all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

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.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Original research

1) Original research, however well done, is not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No original research.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Scientific notation

2) The scientific notation used by the bulk of contemporary experts in a field is the preferred usage. Proposed usages are appropriate only when adopted by an official body.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ban due to disruption

3) Users who disrupt Wikipedia may be banned from the disruptive activity.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute

1) The focus of dispute is editing by Kehrli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) concerning use of m/z a term used in mass spectrometry. There is apparently some questions as to its meaning and use. According to Nick_Y. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Kehrli's work, while excellent, is original research.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. So presented. Charles Matthews 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Kehrli's viewpoint

2) Kehrli has set forth his viewpoint regarding the dispute at User:Kehrli/mz misconception.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Original research by Kehrli

3) Kehrli has engaged in original research [1] [2] [3] [4] deleted article viewable only by administrators and here justifies it.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Particularly the justification is revealing. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wikipedia is not a social experiment. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed standard

4) The draft of the new edition of the IUPAC green book [5] which Kehrli has used as a source and inspiration is plainly marked, "For Peer Review Only".

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I presume the meaning here is that it's therefore original research? Can someone clarify the point? Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Peer review is in progress. Fred Bauder 19:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Kehrli banned

1) Kehrli is banned for two years from articles which relate to m/z.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Though, two full years does seem a bit strong. SimonP 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. James F. (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Excessive. Charles Matthews 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Kehrli banned

1.1) Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z.

Support:
  1. Prefer one year. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. - SimonP 14:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice Fred Bauder 19:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. James F. (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Kehrli prohibited from changing notation

2) Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Either remedy works in this case. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Kehrli prohibited from changing notation

2.1) Kehrli is prohibited for one year from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation.

Support:
  1. Prefer one year. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. - SimonP 14:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice Fred Bauder 19:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Either remedy works in this case. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. James F. (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block

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. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes

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.

Vote

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.

  1. Close. Dmcdevit·t 07:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. James F. (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. ➥the Epopt 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Jayjg (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


More