Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli/Proposed decision

I think it is important that I bring to the attention of the comitee at this late time that Kehrli's actions which this comittee has clearly decided to be not consistent with the spirit, purpose and rules of wikipedia have already begun to shift into areas not covered by any of the proposed decisions. This new source of disruption can be found at User_talk:Army1987 and Talk:Physical_constant and Talk:Dimensionless_quantity. Kehrli states in these threads that "This subject, btw, has nothing to do with the m/z struggle that I was taken in somewhere else. In both cases I am fighting a wide-spread opinion that is wrong." There are some very strong parallels here and in some ways is an extention of the m/z issue in my opinion. The bottom line is that he still does not understand wikipedia nor is he willing to work together with others. He sees wikipedia as a place to argue. Now, the area that is in the process of being thoroughly disrupted by Kehrli is not an area of interest to me, however I think it should affect your judgement regarding breath and duration of any bans in this case. I have invested too much time in this already to fight someone else's fight however I think it would be an opportune time to solve the problem in a more robust manner. I would suggest an open-ended dynamic probationary status for Kehrli, whereby any disruption by him in any area could be delt with quickly. Just my input.--Nick Y. 20:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it may be too early to jump to those conclusions. Perhaps give it at least a few weeks, and if Kehrli's behavior continues to be disruptive in other areas, report it to us in the clarifications section and an arbitrator will make the appropriate motion then (which will not be like a case all over again). Dmcdevit·t 22:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * i am not sure how/if i should get involved in this, but the "new source(s) of disruption" that Nick Y refers to are edits that Kerhli has made that i have mostly reverted (i did not revert the name change to Dimensionless quantity and i also thought that some of the section headers to Physical constant were a good idea). but the main thesis of Kerhli's is that the rest of the scientific community just has it wrong in how it views the concept of dimension of physical quantity.  the changes (that i reverted) did two things (that needed reversion): 1. it negated the meaning of some point regarding dimensionality that was there, replaces it with his opinion acknowledging that it is "Contrary to wide belief..." diff and justifies that in the talk page with "because I think it is wrong ... I do not think that dimensionless constants are more fundamental than other constants. This is a misunderstanding coming from the believe that quantities depend on systems of units." diff  he has made similar changes to Dimensionless quantity diff (although the name change was good) with similar justification diff.  if the rest of the scientific community is wrong and Kerhli is right, he cannot expect to use Wikipedia as his means of correcting the "error".  he needs to first change the consensus of the discipline through the normal channels (scholarly publication, presentation at conferences, etc.) and when (and if) the consensus changes, that's when WP will change it. r b-j 16:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)