Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Proposed decision

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
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.

Majority reference
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 to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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.

David Tombe

David Tombe banned from further participation (enacted)

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-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

Support:
  1. Support. I find it deeply unfortunate that it has come to this. Seriously comparing one's peers to the authoritarianism and atrocities of Hitler, Nationalist Socialists, Stalin, or related figures and groups is extremely inflammatory and insulting. He was warned when I blocked him that repeats of this nature could result in being banned from participation in the case. (See: User talk:David Tombe#October 2009.) I see this as the inevitable result of a repeat occurrence. Vassyana (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNightξξξ 13:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. While some leeway is generally given during arbitration cases given that tempers are frayed, our rule against personal attacks remains entirely in force and such repeated outbursts are not acceptable. — Coren (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Timing is bad, at the business end of the case, but he was indeed warned and failed to take heed. There may be scope to allow limited participation on the proposed decision talk page, but he needs to demonstrate (by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee) that he can avoid using such inflammatory analogies before that can happen. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

 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)[reply]

David Tombe banned until the resolution of this case

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-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. At the moment, seems not to be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Alternative, per comments at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop#Motion for interim admonition of David Tombe. Similar to the above, with modification for the context and justification of a broader ban. Vassyana (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (As a matter of draftsmanship, I usually include this later in the decision: addressing what we do do before getting to what we don't. But this is a minor point.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view

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.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutrality and sources

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.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With my standard caveat that "always" can be problematic in the context of a work-in-progress (which is what Wikipedia is). Sometimes draft and intermediate stages of articles can usefully consist of a mixture of viewpoints and sources that may not be presented in the best possible way, but there should be progress towards a balanced treatment of a subject as quickly as possibly, and while some discussion will be needed, those filibustering discussions or dragging them off-topic, or soapboxing about a particular issue, or inserting original research, should not be allowed to impede that editorial process and progress. Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. It is, after all, unseemly to use polarized sources on the light related articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Scientific focus

5) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a longstanding interpretation of the NPOV, RS, and NOR policies when combined. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is pithy, but correct. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I've opposed similar proposals in the past (1, 2) and do so for the same reasons here. Just as Ainsley Hayes can do without the Equal Rights Amendment so long as she has the 14th Amendment, so too can science get by just fine with old-fashioned NPOV. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I've abstained or otherwise objected in the past on similar rulings. This is too close to ruling on content for my liking. What I fear is that rulings like this will be used to insist that articles should only cover mainstream scientific consensus (this over-reaction to those proposing fringe views has been rather common). The most extreme fringe views should be excluded or reserved for articles about fringe topics as fringe topics, but there should be room to make readers aware that other views exist, or did exist, either now or in the past. If the past views held about a scientific subject are seen as a "fringe view" today, that doesn't justify excluding the history of a subject from the article. Similarly, if there are obscure but genuine differing philosophical interpretations on a topic, those interpretations shouldn't be excluded either. It is a question of finding the right location (usually a more narrowly focused article) for reliably sourced material that would unbalance the main articles on that topic. Essentially, this is a complex question that should be left to the editorial process, not over-simplified in single-sentence ArbCom rulings. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability and discussion

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.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum

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.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Communication

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.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In particular, one cannot "win by default": one has not demonstrated consensus or correctness by having driven disagreeing editors away in frustration. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Have drafted and supported similar principles in the past (1, 2). Carcharoth (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In illustration of this principle, many of the recent talk-page debates regarding the speed of light could have been conducted after awhile at faster-than-light speeds. This would not have been a violation of special relativity, because no information was being conveyed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Talk pages

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.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Very apt for this case. Carcharoth (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. See my comment on 8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Advocacy

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.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wikipedia is (or is ideally) a mirror held up to human knowledge. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Noting here that "current knowledge" in a field includes the history, and being able to accurately represent that history. Physics articles on Wikipedia have a lamentable tendency to attract people who latch on to historical physics theories and decide that the old physics was correct and the new physics is a mirage, or that the old physics (as presented by them - usually inaccurately) supports their theories. The Sadi Carnot case was an example of this (for thermodynamics). There are aspects of this in this case as well (pre-relativistic physics versus physics after Einstein). It would be good if those editing physics articles took steps to recognise and address this problem with some sort of guideline, or a listing of previous cases relevant to physics articles. Carcharoth (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Good faith and disruption

11) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Following appropriate warnings and opportunities to change, yes. Carcharoth (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Carcharoth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Scope of the dispute

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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), including but not limited to Centrifugal force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Electromotive force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Faraday's law of induction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Locus of the dispute

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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles concerning the 1983 definition of the metre.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (Although 1 and 2 could probably have been combined.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editing environment

3) The editing environment surrounding the disputed matters is hostile. Assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, "battleground" expressions, and other incivility are commonplace.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It has become so by this point, at least. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per bainer. Would be nice to have had some recognition of previous efforts to resolve this dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

David Tombe and incivility

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]).

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Noting that I largely agree with what David Tombe said here, if not the way he said it. An accurate accounting of the history of the ideas is needed, but that needs sourcing to science historians. Referring to people as blinkered, and censors of history, is not acceptable. The other diffs are valid examples of incivil conduct as well. Carcharoth (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I regret having to make this finding, because at other times David Tombe has been extremely courteous, but the problematic instances are too many to disregard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

David Tombe and fringe advocacy

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]).

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Arguably, this case clearly illustrates the reason of the existence of our foundational rule against original research. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tombe has referred to "trench warfare with the spearhead battalions of the relativistic army" - that is a classic WP:BATTLE quote. Even though it is Tombe describing his view of the conflict involving another editor, it still betrays his attitude. As does this quote ("a hostile environment of editors who are paranoid about centrifugal force because of the threat which it poses to their favourite theory of relativity"), which seems to say that his whole reason for pushing his views on centrifugal force has been to promote his views on relativity. There may indeed be an article on the approaches of Newton and Leibniz hidden away in all this, or room for more on the Michelson-Morley experiment, but the motivation for such an article should not be to disprove modern physics. The earlier contributions under other accounts, noted in Sbyrnes321's evidence section, should be acknowledged, as this indicates the potential for future problems. I've looked at the evidence section bainer pointed out, and we don't need to be physicists to see the problems there (though familiarity with the terms used, which I do have, does help). The connection with the talk page edits is clear, and the repeated attempts to insert original research about the history of an idea as covered in textbooks in the 1960s compared to today is classic stretching. Even when covering this sort of thing at an article such as History of centrifugal and centripetal forces, you don't survey and document the changing approaches used in textbooks. You look to historians and scientists who have studied the subject and its history and published their conclusions in reliable sources. You don't use original papers, works or textbooks to draw your own conclusions. As Coren said, in far fewer words, "this case clearly illustrates the reason [for] the existence of our foundational rule against original research." Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I accept that David Tombe believes in the utmost of good faith that he is correct about the physical issues he addresses and that the consensus view (among physicists and on Wikipedia) does not comport with physical reality. On some topics, there is a place for holders of minority views to emphasize appropriately that opinion on an issue is not unanimous and to present, with appropriate weight and at the appropriate location, the non-mainstream or minority view. David Tombe goes well beyond this, however, to a degree that if followed would move the articles away from the modern consensus of experts in the content area, and unfortunately, does not appear able to understand the reasons that he can and should change his editing style if he wishes to remain active on Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. He has repeatedly brought his views into talk page discussions. But has this coloured his article edits? Not being a physicist I'm not well placed to assess this evidence for example. Of course distracting or disrupting talk page discussions with original research can be problematic in its own right, even without any direct effect on articles. A proposed finding of fact concentrating on this aspect might be more apt in the absence of indications of mainspace effects. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare and incivility

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]).

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not mild incivility either. Forceful and blanket disparagements. Carcharoth (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Some of these comments include criticism of the Wikipedia editing model, as by suggesting that there are times when a local majority can be used to supersede broader consensus or even article accuracy. Criticism of Wikipedia and how it works is not sanctionable and often has value. Personalizing these criticisms in the way done here, however, is inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Brews ohare and disruptive editing

7) Brews ohare (talk · contribs) has edited disruptively, engaging in tendentious debates and soapboxing ([28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]).

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. My views here are fairly similar to what I've written above regarding David Tombe. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not made out. The discussions are voluminous but genuine. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with bainer. Those are genuine discussions. Possibly a case could be made, but it would need to be more explicit than simply pointing to a selection of talk page discussions. Volume and repetition over time, and raising the same subject on different articles when rejected elsewhere, for a start. Some of this is detailed on the evidence page. Carcharoth (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Editors reminded and encouraged

1) Editors are reminded to be civil and seek consensus whenever possible. Editors are encouraged to seek dispute resolution assistance as needed.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 02:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (As a matter of drafting, I would normally include this type of proposal near the end of the remedies rather than to start off, as it's primarily addressed to editors not otherwise sanctioned.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I'm not sure how relevant this reminder is to the case at hand. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It matches with FoF 3. Vassyana (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare warned

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.

Support:
  1. Other arbs: Please indicate if this is complementary to other sanctions, voted on as exclusive to other sanctions, a ranked preference, or so on. For myself, complementary. Vassyana (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Complementary to other restrictions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not exclusively with other remedies. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Complementary of course. Wizardman 02:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Particularly civility. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I see remedy 2 as a valid stand-alone alternative if remedy 3 fails, but also as a way to complement remedy 3 if it passes. In other words, the more onerous restriction of general editor probation takes precedence in practice (e.g. when considering arbitration enforcement) over a warning if both pass, but if the general editor probation restriction fails to pass (looks unlikely) or is overturned or relaxed on appeal, then this sanction still needs to have been voted on as a formal warning that can be left in place, even after the year-long conduct probation has expired. Carcharoth (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Brews ohare restricted

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.

Support:
  1. Other arbs: Please indicate if this is complementary to other sanctions, voted on as exclusive to other sanctions, a ranked preference, or so on. I see this as complementary to other sanctions. Vassyana (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Complementary so will also support 4.2. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not exclusively with other remedies. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Complementary. Wizardman 02:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Given the topic ban, this applies to non-physics articles. Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not warranted. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Brews ohare topic banned

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.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 4.2. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 4.2. Wizardman 02:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too narrow. — Coren (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too narrow. Carcharoth (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal preference with 4.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. More focused alternative. Vassyana (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare topic banned

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

Support:
  1. I prefer the simplicity and believe this is warranted. Vassyana (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support 4 and 4.2. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Support 2 & 3 and 4.2. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 08:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There does not appear to be a remedy 4, and you have opposed remedy 4.1. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not exclusively with other remedies. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Complementary. Wizardman 02:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Complementary, one of the Brews remedies does not preclude the other. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal preference with 4.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not warranted. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

David Tombe warned

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.

Support:
  1. Other arbs: Please indicate if this is complementary to other sanctions, voted on as exclusive to other sanctions, a ranked preference, or so on. I view this as complementary. Vassyana (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Complementary. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not exclusively with other remedies. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Complementary. Wizardman 02:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Complementary — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support in principle, but given the other remedies passing, it is a formal note, nothing more. Would come into effect in practice only if the topic ban and general probation were relaxed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

David Tombe restricted

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.

Support:
  1. Other arbs: Please indicate if this is complementary to other sanctions, voted on as exclusive to other sanctions, a ranked preference, or so on. For me, this is exclusive with a ban and second choice. Vassyana (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Complementary to topic ban and second choice to 6.2. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support iff 6.2 does not pass. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support if 6.2 does not pass. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Complementary to topic ban and only count this support if 6.2 fails. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal preference with 6.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 6.2 Wizardman 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

David Tombe restricted

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.

Support:
  1. Other arbs: Please indicate if this is complementary to other sanctions, voted on as exclusive to other sanctions, a ranked preference, or so on. For me, this is complementary with a ban and first choice. Vassyana (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Complementary to topic ban and first choice to 6.1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not exclusively with other remedies. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Complementary. Wizardman 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Complementary. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Preferred to 6.1. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal preference with 6.1. If this is passed, a request for modification can be made after a reasonable time, particularly if supported by evidence that the user is prepared to significantly change his behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Excessive duration. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

David Tombe topic banned

7) David Tombe (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.

Support:
  1. This is my main choice. Vassyana (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Complementary to above general editing restrictions, and first choice over site ban. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not exclusively with other remedies. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Complementary. Wizardman 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If the one-year ban fails, a topic ban will have to do instead. I hope David Tombe can indeed edit productively in other areas, but will vote for general restrictions in those areas as well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With regret, but per my comments on the findings of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not warranted. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

David Tombe banned

8) David Tombe (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. Not exclusively with other remedies, and with any other sanction being consecutive to it. David Tombe repeatedly fails or refuses to understand why his behavior is not acceptable, and argues the letter of expressed concerns rather than make any effort to address them. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. On reviewing the evidence, I think this is necessary. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Willing to give other sanctions a chance to work. If not then a indef block or ban will come as a result of the escalating sanctions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Flo — Rlevse • Talk • 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Excessive. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per FloNight. But I say to David Tombe that if you carry the approach you have used to editing in the physics area, you might as well leave now and save everyone a bit of strife. On the other hand, if you can use a different approach, you may get to experience some of the fun aspects of editing Wikipedia as opposed to constant arguing, while at the same time making a valued contribution. It's up to you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I remain unconvinced this is necessary. The problem seems focused on physics and the editor appears to edit productively outside of the subject. Vassyana (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mulling it over. Wizardman 02:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

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.

Support:
  1. Vassyana (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Noting the change to 3 blocks before potential increase to 1 year. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Conditional on any relevant remedies passing of course. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Bainer's condition precedent has been satisfied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

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 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.

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 8 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Role of the Arbitration Committee 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Neutral point of view 8 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Neutrality and sources 8 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Scientific focus 5 1 2 PASSING ·
6 Reliability and discussion 8 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Decorum 8 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Communication 8 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Talk pages 8 0 0 PASSING ·
10 Advocacy 8 0 0 PASSING ·
11 Good faith and disruption 8 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Scope of the dispute 8 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Locus of the dispute 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Editing environment 8 0 0 PASSING ·
4 David Tombe and incivility 8 0 0 PASSING ·
5 David Tombe and fringe advocacy 7 0 1 PASSING ·
6 Brews ohare and incivility 8 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Brews ohare and disruptive editing 6 2 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Editors reminded and encouraged 7 0 1 PASSING ·
2 Brews ohare warned 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Brews ohare restricted 7 1 0 PASSING ·
4.1 Brews ohare topic banned 1 6 1 NOT PASSING · [1]
4.2 Brews ohare topic banned 7 1 0 PASSING ·
5 David Tombe warned 8 0 0 PASSING ·
6.1 David Tombe restricted 4 4 0 NOT PASSING · [2]
6.2 David Tombe restricted 7 1 0 PASSING ·
7 David Tombe topic banned 7 1 0 PASSING ·
8 David Tombe banned 2 4 2 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Enforcement by block 8 0 0 PASSING ·
Notes
  1. ^ Newyorkbrad's vote is listed in the oppose section above, however his comment mentions it is "Equal preference" with 4.2. Pending clarification, it is assumed he meant to support this.
  2. ^ Coren's, Rlevse's, and Carcharoth's supports on this proposal were conditional on R6.2 not passing; as R6.2 is now passing, these votes are interpreted here as opposes.

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

Vote

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. Close. No hanging threads here, what passes passes and what fails fails. Wizardman 14:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Keep open for 24 hours after the 4th net close to let more arbs have a chance to place their votes. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. close. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Keep open for 24 hours after the 4th net close to let more arbs have a chance to place their votes. Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Per others above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CLose; — Coren (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close. --bainer (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment
To be closed at 22:22 20 October UTC provided no oppose votes crop up during that time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light/Proposed_decision