This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I need to ask have any of the arbcom staff who have voted have actually taken the time to read my efforts to work things out with scuro on my talk page? User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise It seems I am being punished for a failed mentorship which had nothing to do with me. This is wrong and very unfair and I am perplexed the staff here appear to be not assessing or asking for evidence and just voting, some even before any evidence was presented at all. I am willing to self impose a voluntary topic ban but this involuntary topic ban seems like an injustice to me which I cannot accept. :-(-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Scuro himself said just a few minutes ago I do want to tell you that I did truly feel that you were sympathetic and wanted to find common ground me..-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Since Arbcom "helped" the project by banning an editor/ administrator who did a lot of work at DYK, I think it's only fair that the arbitrators step up to ease the backlog and make sure that the updates are done on time. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I need to ask have any of the arbcom staff who have voted have actually taken the time to read my efforts to work things out with scuro on my talk page? User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise It seems I am being punished for a failed mentorship which had nothing to do with me. This is wrong and very unfair and I am perplexed the staff here appear to be not assessing or asking for evidence and just voting, some even before any evidence was presented at all. I am willing to self impose a voluntary topic ban but this involuntary topic ban seems like an injustice to me which I cannot accept. :-(-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Scuro himself said just a few minutes ago I do want to tell you that I did truly feel that you were sympathetic and wanted to find common ground me..-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Since Arbcom "helped" the project by banning an editor/ administrator who did a lot of work at DYK, I think it's only fair that the arbitrators step up to ease the backlog and make sure that the updates are done on time. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: "blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge" - shouldn't that read "editor" instead of "administrator"? Or is Arbcom explicitly stating that non-admins do not deserve the same consideration that is expected for Admins? DuncanHill ( talk) 09:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
(editor voted in oppose section of motions, moving here)
I find this motion to be very funny, this is passed around as a way to help Brews. If there wasn't Tombe, myself or the other supporters there would be no motion to end sanctions on Brews, by this time he would have ben site banned. I do appplaud the fact that there is movement to progress, I ask myself though at what cost? Arbcom is starting to rectify a error that should never happen so they modify policy, they then promptly desysop the admin who unblocks brews. Next after a request for a review by Jimbo, they say ok we are willing to back down a bit but we will be silencing the opposition with a proposal that not cools down the situation where there was one loud sets of voices there will be 4 for this travesty. How is this rectifying the situation? Do you believe us to be any quieter over our own treatment then we were over brews? C'mon folks you're taking one step forward and two back with this motion. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
...by — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I forsee problems with the restriction after Brews topic ban expires. If Brews and me are both editing an article then I would not be allowed to comment on edits that Brews made. Note that comments in such cases will typically be criticisms (e.g. you spot what you think is an error and then want to discuss that). Other types of comments could well be similar to what I wrote to Likebox recently on the black hole page:
While I agree that all this is not really OR, I do think that a FA article on Black Hole cannot contain too much detail about all these subject (and bringing this article to FA status is the goal behind the recent editing drive). I think the removed detailed explanations can be moved to the more specialized articles for further reading. You could try to keep a summary of the most important points for the general reader here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That after Jehochman complained on AN about Likebox (I actually first posted that before I saw Jehochman's complaint). As you can read here, this was welcomed by Jehochman, it helped to diffuse a conflict.
I think David can testify that around the time that the ArbCom case was ending I removed some comments by him that I thought were disruptive (exactly in the sense that the AbCom case was addressing). David was furious with me about my action. So, the whole idea that there exists a group of editors that are fans of each other who will always defend each other is simply not true, especially not if the main subject of discussion is physics. That combined with the fact that Brews may be more receptive to constructive criticism from me or Likebox than from someone who Brews clashed with during his topic ban, makes this a very bad idea. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist & Carcharoth: It is an odd stance to say bad rules should be passed and then amended by the victims. It is better to pass good rules that do not require prolonged hearings to fix them, and that do not irritate everyone involved. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
A major ambiguity here is just what constitutes “advocacy or commenting upon”. An observation is made, for example, I say A. Headbomb says A is inaccurate, B applies. Now if Count Iblis says A actually is preferable to B, Headbomb (just as an example) says Count Iblis is "commenting upon or advocating" Brews' position. Of course, should some admin take Headbomb seriously, a block is imposed for 24 hours. Maybe Count Iblis would protest the block on AN/I, but as we all know, the block will expire long before AN/I reaches any resolution.
So we have a case where Headbomb (just as an example) can object to anything Count Iblis says that he can trace back to something Brews said somewhere, and some admin like Sandstein (just as an example of an admin who believes sanctions should be imposed first, and then resolved by ArbCom later) will insure that Headbomb achieves a 24 hour block. After doing this three times, Headbomb can block Count Iblis for a week, which still is too short a time for AN/I to resolve any reversal action. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It currently reads
1.2) Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) are withdrawn the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that violations of his topic ban will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.
So what, he's prohibited from participating in physics related discussions, but allowed to participate in physics related disputes??? What kind of a motion is that? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
David Tombe writes:
My response:
We are a volunteer project with a loose atmosphere, so if I exchange a few user-talk messages with another editor about my cat, it's no big deal. If my talk page turns into a chat room about cat care and becomes a drama magnet, at a certain point the burden falls on me to show that it has an encyclopedic purpose, or have it shut down (which is not a punishment). Your group is beating the proverbial dead horse, to the point that Arbcom should decide that it's time for you to exit the topic (either the 180 day or the indefinite versions are ok with me).
Count Iblis: I don't think Likebox would have fared well in a Hillman regime, but unfortunately we're not likely to ever find out.
66.127.52.47 ( talk) 22:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
IP66, From what I can establish you don't seem to know the facts at all. There is no group. Four editors have been singled out from amongst a larger number of editors who have been defending Brews ohare in a number of recent issues, none of which have been instigated by themselves, with the exception of the initial appeal in February which was initiated by Likebox. So let's now set the facts straight.
In February, Likebox launched an appeal to have Brews ohare's sanctions lifted. There is no crime in that. Many people voiced their support for the appeal. I came in late, and I made a statement of support. Do you have any evidence that ARBCOM ignored the supporters because they included the four editors named in this 'advocacy restriction' motion? And if such evidence does exist, it would merely demonstrate that ARBCOM are driven by personalities and not by principles, which would be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
In the wake of that appeal, there was a succession of incidents, none of which were instigated by any of the four named in the 'advocacy restriction' motion. Brews ohare was blocked three times for actions that can in no way be attributed to him having taken bad advice from any of us. We had absolutely nothing to do with those actions. However, we all believed that Brews was being harshly treated and so we all spoke up in his defence. This culminated in Brews having a new appeal at the administrator's noticeboard.
While that was happening, noises started to be heard to the extent that Brews's situation wasn't being helped by those who were supporting him. These noises began to gain weight, like a rolling snowball, to the extent that a new lie was born. The new lie was that there is a group who are flogging a deadhorse and who have been engaged in ongoing 'disruptive advocacy'. I found myself being accused of having a track record of 'advocacy' as if we are all now supposed to believe without any doubt whatsover that 'advocacy' is some kind of undesirable and sinister activity. The snowball effect has now built up to a kind of hysteria in which it is wrongly believed that there is a serious problem in existence which needs to be halted urgently. But there is no problem. The problem is a figment of certain peoples' imaginations.
And all your comments above suggest that you have eagerly bought into this 'newthink'. You have repeated once again that you don't think that my advocacy has been helpful, but you have not qualified your statement in the least. It seems to me that you are merely parroting what you have read on some recent noticeboards. And the fact is that Brews is getting four months knocked off his sanctions which means that the advocacy must have had some effect. If not, then can you please answer me the million dollar question. If our advocacy has been unhelpful for Brews, then whose advocacy was it that led to his sanctions being reduced by four months? David Tombe ( talk) 09:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Motion 2 got eight supports at 10:46 (UTC) 25 March, while motion 1 reached the same absolute majority of active arbitrators at 11:56 (UTC) on the same day. That's four days ago now, and I don't see any evidence of arbitrators changing their minds: if anything, positions are hardening. Can we please just close this circus down with motions 1 and 2 passed: all we're doing is allowing Brews ohare and David Tombe to waste even more of our time. Physchim62 (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Physchim62: It is not the case that you “can't even be bother[ed] to provide you with a link” that prevents you from providing one. The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever, and no links, and no diffs exist anywhere. A failure to redress incorrect views that you have spread far and wide, even after it has been made clear to you that you are in error, and doing damage spreading fallacies, reflects very unfavorably upon you yourself. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Physchim62: Of course, we could open a discussion about free space and follow this diversionary strategy of yours, unrelated to the issues. That would involve a digression that no-one here would follow, and leave the impression with the unversed that perhaps this was a deeper matter than they wished to pursue. However, the real issue is your false claims about my views of the redefinition of the metre, which you simply avoid retracting, or even addressing. In fact, you repeat this allegation with the unsupportable remark “you don't believe the definition of the metre actually means what it clearly says” providing a meaningless link, and no diff that is pertinent to the statement made. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this as an outsider who is unfamiliar with the parties but has seen a lot of totally baseless pseudoscience allegations in Wikipedia that were based on a simple failure of some editors to distinguish between their crackpot opponents and their reasonable opponents, I can't help notice the structure of the above discussion:
Physchim, are you going to provide diffs concerning Brews ohare as well? Hans Adler 15:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Physchim62, You have not provided evidence that either Brews or myself have engaged in pseudoscience. Pseudoscience has got a very specific meaning, and I can assure you that I do not involve myself in any kind of pseudoscience either on or off wikipedia. I do however engage in original research 'off-wiki', but the dispute at 'speed of light' had got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that original research. In fact I was only learning about that dispute as I was going along, in an attempt to mediate. The diffs which you have provided do not even provide evidence that I was promoting original research on wikipedia, irrespective of how the vote went. I suggest that you read the commentaries of both ex-arbitrator Steve Bain, and editor Steve Byrnes if you are not convinced about that. David Tombe ( talk) 16:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
We then still have to consider the fact that the view taken by him, me, Likebox and most other editors are in agreement about Brews' position regarding SoL, but no one except Physchim found it necessary to brand Brews as a pseudoscientist.
"Naming and shaming" is not something that is regarded as good behavior on Wikipedia. When I did that myself on the entropy page last summer against an editor who pretended he knew a lot about the subject but in fact didn't know one iota about it (he was using an advanced book and quoted texts without understanding), I was brought to the Wikiquette noticeboard by another editor simply for writing the rhetorical question asking if the editor in questons understands this topic at all.
It was decided there that however justified by comments where, I should not have written what I wrote (especially not in the title of a section). My lesson from that was that even I can learn to become more civil. Unlike that editor on the entropy page last summer, Brews will likely be frequently editing physics pages in the near future. Physchim and Brews will likely encounter each other on various talk pages. So, I'm not sure what Physchim is hoping to achieve by making provocative assertions. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I need to ask have any of the arbcom staff who have voted have actually taken the time to read my efforts to work things out with scuro on my talk page? User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise It seems I am being punished for a failed mentorship which had nothing to do with me. This is wrong and very unfair and I am perplexed the staff here appear to be not assessing or asking for evidence and just voting, some even before any evidence was presented at all. I am willing to self impose a voluntary topic ban but this involuntary topic ban seems like an injustice to me which I cannot accept. :-(-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Scuro himself said just a few minutes ago I do want to tell you that I did truly feel that you were sympathetic and wanted to find common ground me..-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Since Arbcom "helped" the project by banning an editor/ administrator who did a lot of work at DYK, I think it's only fair that the arbitrators step up to ease the backlog and make sure that the updates are done on time. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I need to ask have any of the arbcom staff who have voted have actually taken the time to read my efforts to work things out with scuro on my talk page? User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise It seems I am being punished for a failed mentorship which had nothing to do with me. This is wrong and very unfair and I am perplexed the staff here appear to be not assessing or asking for evidence and just voting, some even before any evidence was presented at all. I am willing to self impose a voluntary topic ban but this involuntary topic ban seems like an injustice to me which I cannot accept. :-(-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Scuro himself said just a few minutes ago I do want to tell you that I did truly feel that you were sympathetic and wanted to find common ground me..-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Since Arbcom "helped" the project by banning an editor/ administrator who did a lot of work at DYK, I think it's only fair that the arbitrators step up to ease the backlog and make sure that the updates are done on time. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: "blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge" - shouldn't that read "editor" instead of "administrator"? Or is Arbcom explicitly stating that non-admins do not deserve the same consideration that is expected for Admins? DuncanHill ( talk) 09:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
(editor voted in oppose section of motions, moving here)
I find this motion to be very funny, this is passed around as a way to help Brews. If there wasn't Tombe, myself or the other supporters there would be no motion to end sanctions on Brews, by this time he would have ben site banned. I do appplaud the fact that there is movement to progress, I ask myself though at what cost? Arbcom is starting to rectify a error that should never happen so they modify policy, they then promptly desysop the admin who unblocks brews. Next after a request for a review by Jimbo, they say ok we are willing to back down a bit but we will be silencing the opposition with a proposal that not cools down the situation where there was one loud sets of voices there will be 4 for this travesty. How is this rectifying the situation? Do you believe us to be any quieter over our own treatment then we were over brews? C'mon folks you're taking one step forward and two back with this motion. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
...by — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I forsee problems with the restriction after Brews topic ban expires. If Brews and me are both editing an article then I would not be allowed to comment on edits that Brews made. Note that comments in such cases will typically be criticisms (e.g. you spot what you think is an error and then want to discuss that). Other types of comments could well be similar to what I wrote to Likebox recently on the black hole page:
While I agree that all this is not really OR, I do think that a FA article on Black Hole cannot contain too much detail about all these subject (and bringing this article to FA status is the goal behind the recent editing drive). I think the removed detailed explanations can be moved to the more specialized articles for further reading. You could try to keep a summary of the most important points for the general reader here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That after Jehochman complained on AN about Likebox (I actually first posted that before I saw Jehochman's complaint). As you can read here, this was welcomed by Jehochman, it helped to diffuse a conflict.
I think David can testify that around the time that the ArbCom case was ending I removed some comments by him that I thought were disruptive (exactly in the sense that the AbCom case was addressing). David was furious with me about my action. So, the whole idea that there exists a group of editors that are fans of each other who will always defend each other is simply not true, especially not if the main subject of discussion is physics. That combined with the fact that Brews may be more receptive to constructive criticism from me or Likebox than from someone who Brews clashed with during his topic ban, makes this a very bad idea. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist & Carcharoth: It is an odd stance to say bad rules should be passed and then amended by the victims. It is better to pass good rules that do not require prolonged hearings to fix them, and that do not irritate everyone involved. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
A major ambiguity here is just what constitutes “advocacy or commenting upon”. An observation is made, for example, I say A. Headbomb says A is inaccurate, B applies. Now if Count Iblis says A actually is preferable to B, Headbomb (just as an example) says Count Iblis is "commenting upon or advocating" Brews' position. Of course, should some admin take Headbomb seriously, a block is imposed for 24 hours. Maybe Count Iblis would protest the block on AN/I, but as we all know, the block will expire long before AN/I reaches any resolution.
So we have a case where Headbomb (just as an example) can object to anything Count Iblis says that he can trace back to something Brews said somewhere, and some admin like Sandstein (just as an example of an admin who believes sanctions should be imposed first, and then resolved by ArbCom later) will insure that Headbomb achieves a 24 hour block. After doing this three times, Headbomb can block Count Iblis for a week, which still is too short a time for AN/I to resolve any reversal action. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It currently reads
1.2) Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) are withdrawn the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that violations of his topic ban will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.
So what, he's prohibited from participating in physics related discussions, but allowed to participate in physics related disputes??? What kind of a motion is that? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
David Tombe writes:
My response:
We are a volunteer project with a loose atmosphere, so if I exchange a few user-talk messages with another editor about my cat, it's no big deal. If my talk page turns into a chat room about cat care and becomes a drama magnet, at a certain point the burden falls on me to show that it has an encyclopedic purpose, or have it shut down (which is not a punishment). Your group is beating the proverbial dead horse, to the point that Arbcom should decide that it's time for you to exit the topic (either the 180 day or the indefinite versions are ok with me).
Count Iblis: I don't think Likebox would have fared well in a Hillman regime, but unfortunately we're not likely to ever find out.
66.127.52.47 ( talk) 22:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
IP66, From what I can establish you don't seem to know the facts at all. There is no group. Four editors have been singled out from amongst a larger number of editors who have been defending Brews ohare in a number of recent issues, none of which have been instigated by themselves, with the exception of the initial appeal in February which was initiated by Likebox. So let's now set the facts straight.
In February, Likebox launched an appeal to have Brews ohare's sanctions lifted. There is no crime in that. Many people voiced their support for the appeal. I came in late, and I made a statement of support. Do you have any evidence that ARBCOM ignored the supporters because they included the four editors named in this 'advocacy restriction' motion? And if such evidence does exist, it would merely demonstrate that ARBCOM are driven by personalities and not by principles, which would be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
In the wake of that appeal, there was a succession of incidents, none of which were instigated by any of the four named in the 'advocacy restriction' motion. Brews ohare was blocked three times for actions that can in no way be attributed to him having taken bad advice from any of us. We had absolutely nothing to do with those actions. However, we all believed that Brews was being harshly treated and so we all spoke up in his defence. This culminated in Brews having a new appeal at the administrator's noticeboard.
While that was happening, noises started to be heard to the extent that Brews's situation wasn't being helped by those who were supporting him. These noises began to gain weight, like a rolling snowball, to the extent that a new lie was born. The new lie was that there is a group who are flogging a deadhorse and who have been engaged in ongoing 'disruptive advocacy'. I found myself being accused of having a track record of 'advocacy' as if we are all now supposed to believe without any doubt whatsover that 'advocacy' is some kind of undesirable and sinister activity. The snowball effect has now built up to a kind of hysteria in which it is wrongly believed that there is a serious problem in existence which needs to be halted urgently. But there is no problem. The problem is a figment of certain peoples' imaginations.
And all your comments above suggest that you have eagerly bought into this 'newthink'. You have repeated once again that you don't think that my advocacy has been helpful, but you have not qualified your statement in the least. It seems to me that you are merely parroting what you have read on some recent noticeboards. And the fact is that Brews is getting four months knocked off his sanctions which means that the advocacy must have had some effect. If not, then can you please answer me the million dollar question. If our advocacy has been unhelpful for Brews, then whose advocacy was it that led to his sanctions being reduced by four months? David Tombe ( talk) 09:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Motion 2 got eight supports at 10:46 (UTC) 25 March, while motion 1 reached the same absolute majority of active arbitrators at 11:56 (UTC) on the same day. That's four days ago now, and I don't see any evidence of arbitrators changing their minds: if anything, positions are hardening. Can we please just close this circus down with motions 1 and 2 passed: all we're doing is allowing Brews ohare and David Tombe to waste even more of our time. Physchim62 (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Physchim62: It is not the case that you “can't even be bother[ed] to provide you with a link” that prevents you from providing one. The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever, and no links, and no diffs exist anywhere. A failure to redress incorrect views that you have spread far and wide, even after it has been made clear to you that you are in error, and doing damage spreading fallacies, reflects very unfavorably upon you yourself. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Physchim62: Of course, we could open a discussion about free space and follow this diversionary strategy of yours, unrelated to the issues. That would involve a digression that no-one here would follow, and leave the impression with the unversed that perhaps this was a deeper matter than they wished to pursue. However, the real issue is your false claims about my views of the redefinition of the metre, which you simply avoid retracting, or even addressing. In fact, you repeat this allegation with the unsupportable remark “you don't believe the definition of the metre actually means what it clearly says” providing a meaningless link, and no diff that is pertinent to the statement made. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this as an outsider who is unfamiliar with the parties but has seen a lot of totally baseless pseudoscience allegations in Wikipedia that were based on a simple failure of some editors to distinguish between their crackpot opponents and their reasonable opponents, I can't help notice the structure of the above discussion:
Physchim, are you going to provide diffs concerning Brews ohare as well? Hans Adler 15:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Physchim62, You have not provided evidence that either Brews or myself have engaged in pseudoscience. Pseudoscience has got a very specific meaning, and I can assure you that I do not involve myself in any kind of pseudoscience either on or off wikipedia. I do however engage in original research 'off-wiki', but the dispute at 'speed of light' had got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that original research. In fact I was only learning about that dispute as I was going along, in an attempt to mediate. The diffs which you have provided do not even provide evidence that I was promoting original research on wikipedia, irrespective of how the vote went. I suggest that you read the commentaries of both ex-arbitrator Steve Bain, and editor Steve Byrnes if you are not convinced about that. David Tombe ( talk) 16:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
We then still have to consider the fact that the view taken by him, me, Likebox and most other editors are in agreement about Brews' position regarding SoL, but no one except Physchim found it necessary to brand Brews as a pseudoscientist.
"Naming and shaming" is not something that is regarded as good behavior on Wikipedia. When I did that myself on the entropy page last summer against an editor who pretended he knew a lot about the subject but in fact didn't know one iota about it (he was using an advanced book and quoted texts without understanding), I was brought to the Wikiquette noticeboard by another editor simply for writing the rhetorical question asking if the editor in questons understands this topic at all.
It was decided there that however justified by comments where, I should not have written what I wrote (especially not in the title of a section). My lesson from that was that even I can learn to become more civil. Unlike that editor on the entropy page last summer, Brews will likely be frequently editing physics pages in the near future. Physchim and Brews will likely encounter each other on various talk pages. So, I'm not sure what Physchim is hoping to achieve by making provocative assertions. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)