Case Opened on 02:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Case Closed on 01:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Case Amended by motion on 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Case Amended by motion on 11:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.
I respectfully request arbcom intervene in the long running dispute involving Monty Hall problem.
The dispute has been through all previous steps of dispute resolution culminating in on-again, off-again formal mediation for more than a year (since January 14, 2010).
The first mediator to take the case resigned.
Subsequently a pair of mediators jointly attempted to handle the case and one of these mediators has resigned.
Several parties to the mediation have "quit" the mediation as well.
The mediation has effectively been on hold since at least December 22, 2010 with the most recent communication from the mediators (on January 24th) being "please hold on, we're talking about what to do" [1].
Although more than one of the involved editors have exhibited problematic behaviors, one editor in particular exhibits nearly all the classic signs of disruptive editing and has essentially singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made.
This user is a self-admitted SPA[2], subject of a previous RFC, with a history of:
edit warring (see block log and note that this was while formal mediation was ongoing).
This editor will (of course) cast me as the bad guy here, and although I admit I have made an occasional intemperate comment under extreme and relentless provocation (e.g. [10]), I trust arbcom will see things much more the way I do than the way he does.
My request is for arbcom to accept this case, consider the evidence that will be provided, and take appropriate action.
I certainly agree that mediation has failed. Badly. I welcome the next step in the Wikipedia resolution process. Of course, I disagree that Glkanter is the cause of the protracted disputes and lack of progress. Rather, I have brought important and beneficial edits to the article, and needed clarity to the discussions.
It's kinda funny that this was brought forward on February 9th, 2011. Here's what I posted on the MHP talk page, on February 7, 2009 under the heading of "Conventional Wisdom". I have subsequently learned about 'reliable sources', so I have revised my estimate upwards from 5% to 10% regarding, "Yes, I look at this entire article, excepting maybe 5% of it, as an elaborate hoax."
So, it's taken precisely 2 years and 2 days since then to get to this point. Well, we're here now. Let's get this party started, finally. Let's once and for all clear out the nonsense & noise from certain Wikipedia-Policy-violating-editors, and get the article where it needs to be. Glkanter (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Morgan, whose claim to fame is that they call the simple solutions, 'false', is in some way used as the 'reliable source' for the above 'simple' solution that starts that Solution section. That's perverse.
Well, that didn't take long at all. If this arbitration is going to be about the behaviour of an editor(s), let's make sure we're properly focused.
Nijdam's posting makes very clear 2 of the Wikipedia policy/guideline violations I have contended with for over 2 years:
He regards me, and my edits to the article, as not 'serious'
His insistence on his POV being prominent in the article (as it is currently) is *not* based on any reliable sources. His statement is pure OR. I am not aware of his ever referring to reliable sources, other than to demean them.
Which brings us to the editor who filed this arbitration request, Rick Block:
Rick Block is an Admin
Rick Block has never once, not a single time, addressed a comment to his MHP-ally Nijdam regarding the above items
Rick Block has made plenty of comments to Glkanter, and complaints to mediators, regarding Glkanter's behaviour and Glkanter's inability to 'understand' the reliable sources as he does. Rick Block even filed an RfC against Glkanter for a talk page skirmish in which he was not involved.
This is a small representation of the Gamesmanship, etc. I have been accusing Rick Block and Nijdam of perpetuating during talk page discussions, edit warring, and the mediation. Apparently, this Gamesmanship, Wikilawyering, and reliance on OR, will continue into arbitration, if allowed to do so. Accordingly, I will continue to make fact-based statements as to its existence. Glkanter (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of the discussion is which of the following two formulations of the MHP has to be considered the standard or mostly accepted version.
F0: (Conditional formulation) The contestant is offered to switch after the host has opened the goat door.
F1: (Unconditional formulation) We, the audience, are asked whether the contestant should switch, even before she has made her initial choice, and we are not allowed to give a solution for every possible combination of initial chosen door and opened goat door.
Then there is a minor discussion about the correct solution. These are:
S0: (Conditional solution) The player has to base her decision on the conditional probability given the chosen and the opened door.
S1: (Simple solution) The player hits the car in her first choice with probability 1/3, hence when she always switches she gets the car in 2/3 of the cases.
In the following I do not account for Glkanter, whom I do not take seriously. From the other parties all except Martin Hogbin understand that F0 is solved by S0 and F1 is solved by S1, and that S1 does not solve F0. As for the main point of discussion it is Gill and Hogbin who strongly defend F1 to be the standard version. The others take F0 to be the standard, mostly accepted version.
If I'm wrong about the opinion of one of the parties, I hope he will correct me. Nijdam (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've taken to writing reliable sources on MHP, I can hardly be allowed to be a major participant in editing the MHP page in the near future. For the rest, I just want to remark that I do not accept Nijdam's representation of my own point of view (nor indeed his representation of the mediation issue). Richard Gill (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (14/0/0/0)
Although I haven't been directly involved, I'm aware of this dispute, which started off as a MedCab case, and then later was transferred to MedCom. Given that every effort has been made to resolve the dispute prior to arbitration, I think we should accept this case. PhilKnight (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. The tendency of this ill-defined mathematical philosophy hypothetical to create strife in middlebrow culture forums ("The Straight Dope," Marilyn vos Savant) as well as now on Wikipedia is extraordinary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC) (I was going to urge that we sneak some form of self-reference into our decision in this case, but Alanyst is obviously way ahead of me.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. –xenotalk 14:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Rather obvious so I'm going to avoid silly puns here and just point out that alanyst has just won the internet. Shellbabelfish 20:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Bit late to the party at this point. Let's pretend I have something witty to say with regards to the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3) From WP:TECHNICAL: articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means understandable to a general audience. Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Neutral point of view
4.2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. 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.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Editorial process
5) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through adversarial editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Conduct and decorum
6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another, even during disputes. Unseemly or confrontational conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Tendentious editing
7) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained attacks on other editors or inflammatory comments may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Good faith and disruption
8) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
Passed 11 to 1 at 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Use of article 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. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject, nor for 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.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Expert editors and original research
10) Expert editors with published resources are welcome on Wikipedia, and are free to include references to their own published works, if they meet the standards of reliable sources. However, the guidelines concerning conflicts of interest must be observed, and where there is a dispute as to the use or interpretation of such sources, consensus must be gained for their inclusion.
Passed 10 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Mathematics (use of sources)
11.4) If editors disagree on how to express a problem and/or solution in mathematics, citations to reliable published sources that both are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material as presented must be supplied by the editor(s) who wishes to include the material. Novel derivations, applications or conclusions that cannot be supported by sources are likely to constitute original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia.
Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Article probation
12) Articles may be placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee or the community. When an article is under probation, editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of probation.
Statement of the dispute (coverage and presentation)
1) The Monty Hall problem started life as an example of probability theory, intended for the wider public as well as students, and expressed in terms of a popular game show. Since then, it has become a staple of probability theorists. This dispute centres on how to present the various forms of both the question and the answer, so as to provide complete coverage of all the facets of the problem, without overwhelming the general reader.
Passed 10 to 1 at 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Statement of the dispute (external factors)
2) The Monty Hall problem is unusual in that while there are many scholarly sources, the key source containing the best known and most often quoted formulation of the problem is a popular one. The solution used by this source and sources derived from it uses a simple approach to demonstrate the outcome. In the literature, some proponents of the the more complex Bayesian formulations of the advanced probability version argue that the simple solution is 'wrong'.
Passed 10 to 1 at 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Statement of dispute (two camps)
3) Editors have largely fallen into two camps - those who wish to give equal or higher weight to the 'simple' solutions contained within the popular literature, and those who wish to minimise those solutions on the grounds that they are 'wrong'. No party wishes to exclude information about the problem and solutions as presented in higher probability theory, although there is dispute as to how much of this information should be included in the article, and how it should be presented.
Passed 10 to 1 at 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Article has attracted expert editors
4) The article has attracted a high number of expert editors, some of whom have published material of their own on the problem.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Article has been target of original research
5) The talkpage, and at times the article, has contained a considerable amount of derivation from first principles, in an effort to explain the higher aspects of probability theory ([11]—incorrect derivation from first principles; OR by Rich Farmbrough, who is not listed as a party).
Passed 9 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Nijdam
7) Nijdam (talk·contribs) has engaged in tendentious editing, particularly with regard to how the article represents the popular, simple explanations for the outcome of the problem ([20],[21],[22],[23]). His conduct during the case has been poor.
Passed 12 to 0 at 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Rick Block
8) Rick Block (talk·contribs) has displayed ownership of the article, and has been excessively controlling of both content and presentation ([24][25], pick any archive of the talkpage).
Passed 8 to 0 with 4 abstentions at 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Gill110951
9) Gill110951 (talk·contribs) has used his experience of editing and discussing this article to provide material for published research,[26] which he has then introduced into the article.[27][28][29]
Passed 10 to 1 with 1 abstention at 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
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.
Glkanter banned
1.2) Glkanter is banned from Wikipedia for one year, and is further subject to an indefinite topic ban on subjects related to the Monty Hall Problem.
Passed 10 to 2 at 00:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Nijdam topic banned
2.1) Nijdam is topic banned from the subject of the Monty Hall problem for a period of one year. This includes not just the article and talkpage, but anywhere within the project where the Monty Hall problem is being discussed.
Passed 11 to 0 at 00:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Rick Block restricted
3) Rick Block is restricted to 1RR (one revert per day, unless reverting vandalism) on the Monty Hall article for a period of one year
Passed 10 to 2 at 00:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Gill110951 reminded
4.3) Gill110951 is reminded to follow good practice in respect of conflict of interest, when referencing or inserting his own sources of his own authoring into the article as references, namely to avoid undue weight, use reliable sourcing, be able to demonstrate such if asked and to seek consensus first if editing in a contentious segment of mainspace.
Passed 9 to 1 with 1 abstention at 00:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions
5) Any uninvolved administrator may place standard discretionary sanctions on accounts editing in this area, after a first warning.
Passed 10 to 1 with 1 abstention at 00:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Amended to emphasize "pages" rather than "articles"
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals by sanctioned editors
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for the Cold fusion 2 and the Homeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of the Pseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" for consistency;
Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
A record of topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and subsequently terminated is to be established and maintained on the discretionary sanctions main page.
Passed 11 to 0 by motion, 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
On 3 May 2014 Arbcom established a new method of notifying for discretionary sanctions which is explained at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. All notices given prior to the May 2014 cutover date will expire on 3 May 2015. New notices are to be given using ((Ds/alert)) and they expire one year after they are given. No new notices should be logged here.
Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
Glkanter blocked for 1 year to enforce Remedy 1.2. NW(Talk) 00:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
