Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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 9 active arbitrators. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 5 |
2–3 | 4 |
4–5 | 3 |
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.
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the
/Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
1) {text of proposed motion}
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
Enacted on 15:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
1.1) During the course of this case, David Tombe ( talk · contribs) has made a series of disruptive comments, including comparisons of other users to Nazi officials, and attempts to wikilawyer around complaints ( [1] [2] [3] [4]). David Tombe was warned on several occasions by Arbitrators and the case clerk, and continued the disruptive behavior, being blocked for 48 hours on October 2 by User:Vassyana, and again for 48 hours on October 12 by User:Hersfold. In an effort to maintain a collegial atmosphere on these case pages, David Tombe is banned from further participation on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, its subpages, and their associated talk pages. Should David Tombe wish to make further comments related to the case, he may email them to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.
Clerk note: This injunction has had four net support votes for over 24 hours, and therefore is now in effect. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 15:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
During the course of this case, David Tombe ( talk · contribs) has made a series of disruptive comments, including comparisons of other users to Nazi officials, and attempts to wikilawyer around complaints ( [5] [6] [7] [8]). David Tombe was warned on several occasions by Arbitrators and the case clerk, and continued the disruptive behavior, being blocked for 48 hours on October 2 by User:Vassyana, and again for 48 hours on October 12 by User:Hersfold. As evidence indicates a pattern of incivility and failing to heed warnings, David Tombe will be placed under an indefinite block pending the resolution of this case in order to prevent the disruption from spreading to other areas. Should David Tombe wish to make further comments related to the case, he may email them to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.
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, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited.
2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.
4) Wikipedia articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Similarly, relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is contrary to the neutral point of view.
5) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.
6) Maintaining the reliability and accuracy of article content is extremely important. Where the accuracy or reliability of an edit or an article is questioned, contributors are expected to engage in good-faith, civil discussion and work towards consensus. Participants in the discussion should remain mindful of our content principles and avoid debates that are inappropriate for Wikipedia.
7) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.
8) Imbalances in methods, quality and volume of communications can both overwhelm and underwhelm attempts at communication on Wikipedia. This applies in all areas, not just dispute resolution. If an editor refuses to communicate, or is not communicating with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or fails to focus on the topic being discussed, then this can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems.
9) The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Talk pages are not for forum-like debates, proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, or so forth (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Although more general discussion may be permissible in some circumstances, it will not be tolerated when it becomes tendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwise disruptive.
10) Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual.
11) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
1) The dispute encompasses fundamental physics topics, especially in relation to constants, laws of motion, electromagnetism, and free space. Leading up to this case, the conflict was mainly focused on coverage of the 1983 definition of the metre and its relation to the speed of light. However, the broader dispute has affected a variety of articles outside of Speed of light ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), including but not limited to Centrifugal force ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Electromotive force ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Faraday's law of induction ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
2) The locus of the dispute is a debate about the quality and validity of the edits and statements of David Tombe ( talk · contribs) and Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) at physics articles, especially at Speed of light ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles concerning the 1983 definition of the metre.
3) The editing environment surrounding the disputed matters is hostile. Assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, "battleground" expressions, and other incivility are commonplace.
4) David Tombe ( talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks (for example, by comparing users to fascists during the course of this case [9] [10]) and gross assumptions of bad faith (for example, by unjustifiably accusing users of perpetuating great wrongs [11] [12] [13] [14]). He was previously advised about such conduct ( [15] [16] [17]).
5) David Tombe rejects large portions of modern physics, inappropriately promoting this fringe view on Wikipedia and violating Wikipedia's principles against original research, soapboxing, and creating battlegrounds ( [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]).
6) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks and accusations of bad faith ( [24] [25] [26] [27]).
7) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) has edited disruptively, engaging in tendentious debates and soapboxing ( [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]).
1) Editors are reminded to be civil and seek consensus whenever possible. Editors are encouraged to seek dispute resolution assistance as needed.
2) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is warned to adhere to content policies and the expected standards of behavior and decorum, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Wikipedia.
3) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
4.1) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics pages, topics, and discussions directly related to fundamental forces and physical constants for twelve months.
4.2) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.
5) David Tombe ( talk · contribs) is warned to adhere to content policies and the expected standards of behavior and decorum, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Wikipedia.
6.1) David Tombe ( talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
6.2) David Tombe ( talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. David Tombe may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter.
7) David Tombe ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
8) David Tombe ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that restriction, or any user subject to discretionary sanctions in this case violate a restriction imposed by an uninvolved administrator, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All discretionary sanctions and blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks and bans.
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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by 03:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 10:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC) by User:Callanecc.
Additional note: At this point, all remedies are complementary to one another rather than exclusive. That is, a warning and topic ban directed at the same editor can both pass; one passing does not prevent the other from passing as well.
Active Arbitrators who have not voted: John Vandenberg
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.
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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 9 active arbitrators. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 5 |
2–3 | 4 |
4–5 | 3 |
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.
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the
/Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
1) {text of proposed motion}
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
Enacted on 15:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
1.1) During the course of this case, David Tombe ( talk · contribs) has made a series of disruptive comments, including comparisons of other users to Nazi officials, and attempts to wikilawyer around complaints ( [1] [2] [3] [4]). David Tombe was warned on several occasions by Arbitrators and the case clerk, and continued the disruptive behavior, being blocked for 48 hours on October 2 by User:Vassyana, and again for 48 hours on October 12 by User:Hersfold. In an effort to maintain a collegial atmosphere on these case pages, David Tombe is banned from further participation on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, its subpages, and their associated talk pages. Should David Tombe wish to make further comments related to the case, he may email them to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.
Clerk note: This injunction has had four net support votes for over 24 hours, and therefore is now in effect. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 15:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
During the course of this case, David Tombe ( talk · contribs) has made a series of disruptive comments, including comparisons of other users to Nazi officials, and attempts to wikilawyer around complaints ( [5] [6] [7] [8]). David Tombe was warned on several occasions by Arbitrators and the case clerk, and continued the disruptive behavior, being blocked for 48 hours on October 2 by User:Vassyana, and again for 48 hours on October 12 by User:Hersfold. As evidence indicates a pattern of incivility and failing to heed warnings, David Tombe will be placed under an indefinite block pending the resolution of this case in order to prevent the disruption from spreading to other areas. Should David Tombe wish to make further comments related to the case, he may email them to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.
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, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited.
2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.
4) Wikipedia articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Similarly, relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is contrary to the neutral point of view.
5) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.
6) Maintaining the reliability and accuracy of article content is extremely important. Where the accuracy or reliability of an edit or an article is questioned, contributors are expected to engage in good-faith, civil discussion and work towards consensus. Participants in the discussion should remain mindful of our content principles and avoid debates that are inappropriate for Wikipedia.
7) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.
8) Imbalances in methods, quality and volume of communications can both overwhelm and underwhelm attempts at communication on Wikipedia. This applies in all areas, not just dispute resolution. If an editor refuses to communicate, or is not communicating with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or fails to focus on the topic being discussed, then this can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems.
9) The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Talk pages are not for forum-like debates, proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, or so forth (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Although more general discussion may be permissible in some circumstances, it will not be tolerated when it becomes tendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwise disruptive.
10) Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual.
11) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
1) The dispute encompasses fundamental physics topics, especially in relation to constants, laws of motion, electromagnetism, and free space. Leading up to this case, the conflict was mainly focused on coverage of the 1983 definition of the metre and its relation to the speed of light. However, the broader dispute has affected a variety of articles outside of Speed of light ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), including but not limited to Centrifugal force ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Electromotive force ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Faraday's law of induction ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
2) The locus of the dispute is a debate about the quality and validity of the edits and statements of David Tombe ( talk · contribs) and Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) at physics articles, especially at Speed of light ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles concerning the 1983 definition of the metre.
3) The editing environment surrounding the disputed matters is hostile. Assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, "battleground" expressions, and other incivility are commonplace.
4) David Tombe ( talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks (for example, by comparing users to fascists during the course of this case [9] [10]) and gross assumptions of bad faith (for example, by unjustifiably accusing users of perpetuating great wrongs [11] [12] [13] [14]). He was previously advised about such conduct ( [15] [16] [17]).
5) David Tombe rejects large portions of modern physics, inappropriately promoting this fringe view on Wikipedia and violating Wikipedia's principles against original research, soapboxing, and creating battlegrounds ( [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]).
6) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks and accusations of bad faith ( [24] [25] [26] [27]).
7) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) has edited disruptively, engaging in tendentious debates and soapboxing ( [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]).
1) Editors are reminded to be civil and seek consensus whenever possible. Editors are encouraged to seek dispute resolution assistance as needed.
2) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is warned to adhere to content policies and the expected standards of behavior and decorum, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Wikipedia.
3) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
4.1) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics pages, topics, and discussions directly related to fundamental forces and physical constants for twelve months.
4.2) Brews ohare ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.
5) David Tombe ( talk · contribs) is warned to adhere to content policies and the expected standards of behavior and decorum, and to avoid working counter to the purposes of Wikipedia.
6.1) David Tombe ( talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
6.2) David Tombe ( talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. David Tombe may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter.
7) David Tombe ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
8) David Tombe ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that restriction, or any user subject to discretionary sanctions in this case violate a restriction imposed by an uninvolved administrator, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All discretionary sanctions and blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks and bans.
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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by 03:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 10:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC) by User:Callanecc.
Additional note: At this point, all remedies are complementary to one another rather than exclusive. That is, a warning and topic ban directed at the same editor can both pass; one passing does not prevent the other from passing as well.
Active Arbitrators who have not voted: John Vandenberg
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.