Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & NuclearWarfare (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: David Fuchs (Talk) & Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Talk)

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

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Definition of "IUPAC mass"[edit]

1) Kmurray: please supply definition and source of the term "IUPAC mass".Kehrli (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Kmurray never defined this term propery. Kehrli (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Definition of "Kendrick mass"[edit]

2) Kmurray: please supply definition and source of the term "IUPAC mass". Define what quantity this is.Kehrli (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Kmurray never defined this term propery. Kehrli (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Derive your formula[edit]

3) Kmurray: please derive your formula.Kehrli (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Kmurray never derived his formula. He can't because it is wrong. Kehrli (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

5)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editing of mass and unit articles[edit]

1) The parties will not edit mass and unit articles including Kendrick mass, Kendrick (unit), Thomson (unit) and mass-to-charge ratio until this case is resolved or until further direction of the Arbitration Committee. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This may be necessary if the parties cannot leave these articles alone for a couple of weeks until this case is decided. (This is a straightforward case and hopefully will not take longer than that.) I would prefer if the parties could voluntarily agree to avoid any edits, and particularly any contentious edits, in this area until the case is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This is in response to POV content restored by Kehrli yesterday at Thomson (unit) [1] and mass-to-charge ratio [2]. These were the articles Kehrli was banned from editing in the 2006 arbitration [3] and are part of the discussion in this case. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although, I sort of read Kehrli's edits as capitulation. Why pretend to be reasonable when it is only slowly painting me into a corner? Binding or not binding it should be obvious that such behavior is disruptive even before this proposal.--Nick Y. (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will support an informal agreement on not editing the articles in lieu of a temporary injunction. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kmurray has been editing these articles during mediation. He restored some terrible errors. Here for example, he listed m/z as a unit [4] whereas on other places he used m/z as a quantity. This means he probably cannot even tell the difference between a unit and a quantity. In the article Thomson (unit) he reverted corrections that were made by the "inventor" of the thomson unit. He did all this during the current dispute. I am all for not editing articles during dispute, but I do not see why this rule would only hold for me. Besides this: Kmurray has filed the third arbitration against me now. Especially this case has ben lasting forever. And this case has nothing to do with thomson units.Kehrli (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson (unit) and mass-to-charge ratio were central to the original arbitration case and the current case is related to the first, so I think that there should be no edits by parties to mass and unit articles while this arbitration case is active. --Kkmurray (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is: Kmurray did edit these articles while mediation was going on. See here: [5]Kehrli (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is demonstrably false. I cleared your POV edits from mass-to-charge ratio on November 17 [6] and from Thomson (unit) on November 18 [7]. I filed the Mediation Cabal case on November 21; it was opened Deecember 31 [8]. I made no edits to either article after that until I cleared your subsequent POV edits this week. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is: Kmurray made the latest edits on Thomson (unit) and on mass-to-charge ratio. Look yourself: [9] and [10]. He seems to think that he has more rights than other people. This is very typical for his agressive editing style. Kehrli (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits were reversions of your edits and were followed immediately by the proposed temporary injunction [11]. --Kkmurray (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My revisions also were reverts of your previous edits. Unfortunately I could not use simple reverts since other people made edits in the mean time. Kehrli (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am an analytical chemist / mass spectrometrist like User:Kkmurray and not a metrologist like User:Kehrli, but I happen to personally support the use of the Thomson (unit). However, I strongly agree with Kkmurray that Kehrli's edits were inappropriate POV, particularily considering the current and past arbitrations. The Thomson is simply not used much in reliable sources. A ban on editing related articles while the arbitration is ongoing seems reasonable. –CWenger (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit exactly was "inappropriate POV"? Could you please be more specific? Kehrli (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still now answers? POV is a massive charge. You should present some proof. Kehrli (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still no examples? Big hat no cattle. Kehrli (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate POV because very few scientists use the Thomson unit. Again, I personally like and use the unit, but it is very rare to see it in scientific publications. Therefore, many of your edits to the Thomson (unit) article are POV. I think that was already determined by a previous arbitration anyway. –CWenger (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CWenger: This article IS about the Thomson unit. Therefore, the fact that it is used by few people does not mean that it is POV. Many few people drive Ferraris. Still, the Ferrari article is not POV. Your argument is flawed. Besides that, there are quite a lot of people using the thomson unit.Kehrli (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Scientific Notation[edit]

1) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This has been copy pasted from the previous arbitration case and is not my choice of words. [12] This may in fact seem to need clarification with additional language given that this seemingly obvious principle has been largely ignored.--Nick Y. (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:UNITS: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." Thus the argument that sources using a particular unit or methodology that is inconsistent with VIM/IUPAC Green Book/IUPAP Red Book/ISO 31 should be disregarded is not appropriate since these general metrology sources are not part of the current scientific literature on Kendrick mass, Thomson unit, mass-to-charge ratio, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by kkmurray (talk • contribs) 12:25, February 22, 2011

Of course VIM/IUPAC Green Book/IUPAP Red Book/ISO 31 is part of the current scientific literature on metrology and hence on all articles using metrology. Kehrli (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology on Wikipedia should not use jargon.

"used by the bulk", "contemporary experts", "experts in a field", are all fuzzy terms. How do you determine how "the bulk" communicates? What are "contemporary experts"? Statements made in the last 20 years, last 5 years, the last year? What is the field of articles using Kendrick analysis? Atmospheric science, like Junninen? Petroleomics like Marshall? Mass spectrometry? Chemsitry? Science in general? We need to use the language that has the best chance to be understood by the largest percentage of Wikipedia readers. Therefore the consensus terminology established by official bodies is preferable to jargon of a small group living in an ivory tower. Kehrli (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, I agree with the statement if "the bulk of contemporary experts" means the majority of experts in science and technology. Let me restate this: the bulk of experts in science, commerce, trade, and law have agreed on a terminology for quantities and units which is listed in VIM. Kehrli (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TheInternational vocabulary of metrology (VIM) is for authors like the constitution for law makers: it sets a general direction, it sets borders to what lawmakers can do. It does not, however, list every law. VIM is not like a dictionary where every word is listed. Actually, VIM lists hardly any units. Therefore the above principle "Proposed usages are appropriate only when adopted by an official body." does not make sense. Kehrli (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thus VIM is not an appropriate source for individual units themselves as they are not directly addressed and verifiability requires direct explicit support.--Nick Y. (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kendrick mass unit is not from VIM. It is from publications about Kendrick analysis. But the unit complies with VIM. This is the point. The term "Kendrick mass" does not comply with VIM. Kehrli (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Verifiability[edit]

2) Verifiability requires sources that provide direct, explicit statements about the specific fact being verified. Sourced statements, even from authoritative sources, which require further interpretation and application to the fact in question to be relevant do not verify the fact itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Kehrli's main arguments are that this or that is in violation of VIM, IUPAP Red Book and the IUPAP Green Book and is thus "illegal"; therefore we should adopt this or that relatively obscure notation and give the bulk of weight to the legal notation. He/she cites these (VIM etc.) for "verification" and claims superiority of sources on authority. Yet, when others read these documents we don't read these the same way. Nowhere does the documents specifically address any of the specific notations of concern.--Nick Y. (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SOURCE, "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." VIM/IUPAP Red Book/IUPAC Green Book/ ISO-31 do not directly support mass and mass unit articles such as Kendrick mass and Thomson (unit) and are therefore not appropriate sources for these articles. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VIM/IUPAP Red Book/IUPAC Green Book/ ISO-31 do directly show that Kmurray's jargon is not correct. Kehrli (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly does it say "Kkmurray's jargon is not correct."??? Kendrick doesn't even make an appearance much less Kkmurray. What you are trying to say is that your interpretation and application of these principles to the subject at hand results in your strong opinion that Kkmurray is wrong. And by the way what Kkmurray is saying is not that this is the "correct" way to do things he is just saying that this is the way it is most commonly done in the scientific literature.--Nick Y. (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick requires that I find a book where it says "Kkmurray's jargon is not correct."??? How low can an argument get? Everyone familliar with basic metrology will see that the term "IUPAC mass" and the term "Kendrick mass" violates basic principle of VIM, the IUPAP Red Book, the IUPAC Green Book, and ISO-31. Kehrli (talk)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Mediation[edit]

1) Mediation is a privileged process. The use of evidence taken from mediations for Arbitration is discouraged. In order for mediation to be successful, parties must feel free and open to communicate and discuss compromises without the chance that their words can be used against them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Generally agree, however the use of evidence from a MedCom mediation isn't merely discouraged; it isn't allowed at all, unless MedCom waives privilege. PhilKnight (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree. The mediation failed because Kmurray did not even discuss the compromise I proposed. He also ignored my request to supply sources and definitions, most prominently for the term "IUPAC mass" and "Kendrick mass". Kehrli (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very confused??? Do you agree that Kkmurray is to blame for the failure of the mediation or do you agree that you shouldn't be presenting his behavior during mediation as evidence here??--Nick Y. (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to Kehrli's not providing definitions claim here: [13]; definitions provided were dismissed as "not proper." But I think that the important thing about informal mediation is that it was tried and that it did not succeed because the parties did not find a mutually agreeable position of compromise. Two of the parties thought that the dispute had gone beyond content and into the area of user behavior and that arbitration was the appropriate dispute resolution process. Some of the information presented in mediation is useful to understand the underlying content dispute, but it can be reproduced independent of other informal mediation discussion if necessary. --Kkmurray (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, mediation showed that Kmurray is pushing jargon that is not understandable for Wikipedia readers, - but this was already evident from other discussions. Kehrli (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... you disagree with the principle put forward by Lord Roem.--Nick Y. (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I feel the usage of mediation discussions as evidence in this case is not appropriate - any discussion of wrongdoing by a party should relate to the actual mainspace page. People's emotions can flare up in these debates, even when they try to act in good faith. I fear the Committee using evidence from the mediation could be a barrier in future attempts to have an open process. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some clarification on this. WP:AP says "Due to the privileged nature of mediation, editors' behavior and comments during official mediation attempts may not be used against them in any resulting Arbitration case." In that sentence the "official" wikilink links to the Mediation Committee and the "official mediation" wikilink links to WP:RFM, implying that the directive applies to formal mediation before the Mediation Committee and not informal mediation with the Mediation Cabal. The "privileged nature of mediation" links to both formal and informal mediation, adding some ambiguity, but overall this directive seems aimed at Mediation Committee cases. In my evidence, I cited parties agreement on sourcing that arose from informal mediation. I used one diff from mediation that was my own list of primary and secondary sources. All other diffs are from articles and article talk. I did not cite any comments or behavior issues from informal mediation. Arbitration Committee policy does not seem to prohibit this and Mediation Cabal policy seems to be that there is no policy. Can someone clarify this issue? --Kkmurray (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked my evidence section and find that none of my evidence is from the mediation, excepting the list of references provided by Kkmurray. These can easily be directly recreated and I don't think this violates the principles of mediation in any way. I am certain Kkmurray has no problems with my citing this list and it does not reflect poorly on anyone else. I certainly don't think I am using anyone's words in mediation against them. I also find the use of points of agreement used by Kkmurray to be in the proper spirit of dispute resolution. If we made progress we should recognize such. There are no quotes that reflect poorly on anyone. If the mediation failed I don't see that we should not mention that in arbitration. What would be problematic is using behavior problems and holding parties to specific words from the mediation process. In reviewing Kehrli's Evidence I do see some problems in this regard, such as quoting me from a harshly worded conclusion about his willingness to negotiate as evidence of false accusations. Overall I agree with the principle, with respect to using anything from mediation against other parties, but not on points of agreement and summarizing the outcome of the mediation process.--Nick Y. (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles[edit]

Terminology on quantities and units[edit]

1) Use terminology for quantities and units that has best chance to be understood by readers of Wikipedia, that is best sourced (including on Wikipedia, so that links can be made so people can understand), that complies with the international consensus on terminology given by ISO 80000, IUPAP, IUPAC, and the International vocabulary of metrology. If jargon terminology is very common in a field of science, this terminology should be explained and discussed to the laymen reading Wikipedia.

Example: "Vroom" is a property of cars and car engines that is very often used by car engineers and car racers. However, it is a jargon term, it is not clearly defined and therefore not used on the Wikipedia engine article, nor on the car article. However, the term is explained on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This would seem to run into arbitrating on content, which is out of our remit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Re arbitrating on content: I think Kehrli is looking for arbitration on the principles of Wikipedia, not the actual content per se. There is an impasse regarding what principles take precedence and at what point does interpreting and applying texts to indirectly addressed issues cross over into original research. Kehrli believes that ISO 80000, IUPAP, IUPAC, and the International vocabulary of metrology are absolute in authority as a source. If 99.999% of the world is in violation (according to Kehrli's interpretation) of these self described "guidelines" then we should either use the only source that is not or create a notation that is not. Every scientific notation on Wikipedia must be in compliance with Kehrli's interpretation of ISO 80000, IUPAP, IUPAC, and the International vocabulary of metrology. The other parties do not read ISO 80000, IUPAP, IUPAC, and the International vocabulary of metrology the same way and none of the documents specifically address any of the notations of concern directly (i.e. by name). The other parties (Kkmurray and myself) believe that the principle described in WP:UNITS: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." dictates that to a first approximation we should use what the majority uses regardless of these guidance documents as it is not our role to alter the debate but simply to report. We also don't think that our own interpretations of documents which don't specifically address the topic are relevant based on WP:SOURCE, "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." In our view the insistence on ignoring what we see as essential principles of Wikipedia even after having essentially these principles clarified in previous arbitration in which Kehrli was banned from editing portions of wikipedia for a year [14] is extremely disruptive. Not only were the principles laid out in previous arbitration ignored the actual content that got him/her banned previously has been restored. --Nick Y. (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is: Nick and Kmurray use jargon that cannot be possibly understood by the average Wikipedia reader. They use terminology that is nowhere defined. And this jargon contradicts the rules of ISO 80000, IUPAP, IUPAC, and the International vocabulary of metrology which all represent the international consensus on terminology about quantities and units. Articles should be understandable to non-chemists. Kehrli (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Verifiability[edit]

Verifiability of mathematical formulas imply the following:

1) quantities in the formulas are well defined

2) the formula itself can be derived

Kmurray's formula:

Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass * (14/14.01565)

fails verifiability in both criteria.

1) He never could deliver a proper definition of the term "IUPAC mass". The same holds for the term "Kendrick mass". I asked him for the definition here [15]. He never supplied it.

2) He never derived the formula.

In my article [[Kendrick (unit)] I do derive this very formula and I properly define all quantities and symbols in the formula.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Deriving a "proper" definition based on an editor's interpretation of tangentially related metrology guidelines is synthesis and original research. Per WP:VERIFY "All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. . . . Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say." Reliable sources say "Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass * (14/14.01565)" and it is clear from those sources what is meant by that notation. It is not our job as editors to declare this notation not "proper" or "jargon" or "sloppy" and use these opinions to assign weight to the sources. --Kkmurray (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No way that is this even a principle?? Kkmurray is right on the nose about the content of this statement/argument, but I don't even understand that this even qualifies as a principle at all. It seems to me to be a statement which violates pretty much even principle of wikipedia. Instead of suggesting a principle you have instead presented original research that synthesizes a conclusion while simultaneously using informal mediation proceedings against another editor.--Nick Y. (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any proper definition of the term "IUPAC mass" would be sufficient. Of course, a definition by a reputable organization like ISO, IUPAP, IUPAC would be preferable. Kmurray, however, has NO DEFINITION at all. Kehrli (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These definitions were supplied and rejected by your as "improper" many times. I have collected the relevant definitions and sources here for reference: [16]. --Kkmurray (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Make technical articles understandable[edit]

3) Articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means understandable to a general audience.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, because Kmurray's jargon is not understandable. Kehrli (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this principle. I do not agree with your conclusion about how to make them understandable or that Kkmurray's writing is not understandable or that your insistence on obscure terminology (which happens to perhaps maybe be more proper) makes tham more understandable.--Nick Y. (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Use jargon and acronyms judiciously[edit]

3) Avoid jargon or explain it carefully

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, Kmurray's jargon is not understandable and he does not explain it. Kehrli (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the principle. Disagree with your comment; however there is always room to better, more clearly explain the prevailing terminology.--Nick Y. (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used.[edit]

3) Explain technical terms.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, Kmurray's does not explain his terms, nor his formulas. Kehrli (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the principle. Again disagree with the comment. --Nick Y. (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Neutral point of view[edit]

1) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view; advocacy for any particular view is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Kkmurray (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree!--Nick Y. (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Kmurray should not push chemsitry jargon on Wikipedia. Kehrli (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sources and weight[edit]

2) Articles should accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Kkmurray (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree!--Nick Y. (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! My article accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources representing the international consensus (VIM, IUPAP red book, IUPAC green book), but also the jargon of some chemists. Kmurray's article gives only weight to the minority jargon of these few chemists. Kehrli (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Single purpose accounts[edit]

3) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Kkmurray (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree!--Nick Y. (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - because the claim that my account is a single purpose account is unfounded. The only reason I spend so much time on so few articles is the constant POV editing of Kmurray.Kehrli (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Recidivism[edit]

4) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Kkmurray (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree!--Nick Y. (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Improper conduct should be avoided by anyone. Kmurray constantly is involved in improper conduct, e.g. by renaming my article without prior discussion, changing articles during mediation, and many more. Kehrli (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disruption to prove a point[edit]

5) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Kkmurray (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree!--Nick Y. (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Kmurray disrupts Wikipedia with his jargon edits to prove his points. Kehrli (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

POV pushing is unacceptable[edit]

1) It's unacceptable for a user to devote all their wikipedia activity towards pushing a particular point of view. Even if they consider that point of view to be the "correct" POV, the "moral" POV, the "popular" POV, the "scientific" POV, the "true" POV, the "neutral" POV, the "fair" POV, the "unbiased" POV, the "best" POV etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

In the past ArbCom has used '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.' which is essentially similar. PhilKnight (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. --Nick Y. (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This echos my Proposed principle #1 --Kkmurray (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true: I am not pushing a particular POV. I started an unbiased and neutral article about Kendrick analysis. It was Kmurray who started the fight ant intriduced his jargon into this article. It was not my choice to spend so much time on the terminology of this article. Kehrli (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Kehrli is a single purpose account[edit]

1) Kehrli is a single purpose account, all of Kehrli's edits since the ban was lifted have been in the subject area of dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree.--Nick Y. (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but would go farther and say that all of Kehrli's edits on Wikipedia have been in the area of dispute. --Kkmurray (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not True: I do not have a single purpose account. For example, Kendrick analysis has nothing to do with m/z, which was the topic I was writing earlier. These are two different topics. Kehrli (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kehrli's recidivism[edit]

2) Kehrli has repeated previous behavior ruled unacceptable by the arbitration committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly agree. There has been zero deviation from the behavior and course of action. The pages may have changed slightly but it is the same exact argument and the same failure to understand the scope and purpose of WIkipedia.--Nick Y. (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; Kehrli was blocked for violating article ban in 2006, meatpuppeting, disruption, and circumventing arb ruling in 2008, and returned to POV editing in 2009 [17] then sustained POV editing at Kendrick mass in 2010. --Kkmurray (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: I have not repeated any previous behavior. Please give examples for this claim. Kehrli (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kehrli is incapable of broad contribution[edit]

3) Experience demonstrates that Kehrli is incapable of productively editing in topics outside the locus of dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree.--Nick Y. (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there is no evidence of broad contribution. --Kkmurray (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: I am writing in my field of expertise. This, of course, cannot be too broad. However, it was not my choice that the article about Kendrick analysis turned into a battle over terminology. This was Kmurray who picked this battle.Kehrli (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Kehrli is banned[edit]

1) Kehrli is banned from editing wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is an unfortunate but perhaps necessary step. There will of course need to be an ongoing sockpuppet ban on all similar behavior (anon IPs pushing the same POV). Wikipedia would be better off with another user that adheres to its principles but it will also be better off with one fewer editor who do not. It has been many years that this behavior has persisted.--Nick Y. (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite ban in the broadly defined topic of mass and unit articles might be more appropriate. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kkmurray, I think you are right. All of Wikipedia may be too broad and Kehrli's issues revolve exclusively around issues of trying to apply metrological standards too widely and too strictly, while ignoring prevailing practices. Certainly I could see him/her finding another subject area where he/she could contribute effectively, but some sort of warning should be given to not find another set of elegant and coherent standards to apply too strictly without accepting the prevailing practices of the real world. There is definitely the potential for the same behavior in a new area but giving a second chance outside the problem area seems reasonable.--Nick Y. (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done anything wrong, I was editing strictly according to the manual of style of Wikipedia. I was actually fighting to make articles understandable and free of jargon. Kmurray and Nick should be banned for pushing jargon to Wikipedia. Kehrli (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Kehrli has been making unfounded accusations of sock puppetry[edit]

1) Kehrli has been canvassing and making unfounded accusations of sock puppetry and/or meatpuppetry by Wikipedian editors and plaintiffs in the current arbitration case, Kkmurray and Nick Y., claiming that the account PaoloNapolitano, an uninvolved party, was operated or in any way affiliated by the aforementioned editors. It has been concluded that this is not true, and Kehrli's accusations are therefore groundless and an attempt to disrupt the arbitration.

Comments by arbitrator:

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Kehrli is topic banned[edit]

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

Comments by arbitrators:

Comments by parties:

Support. This should apply broadly to all aspects of the measurement sciences, experimental aspects, nomenclature aspects, standardization/harmonization aspects but most particularly units of measure.--Nick Y. (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Suggest adding the words "broadly defined" per Nick Y. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: The account User:PaoloNapolitano is brand new and probably created from Kmurray or Nick only for this arbitration. Kehrli (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. I have no affiliation with the ArbCom or the users mentioned above. Please take a look at WP:AGF.--PaoloNapolitano (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation of sockpuppetry by Kehrli is unfounded and not true. From what I can tell PauloNapolitano appears to be an editor who is not an expert in nor particularly vested in this subject but seems to have an interest in improving the quality of WIkipedia and the Wikipedia Community. I.e. a neutral party who is versed in Wikipedia principles and policies and has come to his own conclusion about Kehrli's editing behavior. A quick look at IP addresses will place him half way around the world from Kkmurray or I.--Nick Y. (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A CheckUser is not even necessary, you can just look at our editing pattern. I work almost exclusively behind the scenes, while the two other editors work in the main namespace, and in particular on science- and metrologyrelated topics. --PaoloNapolitano (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone thinks that a CheckUser is necessary, I do not object to mine being checked. But PaoloNapolitano is correct that this accusation is totally unfounded. Accusing new users of sockpuppetry simply because they are new is out of line. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of evidence presented by Kkmurray[edit]

This is an incomplete list of diffs presented in evidence by Kkmurray which are intended to demonstrate concerns in regard to Kehrli's conduct.

• diff #1 intended to demonstrate concerns in relation to original research (01:38, 23 October 2010)
• diff #2 intended to demonstrate concerns in relation to original research (10:34, 23 October 2010)
• diff #3 intended to demonstrate concerns in relation to original research (10:01, 30 October 2010)
• diff #4 intended to demonstrate concerns in relation to original research (17:48, 30 October 2010)
• diff #5 intended to demonstrate concerns in relation to original research (12:40, 26 October 2010)
• diff #6 intended to demonstrate user arguing authority of VIM, IUPAP red book, ISO 31, and IUPAC green book (14:18, 27 October 2010)
• diff #7 intended to demonstrate concerns in relation to advocacy (20:11, 26 October 2010)
• diff #8 intended to demonstrate a rejection of reliable sources conflicting with his view (23:51, 2 November 2010)
• diff #9 intended to demonstrate the user asserting that metrology must be explained to chemists (20:55, 4 November 2010)
• diff #10 intended to demonstrate the user asserting that analytical chemistry must defer to metrology (19:10, 2 November 2010)
• diff #11 intended to demonstrate the user making a plea to help defend modern metrology (15:41, 15 November 2010)
• diff #12 intended to demonstrate the user making an uncivil remark (21:43, 29 October 2010)
• diff #13 intended to demonstrate the user describing a peer reviewed chemistry article as "absolute rubbish" (22:05, 26 October 2010)
• diff #14 intended to demonstrate incivility (11:29, 23 October 2010)

The following are my comments on the above diffs:

• diff #1 - agree there is a problem with the conduct shown here. It appears the user is trying to rationalise the system of units in this subject area, and while these efforts are founded in logic and presumably well meaning, it does constitute something akin to original research.
• diff #2 - again this is problematic. In terms of policy, it seems to fall somewhere between original research and advocacy. Anyway, it certainly appears to push the article away from the NPOV policy.
• diff #3 - in my honest opinion, this isn't especially problematic. I would advise against using talk pages in this manner, and instead create a subpage in user space, however if anything it's a minor breach of talk page etiquette.
• diff #4 - again, not especially problematic, but could be regarded as a minor breach of talk page etiquette.
• diff #5 - incivility.
• diff #6 - again, this is problematic, again falling somewhere between original research and advocacy.
• diff #7 - more advocacy.
• diff #8 - yet more.
• diff #9 - more of the same.
• diff #10 - more of a honest statement of the dispute, than anything else.
• diff #11 - not especially serious.
• diff #12 - biography of living persons policy violation.
• diff #13 - yet more advocacy.
• diff #14 - more incivility.

Overall, there are clearly significant concerns in regard to original research and advocacy. In addition, there have been some relatively minor incivility concerns. PhilKnight (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Here are some input from me:

• diff #3 - The problem here is that some of these approaches are not in the literature at all (i.e. they are novel) and are thus original research. Although loose discussion of novel methods might be useful in some instances, in this case it is oriented toward actual inclusion in WIkipedia and/or arguing against the prevailing methods in the current literature. In any case talk pages should not be used for developing or presenting novel methods of data analysis.
• diff #4 - Again this is more expounding on a novel thesis. The "Modulo method" is the "Kehrli method".
• diff #10 - You are right that it is an honest statement of the dispute; however, the very position the Kehrli is taking is in violation of WP:UNITS: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." AND Kehrli has been sanctioned for taking this position before and by doing so is ignoring the findings of previous arbitration. His/her position is that all fields must defer to his/her interpretation of metrology guidelines and this is not compatible with Wikipedia according to both common sense reading of Wikipedia guidelines and the findings of previous arbitration.

--Nick Y. (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of explanation, I was trying to document Kehrli's position of advocacy as well as the application of that advocacy in ways that are not consistent with verifiability and no original research. --Kkmurray (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree.--Nick Y. (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Editorial process[edit]

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Adapted slightly from the usual wording, based on a suggestion made at the Shakespeare case (to wit: "adversarial"). I think it's got a bit of relation to this case in particular. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. PhilKnight (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree.--Nick Y. (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Advocacy[edit]

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; Wikipedia should not take sides.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From some of the discussion above, I think this applies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but prefer 'Wikipedia is not a venue for advocating a viewpoint. 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.' which is cribbed from the NPOV policy. PhilKnight (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. However, clearly there is some confusion as to what a NPOV is but this is addressed in the next two principles.--Nick Y. (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Scientific notation[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Adapted from Nick's proposed principle, however there were issues with the standard of fronting supported, if novel, ideas that may be acceptable in a scientific context, but not on Wikipedia. I may want to address the issue in a separate principle, but looking for feedback. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer 'majority' or perhaps even 'consensus' over 'bulk', however broadly agree. PhilKnight (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. This is the crux of the dispute. The word 'consensus' has some confused meaning in this context that we need to be careful of, and determining what the consensus is can be difficult. Kehrli takes 'consensus' to mean 'in agreement with metrology guidelines'. I believe that what all of us, minus one, agree on is that the notation used should be the most common and widespread in the contemporary scientific literature. Even the word 'Standard' can be taken to mean 'in agreement with metrology guidelines'. What we are talking about is the majority of papers published in a particular discipline by the scientific community of that particular field. In the case of Kendrick analysis, the relevant sample is those papers that actually use this or a very closely related procedure. Regarding subtleties, if there was some sort of harmonization committee that had addressed this topic directly by name, that would carry some weight. If there was a clear trend over time with a good sample size, that would give some limited weight to the emerging notation. What is important here is that the primary determinant is the commonality of usage within the field in question. That is little to no weight should be given to if the notation meets our personal interpretation of metrology guidelines; someone else's published opinion may carry some weight however, but not much until actual practice is affected by said opinion.--Nick Y. (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Original research and synthesis[edit]

Wikipedia requires all claims can be verified against reliable sources; using a combination of sources to come to a conclusion not specifically stated in either is synthesis. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Working off the previous principle. It's clear that a lot of the issues come down to the "constitution" analogy mentioned in the failed mediation request. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in principle. Would prefer 'Wikipedia does not publish original thought. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.' which is cribbed from the policy nutshell. PhilKnight (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. This is also a critical principle. Kehrli is very confused about what this principle means and it needs to be clearly explained. The use of undeniably authoritative sources to support a thesis that it does not specifically address (i.e. by name) does not meet this standard. Certainly IUPAP is a reliable source, but for what purpose. What exactly does 'not specifically stated' mean? If a guidance document makes broad statements about units in general can we apply this to specific units and notation and conclude that they are 'illegal' and we should therefore not use or give extremely little weight to the common units and notations currently in the literature. Kehrli believes that VIM 'specifically states' many things; however they do not address the topic to which he/she is applying them specifically by name. Kehrli claims that VIM 'specifically states' that the use of Daltons in the Kendrick procedure is 'illegal'. Yet the document doesn't contain the words 'Dalton', 'Kendrick', nor 'illegal'.--Nick Y. (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

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 its use violates Wikipedia's guidelines against inaccessible jargon.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Seems pretty self-explanatory, if open to being worded a bit better. I if have misquoted your position in boiling them down, say so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree. This is only part of the dispute. The dispute extends into all pages related to mass spectrometry as a whole, but particularly Thomson (unit) and mass-to-charge ratio, where near identical behavior has persisted for years. These other issues, however, have been addressed in previous arbitration and the arbcom has ruled on these issues. Kehrli has simply ignored the findings and my efforts to get any ongoing correction of this behavior after the one year ban have fallen on deaf ears. The final remedy must broadly address the behavior as a whole and persistently over time. The locus of dispute is the application of the personal interpretation of metrology guidelines to multiple mass spectrometry and chemistry related articles and giving undue weight to these conclusions, as well as incivility, recidivism, advocacy and OR surrounding these issues.--Nick Y. (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your wider view, but this case seems to be precisely over this one aspect, although the case previous dealt with similar issues on different pages. As I'm drafting now I think that's going to be a seperate FoF. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FoF??? As long as the resolution is broad enough to prevent future problems I am fine.--Nick Y. (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FoF = Finding of Fact. It is one of the six types of things that ArbCom generally passes, the others being Principles (trying to explain the underlying policies behind their actions), Remedies, Enforcement (of Remedies), Temporary Injunctions (not always used), and Motions (generally used in lieu of a case) NW (Talk) 14:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is the locus of the current dispute. It is the same POV pushing seen in Thomson (unit) and mass-to-charge ratio in the previous dispute, but this time focusing on Kendrick mass.There has been some spillover and POV editing in other articles, but Kendrick mass has been the central part of it. --Kkmurray (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: