User talk:Count Iblis

Count Iblis sticks to the guidelines in the essay: Editing scientific articles as if it were official policy.

Lessons for Wikipedia from the demise of Physics Forums

Physics Forums (PF for short) used to be a high quality website devoted to physics discussions. It is moderated using rules that make life difficult for crackpots. The Moderators there intervene whenever there is suspicion that someone is promoting crackpot ideas. This made it possible to have interesting discussions between experts; experts joined PF because the noise from crackpots is low.

However, the power of the moderators led to them to become corrupted with it. Also, the system of awarding the "Science Advisor" and "Homework Helper" title to contributors, has become corrupted as well, perhaps it is not good to award these titles at all. The problem here is authority. Although some level of authority is needed to keep crackpots out, science and especially physics does not work well when arguments based on authority are used.

Another issue is the way sources should be used. In physics, referring to sources is never done to appeal to authority, it is simply a matter of presenting an argument made elsewhere and referring to that. But on PF the use of sources became an acceptable tool to argue from authority, with (predictably) devastating consequences.

This happened because of the following dynamics, which is very important for Wikipedia to avoid. People in authority will tend to also use their authority to moderate, even if their power is not meant for that. New moderators will be appointed based on consensus in the present group of moderators, which will amplify any ideosyncratic views held the group of moderators. The same is true for the nominaton of "science advisors". What happend at PF is that the group of moderators is dominated by engineers and experimental physicsts who have ideosyncratic views or views that are plainly wrong on e.g. thermodynamics.

Also, quite a significant fraction of the moderators on PF are Neo-Cons and quite a few are global warming deniers (because of disputes amoung mnodeators, all global warming related discussons are closed indefinitely). Most of them are argumentative when engaging in (physics) discussions, not being shy of bringing in bogus arguments to win a debate. They are presumably selected for this attitude by the other moderators who lack the qualifications to see that they are actually wrong.

I left PF after being punished for starting legitimate physics discussions. It became clear to me that moderators had placed me on a watchlist and would continue to close threads on physics topics started by me on the official ground of "trolling", while they would continue to discuss Sarah Palin on the politics forum.

This situation may seem to be completely alien to Wikipedians, but it is actually exactly what Brews Ohare and his supporters found themselves in after his physics topic ban here. What happened was that Brews wasplaced oin a watchlist and almost everything he did was argued to be "disruptive", even though there was no trace of any actual disruption. Moreover the Admins who would complain of disruption by Brews would two minutes later, engage in lengthy arguments on AN/I about trivial matters.

Also, my restrictions on commenting on Brews Ohare after some Admins and Arbitrators did not like to hear my arguments anymore whenever Brews was brought in front of AE on trivial grounds, points to the above problems being universal.

Note that both on PF and here on Wikipedia, it is still the case that the Moderators and Admins/Arbitrators do there best for Pf and Wikipedia, respectively. However, this by itself won't prevent trouble; the good will of authoritave persons can be destructive rather than constructive. For Wikipedia, the problem area lies with the ArbCom system. It would be a big improvement if instead of the Arbitrators themselves hearing a case, they should appoint Admins to do that on their behalf. This makes the Arbitrators less involved in the details of a case and less likely for them to get personally involved to the point that they can't be objective anymore, as happened in the aftermath of the Brews Ohare case.

Count Iblis (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Center for Inquiry needs your help!

The Center for Inquiry is facing financial problems, see here. If they fail in their mission, Wikipedia will be doomed too! Count Iblis (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Note about Brews Ohare and my ArbCom gag order against comments on him

Let me give my opinion here before ArbCom passes the restriction barring me from doing so. An important thing to note is that the only thing that led me to "defend Brews" was my opinion that the topic ban was too wide and that this would likely lead to problems, if Brews decided to stay active on Wikipedia. It had nothing to do with me supporting Brews' position in the actual dispute. In fact I was and still am in disagreement with him in the actual dispute, both as far as the physics content of the dispute is concerned and also about how to control discussions that go on for too long.

Now, despite my strong disagreements with Brews, I was very happy that he decided to stay. My attitude was that Brews can do a lot in other areas like classical mechanics, electrical engineering etc. when the topic ban expires. Brews, as a retired professor, has both the expertise and the time to make certain indepth contributions. Usually, the more of an expert you are, the less time you will have for Wikipedia. Brews being a rare exception to this rule, is thus a valuable asset for Wikipedia.

This is why I supported Brews when he wrote his essay, contributed to my essay, and made some suggestions on policy talk pages. When others objected to those efforts, I defended Brews on the basis of an "as long as no harm is done let's not make a big deal about it" attitude. Over time, what happened was that the difference of opinion about how to deal with Brews became more of a conflict between the two sides and had little to do with Brews himself. The root of that dispute is the very familiar clash between fundamentalism and pragmatism.

Now, the ArbCom motion under discussion is actually quite pragmatic. The restrictions against Brews will be lifted in 90 days because the way things have been going so far was not good. The proposed restriction against me, however, is something I strongly disagree with, but I can live with this (practical problems I see with this are address pragmatically by me on the ArbCom page). As far as I'm concerned, what I argued for in the Brews case is what ArbCom now has decided to do: Brews will soon be back productively editing physics and engineering articles.

I see this gag order and all the events leading them to do this far more as a problem for ArbCom than a problem for me. ArbCom, after all, is supposed to Arbitrate a conflict. Clearly, ArbCom failed here and instead of examning how and why things went wrong, they decided to blame some people for commenting on this case. Now, the Brews Ohare case itself will be forgotten soon. However, the ArbCom ruling restricting me, User: Likebox, User: David Tombe, and User: Hell in a Bucket will be untenable guidelines for future ArbCom cases. ArbCom will be under pressure to admit that they went too far here, when some other future ArbCom case evolves along the same lines.

But to see how bad this really is, you have to consider this from a historic perspective. Everything written on Wikipedia will likely be easily accessible as long as our civilization lasts, which could well be many billion years (we can transform ourselves to machines and move to other solar systems before our Sun makes life impossible on Earth ). To an archeologist living in the distant future, the early days of Wikipedia will be the most interesting part of its history. The evolution of policies and Arbcom rulings made in the first decade of Wikipedia's existence will be very interesting, especially those ArbCom rulings that are in some way anomalous, like this gag order. Count Iblis (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a gag order so much as a WP:MYOB restriction. If this was a surprise then you're less intelligent than I was giving you credit for. Just let it lie, eh? Guy (Help!) 21:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If this was supposed to be a WP:MYOB restricton then it was actually a sort of an ownership issue about the case, where some ArbCom members and some Admins did not like my arguments and wanted to remove me from the discussions. There was never an issue about me being uncivil in any AE discusussions, nor about me swamping everyone else out in discussions. If there were any such issues, I was not notified about that (i.e. no warnings given for off topic postings, clerks did not remove my postings on EA discussions, nothing of the sort). The only thing was that my arguments were rejected or ignored. What did also happen is that I was accused of givng Brews "bad advice". I disagree with that assessment, but even if that were true, this is not something that should have led to a restriction. Count Iblis (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1. 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) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.
2. Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

ArbCom troll

The 1st time IP looked like a classic troll with no new ideas or substance in its message. I don't think its message had any influence on any ArbCom member or any reasonable person following the discussion. Perhaps it would have been better not to respond to it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It can be difficult to decide whether or not to respond. I agree that ArbCom will not take that comment serious, so no response was necessary considering that. But it may be that to outsiders my restriction looks to be something else than it in reality is. This is because on Wikipedia there are quite a few disruptive editors who have been restricted from posting on AN/I because they abuse that board.

Because such cases are the norm that most editors are familiar with, the comments by the IP will make it look like to someone not familiar with the SoL case that this is yet another such case. People may think that Count Iblis has been restricted by ArbCom from commenting and surely that has to do with him abusing the Admin or ArbCom boards....

Those perceptions can then cause complications later. E.g. when there was an editing dispute involving User:Likebox and User:Jayjg on the essay WP:ESCA, User:Jayjg went to AN/I and got User:Likebox blocked because he was alledgedly violating a restriction, but that was not really the case at all. Count Iblis (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope everything works out well in the end. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

PF

I was surprised and disappointed to see that you're no longer a member at PF. I enjoyed reading your posts and hope to see you back someday. - Mapes --76.24.221.176 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mapes,

Thanks for your positive comments. On PF, I seem to have been caught up in some strange "hidden" dispute with some Mod, but I'm not even 100% sure about that. I have been banned till the second of May on the grounds of "nitpicking", but all I did was discuss physics (if I attempt to log in then all I see is a two line message saying "banned till 2nd may for nitpicking", I can't access my user cp). I wrote to Greg Bernard for clarification on what is going on, also explaining that while I've had a lot of time for PF the last few weeks, I won't have that much time two weeks from now right until after the end of summer vacation. So, they should not take for granted all the effort experts like you and me put in there.

I suspect, but I'm not 100% sure about this, that some Mods don't like me to post some physics problems in the spirit of Kapitza. These are problems formulated in a simple open ended way such that you can/should have lots of discussions about what the relevant physics in the problem actually is before you can make progress. There are a few such problems posted here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI edit conflicts

Oops: we both fixed that problem at the same time, it seems. I don't know why people aren't getting edit conflict notifications. I guess it's just down to AN/I being so high-traffic, or perhaps bad timing? Thanks for catching that, anyhow. AGK 02:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps a big server lag can cause such effects? Count Iblis (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate suggestion

I have collapsed your new section. It was an inappropriate suggestion, clearly a backhanded insult to Occam. Please don't go throwing stuff like that into already charged discussions. It's rude and counterproductive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It was not meant to be an insult at all. Conservapedia exists because people with certain ideas can edit there more easily than here at Wikipedia. Bringing up the idea that you could also edit the Conservapedia article could (and indeed did) raise issues directly relevant to why his editing behavior here on Wikipedia is seen to be a problem.

It seems to me that such fundamental discussions (like "why do people actually prefer Wikipedia over Conservapedia") are more productive than voting on a proposed topic ban for Mathsci. Count Iblis (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Planck law

Dear Count Iblis I am also a physicist, but I usually work on the Italian wikipedia. I noticed that you corrected the Planck law that I had modified. I do not want to correct it another time, but I am sure that the formula of Planck must be written like this:

$I(\nu ,T)={\frac {h\nu ^{3}}{2c^{2}}}{\frac {1}{e^{\frac {h\nu }{kT}}-1}}.$

Infact if you integrate on the solid angle $4\pi$ and from 0 frequency to infinity you must obtain the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

$\int 4\pi I(\nu ,T)d\nu ={\frac {2\pi h}{c^{2}}}\int _{0}^{\infty }{\frac {\nu ^{3}}{e^{\frac {h\nu }{kT}}-1}}={\frac {2\pi ^{5}K^{4}}{15c^{2}h^{3}}}T^{4}=\sigma T^{4}.$

And for what concern the Stefan-Botzmann costant using my formula you obtain the correct value:

$\sigma ={\frac {2\pi ^{5}K^{4}}{15c^{2}h^{3}}}=5.67\cdot 10^{-8}\ Wm^{-2}K^{-4}.$

While if you use:

$I(\nu ,T)={\frac {2h\nu ^{3}}{c^{2}}}{\frac {1}{e^{\frac {h\nu }{kT}}-1}}.$

you obtain a value wrong for the Stefan-Botzmann costant (four times lower):

$\sigma ={\frac {\pi ^{5}K^{4}}{30c^{2}h^{3}}}=1.42\cdot 10^{-8}\ Wm^{-2}K^{-4}.$

--Pasquale.Carelli (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The symbol "I" that is used in that article is the intensity that refers to the non-isotropic flux of radiation emitted by some surface per unit solid angle. This has a cos(theta) dependence on the angle relative to the normal direction. If you integrate this over the solid angles, you get the integral of cos(theta)sin(theta)dtheta dphi from theta = 0 to pi/2 and phi from zero to 2 pi which is pi.

So, this is where the factor of 4 comes from. You can also see this in a different way. Consider a box filled with a photon gas with internal energy density u. The radiation is isotropic inside the box. Consider placing a sphere in that box that abposorps all the incident radiation. The amount of radiation the flows into the sphere from outside will be the same as the amount that the sphere radiates per unit time assuming equilibrium. The amount of radiaton flowing into the sphere from outside coming from some small solid angle dOmega around some direction can be computed as follows. The flux of radiation from within a solid angle dOmega of that direction will be u c/(4 pi) dOmega. Then the amount of radiation per unit time intercepted by the sphere will be this times pi r^2 as pi r^2 is te projected area of the sphere perpendicular to the direction of where the radiation is coming from.

So, if the surface area of the sphere is A, then the sphere will itnercept an amount of energy per unit time of

u c/(4 pi) dOmega A/4

from radiation coming from within a solid angle dOmega from some particular direction.

Integrating this over all solid angles is trivial, we only need to multiply by 4 pi as the entire situation is isotropic. So, the total amount of radiation flowing into the sphere from outside is:

u c/4 A

per unit time. The amount of energy per unit time contained within the sphere must remain constant in equilibrium, so we see that the sphere radiates per unit time and per unit area an amount of energy of uc/4.

Now, uc/(4 pi) is clearly the flux per solid angle of isotropic radiation, while as explained above, uc/4 is the flux when considering the total flux emitted by some area element (which is not isotropic). So, the factor you need to multiply with is pi. Count Iblis (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, I was considering the isotropic flux --Pasquale.Carelli (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Sorry about the failure to identify myself.. I am 203.193.221.11

The rules for editing and writing encyclopedia entries require the knowledge to be verifiable (ie true as far as possible to determine) and stated with clarity. Which excludes philosophical speculation.. reference to the 'equal a priori probability postulate to the future' have no relevance to the introduction of the topic, unclear as to meaning and inadequately referenced. Vh mby (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much difference between invoking "molecular chaos" and the previous statement. They amount to the exactly same thing if you analyze it carefully. Molecular chaos is the assumpton that you have randonmess when the system evolves forward in time. However, the system still has to evolve to a state of lower entropy if you evolve it back in time. So, you simply can't escape the fact that the system always has to be in a spoecially prepared state due to the fact that it evolves under time evolution from a low entropy state. The assumption is then that under forward time evolution, you can assume that the system behaves in a random way, despite the fact that there are a lot of hidden correlations in the system. Count Iblis (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings :)

I saw you on the GW talkpage and thought I would say hi. When I came by your page I was surprised to read such an interesting discussion about this "arbcom" stuff which I never heard of. When I have a bit of time I'll have to look into it. Anyway just wanted to say hi and I'll probably see you in the fray! *fist-bump* from Canada :P Torontokid2006 (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That ArbCom issue I wrote about is worth reading about. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to talk about it on Wikipedia (that's the result of an ArCom ruling about me), and that's why I wrote about it on my talk page just days before the ArbCom ruling barring me from talking about it was made. Count Iblis (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sub-issues questions

A few of your questions on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop do not conform to the requested single-sentence question requested by the Committee. Please rephrase your sub-issues to be a single sentence. Thank you, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

SPOV

Would it appreciably change the point of your question to the arbcomm if you replaced the rather "SPOV" with "scholarly sources"? Apart from the polarising term SPOV, scholarly opinion goes beyond simply "scientific" opinion - after all, Oreskes, a historian, made a key contribution by demonstrating what scientists already "knew" about the debate over climate change. Guettarda (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that mentioning SPOV may be polarizing, I'll think about clarifying my text...Count Iblis (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Count Iblis. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.
Message added 18:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Restrictions lifted

Hi Count: I am happy to see the lifting of restrictions upon ‘advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed’. It is coupled with the comments about “caution against backsliding” by Sir Fozzie, “repeat of the prior behavior will not be acceptable” by Risker and “further attempts at filibustering will be met with a proportional response” by Coren. I'd take it that you have the opportunity to defend your actions now, where under the ban you would be peremptorily and summarily blocked without recourse. However, I am sure that the slate is not clean and any actions taken will be dimly viewed. Brews ohare (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brews, this is indeed good news. I intepret the comments about "repeat of prior behavior" as an indication that ArbCom, being instructed by Jimbo Wales to look again at your situation, was feeling coerced by Jimbo to propose the lifting on your sanctions over their objections. They did what they were instructed to do, but then blamed David Tombe, Likebox, Hell in a Bucket and me and imposed sanctions on us. From their POV, we were to blame for the sitation they were finding themselves in; they presumably don't want to find themselves in that situation again, but they don't want to re-evaluate the way they Arbitrate to see if there are problems there that cause mistakes in judgements. Count Iblis (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well Count, that is an interesting reconstruction of events. Brews ohare (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Speed of light

Following a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Amendment 4 to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light ("Brews ohare advocacy restrictions") expired with remedy 4.2 of the same case ("Brews ohare topic banned"), as amended by amendment 3 ("Brews ohare").

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Lubos

Please remove the sentence about Aspergers (unless the condition is self-disclosed). I don't care for the guy either but such remarks are out of place. By doing this you're descending to his level. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The comment has already been removed. I remember Lubos writing quite a few times that he thinks he has Asperger's (and that many men are to a certain extent a bit "autistic"). I invoked it as a possible explanation for his behavior. Most people here know that I'm in favor of finding solutions allowing people to continue contributing here, which is not similar to the way Lubos would argue if he were to be irritated about someone's behavior. Quite the opposite I would think.

Also, note that Lubos finds the way he behaves as positive. When his behavior is discussed he doesn't try to talk himself out of this by arguing that that he meant to say something else, rather he will simply defend his statements and point out that writing what he wrote was a good thing.

Now Ottava reminds me of Lubos for these reasons, which is what I wanted to say on that ArbCom page... Count Iblis (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Weblog

Hello Count Iblis, I was directed to your weblog by an acquaintance we have in common. I enjoyed some of your concepts. Are you a student of philosophy or are you just philosophically inclined? --Faust (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Faust, I'm philosophically inclined, my expertise lies within physics. As you probably know, in physics we usually try to "shut up and calculate", but that is not always possible. I was reading this article a few days ago and as you see, issues like the nature of conscious experience do come up via the backdoor. Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Count Iblis. Shall we continue on my talk page? --Faust (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Count Iblis. You have new messages at Faust's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

How to contact admin

You recommended at ANI that I contact an admin. How does one do that? I searched around a bit and could not find anything specific. Are you an admin? If so, could you remove the outing material? David.Kane (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi Count: Thanks for your support. In general you seem to me to hit the sane median position in these matters.

I'd agree with you that my relativity background is weak. However, I wouldn't agree that this is the problem on the Talk page, which has more to do with impatience than content.

Actually, I don't think the content aspect of the problems I've run into are related to classical vs. relativistic interpretations. The problem was very clearly stated by Martin when he launched into a primacy of theory over observation kick. There is the real issue, I think even with yourself: theory is setting the perspective, when really it is neither here nor there, IMO.

Anyway, such discussion is not possible within WP. Brews ohare (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

ive left a note on Sandsteins page for this irregular a tion of banning someone under arb who's sanctions expird how does that work? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

See [[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brews,

I think that as far as the speed of light is concerned, the experimental issues about the definition of the metre are already a side issue. Of course, this should be mentioned in the article as it is a very notable use of the speed of light. But too much details will distract from the main topic, which is the speed of light, which is ultimately a theoretical topic, because the best theories we have summarize the experimental knowledge that we do have about this.

Then, some editors may become impatient faster than others so, to keep the peace, one has to give a significant minority a veto right on continuing discussions. So, I do agree with you that sometimes discussions that you or I feel are useful are not possible. I've experienced that on some other topics too, most recently this happened when I defended you with suggestions about modifying the restrictions in the aftermath of the ArbCom case.

Some time earlier, I noticed that a consensus on rewriting the entropy page along a more theoretical line wasn't really there, so I didn't go ahead with my plans for that. Doing that would inevitably have led to heated debates in the talk page with a some editors backing me and quite a few insisting on the chemical engineering/classical thermodynamics POV (which i.m.o., is extremely misleading). Count Iblis (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Count: Thanks for the response. I confess that I had not thought of Speed of light as primarily a theoretical article, probably because of preoccupation with metrology. However, you are right, the theoretical issues are very important. Brews ohare (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary CC article restriction

Please consider signing the CC restriction, as explained here. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify something for me?

Hello, Count Iblis—here you suggest that there's a consensus on scientific pages that WP:OR should be interpreted liberally on math and physics articles. Could you point me to a few of the discussions where that consensus emerged? I don't edit scientific articles—or really any articles where concepts are explained, since I work mostly on biographies of dead politicians—and I would some context on the application of Wikipedia's content policies to the kind of articles at issue in the Brews ohare case valuable. Steve Smith (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I've dug up a relevant discussion see here, kicked off by me after I was challenged by an editor on an OR issue. I do refer in that discussion to an older discussion, but digging that up would require more Wiki-archeology work. I remember User:CBM giving similar feedback to me in such earlier discussions that were kicked off by me after I rewrote some thermodynamics articles back in 2008. There were no editing disputes about that rewriting. Instead I was raising an issue about the previous version being flawed because editors were mindlessly copying from textbooks or online sources and using formulae in the wrong context leading to errors.

Now, this doesn't mean that there is a clear consensus in the usual sense on this issue. Rather, there is a sort of "agree to disagree consensus", where the people who favor a strict interpretation of OR don't get involved in articles that are written in a technical style. Count Iblis (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Copied from AN/I to be sure you have a chance to see it

I would like Brews editing to be regularized, and I agree that he should not be subject to "headhunting". On the other hand, his history is a factor to be considered if new problems arise of the same nature as past problems. The two or three editors complaining in the current incident have no past interaction with Brews that I am aware of. Their complaints appear to be objective, not based on a vendetta. Good advice for Brews is to immediately listen to any complaints coming from such users, and do his best to accommodate them. As an expert in a different field (not physics), I can appreciate the challenge of responding to challenges from amateurs who ask for verification of something which seems obvious to me, but which might not be obvious to a non-expert. As a physics expert, Brews will have to overcome this challenge too. Jehochman ^Talk 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman: This is a misdiagnosis. The issue is not that as an "expert" (which is not a claim of mine) I cannot understand the hesitancy of the non-expert in accepting my views. The problem is quite different. In terms of my own behavior, the problem on Talk:Speed of light was that I was inclined to insist on discussion of points that appear to me to require clarification, beyond the the point of tolerance of some editors. That is a difference of aesthetic as to what constitutes a sufficiently precise statement.

The problem on Talk:Centrifugal force was that DVdm and Blackburne absolutely refused to straighten out for me what they thought was wrong with what seemed to me to be a very elementary example I wished to add; they were annoyed at the very thought of explanation. My attempts to have them elaborate led to threats of a block and accusations of disruption, not to attempts at collaboration.

As for the problem of aesthetic, I believe the best thing is for me to let drop such matters on Talk pages even when I am dissatisfied that the sources have been properly interpreted or believe that statements of points are misleading. In my appeal of the recent action by Sandstein I have suggested that. The simple fact is that the level of accuracy entertained in WP is just not up to it. As for the second issue, I believe that DVdm and Blackburne have a knee-jerk reaction to anything I contribute to WP, and an instant loss of patience that leads them to escalate anything I do into a tempest. I do not believe I can fix that issue with these two gentlemen: they have their attitudes dyed into their psyches and nothing will change that. Brews ohare (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

An important factor one has to consider here, is the type of contributions Brews likes to make to Wikipedia articles. These are typically derivations, examples with ilustrations demonstrating some results. And this is not all that different from what I like to do here on Wikipedia. These sorts of contributions are not always welcomed in articles. Some editors will oppose it on the grounds of a strict reading of OR, others will oppose it for being too textbook like. I would not be surprised if 90% of all Wikipedians would rather not have articles written in the style Brews and I would prefer. Then, among the physics and math editors, it could well be that 60% would oppose such articles.

This means is that you have to chose the articles to which you want to contribute very carefully. If there are editors who oppose you, they typically do that on "Wiki-ideological" grounds (strict interpretation of OR or NOTTEXTBOOK and the drive to keep Wikipedia "pure" in this respect ). Needless to say, arguing with people when the disagreement is based on ideology is often a waste of time. Also, because there are more of them than there are editors who are on your ideological side, lengthy argument and RFCs drawing in more editors doesn't help.

Now, as I explained to Steve Smith in the tread above, there is a sort of "agree to disagree" consensus about articles containing a lot of derivations or examples that read a bit like textbooks and satisfy a more liberal interpretation of OR. Articles like this are tolerated, the editors who would rather not see such articles don't edit them (instead of aggressively trying to rid Wikipedia of them). So, you need to seek out such articles on which like minded editors are active. Or you need to create new articles in which you can put in your examples and derivations. E.g., I created the article Relations between heat capacities instead of making an appendix in the heat capacity article, because I could guess from the style the main heat capacity article is written, that this would probably not be welcomed in the article.

To see that the opposition is entrenched and not limited to Blackburne, DVdm, Dicklyon, etc., just consider the article Joule–Thomson effect. As you see there are a few derivations in this article that were edited in by me. At the time I thought that the few derivations you see there would probably not be met by a lot of opposition. But I still got significant opposition. As you see, the opposion is a knee jerk-type "I don't like it" rejection. In this case, because there were only two editors who didn't like the additions, the derivations could stay in the article.

It is easy to underestimate this sort of opposition. A knee jerk-type rejection on one article can fool you into believing that on another article editors will be reasonable and not react so negatively. But you would be mistaken and before you know it you would have BlackBurneII and DVdmII on your tail. An Admin who watches the drama for afar would then think "there you have Brews again causing disruption", because it is hard to believe that you can have disputes with different editors and each time these other editors are to blame.

In my experience, defending edits with some vigor in an uncopromizing way will only work when you are on a dedicated article for the derivations or examples that you've written yourself, and the opposition is "foreign". E.g. when had an argument with Likebox and OMCV on one of Likbox's favorite articles, I gave an example to convice OMCV that not every step needs to be cited. OMCV went to an example I gave, Relations between heat capacities and demanded citations and threatened to put the article on AFD. But OMCV knowns almost next to nothing about thermodynamics. This is the sort of situation where I think one doesn't need to compromize, beyond perhaps giving a general citation. Count Iblis (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Count: I found your above discussion of what is also my experience very illuminating. In fact, I had failed to realize there was an inherent opposition like this, and tended to think the opposition to my actions was simply a nasty short-cited continuance of assumptions adopted during the old Case: Speed of light that I was a crackpot regardless of fact and had to be opposed regardless of circumstance. It is clear that opposition by DVdm, Blackburne, Physchim62 is knee jerk. It is clear that opposition by DickLyon is aesthetic: opposition to the type of article you & I like with examples and derivation. I simply don't understand knee-jerk reactions and blanket imposition of arbitrary preferences across all topics. I also don't understand the preference of WP for myriads of "sound-bite" edits that insert a sentence or correct a font, or revert some minor irrelevancy, over actual substantial contributions of entire pages or large rewrites and re-organizations such as I did on some geology pages and on Pythagoras' theorem, Matter, Widlar current source, Electromotive force, Faraday's law of induction, Step response and dozens more . The focus instead on quibbling is tedious. So perhaps Steve Smith has a point: I am “unwilling or unable to engage with Wikipedia as it is, rather than as he believes it should be”, although I actually have manged to do so despite my predilections. Apparently, however, my efforts on WP are drawing to a close. Brews ohare (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider making contributions to Wikibooks and/or Wikiversity. I'm thinking about doing that too, because of the limits here on Wikipedia. E.g. here it would be very difficult to write a decent article on entropy. I can't rewrite the existing page, due to opposition from the chemical engineers and writing a new one e.g. "entropy (theoretical physics)" would perhaps be challenged on the POV-FORK ground. I have the impression that on Wikibooks or Wikiversity, writing a large detailed body of work from a different perspective than that already exists there, would not lead to any conflicts. In your case that's assuming that Blackburne, DickLyon, DVdm etc. won't follow you to that place, of course :) . Count Iblis (talk)

I was thinking the same thing, Count. Wikipedia is not for original constructions or textbook style content, but Wikiversity and Wikibooks are. If good content is placed on those sites, it can be linked to from Wikipedia articles. Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Count, that doesn't really interest me. I'm not too impressed with Wikibooks. Of course, many of the articles on WP aren't too impressive either, but I believe it is still a little more mainstream. I was interested to hear a line on a sitcom the other day that used "Wikipedian" as an adjective for "crackpot info". The present administration of WP isn't helpful in correcting that impression. Brews ohare (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and looking at the editing history of many Wikibook entries, you can see that the project has become stale. But then, Wikipedia may have reached its limit as far as technical scientific topics is concerned. So perhaps activity there will slowly start to increase. Then getting involved there now may actually be the smart thing to do. You'll always face an uphill struggle if you come late. If you want to rewrite something that someone else has written, you are always on the defensive. Also, you can have more influence about the future of the project, editing policies etc., when you get involved in the early stages of the project than when you arrive much later.

If Wikibooks or Wikiversity entries are of good quality, Wikipedia can refer to them. So, you can let Dicklyon and Blackburne write the concise almost empty Wiki-entries here, while you write the real stuff there. Count Iblis (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Your observations about getting an early start to avoid resistance on Wikibooks is very likely right on. An author of an extended treatment is going to be much more invested and defensive of what has been written than the author of a few paragraphs. Most probably the motivation of the author of a book-length exposition is to present material from a personal standpoint, either based upon a novel stance that would be difficult to gain acceptance for elsewhere, or for reasons of pedagogy, thinking a different approach from the standard one is interesting. It is unlikely that this author is going to feel like adopting a co-author after the formulation and much of the material has been fitted into an original framework. Brews ohare (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light clarification

Hi there I just wanted to let you know that the Speed of Light clarification has been merged with Wikipedia:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Speed of light. NW (Talk) 23:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not for original constructions or textbook style content

Jehochman has said: Wikipedia is not for original constructions or textbook style content, and apparently you both believe that is a point to be made on account of my apparent interests on WP. I believe that notion fits in very well with DickLyon's notion about ‘bloat’. If, in fact, you both feel that Pythagoras' theorem, which I massively reorganized, rewrote and and provided most of the figures for, and a number of examples, falls into that category, I will take your observation very seriously.

During that reconstruction, I ran into some of my typical debates with DickLyon and with CBM and with Bob K. Some of these were stickier than others, but it all worked out in the end. A few figures were modified, a few sections rewritten or removed and so forth. Pretty much a collaborative effort, though a bit tense at times. In short, the article evolved rather than ending up in litigation. I'd say that my interactions weren't super easy, but it worked.

On the other hand, on Centrifugal force the very simple effort to include an elementary example led to a federal case. The negotiations involved here didn't exist as one side was completely beyond discussion, threatening and accusatory from the outset.

Nonetheless, I have stated myself willing to subject my Talk page interaction to veto power by the likes of Blackburne and DVdm, without a hint of response from ArbCom.

I don't think these issues are very tightly connected to textbook like contributions. They are related to editor interactions. I am willing to take the entire reform upon my shoulders, and let the DVdm's and Blackburne's of this world continue their uncooperative and belligerent stances unblemished.

But that is not, apparently, going to work. Brews ohare (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

My recommendation is that when you want to overhaul an article, you first post a plan to the talk page explaining what you are intending to do, and ask for comments from other editors. In that plan you can suggest things like: trimming bloat, filling in missing sections, adding illustrations, graphs or examples. People are less likely to object to major changes if you invite their comments beforehand. If there are concerns you can discuss them with the other editors, and once a plan has been agreed up (some compromises may be necessary) then you can get to work. While this process may entail extra work on the front end, I think it would greatly reduce the amount of arguing after edits are attempted. Jehochman ^Talk 13:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman: I am sure that you are right in some cases, though not in the case of Blackburne or DVdm: differences over content don't have to go to ArbCom or AN/I; we're not talking 3RR here, but simple reversion and then Talk page. I've abandoned myriad attempted contributions following discussion. That is what Talk pages are for.

The point here is that the issue before ArbCom is a behavior problem, not a topic problem. A page ban doesn't address any issue raised, and fails to address this difference. Why did that happen? I simply don't know: it is mystifying why the matter is viewed this way. It is obvious that the issue was never over the particular substance of the contributions, but over Talk page conduct. Brews ohare (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you haven't mentioned your take on Pythagoras' theorem. Brews ohare (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, again, you have recognized that the issue is behavior in your recommendation for a change in behavior by posting an outline on the Talk page before proceeding. Your remedy takes the matter to the Talk page where it belongs, and could start things off on a better footing than arriving by a revert. My feeling is that the revert is more likely to upset the person reverted than the reverting party. In the discussion with DVdm and Blackburne, it was me that was reverted, and I was pretty cool about it. They were not cool when I queried the revert. Brews ohare (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just made a few edits at Wikiversity, see here. That place should be paradise for you! On Wikipedia, you will always be constrained by the community dynamics. ArbCom will always judge matters relative to the community consensus. The community dynamics here is a bit similar to that of a group of Chimps. You can perhaps get the Chimps interested a bit in using simple tools, but trying anything more complex than that will likely lead to the Chimps getting bored, leading to attacks by some chimps. The alpha male will always chose the side of his friends, see you as the source of the trouble, and then chase you away from the group. Count Iblis (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The analogy seems to hold up. It might not be accepted by the Chimps, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Wikiversity before. What attracts you to it? Brews ohare (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

At Wikiversity and presumably also at Wikibooks, I can simply create and edit the aricle I want. I can write up the article on statistical mechanics and thermodynamics from first principles, I can of course copy and paste whatever useful content exists here.

Here on Wikipedia, I cannot do this so freely. Some article here are effectively locked (due to the same dynamics you describe). This means that if I need to refer to temperature on an article that I can edit freely, I still cannot refer to the rigorouls definition easily, because the Wiki article on Temperature describes it in the wrong way, it doesn't give the fundamental definition. Rewriting that page is not possible as the local editors there would likely not accept a major rewrite along the lines I would prefer. So, I would be forced to give the definition on the page I'm working on, but the Wiki-link would still refer to the wrong definition.

On Wikiversity and pesumably also on Wikibooks, the existing articles have in many cases not been editited for ages. So, I don't think you face knee jerk opposition there. Also, in case of some opposition, I think there far more room to work soemthing out there, because issues like bloating and NOTTEXTBOOK are not relevant there. It should be possible to simply take all the stuff you have done here and compile them into good articles there. Not having to argue with anyone about irrelevant matters would also save you huge amounts of time and energy. Count Iblis (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it occur to you that the only readership you will have is yourself? Technical papers also are read by only a few, but they may be influential in their field, and ideas can gain currency. Here, you may be talking to yourself. Brews ohare (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's only how things are today. But if gradually people take the content from Wikipedia out to there and develop it further and give links at Wikipedia articles to there, then things will change. You will start to see that a google search result will typically put wikiversity entries on top. Count Iblis (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken

I don't care about GW. I've never commented on the topic elsewhere. My involvement in this topic area is solely about stopping the ideological POV push that has been the norm there for several years. ATren (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My experience with William is that he tends to stick to solidly established scientific results. He'll oppose both sides, there was one POV pusher a year ago who was attempting to edit some alarmist POV in the GW article. I think he was eventually topic banned. The sceptical POV is kept out of the main global warming article because it is extremely fringe from a scientific point of view. Some editors try to get this POV into Wikipedia via the BLP articles. I've stayed out of these articles, I don't really care that much about this. But I can understand why this leads to a big clash there. On the one hand these are not scientific articles, so trying to impose the same rules as on the global warming article is perhaps not so reasonable. On the other hand, you do get a POV-FORK effect that William and the others want to guard against. Count Iblis (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful

Your edit at 18:26 was an unhelpful distraction (as if there aren't enough in that ANI); I hope you consider self-reverting it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie already replied there, so I could not revert it. I suggested that anyone wanting to reply to my comment do so on my talk page or elsewhere. Count Iblis (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 16:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Talk pages

Hi Count:

You've raised some issues here about Talk pages and absence of some rules of conduct that might help matters. My understanding of your view is a formal statement such as:

Once a thread has been closed, no minority editor can raise this topic again on another thread.

I think you would find this statement a bit far out, I do myself, but the question is: How could the objective of discouraging repeated rehash of a subject be accomplished without encouraging unending dispute over whether the rules about it were broken, or not?

I've proposed elsewhere, as I think you have yourself, that one way to do this is to have a formal mechanism whereby, at some point, a poll can be taken and made the basis for closing discussion. Violation of this consensus is WP:Disrupt.

The resistant editor can open a new thread and claim that it is a "new" aspect of the topic, exempt from the poll. Then another poll would have to be taken and the process repeated.

That is a bit cumbersome, but it probably would work, I'd say. I think it is preferable to the present situation where a few hotheads or mean-spirited editors can get annoyed enough to go to AN/I on their own and raise objections that lead to long and stupid debates among factions that have no grasp of the situation.

In fact, I'd make it a part of the process that no AN/I or ArbCom intervention can be sought without a poll sanctioning it, and that the targeted editors must be told that the poll has resulted in authorization of administrative action unless they desist. In my opinion, no editor in their right mind would ever invite an ArbCom hearing or even an AN/I discussion if any alternative existed, including desisting. These hearings are so dysfunctional that they serve as a Sword of Damocles that no-one would care to tempt. Brews ohare (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You may notice that were such a procedure to be implemented, ArbCom and AN/I would have little to do other than loom over the proceedings like a dark nemesis empowering the majority voice. Brews ohare (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Observing recent activity by Headbomb, FysixFighter, Blackburne, Wolfkeeper, DickLyon, TimothyRias and others, I see an escalating activity of deletion of sourced material with justifications that are only personal assertions of appropriateness. I'd guess that application of my above suggestion would strengthen this activity. Of course, there is evidence that WP is headed this way anyway, so it is just a question of a longer or shorter time before their questionable view of editing WP has taken over, capturing editors in every arena. Brews ohare (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brews,

About management of talk pages, I agree that one could settle that using a poll. The question could perhaps be if in the interest of ediing the article, one needs to continue this discussion. I also agree that some editors here are guarding articles, effectively closing down any attempts to expand them. Count Iblis (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

B.t.w., you should now join me in contributing to Wikiversity! I still need to do a lot of work on this article and I'm sure you can edit your favorit topics there without much problems too. Count Iblis (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment on ANI

Philosophical and elegant. As usual. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk

By the way, your comment at my user talk page was labeled "Clerk's choice of ATren's section title on RealClimate participant", which suggests you might think I'm a clerk. I'm not, I was just labeling an off-topic discussion as recommended by one of the arbitrators. --TS 23:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration Ammendment request to re-advocacy-ban you

I have filed a request to ammend the Speed of light arbitration case to reimpose the advocacy ban on you and other users. See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Speed_of_light

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)