| Revision as of 02:35, 11 February 2011 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,579 edits →Topic Ban: more and re-sign← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:57, 11 February 2011 edit undoFDT (talk | contribs)7,708 edits reply to CharcharothNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| Well that beats it all. You are taking evidence from an old case and using in relation to a talk page discussion last week. And you are using a warning from 15 months ago in relation to one kind of alleged misbehaviour in relation to a completely different kind of alleged misbehaviour last week. Basically, you have failed to show any misconduct. ] (]) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | Well that beats it all. You are taking evidence from an old case and using in relation to a talk page discussion last week. And you are using a warning from 15 months ago in relation to one kind of alleged misbehaviour in relation to a completely different kind of alleged misbehaviour last week. Basically, you have failed to show any misconduct. ] (]) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :David, if you could take a step back for a minute and consider the following, it might help you realise why this topic ban has been laid down. The aim of Misplaced Pages is to produce articles for people to read on a variety of topics, including physics. Article talk pages are a place for editors to discuss how to improve an article. Improving an article doesn't mean discussing and debating the basic physics ''ad nauseum'' to the exclusion of everything else. Ample evidence was presented in the arbitration case that when you edit on the topic of physics, you consistently argue on talk pages about your interpretation and understanding of basic physics (especially centrifugal force). That is '''not''' what Misplaced Pages is for. Those sort of discussions should take place on internet fora. Allowing that sort of conduct here simply degrades the editing environment for those who are here to build and improve articles. The diffs (including warnings you were given) were best provided in . I would suggest any response should start by explaining the diffs that JohnBlackburne provides there. ] (]) 02:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC) | :David, if you could take a step back for a minute and consider the following, it might help you realise why this topic ban has been laid down. The aim of Misplaced Pages is to produce articles for people to read on a variety of topics, including physics. Article talk pages are a place for editors to discuss how to improve an article. Improving an article doesn't mean discussing and debating the basic physics ''ad nauseum'' to the exclusion of everything else. Ample evidence was presented in the arbitration case that when you edit on the topic of physics, you consistently argue on talk pages about your interpretation and understanding of basic physics (especially centrifugal force). That is '''not''' what Misplaced Pages is for. Those sort of discussions should take place on internet fora. Allowing that sort of conduct here simply degrades the editing environment for those who are here to build and improve articles. The diffs (including warnings you were given) were best provided in . I would suggest any response should start by explaining the diffs that JohnBlackburne provides there. ] (]) 02:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Charcharoth, The best thing to do would be to read the full discussion on the talk page at centrifugal force. That should have been done before any calls were made for a topic ban. You cannot consider the diffs provided by John Blackburne outside of the context in which they occurred in the discussion. Besides, the topic is a centuries old controversy which was argued about by great masters such as Newton and Leibniz, and it would be a mistake to think that John Blackburne has the last word as regards what is correct and what is not correct in relation to centrifugal force. And as regards warnings, we cannot take seriously a warning from a participant in a debate that the opinions expressed by the opponent are tantamount to actionable misconduct. There were many opinions being expressed in the discussion by alot of editors, and the matter has still not been resolved. We cannot allow a situation to develop where certain opinions are forbidden and where people expressing certain ill-defined opinions get topic banned from all physics discussions just because another editor gets angry and loses his temper. ] (]) 17:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:57, 11 February 2011
 | If you are interested in trying Kissle, edit the dedicated "requests" section below. Please leave bug reports and feature requests on this page. Thanks. |
| My off-wiki communications policy: I prefer, to the extent possible, that all communications regarding a Wikimedia matter be done on-wiki for the sake of transparency. If there is a compelling reason why it should be done off-wiki, you may email me or talk to me on IRC, but:
|
Please click here to leave me a new message.
| AfC submissions Random submission |
| 2+ months |
| 1,743 pending submissionsPurge to update |
Notes
| PGP key |
|---|
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) mQENBFDdJN0BCADjDFGKV41olt0YbRaxABn319KM8idSEt5KGMI5S7R1te5zlf24 QpHbMKJm46M1ZlvRsOtD7PRUOVXFSYE4jm7THfGJcqXjkdu7k6nbZxuKe3LDJdQv 9bc0zbUFO+gusmBR6xZMM2l0e23mRXKroB6KfawGq6o4OBPhqjx8u9TkxpwlIhCs aMe97XGQOoPf7h20K+vlekItzyx87/U7oIsKGBwSF4tHak/EjVu3hFbRcny9nUej nx1cBXm5X6yzWSybraujrglwISIog21evh1Jrw+i/xtYa6ZYqDKHPMp1+dHjPlNV AudIcjq97iiq6kYPtHcgzKMORB4T+R5gQXNhABEBAAG0MFRpbW90aGV1cyBDYW5l bnMgPHRpbW90aGV1cy5jYW5lbnMud3BAZ21haWwuY29tPokBOQQTAQIAIwUCUN0k 3QIbLwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEPoukYdWZeaKTZsH/jt3 W+xFPXlavHwA4kain3SXH9wrYCFHpnCCySWN3eN3BGaRf/TxwVsAxZocZ1P0U2H4 Il75FZ4TscdeqOha8ESbc79NAP/oTjRzqJNV/1ljsdHsaRSkc1Tfu4iTwWC3I2Hb Wj0FtLs08YdE94DhJGmSyZWb7p6nSTr22O0nH4dT4sM7HO/LsnDj44q2uSu2R950 VfP5S3XVOoijR5TP7QhkLZDTdb8b6HqRaWSoIsK70XBKk/voTAZe2bOCqrlUK59H O7tyHyoPK1Jcz2QmkFOmK/U5ot5m0S/GvhWvTLLmcAPIJO9/SqsJY8mX6ax09XxE QjAehIm5tOW00ukfkyu5AQ0EUN0k3QEIAOtGhpLp4zwGN0ZuSfA2TfDKq7qZB/Mp L9ZBzepRpKIPj4pcLdJNwQgYmb2XxElLWwOwsanN61yFZ2P3CUF89I5RgmzkyrSK nD4qgvMCKthLPI3FEnaXL+LR9br7VCeoYfjQdGrSsxOFtdfUQ0SsJCUvLduBblaA mEwOCarpG6cegl4Tbq0Fqg2lw8MZAQc7/nrZvpCkIk9ZYMYGFUaGW875xbCUt0T8 df6WG7KSWRrS2jy/2rgUmDNiyHI4LOUe5+8C6w0eOOLumKwdD3tXMtbuFNFluYzK 2nVIHrc3D2WmUnPd/ESed3ms4YCuGEGiybcKtyCILVhBOv2LGPLgKAsAEQEAAYkC PgQYAQIACQUCUN0k3QIbLgEpCRD6LpGHVmXmisBdIAQZAQIABgUCUN0k3QAKCRCU 2R0REJq2jqcNCADHnXpwpgbwGV+pd4tU05yHqMwIbyvXFlO/ScY9vKgtPlAU3Go+ wM3pEXeBUftCYzHraYOigc3GeZAM7QbQqyUMzWjrNDPb5/LWCiEvKoJu223+x432 E1kCmRqC8WEBj+Dz5dHUUd3EOfoE3pOjw+EXdgyMsj6HwxeygocTZvkcur9yLZhh mXYehcJVJXvjZDNdFnCv7lnXTM8McccsAOQj3uwVONabk92aQ8dZq7GXS0F2BE2t APz5NJ3Rz7jjnqI9YjTkuSKuNZGMeeQVuF7ae0ee97qZ4lVDHgR2ZlfxRzzO2kYp tIMv2QG0MB5cRLXKluJAIQ13qqAXqF/Aolc9vj4IAJY0PXpMKmsYheWGwuf3LYMb mT1C2zXal1t1A+p0KpMk7phQLSfjgHVUFzNIg245tQpHR9AORRGARggpjcfRJVb0 RZzYPvHFDZx+W+lannAKVCSEjlOywf6HOk4Wf80llpXyf6ahAUqypvOzOVV0y9QV myOQP36XL7IA7f1Eet/sgRMWQsQNxXCPGyv34/BOUiE8V5NBaYUMw9XYy6OOTfA7 /L5xAA5WPbBQe4KgfoCF/QWxJGbINtOf/guw3CKlRebqWdzmzADviIoCT6OImcrM RJHS+H7wL/fXRWGP9wOsqWclTtrP0QWRPEJpNK8RhWcYEOkIE0at8WzKSMtvfBc= =oCnW -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- |
The Signpost: 7 February 2011
- News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief
- WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Topic Ban
Hi Timothy, With all due respect is your topic ban not rather high handed? According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Enforcement if you feel that I have engaged in any misconduct then the punishment is a short block. Also, it might have been common courtesy if you had asked me for my side of the story before simply taking on board what a few others had said. Also, what about the warning? When was the warning given? The procedure demands that a warning needs to be given. And that of course means clearly defining the nature of the misconduct. David Tombe (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- At least after 27 October 2009, when Tznkai imposed sanctions on you under the general probation, you have had sufficient warning that future misconduct may lead to sanctions under that provision. The enforcement provision you cite relate to the enforcement of topic bans and discretionary sanctions. It does not supersede the express grant of authority to administrators to impose said discretionary sanctions in the first place on his or her own discretion. Wikilawyering will get you nowhere. As to your side of the story, arbcom has already heard that one and a half years ago and was unconvinced. If your present misconduct is substantially different from that addressed by arbcom, I would perhaps be inclined to hear an explanation. Since you basically just went back to doing the exact same things arbcom found improper, I don't think anything I hear is going to change my opinion. You remain free to present your case on appeal at AE, of course. T. Canens (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Timothy, The wording of the sanction is Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
Where was the warning? And what was the behaviour that repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum? You have not identified that behaviour. You say that I have already presented my case to ARBCOM last year. That was a different matter concerning the speed of light. On this occasion, there was a debate on the talk page of centrifugal force about improving the article. I had support from profstandwellback and WFPM. Dicklyon was arguing with Martin Hogbin and myself. Martin Hogbin was arguing with me. Martin Hogbin was arguing with FyzixFighter and pointing out that sources supplied by FyzixFighter didn't back up what they were purporting to back up. FyzixFighter was claiming that the sources meant what he was claiming they meant, despite the fact that the wording was the complete opposite. Martin Hogbin concluded that the literature is a morass of confusion. Martin Hogbin wrongly thought that centrifugal force only happens in circular motion. Dicklyon couldn't get me to agree with him and so he went to AN/I and grassed himself up for incivility. So where was the misconduct on my part? Why was no dispute resolution attempted? What would have been wrong with taking the matter to the mediation committee? Why was I singled out for disciplinary action? The point of disagreement between myself and dicklyon was on whether or not the inertial centrifugal force can push against a restraining rim. So where was the fringe point of view that I was supposedly advocating? David Tombe (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- You have been sanctioned before under that provision. That's ample warning. The third to fifth diffs in WP:ARBSL#David Tombe and fringe advocacy concerns this article, so yes, you have made your case to arbcom already. Repeating the same conduct that previously resulted in an adverse arbcom finding is by definition a "serious to adhere to the principles of Misplaced Pages, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior". Simply put, you are not going to convince me by Wikilawyering over this. WP:AE and WP:A/R/CL are that way if you want to appeal. T. Canens (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Timothy, Let's start from the bottom up. I am not appealing at this moment in time, and I know perfectly well that you have no intention of undoing what you have done. Next, there was no misconduct. You have not identified any misconduct. You have not identified any fringe advocacy and I didn't even post to the main article. Thirdly, there was no warning, and neither could there have been a warning because there was no misconduct. And fourthly, if you want to go back to that incident in October 2009 in order to get your warning, I can assure you that there was no warning even then. The incident in question is now trivial, but at the time it was used by Tznkai to claim that I had breached the physics topic ban by virtue of posting to an AN/I thread on an issue which was a few stages removed from physics. However, most people who spoke up at the AE stated that they did not believe that the topic ban had been breached. And so there is no possible way, that even if a warning had been given then, that it could in anyway relate to the non-existent misconduct which you are alleging here. And furthermore, everybody knows that the requirement for a warning should be in relation to the incident in question and not in relation to an unrelated incident 15 months ago. And in this case the lack of incident in question. Timothy, you are totally out of order and your actions jeopardize the integrity of the project. And yes I am wiki-lawyering, and you are in the wrong, and I know fine well that the wrong will not be rectified. Your actions were designed to prop up certain participants in a content dispute, plain and simple. So let's end it at that. David Tombe (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are entitled to one single warning under the probation provisions before sanctions may be imposed. At least as of October 2009, you have had that one single warning. No warning is necessary from that point onwards before sanctions are imposed, simple as that. You might notice that the diffs in the arbcom finding are directly from your posts in talk space - posts you have been pretty much repeating in your recent edits linked in the ANI thread. Arbcom found that the earlier posts are misconduct, therefore the latter posts are as well. I'd strongly recommend that you stop right here, before it ends up with a block. T. Canens (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Well that beats it all. You are taking evidence from an old case and using in relation to a talk page discussion last week. And you are using a warning from 15 months ago in relation to one kind of alleged misbehaviour in relation to a completely different kind of alleged misbehaviour last week. Basically, you have failed to show any misconduct. David Tombe (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- David, if you could take a step back for a minute and consider the following, it might help you realise why this topic ban has been laid down. The aim of Misplaced Pages is to produce articles for people to read on a variety of topics, including physics. Article talk pages are a place for editors to discuss how to improve an article. Improving an article doesn't mean discussing and debating the basic physics ad nauseum to the exclusion of everything else. Ample evidence was presented in the arbitration case that when you edit on the topic of physics, you consistently argue on talk pages about your interpretation and understanding of basic physics (especially centrifugal force). That is not what Misplaced Pages is for. Those sort of discussions should take place on internet fora. Allowing that sort of conduct here simply degrades the editing environment for those who are here to build and improve articles. The diffs (including warnings you were given) were best provided in this diff. I would suggest any response should start by explaining the diffs that JohnBlackburne provides there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Charcharoth, The best thing to do would be to read the full discussion on the talk page at centrifugal force. That should have been done before any calls were made for a topic ban. You cannot consider the diffs provided by John Blackburne outside of the context in which they occurred in the discussion. Besides, the topic is a centuries old controversy which was argued about by great masters such as Newton and Leibniz, and it would be a mistake to think that John Blackburne has the last word as regards what is correct and what is not correct in relation to centrifugal force. And as regards warnings, we cannot take seriously a warning from a participant in a debate that the opinions expressed by the opponent are tantamount to actionable misconduct. There were many opinions being expressed in the discussion by alot of editors, and the matter has still not been resolved. We cannot allow a situation to develop where certain opinions are forbidden and where people expressing certain ill-defined opinions get topic banned from all physics discussions just because another editor gets angry and loses his temper. David Tombe (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)