Case Opened on 19:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Case Closed on 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
There is an ongoing content dispute and inappropriate behavior at Mass-to-charge ratio, Thomson (unit) and recently Mass spectrum.
User:Kehrli has continued over several months and after mediation to push original research and POV that is best reflected on his user page. I will mostly let the record on talk pages, previously deleted pages created by Kherli to push his POV etc. speak for itself. I do not have much to say other than removing dipute tags without reason seems very wrong and that wikipedia is about verification not about using multiple sources to reach a novel, however reasonable of a conclusion. I would also say that I agree with Kherli in almost every regard except that thsi is exactly the wrong place to make his point. He has directly pushed his POV to IUPAC and it was rejected. His novel suggestion is a combination of several guidelines, suggestions etc. however he can not provide a single source that uses his notation that he insists is the only correct notation (Again I think his ideas are great and do not strongly disagree with them in principle). Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth.--Nick Y. 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary Kherli has been deleting dispute tags without giving the citations requested, adding dispute tags without specific dispute in retaliation, not removing tags once citations have been given, following me to other pages to argue with me, edit waring, generally acting incivily, and pushing POV through OR by synthesis.--Nick Y. 17:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Kerli has started threatening me for disputing his article in a way which appears to be an attempt at impersonating an administrator. User_talk:Nick_Y.#Stop_you_vandalizm_2
Requested references:
I was uncertain as to which contested unit/notation would be helpful to see in use so I searched for all relevant combinations at sciencedirect.com. Note that this is a limited although reasonably extensive database so more could be found.
m/z in use:
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]
- This is not even all of 2006, plus 1500 more on a single database that excludes much of the mass spec literature. Thousands more out there. Note that there is a wide array of journals represented here.
Examples of the unit Th in use in combination with m/z i.e. m/z (Th):
- I could find two from 2006 and they were inconsistent sometimes using simply "m/z".
[34], [35]
- No matter how hard I try I can not find a single citation that uses "m/q (Th)"
Google results are enlightening too:
""m/z" Mass Spectrometry" returns more than 800,000 hits
""m/q" Mass Spectrometry" returns about 30,000 hits mostly having to do with the physicis of mass spec
""m/q" Thomson Mass Spectrometry" returns about 300 hits mostly related to the pages in dispute here or pages which specifically are about J.J. Thomson's contributions to Mass spec.
I hope this is helpful--Nick Y. 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
--Nick Y. 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstract: Whereas I am editing the articles under dispute according to the verifiable international conventions by ISO 31 and the IUPAC green book, Nick is trying to push a minority opinion of a small group of scientists.
User:Nick has continued over several months and after mediation to push original research and POV. I will mostly let the record on talk pages speak for itself. I do not have much to say other than placing dipute tags without reason seems very wrong and that wikipedia is about verification not about using minority sources to reach a novel, unreasonable conclusion. His editing is contradictory to the internationally accepted rules of ISO 31 and IUPAC green book. It is the POV of a small group of scientists not representative for the wider scientific community. He is pushing the tern m/z even though it is used in many different and inconsistent ways within the community he thinks to defend. The following things are all verifiable and have been proven by me several times:
- m/z is not consistently used in the mass spec community
- m/z as defined by the IUPAC Analytical Branch work group cannot be a mass-to-charge ratio since it has wrong dimensions
- m/z as defined by the IUPAC Analytical Branch work group cannot be of unit thomson since m/z is dimensionless and therefore has no unit
- m/z is so ill defined that it is even not clear wether it is a unit or a physical quantity
All these verifiable facts are contendet by Nick without giving any verifiable sources. He is just citing examples that in some cases even undermine his own position. Nick seems to completely lack the expertice in metrology to understand the issue. However, and this is the nice part, he even admits that my edits are correct in the sence that they better represent what he calls the truth. The reason he wants to revert my edits is that they are not in line with what he thinks is an "official" document but which is drafted by a minority group of scientists. Instead I am editing according to the wider scientific consensus givien in the IUPAC green book. (BTW: I only edit according to the internationally accepted ISO 31 standards as well as the verifiable IUPAC green book standards. I do not edit according to the "truth", because this issue is a matter of conventions, not truth.) Wikipedia is about verifiability and truth, not about POV of a minority group that lacks arguments.
Nick, show me a single edit of mine that is not verifiable and I will immediately reverse it.
--Kehrli. 30 July 2006
Additional information: in our last mediation we came to the conclusion that I would implement the wider scientific notations according to the ISO 31 in the mass-to-charge ratio article, and Nick would implement his minority view in the mass spectrum article. This splitting first worked fine. However, after about 3 months he started again vandalizing "my" article, arguing for deletion of the article, placing tags, and so on. Only for this reason I started to do some minor revisions on "his" article on issues that are obviously and verifiably wrong and against ISO 31 as well as the IUPAC green book.
--Kehrli. 30 July 2006
The deeper reason of the dispute, by the way, is that a work group of the IUPAC Analytical Divison [36] published a document that is not compatible with the broader and international conventions given in ISO 31 as well as in the the IUPAC green book. Nick seems to believe that Wikipedia should "enforce" the minority POV of this group whereas I think Wikipedia should present both views, but it should use the broader document for verification.
--Kehrli. 30 July 2006
Although there is some content dispute this is mostly about behavior and the purpose of wikipedia. It will not be solved in any other way. There is something much more fundamental going on here if you look carefully. The "content dispute" is a guise for unabashed POV pushing and playing the system to further ones personal opinion. Note that on general principle I actually agree with most of how Kehrli believes things should be especially regarding the terrible inconsistencies in notation and units; however it is not for us to change the world, just report it. There is a fundamental disconnect as to how wikipedia works and what is appropriate behavior. --Nick Y. 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User Pages
It is true that in my early Wikipedia days I posted an article which contained some POV (User:Kehrli/mz_misconception). However, I have learned and I no longer do this. Please note the following:
- even Nick admitts that the content in this POV article is absolutely correct
- I stored this article so people have the chance to compare it with my newer writing so they can see the change and so they can see that the claims of Cacycle and Nick, that I keep writing the same POV, is uncorrect. I do not use it for "private use".
- (User:Kehrli/mz) is also not stored for private use but as a sandbox, as recomended by Wikipedia. The allegations of Cacycle are quite bizzar.
m/z
- the truth is that the m/z notation is not complying with the rules established by the IUPAC green book and the ISO 31. Cacycle and Nick know this and never responded to this argument axcept by hate and vandalizm.
- the truth is that I have nothing against the usage of m/z except if it is used as a mass-to-charge ratio, which it no longer is according to the very documents of the IUPAC that Cacycle is refering to [37].
POV
- fact is that except on my old article mentioned above I do no longer write POV and Nick as well as Cacyle have failed to prove any POV except of my old article mentioned above.
- fact is that I strictly defend the notations established by the wider scientific community in the IUPAC green book and the ISO 31 which are more important rulings than the one cited by Cacycle and Nick which are far from universal and which were made by and for a small scientific community and never went through a review process.
- fact is that Nick and Cacycle defend POV of a relatively small group of people whereas I defend the internationally accepted standards
- fact is that I like to participate in rational discussions, as can be seen for example here Talk:Mass-to-charge_ratio#Discussion_with_Bduke
- fact is that Cacycle wrote a very agressive statement above which is ill suited for "arbitration" and which clearly shows that he is the one that hinders a rational discussion.
--Kehrli 12:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)
Temporary injunction (none)
Final decision
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
Original research
1) Original research, however well done, is not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No original research.
- Passed 7-0 at 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Scientific notation
2) The scientific notation used by the bulk of contemporary experts in a field is the preferred usage. Proposed usages are appropriate only when adopted by an official body.
- Passed 7-0 at 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Ban due to disruption
3) Users who disrupt Wikipedia may be banned from the disruptive activity.
- Passed 7-0 at 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Locus of dispute
1) The focus of dispute is editing by Kehrli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) concerning use of m/z a term used in mass spectrometry. There is apparently some questions as to its meaning and use. According to Nick_Y. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Kehrli's work, while excellent, is original research.
- Passed 7-0 at 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Kehrli's viewpoint
2) Kehrli has set forth his viewpoint regarding the dispute at User:Kehrli/mz misconception.
- Passed 7-0 at 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Original research by Kehrli
3) Kehrli has engaged in original research [38] [39] [40] [41] deleted article viewable only by administrators and here justifies it.
- Passed 7-0 at 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Proposed standard
4) The draft of the new edition of the IUPAC green book [42] which Kehrli has used as a source and inspiration is plainly marked, "For Peer Review Only".
- Passed with 6-0 with one abstention at 13:42, 17 September 2006 (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.
Kehrli banned
1.1) Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z.
- Passed 6-0 at 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Kehrli prohibited from changing notation
2) Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation.
- Passed 7-0* at 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- 5 voted for 2 years as first choice or no preference, 2 voted for 2 years as second choice.
Enforcement of restrictions
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.
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Appeals and modifications
0) Appeals and modifications
|
|
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;
- request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
- 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-en
 wikimedia.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.
|
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Log any block, 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.
On 23 Sep 2006 blocked for 24 hours for violating the article ban by editing Mass-to-charge ratio [43] and M/z [44]. (entry by FloNight)
Mar 21, 2008, User:Cernms blocked 48 hours for meatpuppeting, disruption, and circumventing arb ruling. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kehrli. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]