed of light. This amendment seeks to establish that the edits of User:Brews ohare on those pages, excluding the speed of light, were not controversial, and consequently that those pages did not benefit from remedy 4.2.

to Dicklyon: I have reviewed the material of the edits on all pages other than speed of light, and I stand by my comments above.

to Martin Hogbin: Brews has noted that his style has been prolix and over-argumentative several times, and one link to such a statement is provided in the text for amendment 2. This is not directly relevant to this amendment, because the actual content of the pages was not affected by these overly long talk-page discussions.

to John Blackburne: Looking over Brews edit history the edit summaries seem Ok, and everything seems currently in line with ordinary norms of behavior. The multiple edits you cite were attempts to fix typos on talk pages, and I think that this is a very small point.

to Cool Hand Luke: When an editor makes some enemies, a lot of pedestrian edits end up being inflated out of proportion. Here, a lot of diffs are presented as evidence of wrongdoing when they are not in themselves rules-violating, but they just annoyed somebody. Please do not rely on hearsay or first impressions: take time to review the evidence. Go through the diffs, look at the edit logs. I am sure you will find that there is no evidence of any disruptive editing on the content of any pages beyond "speed of light", and it is even not clear that the specific edits to speed of light were disruptive in and of themselves. I stand by my claim--- there was no improper content insertion, nothing beyond some questionable taste. The only lapse of judgement seems to be overlong talk-page debates.

Brews has acknowledged that he went on too long on talk pages. But I would like to know: what else is there to find fault with? What diffs support these faults? I read the diffs people provided, and, regarding content, they seem Ok.

to Cool Hand Luke: I understand that you looked over the history of the article, I am sorry for seeming to suggest otherwise. Some of the comments you made regarding "original research" perhaps suggest that the culture of science articles was a little bit daunting.

The "ideosynchratic" view of the meter that you mention is as follows: once you define the meter to be the amount of length light travels in a certain fraction of a second, that it is then pointless to say that the speed of light in meters per second is a physical quantity which can change. It would be like defining "one froo" to be the length that sound travels in one second in air, and then asking "what is the speed of sound?". By definition it is one froo per second. But on a hot day, the "froos" are shorter than on a cold day. This point is understood by all, and it is a question of taste and philosophy how much emphasis it needs to get, especially in articles which are aimed at introductory readers.

Brews probably misjudged the emphasis this should get, and he misjudged the wording. His sections were not super clear. So what? This is content, and this board should not judge on content. He tried to get his additions incorporated, he failed, and then instead of moving on, leaving a short note on the talk page, he went on and on arguing it, because he wanted to convince the editors of something that he thought was self-evidently true.

The original insertion does not seem in itself to constitute a rules violation, but when the arguments drag on for months, it is disruptive. So Brews has said "ok, I won't drag things out", and then it is just the usual bold/revert, and there should be no more argument.

to Cool Hand Luke: About the science--- the question is not whether the speed of light does change, the question is whether the speed of light can change. If you define the meter in terms of the speed of light, it is conceptually impossible for the speed of light to change--- just like it is conceptually impossible for the speed of sound in "froo/sec" to change. Because the speed of light in fact does not change, this is a completely philosophical question, hinging on your precise view of time and space, and this is why it led to endless debate.

To achieve the most accurate science content on Wikipedia, science editors do not need ArbCom to chip in on the science. Actually, we need the opposite. In order to have accurate science content ArbCom should stay out of any content disputes, ruling only on behavior. Now, if somebody is spamming their own theories, or violating rules, then ArbCom should enforce these rules. But there is a serious danger of censorship when outsiders to an ongoing conversation try to adjudicate scientific content. It doesn't work. If everyone is honest and sincere, and respectful of consensus, there is no need for meddling.

Statement by Headbomb

It is pointless to categorize disruptive edits in categories that needs entire paragraphs to describe. Brews was disruptive, and his edits in both the article and on the talk page were disruptive. Redefining the scope of a previous dispute accomplishes nothing. I will also note that Brews was banned for his behaviour and not because of the content of his edits (not that I endorse the content of his edits, because I don't, but that is not why ARBCOM banned him). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dicklyon

Likebox seems not to have read the arbitration, or at least not my comments, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Statement_by_involved_Dicklyon. Dicklyon (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martin Hogbin

It was Brews' style of editing that was the cause of the problem. It would help his cause if Brews were to accept that his style did not help cooperative editing and agreed to change it in future. If have not seen such a statement from him. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JohnBlackburne

Despite the lengthy discussion highlighting his behaviour and the outcome of the original case he still seems not to have learned from it. His contributions on any day are shorn of proper edit summaries, amounting to usually none or one words, and often delivered one after the other to make things both difficult and annoying for other editors. On encountering such a block of edits it's often impossible to tell what each one is, so another editor has to treat them as a whole. Even worse if someone is editing the page at the same time, and has to resolve repeated conflicts with these edits. Sometimes even (this has happened to me more than once) replying to a message on a talk page only to find the message has changed while the reply was being written, so the reply has to be changed, sometimes even restarted.

He has been advised about this on his talk page, e.g. here and here, but seems not to take notice, or thinks that editing in a courteous and considerate way is not important. I would hope this at least is taken into account, so the ban is not lifted until he has shown he is able to edit in a way that doesn't regularly annoy other editors.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews_ohare_topic_banned
• Remedy 4.2 will be allowed to expire at this time.

Statement by Likebox (2)

I do not wish to revisit the dispute, only to ask for the best remedy looking forward. In the case of speed of light, both sides differed only on the smallest of philsophical points. It is important to note that the examples of disruption for the editor in question were overly-long discussions on the talk pages over minor technical points, and that Brews ohare has acknowledged this, and has promised to avoid this in the future.

Justification:

1. Brews' expert contributions are needed.

The editor in question is a recognized well-cited expert on engineering physics[1]. The continued application of broad sanctions impedes useful contributions from Brews. The need for expert retention on Wikipedia is well known.

2. the past is past.

After adoption of this remedy, the speed of light has calmed down. That page is no longer under any threat of disruption (although it is currently locked due to recurring minor vandalism [2]). This suggests that the ban has outlived its usefulness. The goal of protecting WP from disruption has been accomplished. Brews is behaving well and has been mindful of consensus. He is cognizant of the need to keep talk pages focused and on-point, and has stated that he intends to keep this in mind in the future[3]. I don't see any reason to keep taking medicine when you're no longer sick.

3. It is troublesome to many that an expert editor can be banned from his topic of expertise in a way that could be interpreted as stemming from his impolitic talk-page statements. This does not set a good precedent.

A chill has decended on the science pages of the encyclopedia. I wish to inform the committee that this remedy has the unintended consequence of making editors wary of making unpopular talk-page comments.

4. Talk-page policy is not as uniform or rigid as main page policy. Sanctions based on talk-page behavior should be imposed and enforced carefully, to maintain the integrity of the discussions, and to avoid intimidating editors from expressing points of view.

Talk pages can sometimes harbor short summaries of disputed points or rejected material for a long time, so non-consensus material on talk pages needs to be treated with a certain amount of respect: it can become consensus material in the future.

Editors can shut down discussions by archiving the material, and accusing editors of disruption, and this can become a form of censorship. Intimidation is based on perception of the likelihood of sanctions. It is best that the perception be that no rule-abiding editor with unpopular opinions should feel threatened.

If editors suspect that they can be topic-banned for engaging in tough political battles over controversial material on talk pages, even if this perception is by and large false, that would compromise accuracy on the encyclopedia.

5. This remedy is broader in scope than the main motivating problem.

Broad remedies invite enforcement disputes, which waste the committee's time. This is something we all wish to avoid. In light of the amendment to finding 1, there should be no reason to continue this broad sanction further.

With deference to your experience and good judgement.Likebox (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Physchim62: The example discussion you pointed to has no contribution, either direct or indirect, from Brews ohare. None of the edits that an expert editor makes should be dismissed as nonsense, although they might be misguided. The discussion you link to is, in fact, an offshoot of a discussion started by myself. Please, be careful when presenting links and diffs, and double check that they are fully relevant.

To Physchim62: I now see what you are talking about, thank you for clarifying. I I agree that in this case, Brews was making a not too interesting distinction which is not correct in this context. But we all make mistakes, and I think that Brews has learned how to suggest changes without disrupting the page.

The mistakes in articles should not be blamed on the editors that sincerely insert them, but fixed. I appreciate the work you put in to do that. I have also argued with Brews ohare on more than one occasion, and I also found it annoying, and I disagreed with the content of his suggested additions. But I don't like bans or extended blocks on sincere thoughtful people, and Brews positive contributions, past and present, vastly outweigh the scattered negative ones.

To Physchim62(clarification): The above might have been too polite to convey the point: It is never appropriate to ask people to be banned simply because of honest content disputes. This forum is not for adjudicating content.

To Clayt85: It might not be wise to revisit the dispute, and set off tempers again. On the speed of light issue, the question was mostly philosophical, and not very interesting in my opinion. It is possible to interpret that Brews was right on all points, and also that he was wrong on all points. I believe this is not the main issue you bring up--- which is that a threshhold for "disruption" was crossed, and this threshhold needs to be pinned down in a way that will not lead to censorship and purges.

To Headbomb: I think it is best to leave judgements of quackery aside. While Tombe has been uncivil and disruptive, and his opinions on centrifugal force and vxB force are very strange, he is one of the handful of people alive today who has read all of Maxwell's 1861,1865 and 1875 papers on electromagnetism. He is more like a fossil--- a living breathing late-nineteenth century physicist, with his own ether theory. It is a shame not to let such people contribute to their full potential, especially since he does not wish to insert his own theories into the articles. One thing he is capable of doing is fixing the historical errors that people make regarding Maxwell. Only a handful of people, mostly professional historians of physics, have read the 19th century literature with as much diligence, and as far as I know, none of them are active here.

Statement by Headbomb (2)

The dust finally settled after several months of completely chaotic atmosphere resulting from this ARBCOM case. The physics articles are once again editable without getting bogged down in incessant discussions of obvious things, of Brews' hammering of irrelevant "subtleties" through the main text [see Psychim62's links], and of Brews' ban itself (as was the case for several months after the ARBCOM case was closed). Brews' topic ban is not unrelated to the restoration of normal, healthy, and productive editing condition on these pages.

As evidenced by these comments, unbanning Brews would only lead to further embittering of the community, and a resuming of the hostilities at whatever physics page Brews decides to edit (Headbomb, TimothyRias, Michael C. Price).

Brews also completely unrepentant, fails to see how his behaviour was disruptive (I'll let Finell and others do the quote digging here), and places the blame on every body else but him. I do not doubt for one second that the same patterns of disruptive editing would resume immediately upon having the ban lifted. Let's not re-open this can of worms, let the ban run its full course.

I don't care if Brews won 20 Nobel Prizes and was the 2010 Time person of the year, disruptive behaviour is disruptive behaviour. I will also note that Brews' recent (last month and a half or so, AKA after his "let's revisit the topic ban every second day" phase) contributions outside of physics are, as far as I'm aware, non-disruptive and very productive. Brews did not initiate this, and should not be punished because others refuses to drop the stick. As told by who-knows-how-many editors now, his best option is to simply bite the bullet and wait until his topic ban expires, and discourage others from re-opening this can of worms. Kicking in the hornets' nest every month won't win you the hearts and minds of anyone.

And it again puzzles me that you're going through with this, especially after you've said "I don't want to raise it [the unban motion] unless I have your support--- I am asking for your support. If you say "yes", and whoever else says "yes", then I will do it. I don't want to go there with hostile editors against the motion." on JohnBlackburne's talk page (even in the light of this). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update Per some comments below, I'm not opposed to lifting the physics bans on Brews' own talk page. If some guy wants Brews opinion on something, I don't care. I am wary of someone acting as a telephone for Brews however, but I suppose we can address that if and when the problem arises. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Clayt85, see the thing is the meter is defined as 1/299... light-seconds. The speed of light thus becomes fixed [in meters, and other units defined in terms of the meter] by definition. There are a million ways to rephrase this statement, all equivalent to each other, but at no point does it ever become a circular definition, like Brews and Tombe claimed. So no, Brews was not "right". The complain was not that Brews was "too prolific", but repeatedly failed to be concise, failed to express himself clearly, blew details out of proportion and give them undue prominence, turning obvious that can be understood by everyone into convoluted statements that can be understood by no one, refused to drop the stick long after everyone else moved on, and so on. "Expert" editor? Sure, but so is everyone else involved in the debate (other than Tombe, who'se just a quack). Disruption is disruption, and common sense shouldn't be suspended for the sake of retaining "experts". Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Profstandwellback, this is not a case of censorship, this is a case of someone beating a dead horse over and over again, and refusing to drop the stick long after consensus deemed that the horse is dead. The problem is not that Brews has a different view, its that he has a different view, and cannot let go of it and wants to have it plastered all over the place, at the cost of revert wars, editing against consensus, dominating the talk page, and so on, preventing actual experts and people with clue from improving the article because they must spend time educating Brews and removing his idiosyncratic POV, or who simply walk away because they don't feel like teaching obvious things to somehow who doesn't have the ability to understand them. For a list of articles where this sort of thing happen (which spanned way more than the speed of light), look up the "evidence" section of the original ARBCOM case.

And to address the science issue, NO Brews is not right that the definition is circular, the value of the speed of light in SI units is fixed. Also, we defined the second to be "1/x" where x is a certain number of hyperfine transitions of ceasium-133 in its ground state, at rest. Note that a completely equivalent definition of the second is "the frequency of the hyperfine transitions of caesium-133 is x. Assuming that either the second, or the speed of light, were not the same today as they was yesterday, the meter changed. So in the equation c = 299,792,458 m/s, c and s are fixed, and m is a free parameter. This is explained very thoroughly in the speed of light article, both back then and now.

You must take the BIPM for a bunch of clueless nitwits if you really think they would use circular definitions for the basis of the entire SI system of units.

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Physchim62 (2)

More than three months after the arbitration closed, editors are still finding nonsense inserted by Brews into a wide range of physics articles in support of his idiosyncratic views: see this discussion at Talk:Second, for example. Note as well that the discussion was concluded calmly and politely in a matter of days and a few paragraphs, instead of dragging on over months of trench warfare and several talk archive pages. Likebox (talk · contribs) obviously does not realize just how disruptive Brews can be, or he would never wish him to be let near to a physics article ever again. Physchim62 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Likebox: This is the paragraph that was removed after the few days' civil discussion I referred to above. This is the edit that inserted the nonsense that could be easily disproved by a bit of thought and a check on reputable sources. The wording was tweaked over this series of edits, all of which were also by Brews (apart from one by an interwiki bot which didn't touch the paragraph in question). Why did this patently false paragraph stay up for so long? Because the committed editors who might have questioned it were too busy trying to put out other fires created on other articles by the same editor, to the point that an arbitration case had to be brought against him to curtail his disruptive behaviour. Of course Brews did not contribute to the discussion – may each of us thank their favourite deity that he was not allowed to! Physchim62 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

The physics topic ban for Brews should be lifted as requested by Likebox. From his behavior from before the Arbcom case, we can see that Brews had difficulties adjusting his editing behavior to what his fellow editors wanted to see. Details about physics as Physchim62 mentions are utterly irrelevant. First of all, Brews is an expert in certain areas of physics, and he got into trouble in areas in which he is not an expert. But the reason why he was seen to be disruptive was not simply that he was wrong, but that he was editing there too frequently and dominating the talk pages. Brews is now editing math topics and geology topics on which he isn't an expert either. Recently there was a small clash on a math page involving Brews and another editor. Brews now did behave in an appropriate way, so I would say that Brews has learned his lesson. This is also clear from his general editing behavior.

We should lift the topic ban, not simply because this is what Brews deserves. What matters for Wikipedia is what is good for Wikipedia. Wikipedia can use the services of a retired engineering professor who has a lot of time for Wikipedia very well. It is better that he contributes to a topic he understands very well than some obscure math topic he knows little about. Many editors can do the latter, but currently Brews may be one of the few Wiki-editors who is able to make substantial nontrivial edits to certain engineering topics. I note that Brews has made many excellent contributions to physics articles. He has created many excellent figures that are used on many physics pages.

Brews's ban on discussing physics on talk pages, even when invited to do so and on his own talk page is just completely nonsensical. This ban creates real problems for Brews even now that he is is editing math and geology articles. Because Brews is not an expert in the math and geology topics, his fellow editors may need to explain something to him in the language he understands best, i.e. using simple physics examples.

If ArbCom feels uncomfortable lifting the topic ban because of the potential for Brews behving in the way he used to before the Arbcom case, then the topic ban could be suspended. The topic ban can then be reimposed when an Admin reports Brews for disruptive behavior to Arbcom Enforcement. You can think of an agreement where the Admin can give Brews a warning when editrors complain to the Admin about brews's behavior. If Brews then does not adjust his behavior, the Admin notifies Arbcom Enforcement. Count Iblis (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Physchim62: Sometimes editors can make bad errors in articles. To get into a fight and personalize this is not ok. It was the way Brews behaved before the Arbcom case that was contributing to the real problem and that problem has now gone away. If you just focus on errors Brews made, then I can simply repeat what I've said about former wiki-editor Sadi Carnot and how focussing on him alone prevented a huge number of errors from being corrected in thermodynamics articles. These were only corrected in 2008 by me. I'm now not saying that Sadi Carnot should not have been banned (or that the decision to ban him was correct). We should always focus on the physics/math content of articles and not engage in politics.

In case of Sadi Carnot, after he left, the mistake was to only focus on his links to his books, and not on edits that were not due to him that were completely flawed. In case of Brews, you can also consider him to be an Wiki-Demon and then only focus on some previous conflicts with him. But it is far better to see Brews as a normal person who has some expertise in some areas and let him edit like any other editor while demanding that he sticks to certain rules. Count Iblis (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Hand Luke's proposal

Perhaps this is an attainable compromize. Along the lines of the proposed remedy 4.1 we could limit the topic ban to fundamental physics and constants. Count Iblis (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I think the mosr reasonable answer to this problem Is Count Iblis. Give Brews enough rope to hang himself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awickert

Count Iblis notes that Brews has started editing geology articles. There was a halfway-protracted discussion about the meaning of orogeny and mountain formation. It became a little frustrating with the terminology, at least for Brews and I. But after discussing the salient points and after I sent Brews a paper that covers the mechanics of orogenies and the physics that connect erosion, tectonics, and rock deformation, we figured it out and he's been making great contributions to other geology articles since. Awickert (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Tombe

I note below that Cool Hand Luke states that Brews ohare argued for months at the speed of light. That is a true statement. And when the matter came to my attention at the end of July 2009, I became concerned that Brews was about to get himself into trouble, and so I made inquiries with him as to exactly what the dispute was about. It took me a few days to figure it out, but when I did finally figure it out, I realized that the prolonged dispute had been over an issue of wording relating to the degree of clarification that was needed in the introduction in relation to a circular argument in the post 1983 SI speed of light. The purpose of this appeal however is not to revisit the details of the dispute in terms of who was right or who was wrong. It suffices to say, that as well as myself, Brews had quite a number of supporters for his point of view, and that he had sources. His point of view was most certainly not original research nor fringe physics. Off the top of the head, I seem to recall the names Charvest, Colonel Warden, Abtract, NotanIP83, as supporting the argument in substance, and we have seen further support on this thread from Profstandwellback and Clayt85 indicating that the circular argument is widely known about. Brews was most certainly not pushing a solo idiosyncratic piece of original fringe physics as has been claimed by some.

The real question as far as I could establish last August was 'why were a handful of editors deliberately frustrating Brews in his attempts to clarify this issue?'. My own involvement on the main page in this respect was minimal, but I did make concerted efforts on the talk page to try to persuade this group that Brews did have a legitimate point of view. Meanwhile, I made an inquiry at WT:PHYS to try and establish the degree of the knock-on effect that the new definition would have on electric permittivity. The result for me was that I got pagebanned, later upgraded to a topic ban in all matters related to the speed of light, and later upgraded to a full topic ban in physics along with probation to run indefinitely, and a stipulation that I could not appeal the probation for a period of one year.

My involvement at 'speed of light' did not even last for three weeks. At the arbitration hearing, things started off very smoothly. But the turning point came when Cool Hand Luke set about trying to ascertain that Brews ohare had been engaging in original research. I challenged Cool Hand Luke on this point and from there on, the arbitration hearing became somewhat confrontational.

As regards this particular appeal, I am concerned that Cool Hand Luke has once again been suggesting that Brews was engaged in original research. It is simply not true. And I notice that Cool Hand Luke cited a diff in evidence against Brews in which Brews wasn't even involved. I am generally concerned here that some arbitrators have been attaching too much weight to the testimonies of some witnesses, while totally ignoring the testimonies of other witnesses. One arbitrator made no secret of the fact that he was influenced by Headbomb and Physchim62. Those are the two editors who were more instrumental in launching the ban proceedings against Brews and myself in the first place.David Tombe (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Michael Price:

I welcome the statement above by Michael Price. As I have just acknowledged in my own statement, the arbitration hearing did become rather confrontational. This is a matter of which the full details and full culpabilities of all parties involved can be fully reviewed should a similar ban appeal be instigated on my own behalf. This particular ban appeal is exclusively for the case of Brews ohare and so it would be improper for me to begin sidetracking this appeal on such details. David Tombe (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Michael C. Price

Whilst recognising the disruptive behaviour of Brews and Tombe required action, as a general principle I believe the physics-related ban on Brews' and Tombe's own user space, including their respective talk pages, their diagrams diagrams etc, should be lifted on the grounds of natural justice. This would also enable other editors to more easily judge when they are ready to return to the community and contribute more widely. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement of Likebox's view of David Tombe

I agree with Likebox's assessment of Tombe's qualities. David was often uncivil and disruptive during the SoL debates, but he has an extensive background on Maxwell, Heaviside etc which WP can benefit from. In recent email conversations with David, I have been pleasantly impressed (and I confess, surprised) with his ability to meaningfully engage on various physical topics. More importantly he also shows an understanding that he got carried away in the heat of the debate, and seems repentant (more so than Brews, IMO, on both counts). I don't want to put words into his mouth (hopefully he will put in an appearance here), but I think the signs are positive that he has learnt valuable lessons from the experience.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re circularity

The issue of circularity in the definition of the meter and the speed of light has appeared here a couple of time. I don't wish to reopen this can of worms again, but I think there is some merit in this claim; however it is precisely because the definitions are partly circular that they were adopted by the BIPM, because this is the strength of the definitions. Perhaps we need to improve the explanation of this in the artice, but that discussion is for another venue. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martin Hogbin

I agree with Michael Price. Restricting Brews in his own user space does seem a bit steep to me. I suggest that this ban is lifted. We can then see what he does with this new found freedom. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support the same ban relaxation for Tombe? --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Clayt85

I support the removal of the ban. I followed the original case back in October and reviewed it once again when I became aware of the appeal. Not only does the ban prevent a recognized expert in physics from commenting on physics, but it also serves no justice. Several editors have expressed their displeasure with editors Brews and David Tombe, but their complaints appear to me either unfounded or hypocritical (in the sense of, for every alledged abuse by Brews, there is at least one by another editor). Just as I stated in October, justice can be served in only two ways: either by banning everyone involved or banning no one. As someone looking from the outside in, it appears that several editors took exception to Brews' point regarding the speed of light. (As a mathematician, I give you my assurance that Brews was right: you cannot define the meter in terms of the speed of light and then define the speed of light in terms of meters. It is circular reasoning.) Rather than engage his point, they dismissed him as "idiosyncratic" and, when all else failed, sought whatever means necessary to remove him. Wikipedia's science section absolutely cannot succeed under such censorship. In fact, in its simplest form, the complaint is essentially that Brews was too prolific of an editor. Perhaps his style needs reform, but given the attention needed by many articles, I doubt it is in Wikipedia's best interest to continue this ban. Clayt85 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Likebox and Headbomb: I do of course agree that revisiting an argument will only raise tensions. This was not shortsighted on my part, however, but exactly my point (however underhanded it may have been, and for that I apologize). Brews pointed out a very subtle distinction in the philosophy of science: some number of items must be accepted as empirically true ("axioms") in order to define others relative to them (by this, of course, science is inherently "circular" and there is no shortage of literature on the implications of and revolts from such axiomatic structure). I concur with Likebox: this is a minor issue and its suitability for inclusion can be debated. But in simply posting a message to endorse Brews' POV, observe what happened: there are immediate appeals to "common sense" and name-calling even of uninvolved editors (Tombe).

The complaints against Brews ("failed to be concise... can be understood by no one") are opinions, and ones that I do not share. That he "refused to drop the stick" may be true, but it is no more true of him than of anyone else who continues to debate the subject. Moreover, it cannot be categorically stated (unless of course, it is taken as an axiom! :-) that "disruptive is disruptive", as various editors in this thread disagree as to the extent of disruption. I cannot help but suggest that comments such as "common sense should not be suspended..." are completely counterproductive as they are simply a "civil" way of suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you lacks common sense. Per Likebox, it is indeed the extent of the disruption that must be assessed, and I am of the opinion that Brews was at most a minor offender.

In the light of Brews' statement below, I concur both with him and with Likebox: complaints against Brews do not (or should not) have anything to do with content. Thus a content ban is inappropriate. Contrary to other statements on this board, Brews has acknowledge his misdeeds (he does so below) and believes himself to be reformed. Amend the ban to fix the actual problem or do away with it all together. I think the 5 justifications listed above by Likebox all hold true and provide sufficient grounds for overturning or amending the ban.Clayt85 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by --Profstandwellback

I agree with Clayt85 above and support the removal of the ban. I admit I have not followed the original case but I have read enough to understand this is about a fundamental approach to Dogma and discussions about Dogma tend to get heated and lengthy. However it is very important not to resort to censorship when there is disagreement. I believe Brews was fundamentally right about a circular definition, and a definition can obscure weak thinking. Therefore there should be a at least a summary record of the argument so we can all come to our own conclusions. I agree that "Wikipedia's science section absolutely cannot succeed under such censorship." The "zeroth Law" nature of the role of the speed of light makes it even more important that the philosophical basis is central to the description. Eventually we will have to measure the speed of light in a variety of circumstances including different gravity fields and we will need to work out what measure is absolute, if indeed that has any meaning, as Socrates said "What do you know?"--Profstandwellback (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brews ohare

The present sanctions against me are of the nature of a content restriction (no discussion of physics-related topics), while virtually no-one thinks that content is the issue. Rather the issue is one of my pursuit of argument on Talk pages (specifically, Speed of light) to a degree that taxed the patience of other editors. The ban should therefore be amended to address prolix debate, and restrictions as to content should be dropped.

My view is that I have reformed in this regard, and further problems of this sort are unlikely. The nature of the ban should be changed, or the ban should be dropped altogether on a "wait and see what happens" basis. Brews ohare (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to CosineKitty: You raise several points.

(i) The issue of "bloat" is strictly a difference of opinion with DickLyon. He and I do not agree on the level of detail that should appear in a WP article, and so he accuses me of "bloat" when I include greater depth or more examples than he thinks appropriate. That difference of opinion is not resolvable, and so engagement between the two of us is difficult. However, this philosophical difference is not the object of the sanctions as presently formulated, and so is probably peripheral to the present discussion.

(ii) Argument against consensus: This is exactly the point of my comments above. Although consensus is not always a guarantee of accuracy, I believe that WP has a majority-rule nature (whether admitted to or not), and there is no point in arguing against a majority of determined editors. In a change of view on my part, in future I subscribe to curtail argument with a dissenting majority.

(iii) Churn: Some editors don't like a rapid exchange of views on Talk pages. Sometimes that can be a problem because of edit conflicts when a lot of traffic occurs. Sometimes it is a problem because an editor just is not interested, and wishes to disengage. I believe I understand those issues. I believe I can distinguish these situations, and will act appropriately. Again, this issue is not the object of the sanctions and is not really part of this discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cool Hand Luke:

You have noted that I argued for months on the Talk page at speed of light, but you have ignored that I have undertaken to avoid such exchanges in the future, which I recognize today as futile, and ignored that I have put this resolve into action in my edits following Case Speed-of-light.

To suggest that I am the cause of debate at Talk:Second, in which I had zero participation, is to hold me accountable for discussion by others. Their interests and concerns are beyond my control, and being a non-participant, I am not party to them. Your view that these conversations were "protracted and useless talk page discussions" is, of course, your personal view and apparently not that of the actual participants (who could simply revert any content they found ludicrous, without discussion at all).

You have made the amusing suggestion that the ban should be left in its present form because even worse consequences "probably would have occurred" if other editors were less busy. Such imaginative speculations are out of place in this discussion.

Content debates that clearly were contentious on the respective Talk pages, where they were debated at length by knowledgeable participants, and still are under discussion, cannot be properly adjudicated here in this limited venue. Judging the merits of content is not the purpose of the present action.

The question for the present action is my future behavior, and my actions following Case Speed-of-light provide no source of concern that my behavior will be untoward. To ignore my behavior now and take the view that past actions condemn me forever is not reasonable. The ban should be modified to limit directly any occurrence of prolix Talk page discussion (which would satisfy all your concerns about Talk pages), or lifted altogether subject to some "wait-and-see" provisions (which would allow immediate action should your worst fears about me be realized). Brews ohare (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the objections:

So far, objections are raised by Headbomb that I am unrepentant, although he agrees my recent edits "are non-disruptive and very productive". Yet he does "not doubt for one second that the same patterns of disruptive editing would resume immediately upon having the ban lifted". As I have apparently reformed, for whatever reasons, it seems my actions speak louder than pleas for forgiveness, and Headbomb's reservations are conjectural at best.

Physchim62 says that Likebox "does not realize just how disruptive Brews can be, or he would never wish him to be let near to a physics article ever again." In other words, Physchim62 recognizes no path to redemption, no possible mitigation, and doubtless will greatly regret when the present sanctions expire. This is a very extreme stance.

Cool Hand Luke has undertaken to make the present action a debate over content, which is inappropriate and, in any event, content has been thoroughly thrashed over on the respective article talk pages by others more cognizant of the issues. He is so worked up over these technical matters that he cannot focus on the present discussion. Also inappropriately, he holds me accountable for discussions among other editors where there was no participation by me at all, discussions he characterizes as "protracted and useless", a commentary upon the judgment of the parties involved rather than upon me.

I have stated clearly that I understand the futility of trying to convince a closed-minded majority, and have demonstrated in my recent history that I will no longer pursue such a course. The concerns of these three critics all are met by revising the ban to deal directly with their concerns, namely, by revisions that either would curtail unwarranted prolix Talk page discussion, or would lift the sanctions subject to oversight to watch whether my behavior gets out of hand. These changes would allow my contributions to WP where my abilities are greatest. Brews ohare (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Cool Hand Luke: I gather from your latest remarks that I have misconstrued your intent. I do regret any misunderstanding. I would appreciate your support for an amendment of the sanctions, particularly along the lines I have suggested. Brews ohare (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Brews ohare to D. Tombe's statement on compromise:

David's statement strikes me as profound, although I am unsure that any change in my particular treatment at this time adequately addresses the issues raised. Certainly, my case is an example of Talk page control by administrative action.

This control action instituted a far-reaching ban on my participation in any form, on every physics-related Talk page, on every conceivable topic that might arise. That action goes far beyond actual behavioral issues, and is an all-encompassing gag order. It does not address actual disturbances, but all engagement. Seemingly it is justified by a remarkable clairvoyance that nothing I could contribute in the future could possibly be anything but a disturbance. I have proposed instead that this gag-order remedy be reformed to address actual behavioral issues, should they actually arise. Clairvoyance is not a human capacity. Talk pages do need some governance, but the approach applied to myself is not (IMO of course) the best choice. Brews ohare (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CosineKitty

This is mostly in response to Brews Ohare. I am curious because there does seem to be some dispute about content on the article pages. There is controversy about:

• alleged "bloat" to the articles, i.e. rapidly expanding the size of articles.
• alleged pushing "idiosyncratic" points of view, against editorial consensus (perhaps not content that is "wrong" or fringe, but considered unimportant and detrimental to article focus).
• alleged "churn" making it difficult for others to review content and collaborate.

I hope you, and others here, forgive me if I have misunderstood the current state of this dispute, because trying to read though all of it is overwhelming. But I would like to see if you have already agreed, or now agree, to work with others in these areas of disagreement. CosineKitty (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a complete ban of Brews Ohare is an overly harsh remedy to his past problems. He seems to be stepping in the direction of reconciliation with other involved editors. Brews has provided a mixture of positive and negative contributions in the past. A lot of us, including me, are grateful for the diagrams and illustrations he has created. I also think he has a lot to contribute in providing a dissenting minority voice to keep us honest on certain scientific topics, if we let him. But Brews would have to demonstrate a profound change in behavior, allowing consensus to prevail in matters of editorial judgment. He would need to accept that if he can't persuade others to his point of view, to let it go. I propose that we give him a chance to participate, if only on a probationary basis, so that we can all evaluate his willingness to work with others. At the very least, I think he should be allowed to edit his own User pages, unless someone can explain how that could conceivably harm Wikipedia. CosineKitty (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bob K31416

Considering that Brews's comments above are a positive change from his comments around the time that the block was enacted, I would suggest that the ban should be amended to exclude his talk page. My impression of Brews is that he is a very conscientious editor and in a way, the ban may have benefited him by keeping him from wasting his time with difficult editors, as much as the editing environment was protected from him. I think one of the greatest challenges for all editors on Wikipedia is learning to cope with difficult editors, and not becoming one of them. For now, I would suggest lifting any bans that apply to his talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Tombe on the issue of compromises

As well as a few editors who have supported the total lifting of the ban, and I include myself in that category, I notice that most editors have expressed their readiness to have the ban lifted as regards Brews's own userspace. This brings me to an issue which is of much wider importance than the personal sanctions that have been imposed on myself and Brews. Forget about those sanctions for the moment. It's no big deal to me that I can't edit on main article space physics articles for another eight months.

What is at stake here for all wikipedia users is a fear factor which has been introduced as a result of the sanctions that were imposed on myself and Brews. This fear factor affects all wikipedians. There is now the fear that somebody might be sanctioned for expressing an unpopular point of view on article talk pages. This is the matter that really needs to be addressed here. It is the ban on article talk page discussion which is by far the most sinister aspect of the sanctions, and the only way that ARBCOM can subjectively judge whether or not they are happy to allow Brews to return to main article space editing again is to first and foremost lift the ban on article talk page discussion. That is the very minimum compromise that would be acceptable across the board amongst all serious wikipedians. The removal of that aspect of the sanctions would remove the fear factor for everybody, and it would usher in a new era of constructive cooperation, rather that an era of procedural mechanisms to eliminate dissent.

There can be no argument in favour of banning talk page discussion. The arguments that have been presented so far are largely straw-man arguments because there is no evidence whatsoever that users have been scared away from talk pages because there is too much discussion going on. And remember it takes two to tango. For every so-called prolonged discussion involving Brews, there were always others keeping it going.

While those proposing a lifting of the sanctions for Brews's own user space were well meaning, the facts are that this is not a satisfactory remedy. It won't give Brews any opportunity to prove whether or not he has become satisfactory in the eyes of those who originally disapproved of his editing style. Brews needs to be allowed back unto all talk pages. Cool Hand Luke's proposed relaxation is also unsatisfactory because it still prevents Brews from taking part in discussions on the aspects of physics that he is interested in. The talk page ban is much more crucial an issue that the main article space ban.

If a compromise is to be reached, then this would be the bare minimum. And I stress that such a compromise is crucial for wikipedia as a whole, in order to end once and for all the fear factor that has now been introduced to talk page discussions. David Tombe (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Is there a reason that Brews has not commented here? I would like to hear his thoughts on what he has learned and how he expects to contribute if the ban is lifted; my current inclination, based in part on the comments from Psychim and Headbomb, is very much against lifting this ban outside of Brews' userspace. Steve Smith (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Likebox says: "edits of User:Brews ohare on those pages, excluding the speed of light, were not controversial". This is simply untrue. I would be open to narrowing the topic ban to the originally-proposed remedy 4.1 "all physics pages, topics, and discussions directly related to fundamental forces and physical constants." I think this could be a good first step. But narrowing the topic ban to speed of light seems much too drastic—this was a much broader problem, and I see no evidence that user has improved. Cool Hand Luke 03:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lifebox: if you go through the case, you will find I was quite involved with it and did in fact go through the evidence. User had a particular and idiosyncratic hangup about the definition of a meter that caused turmoil on several pages, mostly articles related to fundamental constants. User does not display any awareness of the root of the problem; this was not only a talk page issue, but often extended into mainspace. That's a good reason to retain the topic ban. Cool Hand Luke 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lifebox: "then pointless to say that the speed of light in meters per second is a physical quantity which can change." Actually, virtually nobody says this—it is WP:FRINGE. I don't believe Brews O'Hare himself has suggested that the speed of light is not a constant—he's not a FRINGE-pusher in this particular regard. His hangup is about how the speed of light is now supposedly "unmeasurable" in SI units, and that the meter reference is somehow different from "real, physical" speed of light. In fact, more precise measurements for the speed of light lead to increasingly accurate definitions of the meter. At this time, I believe it's defined more accurately than the width of an atom—more accurately than could be measured from that old bar in France! That's one of the reasons the current definition was changed uncontroversially—due to modern technology, the speed of light can be measured more accurately than a physical length (and indeed, this fact is used to measure physical lengths). Given this state of affairs, it's not surprising that textbooks and other reliable sources do not dwell on the definition of a meter. It is odd, however, when a Wikipedian inserts lengthy and WP:UNDUE explanations into articles across all of physics, which often resulted in protracted and useless talk page discussions. It so happens that the worst example occurred at speed of light, but these could have easily occurred in many other articles—and probably would have occurred if other editors had been able to keep tabs on Brew O'Hare's prolific output in this area. The discussion from Second is especially instructive [of how his controversial editing was not confined to one article]. Again, I'm happy to narrow the topic ban, but lifting it to the extent you suggest strikes me as a bad proposition for the project. Cool Hand Luke 15:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)added box to elaborate Cool Hand Luke 04:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or more succinctly: he argued for months at speed of light, and similar arguments can and did spring up elsewhere. Arguing these battles and reverting these edits is a poor use of our volunteer editors' time. Any change to this considered topic ban should be made incrementally, if at all. Cool Hand Luke 16:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brews O'Hare, this is not about the content. I was simply responding to Lifebox, who was and is arguing the content. I did not blame you for the recent discussion at Talk:Second, nor did I call it "protracted"—your talk page arguments prior to the case were protracted, and the affair at Talk:Second was not (and you were not participating). Rather, I cite it as an example of how your problematic editing was not confined to speed of light as Lifebox incorrectly claimed. You seem to agree, commenting that the problem was in your style of confrontation rather than any single topic. You say that I'm close-minded, but I suggested drastically reducing the size of your topic ban, why are you apparently opposed to this? Cool Hand Luke 04:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Martin (talk) at 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 7

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• NA

Amendment 1

• [4]
• The topic ban applied to Martintg (talk · contribs) is amended. Martintg may edit the articles listed below solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Martintg is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article. Martintg may also create a category for unreferenced Estonia-related biographies of living persons, tag articles for inclusion in that category, and announce the category's existence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Estonia.

Statement by Martintg

This request is an extension to Radek's previous request[5] concerning the sourcing of Polish BLPs. There are a number of Estonia related BLPs also lacking references. Steve Smith suggested[6] that if Radek's request passes I should identify specific BLP articles in need of sourcing. I have amalgamated the two amendments (BLP sourcing and category creation) into one since they are both related to the list of articles mentioned below.

Preliminary list of Estonia related unsourced BLPs that would be excluded from the topic ban for purposes of referencing

I've returned from vacation and have now gone through all the BLPs and the following require sourcing: Natalja Abramova, Allan Alaküla, Toomas Altnurme, Maire Aunaste, Toomas Frey, Piret Järvis, Ülle Kukk, Teet Kask, Ülo Kaevats, Kaur Kender, Vilma Kuusk, Malle Leht, Andres Lipstok, Leiki Loone, Sven Lõhmus, Ene Mihkelson, Helle Meri, Kristine Muldma, Sulev Mäeltsemees, Ester Mägi, Sulev Oll, Birgit Õigemeel, Reet Priiman, Tiit Pääsuke, Kuno Pajula, Aarne Ruben, Martti Soosaar, Peeter Torop, Endel Taniloo, Taimo Toomast, Indrek Toome, Hannes Võrno, Mart Ummelas

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Response to Risker: The way that I understand the wording of this proposal is that the onus is on me to step back from any article that may become contentious. Basically, if somebody reverts a source I put in an article for whatever reason, or brings up some other objection, the plan is to completely leave that article alone and let the other person(s) deal with it. In other words I take the proposal to specifically state that it is on me not to let myself be baited into battlegrounds or edit wars, if this is attempted. However, I don't think is likely to be a problem; the sourcing of the first 26 articles went smoothly and I see no reason for why this shouldn't continue.

Having said that I do want to note that I very much doubt that these articles will get sourced by some other means. Even after an announcement on Wiki Project Poland (per last amendment) not that much help has been forthcoming. So, very likely, absent my efforts most of those BLPs are going to end up just sitting there unsourced or end up deleted (and some of them consider very notable people).radek (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Noted. Please be patient and allow time for discussion and voting. Could be anything up to a week. Carcharoth (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

1) Topic ban narrowed (Radeksz)

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit articles in Category:Poland related unreferenced BLP as of February 8, 2010, solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Proposed. The last round seems to have gone off without a hitch, and this really isn't an enormous category. Steve Smith (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cool Hand Luke 04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger Davies ^talk 04:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. KnightLago (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. I am concerned that we may quickly see the return of the battlefield mentality, if not in Radeksz then in some of the editors on the other side of this issue, which may lead Radeksz into difficult-to-manage situations. I hope that administrators will consider any behaviour that could be considered baiting of Radeksz to be serious violations of our user behaviour policies (such as WP:GAME) and the prior decisions of this Committee. Particular attention may need to be paid to removal of newly inserted reference sources, or any other signs that a BLP is becoming a battlefield. Risker (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

1. Shell ^babelfish 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. I recused on the case, so on second thoughts I'll recuse on this.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) Topic ban narrowed (Martintg)

The topic ban applied to Martintg (talk · contribs) is amended. Martintg may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Martintg is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Proposed. It worked well with Radek, and there seems little reason not to try it with Martin. Steve Smith (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cool Hand Luke 04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger Davies ^talk 04:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. KnightLago (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. I have similar concerns about altering this topic ban as I do for altering Radeksz's topic ban. Risker (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

1. Shell ^babelfish 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. I recused on the case, so on second thoughts I'll recuse on this.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---