User:Brews ohare/Evidence

Scope
It appears that this inquiry is headed toward a review of mainly my own activity on WP from day one, and not an investigation of the situation at Speed of light. I consider that to be an unwarranted change in focus of this examination, and it is not the examination I anticipated when I wrote my summary position on the initial page, nor the one requested. This is Case/Speed of light. If a career-long examination of all my activity on WP is to be made, I would like it to be done with that objective stated at the outset, and with opportunity to review my activities in depth.

Specific issues
My attempts to insert a sub-subsection into Speed of light have been resisted by reversion without comment and generalities not related to the actual content of the submission.

My views on the 1983 definition of the speed of light were supported by Steve, but drew a barrage of criticism from many based upon not what was written, but what people imagined was written. For example, Finell took the opportunity to chastise me for bringing the subject up at all and accused me of "spewing pseudo-scientific nonsense all over WP" (a substitute for specific critique of specific statements), TimothyRias read into it a treatment of general relativity that was so far off-topic as to be startling, and Dicklyon interpreted it as "idiosyncratic synthesis", even though the entire thing is sourced at every point. None of these adverse comments would have occurred had only the authors restricted themselves to commenting upon the actual specific statements in the article, instead of critiquing their own imaginary generalities about what was said. I do not wish to pursue this matter on Speed of light, but I would like to avoid this kind of vague criticism based upon erroneous generalities wrongly associated with the actual material under review, and violation of WP:NPA.

Editor Tim Shuba's mistaken view of my activity on Speed of light
Editor Tim Shuba made what amounted to a major rewrite of Speed of light ending approximately here. I mistakenly concluded that the page now met his approval, and referred to it as "his" page. His response was heated and from that moment on it was downhill. He reverted my edits on the talk page with the Edit summary "undo dishonest editing by Brews ohare. I never answered him. More tendentious editing". I was amazed, as I never entertained an intention of embroiling him in existing disputes if he did not wish it, and certainly did not expect this violent reaction.

Editor Tim Shuba has linked to a number of my comments made on other editors' Talk pages, where I was complaining to those editors about my treatment by others on Speed of light. None of these comments was directed at the editor to whom I was speaking, and none appeared on Talk:Speed of light. If Tim Shuba wishes to troll for such remarks on other user pages and take the complaints personally, that's his business.

Editor Dicklyon's complaints are unrelated to Speed of light
Dicklyon loves the word "idiosyncratic". He tries to support its use by citing statistics, which seems to me an impossible connection. He marvels over statistics of my editing of Matter (he says: "Wow! 479 edits"), without any comprehension that this large article was completely rewritten, sources found, and new figures drawn and added. It has survived basically unchanged since, a big improvement over the disorganized debate over definitions that prevailed there previously.

He also wishes to extend the subject of this inquiry far beyond Speed of light to every occasion upon which he disagreed with me. On the Main page, Count Iblis provides a summary of a typical sequence in those interactions. An example is Electromotive force, where it took repeated citations and explanation to get across that emf is not a voltage, except in certain fields.

As Dicklyon says about his criticisms of myself, it is "hard to cite diffs" to support his arguments, so he will content himself with vague allegations and no specifics whatsoever. He says "it's not that Brews is always wrong or uncivil" but that he has a "bizarre and complexifying style". As an example, he points out the "wonderfully complex and idiosyncratic section Capacitance", which is a pretty simple series of quotes from Maxwell's papers intended to give a little historical background. He has not contested anything said in that section, and I recall no argument with Dicklyon over it. More generally, my complexifying style is a consequence of subject matter that happens to be more subtle than Dicklyon thinks necessary, and he cannot accept sources and arguments that require a nuanced view or exhibit deep roots. They are, he says, "bloating" the article. These problems have appeared on other pages, most notably Wavelength.

On Speed of light I don't believe there is much evidence of disagreement between us. I supported his efforts to rewrite the lead on several occasions, and do not recall any disagreements. So Dicklyon is arguing here ostensibly on behalf of other editors on Speed of light, but in fact because he is annoyed by my interactions with him elsewhere.

Support for D Tombe
There is no question that D Tombe has some views that are not widely shared. Nonetheless, D Tombe can articulate very reasoned and balanced commentary, and my own discussions with him at Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) resulted in virtually all the examples, figures and explanations that did much to improve that page, and similarly the examples on the Coriolis effect page. It also led to identification of the meaning used in the Lagrangian approach, a topic very reluctantly accepted by Dicklyon after weeks of persuasion. These discussions also led to the article Centrifugal force and absolute rotation spun off as a separate article made from Centrifugal force in a good move by Dicklyon.

I appreciate D Tombe's support in trying to refocus the actions on Speed of light in violation of WP:NPA and WP:Talk to focus instead upon specific commentary concerning specific statements made, and not upon imagined generalities. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

General remarks
What has to be done to fix the editing atmosphere at Speed of light is outlined on the Workshop page.

=First version=

Scope
It appears that this inquiry is headed toward a review of mainly my own activity on WP from day one, and not an investigation of the situation at Speed of light. I consider that to be an unwarranted change in focus of this examination, and it is not the examination I anticipated when I wrote my summary position on the initial page, nor the one requested. This is Case/Speed of light. If a career-long examination of all my activity on WP is to be made, I would like it to be done with that objective stated at the outset, and with opportunity to review my activities in depth.

Editor Tim Shuba's mistaken view of my activity on Speed of light
Editor Tim Shuba made what amounted to a major rewrite of Speed of light ending approximately here. I mistakenly concluded that the page now met his approval, and referred to it as "his" page. His response was heated and from that moment on it was downhill. He reverted my edits on the talk page with the Edit summary "undo dishonest editing by Brews ohare. I never answered him. More tendentious editing". I was amazed, as I never entertained an intention of embroiling him in existing disputes if he did not wish it, and certainly did not expect this violent reaction.

Editor Tim Shuba has linked to a number of my comments made on other editors' Talk pages, where I was complaining to those editors about my treatment by others on Speed of light. None of these comments was directed at the editor to whom I was speaking, and none appeared on Talk:Speed of light. If Tim Shuba wishes to troll for such remarks on other user pages and take the complaints personally, that's his business.

Editor Dicklyon's complaints are unrelated to Speed of light
Dicklyon loves the word "idiosyncratic". He tries to support its use by citing statistics, which seems to me an impossible connection. He marvels over statistics of my editing of Matter (he says: "Wow! 479 edits"), without any comprehension that this large article was completely rewritten, sources found, and new figures drawn and added, and has survived basically unchanged since, a big improvement over the disorganized debate over definitions that prevailed there previously. Moreover, this was accomplished with little dissension, and without Dicklyon. In general, Dicklyon's presentation of "evidence" in his complaints to this inquiry consists entirely of two things: counts of number of edits and diatribe.

He also wishes to extend the subject of this inquiry far beyond Speed of light to every occasion upon which he disagreed with me. On the Main page, Count Iblis provides a summary of a typical sequence in those interactions. My view is that Dicklyon does not enjoy opposition in any form. Generally speaking he takes a position at the outset, and will not let go no matter what is said or what sources say. An example is Electromotive force, where it took repeated citations and explanation to get across that emf is not a voltage, except in certain fields. Even after the point is established by multiple sources and extended quotations, it crops up again and again in later edits of other subsections because Dicklyon is not persuaded, just subdued.

As Dicklyon says about his criticisms of myself, it is "hard to cite diffs" to support his arguments, so he will content himself with vague allegations and no specifics whatsoever. He says "it's not that Brews is always wrong or uncivil" but that he has a "bizarre and complexifying style". As an example, he points out the "wonderfully complex and idiosyncratic section Capacitance", which is a pretty simple series of quotes from Maxwell's papers intended to give a little historical background. He has not contested anything said in that section, and I recall no argument with Dicklyon over it. More generally, my complexifying style is a consequence of subject matter that happens to be more subtle than Dicklyon thinks necessary, and he cannot accept sources and arguments that require a nuanced view or exhibit deep roots. They are, he says, "bloating" the article. These problems have appeared on other pages, most notably Wavelength.

On Speed of light I don't believe there is much evidence of disagreement between us. I supported his efforts to rewrite the lead on several occasions, and do not recall any disagreements. So Dicklyon is arguing here ostensibly on behalf of other editors on Speed of light, but in fact because he is annoyed by my interactions with him elsewhere.

Dicklyon's role here is to drag his baggage along with him to observe activity by others on Speed of light. As a non-participant in discussion with me there, he has little understanding of the issues I've been involved in on that page. Instead, he simply sides with those who support his notions about myself, thereby also supporting false notions about my positions and character, and supporting violation of WP:NPA.

Support for D Tombe
There is no question that D Tombe has some views that are not widely shared. Nonetheless, D Tombe can articulate very reasoned and balanced commentary, and my own discussions with him at Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) resulted in virtually all the examples, figures and explanations that did much to improve that page, and similarly the examples on the Coriolis effect page. It also led to identification of the meaning used in the Lagrangian approach, a topic very reluctantly accepted by Dicklyon after weeks of persuasion. These discussions also led to the article Centrifugal force and absolute rotation spun off as a separate article made from Centrifugal force in a good move by Dicklyon.

I appreciate D Tombe's support in trying to refocus the actions on Speed of light in violation of WP:NPA and WP:Talk to focus instead upon specific commentary concerning specific statements made, and not upon imagined generalities. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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

If critique of editors is restricted to commentary upon verbatim excerpts from proposed contributions,WP:NPA and WP:Talk are enforced, and reversion of sections with no accompanying critique on the Talk page is banned, things will quiet down. There is no need to discipline any editor for past transgressions; rather, let's look ahead and simply reign in these excesses.