User:Brews ohare/Physchim62 action

Statement by Brews ohare
Because it is entirely possible that some "uninvolved" bystander Admin will before long decide to block me from all comment simply based upon their own unsupported and unchallengeable initiative, I will respond now to this motion, although I regard it as frivolous, and punishable as an example of Physchim62 using ArbCom for the purpose of harassment, pure and simple.

The terms proposed by Physchim62 as being violated are:
 * ''“Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, [...] or the recognition of minority views.”

Regarding the violation of this restriction:


 * Physchim62 first diff: Not a violation as it is not a comment on any of the topics mentioned. It is a request to retract an unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views.


 * Physchim62 second diff A comment urging retraction of an unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views to preserve Physchim62's good name.


 * Physchim62 third diff Avoidance of Physchim62's effort to involve me in a physics discussion of free space, and refocusing on withdrawal of an unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views.


 * Physchim62 fourth diff Request to avoid repeating his unvarnished fabrications paraded as my views in the motion at hand


 * Physchim62 fifth diff A second repeat of diff 3.


 * Physchim62 sixth diff A comment from me to Count Iblis suggesting he look into his differences with me more carefully, as they may be about another matter. No specifics of physics provided, an entirely broad and general comment. There exists no connection with this action of Physchim62.


 * Physchim62 seventh diff A third repeat of diff 3.


 * Physchim62 last diff; Here I decline to involve myself with Physchim62's attempt to embroil me in a physics discussion of vacuum and reiterate a request for retraction of his unvarnished fabrications paraded as my views.

Nowhere in any of these diffs was a "physics related topic" discussed. The disputes that have arisen are about the act of promulgating distortions and misrepresentations, not about the content of same. They do not "arise from a physics-related dispute"; instead they arise from the deliberate and reprehensible acts of fabrication and distortion, independent of the content of said unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views. The point is that Physchim62 has been told that "blah-blah-blah" is an unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views, diffs are provided indicating his infelicities, and he has refused to reconsider his statements regardless. The present motion of his is a blatant misuse of ArbCom to avoid all responsibility for his acts, to avoid correcting his unvarnished fabrications paraded as my views, and to reconfigure my self-defense as some kind of crime. Brews ohare (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Physchim62's Right of reply :
 * You state you are not merely trying to get Brews blocked although that is the Enforcement action requested in this action initiated by yourself. You thought “it was better to let the matter lie rather than to escalate the situation”. Isn't this action "escalation"? Your words are inconsistent with your actions.


 * Your personal "views" of my opinions are not at issue here: what is at issue is a very clear cut unvarnished fabrication paraded as my views despite clear and repeated advice of their falsity. You have made no mention of this matter, and offered no retraction or apology.


 * I don't follow your summary to your "right of reply", which could be taken to say that somehow you have helped me (“my request – which was to his benefit, as it significantly reduces his topic ban”), when during the case proper your recommendation was “a complete ban from . This is the ban that should be imposed on Brews ohare, given his behaviour both before and after the SoL arbitration: any other remedy is a waste of time.”


 * In short, you adopt a position of ultimate virtue, standing on both sides of every issue, with no sign of "getting it". Moreover, nothing in your "right of reply" is directed in any way at bolstering the basis for this action of yours, which remains an example of simple harassment. Brews ohare (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Hans Adler:
 * It is generous of you to take the view that Physchim62 “negligently damaged Brews ohare's character unfairly”, but it is abundantly clear that he remains unrepentant throughout his "right of reply" below. The label of "pseudoscientist" is only part of the matter: he accuses me of forcefully propagating the view throughout WP “that everything [in science] is FUBAR since 1983 and nobody else has noticed” and he rigidly refuses to back down from this statement. These actions and inactions are deliberate. Hauling me into this tribunal is no accident either. Brews ohare (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Brews ohare
A post by Count Iblis has been removed by myself per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light. NW ( Talk ) 21:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Dr.K.
Let me get this straight: Physchim tries unsuccessfully to label Brews as a pseudoscience promoter on Wikipedia (according to Hans Adler a character assasination attempt against Brews). When Brews tries to defend himself against Physchim's unsubstantiated allegations, Physchim brings an AE enforcement motion against him. I am speechless. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 21:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
There are no violations. I've looked at the 8 diffs posted by Physchim62 (the filer of this AE request) and am appalled at this AE request. I reject the claim that on this occasion, Brews ohare was being deliberately disruptive in support of his physics views. In fact, I see plenty of evidence that the cause of this issue was the comments made by the filer. There was no need to even bring up what may or may not constitute Brews ohare's views on the physics topic while the relevant motions were being considered. The filer was also given multiple opportunities (and explicit suggestions) to disengage, but did not do so. I therefore suggest that this thread is closed without action, except to urge Physchim62 to voluntarily avoid interacting with or commenting about Brews ohare, in the same way that Brews ohare seems to have done with Physchim62 since the close of the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Pieter Kuiper
Physchem is trying to get Brews blocked. He is clearly baiting with his allegation of pseudoscience. Against a contributor here who has a professional reputation in real life. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos
Recommend closure without action - the diffs don't appear to suggest there has been a violation of the sanction/motion. Orderinchaos 13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hans Adler
Since I managed to inject myself into this case, I want to mention several things that may or may not be relevant.
 * I am a pure mathematician, not a physicist. I have had 3 years of university level physics and know quite a bit about thermodynamics, but I have no deeper knowledge of quantum physics, for example.
 * I believe that Physchim62 has been acting in good faith, but has negligently damaged Brews ohare's character unfairly.
 * On this wiki there is an unfortunate tendency of a lot of people to use the word "pseudoscience" much more widely than I have ever heard it used in real life. For some of these editors most of alternative medicine is pseudoscience, folk beliefs such as ghosts are pseudoscience, all religions are pseudoscience. This is causing a lot of bad blood and disruption.
 * Some diffs that I have seen in connection with this case (not by anyone involved in the current request) make me suspect that there may be a subtext that has to do with something that really lives in the area between fringe science and (sometimes antisemitically tinged) pseudoscience. See here for what I have in mind particularly, although it might also be something similar. (I have not looked at the SoL Arbcom case itself, so forgive me if this has already been discussed and settled.) If Physchim62 found himself in a dispute with both Brews ohare and someone else who appears to hold such views, he might easily be led to believe that Brews ohare shares these views, whether it is true or not. (And let me say explicitly that I have no idea whether it is true or not.) Hans Adler 20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Right of reply by Physchim62
As so many allegations have been raised against my motives in this section, I shall reply here. Apologies in advance for not replying individually to the editors concerned.
 * that I am trying to get Brews ohare blocked
 * If I were merely trying to get Brews blocked, I would have filed a enforcement request on Saturday when he chose to join in a thread on my User talk page started by . Brews ohare is (quite rightly in my opinion) banned from commenting on matters arising from physics-related disputes, and my opinion of his opinions concerning certain (practically unimportant) areas of electrodynamics is obviously such a matter. I didn't file an enforcement request at that point because I thought it was better to let the matter lie rather than to escalate the situation. I asked for enforcement once Brews became disruptive on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, as he has done on other pages many times in the past.
 * Note: Likebox cannot reply to this thread beacuse of editing restrictions imposed by ArbCom for his disruptive advocacy of Brews ohare. I opposed this restriction while it was under discussion.
 * that I have tried to label Brews ohare as a pseudoscientist
 * My views on Brews' opinions on certain topics in physics are well known. I stated them in the original arbitration case and again in response to the motion that Brews topic ban be shortened. I think they are relevant in Arbitration proceedings (or in discussions concerning such proceedings, as in this case) because the Committee has, in the past, doled out one-year bans to editors who use Wikipedia as a means to spread their unorthodox beliefs. As Likebox was not a party to the original ArbCom case, I attempted to politely (for Likebox) summarise the reasons for my positions.
 * that I was given multiple opportunities do disengage
 * I was, and am, being accused by Brews and others of deliberately disseminating untruths about Brews' opinions. Between the end of the ArbCom case and Brews' posting on my talk page, the two of us have had no contact whatsoever: I hope that that situation will resume, and I shall do that which is my power to ensure that it does. In particular reply to, there is no assymmetry in our lack of contact, just in our application of WP:DISENGAGE.
 * that I was baiting Brews ohare
 * I was replying to his repeated claims that I was, in effect, lying. If Brews has a right of reply, then so do I.
 * that this was a character assassination attempt on Brews
 * That is not how I read Hans’ comments at all: I don’t see any hint in what he wrote that I was deliberately trying to assassinate Brews’ character (as if I could if I tried). Hans warned me to tone my language down, and not to use the term “pseudoscience” because of the different interpretations that the word can cover. I shall attempt to abide by his good advice, even as I obviously hope that I shaln’t have to comment on Brews in the future.

As it happened, I asked that the motions be closed on Monday morning, 96 hours after they had achieved a majority. It should be remembered that I opposed both of the motions that passed but, as the speed of light dispute had reached my User talk page over the weekend, I felt that it was better to give some closure to the situation rather than let it fester. Did Brews’ actions contribute to the discussion of my request – which was to his benefit, as it significantly reduces his topic ban – or was it just gratuitous disruption? My opinion is the latter, obviously, or I would not waste my time on asking that the sanctions imposed on him, and very recently ratified and extended by ArbCom, are effectively enforced. Physchim62 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Brews ohare

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is an violation here, which I seriously doubt, I'm not convinced that any enforcement action is appropriate. Tim Song (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)