Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 15 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

None.

None.

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Although it's worth mentioning here that by reaffirming a principle such as this, we aren't necessarily saying that every aspect of the principle is implicated in this case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Jclemens ( talk) 18:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
8. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Shell ^babelfish 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
13.   Roger ^talk 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through adversarial or tendentious editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Jclemens ( talk) 18:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
8. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Shell ^babelfish 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
13.   Roger ^talk 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Wikipedia is not a venue for advocating or advancing a viewpoint or position. Editors should ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I could quibble slightly with the wording—one could say that by writing about a consensus view on a topic, one is "advancing" that view in some sense—but the substance is sound. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Jclemens ( talk) 18:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
8. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Shell ^babelfish 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
13.   Roger ^talk 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) The scientific notation used by the majority of contemporary experts in a field is the preferred usage.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. First choice, though I might prefer something like: "Articles containing units of scientific measurement should generally use the units and notations that are used most often by contemporary reliable sources within the field. Exceptions may be made for valid reasons, such as in historical contexts, or in articles concerning the units of measurement themselves." Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

   Added 4.2. Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

   Thanks, 4 will be second choice for me now. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Inappropriate. Would prefer something line "As in all cases where there are varying views in the sources, the matter of which unit to use is one of verifiability and weight within the mainstream reliable sources." Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

   Added as 4.1. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

2. The wording of 4.1 is sufficiently improved that this doesn't merit even "second choice" support. Jclemens ( talk) 18:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. "scientific notation" means something different in most contexts. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 4.2. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Third choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Prefer 4.2,   Roger ^talk 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. This seems to be an example of ArbCom creating policy. More critically, it's ambiguous and likely counter-intuitive to science editors; we mean to say something like "units of measurement"—" scientific notation" is a term of art that has nothing to do with this dispute, as far as I can tell. Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply

   Although it is from the prior case. Hmm. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

2. This creates issues with accessibility - in fact we try to use common English as much as possible as long as meaning is not lost or compromised.... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

4.1) As in all cases where there are varying views in the sources, the matter of which unit to use is one of verifiability and weight within the mainstream reliable sources.

Support:

1. First choice. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 02:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. Most units of measurement are human constructs and not facts that can be scientifically verified, although I agree that the prevalence of usage can. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 18:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This is even less intelligible than 4, and intelligibility was one of my key concerns. I think Elen had a good proposal, but it needs some formatting to use as a finding. This proposal buries context deep in the sentence, at which time the reader might ask herself "which 'unit'? huh?" Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Per CHL. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Per CHL,   Roger ^talk 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

4.2) Articles containing units of scientific measurement should generally use the units and notations that are used most often by contemporary reliable sources within the field. Exceptions may be made for valid reasons, such as in historical contexts, or in articles concerning the units of measurement themselves.

Support:

1. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. First choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Equal first choice. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Equal with 4.1. Jclemens ( talk) 18:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
7. That's the ticket. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Equal with 4.1 Elen of the Roads ( talk) 16:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
12. First choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
13. First choice,   Roger ^talk 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) Wikipedia does not publish original thought. Articles may not contain any original synthesis, that is, a combination or analysis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly stated by the sources.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. This may be slightly overstated, but is generally consistent with policy and sound. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Per NYB, this is slightly overstated but sound. Jclemens ( talk) 18:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Well, it may not contain original synthesis. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
8. I have inserted 'original' before 'synthesis' - WP:SYN uses the term original synthesis. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Shell ^babelfish 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
13.   Roger ^talk 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) The focus of the dispute is a disagreement over the proper unit for measuring Kendrick mass; namely, whether to use Dalton or Kendrick units. Kkmurray ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and others say the Dalton unit is the most commonly used and accepted, while Kehrli ( talk · contribs) asserts that the Dalton is not commonly accepted, and that its use violates Wikipedia's guidelines against inaccessible jargon.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Judging by the evidence page, his sharp focus is on the mass-to-charge ratio. Cool Hand Luke 21:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Both David Fuchs' original proposal and Cool Hand Luke's comment appear correct. Kehrli appears to be substantially a single purpose account focused on these two very specific metrologic disputes. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Jclemens ( talk) 18:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
9. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Shell ^babelfish 19:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
13.   Roger ^talk 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Kehrli ( talk · contribs) has improperly used sources to support his views on the use of Kendrick units.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. I would have also noted his single-handed monopolization of relevant pages to advance an idiosyncratic POV, [1] [2] [3] [4] his unfounded accusations of bad faith, [5] and his incivility. [6] But I agree that improper sourcing is one of the worst possible problems in our effort to write a reliable encyclopedia. Cool Hand Luke 21:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Largely per Cool Hand Luke. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Jclemens ( talk) 19:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
7. I've had the opportunity to say this before in past case, but I believe there is no "crime" in the construction of an encyclopedia greater than willfully misrepresenting sources: it destroys the most important foundational principle of what we're trying to do. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Shell ^babelfish 19:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
13.   Roger ^talk 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1.1) Kehrli is topic banned from metrology-related articles, including talk pages and discussions.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Cool Hand Luke 22:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Second choice. 03:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice, simply because 1.2 is a bit more clearly worded; substantively I think they are the same. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 1.2. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Imprecise. Prefer 1.2 -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer indefinite topic bans,   Roger ^talk 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Insufficiently precise; 1.2 is the proper fix for such lack of precision. Jclemens ( talk) 19:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

1.2) Kehrli is indefinitely topic banned from metrology-related articles, broadly defined, including talk pages and discussions.

Support:

1. Proposed as an alternative, given that this POV pushing is a continuation and slight variation from user's previous case. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kehrli. This clarifies that the topic ban is indefinite, and expands it to "broadly defined." In fact, I fear it may not be broad enough. Recall David Tombe. That user was not allowed to directly POV push his theories about Maxwell's equation, so he then set up camp at speed of light and other articles that loosely related to his fringe theories—it's easy to imagine that here. Cool Hand Luke 22:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. First choice. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. First choice Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 19:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
9. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Shell ^babelfish 19:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
13.   Roger ^talk 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Should Kehrli violate any ban placed on him by this decision or engage in substitution of notation, he may be blocked for an appropriate time by any uninvolved administrator.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Cool Hand Luke 22:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Although not sure about 'engage in substitution of notation' - if this is a remedy it needs to be included in the relevant section. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Per PhilKnight, a copyedit somewhere above might be helpful. But I suppose that an edit substituting notation of one unit of measure for another would be a metrology-related edit, and thus prohibited already. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
6. It's a bit redundant, but works. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
8. I presume one is required to put this in. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Jclemens ( talk) 01:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Shell ^babelfish 19:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
13.   Roger ^talk 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass

Passing principles: 1, 2, 3, 4.2, 5

Passing findings: 1, 2

Passing remedies: 1.2

Passing enforcement provisions: 1

Proposals which do not pass

Failing principles: 4, 4.1

Failing findings: None

Failing remedies: 1.1

Failing enforcement provisions: None

Last updated: NW ( Talk) 03:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. Move to close. I believe that all items are passing and all wording issues have been addressed. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Looks fine. Cool Hand Luke 02:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 23:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger ^talk 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 14:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Comment