Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Nick ignores rules established by the scientific community in ISO 31 and the IUPAC green book. When corrected, he starts a tag war. Examples:
Nick claims that instead of following the rules of the wider scientific community he follows the rules established by (some part of) the small mass spec community (find those rules here m/z). In reality he also ingnores these rules if they dont match his POV (e.g. he still uses m/z for mass-to-charge ratio (see mass spectra) even though this use is deprecated (see here: [2])).
When providing references to back up his points Nick presents papers from the wrong scientific community. When arguing about metrology he presents papers about biology and chemistry. These papers are about completely different topics than metrology. They only use terms from metrology (in a wrong way, unfortunately). This is the equivalent of citing school girls when discussing about cellular phone technology: shure, school girls may be using cell phones, but this does not make them experts in phone technology. In the same way mass spectrometrists are no experts in metrology (even worse, they use the terms and don't bother about the rules) Find a list of Nicks references here:Talk:Mass_spectrum#Totally_Disputed_Tag there is not a single metrology paper!
Nick seems to believe that if you find a large enough group that makes a certain mistake then this mistake should become the standard on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is not Google. What gets the most hits on Google is not necessarily true. m/z used as a mass-to-charge ratio does get many hits on Google. This is not even surprising, since m/z actually was used as a mass-to-charge ratio until recently. Since recently the definition has changed, m/z has become a mass per charge number and the mass-to-charge ratio use has been oficially depricated. Nick, however, still defends the use of m/z as a mass-to-charge ratio because he finds many hits on Google.
Nick (and Cacycle, who is basically the same party) claim that I am writing POV. Not true, I am stricly keeping to the content of the IUPAC green book. When asked for evidence of POV they cite my historical user page that indeed does contain POV and which I store in order to document the changes I made since I started on Wikipedia.
Cacycle tries to present me as a fanatic that tries to push his private agenda on Wikipedia. He writes:
Not true! I just try to improve Wikipedia by working on articles that contain errors and outdated usage of terms. For example, I have been working on physical quantity, physical constants and dimensionless quantities lately. Neother m/z nor m/q appear on those pages. Would I edit those pages if it would be my "private agenda" to push the "illegal" m/Q notation? Please do not believe his conspiracy theory. I just try to correct some serious errors so that when people look something up, they don't find wrong information.
There is no such thing as a "IUPAC for mass spectrometry". There is a IUPAC green book about quantities and units. In this green book hundreds of quantities used by chemists are listed and explained. m/z is not among them. Also, in the same document you find:
It is quite obvious that three-character symbol m/z does not comply to this ruling. Therefore, m/z is not accepted by the IUPAC. Period. The term m/z only sneaked into a minor IUPAC document explaining mass spec terms. Among the hundreds of mass spec terms in this document there are about 3 units and quantities. Unfortunately, some unsavy chemist defined one of these quantities (m/z) in a way that does not comply with the relevant rules of the IUPAC green book nor with ISO 31. Well, errors do happen, but when it comes to quantities and units, it is definitely the IUPAC green book (about quantities and units) that sets the standards, not a booklet about mass spectrometry terms.
I strictly keep to the rules of ISO 31 and the IUPAC green book. This is not vandalizing, nor propganda, nor advocacy. (Unfortunately Nick and Cacycle never read the IUPAC green book).
Even Nick an Cacycle had to admitt occasionally that my version is better, more consistent and "more true". They are only concerned because my version does not get as many hits on Google and in science journals as "their" version.
I agree and therefore I report what is established as standards in ISO 31 and in the IUPAC green book. Nick, however, wants to report what gets more hits on Google.
1) it is true, I confess, I do criticise the IUPAC for establishing non-compatible standards. I do it on talk pages and user pages where it is allowed to have POV. So does Nick when he writes:
2) it is true that I would prefer the mass spec community to use terms that are consistent and in line with the norms established by the scientific community. It is true and absolutely legal to express this on talk pages. Nick expressed the same when writing:
3) Note that Nick presents an outdated page as evidence. Current version:[3] I removed warning after another wikipedian told me this is not the correct procedure. I was not aware that warnings should only be placed by admins. I thought warnings need to be placed for stoping Nick placing tags without giving any reasons.
4) I did not recreate articles. I made new article about a IUPAC work group because I think this workgroup is quite important and worth an article. (we only have this discussion because of the dismal work done by this work group) I still think it is worth having an article and I am still in the process of writing an article about this group in a neutral way (which is very difficult in this heated situation - it's almost like writing a neutral article about Israel-Lebanon).
5) I only removed tag after I made changes and also when Nick placed new tags after my changes without giving any reason for the new tag.
6) Nick says: Kehrli believes that wikipedia is a place to present and discover truth. If I look something up in Wikipedia then I would like to discover true statements. What's wrong with this? I do not want to find Google results because I can get those myself.
7) Kermit is not the "head of the IUPAC comittee with the proper jurisdiction" since he is not the head of the workgroup writing the IUPAC green book about quantities and units. Kermit is only the head of a disfunctional work group writing down a list of mass spec terms. Unfortunately he used the same Google technique as Nick is using. Instead of making his quantities compatible with the international standards of ISO 31 he searched Google for statements of other people. Unfortunately this ended in a mess with an inconsistent definition of the quantity m/z that has dimension mass but is declared dimensionless and has and no unit. Too bad for mass spectrometrists, they will get even more confused (except if they read Wikipedia). However, the relevant document in this matter is the ISO 31 and Kermit can write as much as he desires, when it comes to quantities he MUST comply with ISO 31 and if he does not his writting is just not relevant. It's that simple. BTW, I did not propose OR to Kermit, I just explained him the IUPAC green book. If I explain you how a mass spectrometer works, I do not do any OR. Doing research is not quite that simple.
8) Retaliation: Nick, what you write is quite inaccurate: I critisiced the inconsistent definition of the Kermit work group long before he rejected my advice about complying to the IUPAC green book. Therefore my critique cannot be retaliatory. In fact it is quite the opposite way. After Kermit exposed himself as completely ignorant when it comes to quantities (he wrote for example [4]: The elementary charge e is 1.602 176 53(14) × 10-19 and [...]) he got so infuriated that he not only ignored my advice, he also requsted a retaliatory deletion of the article mass-to-charge ratio which you supported (against our truce agreement) and which is the reason for the current RFA. Instead of keeping to the rules of our truce you could not resist to behave retaliatory. Too bad.
8b) Nick, your mass spectra article had (and still has) some serious errors that made my teeth crack. Even so, I never touched it because this would have been against our truce agreement. Only after you you broke the truce agreement I re-started to improve the article. Why should I keep to an agreement if you are no longer keeping to it? This is in not retaliatory.
9) Nick, even though I have been harsh to you at some times, let me tell you that you are a really nice guy. You are smart enough to realize that I am in fact right, and you are sincere enough to publicly state this even though it could hurt your case against me. I feel really bad that I cause you so much pain. Sometimes I wonder why you so desperately fight for this missconcepted m/z. I then imagine, for example, that you are working on a software called m over z and that this name therefore is extremely important for your business, which makes me feel really bad. Or sometimes I wonder if it could be really true that you are just the same stubborn person as I am? In this case, should we not rather join our forces since we obvioisly have so much in common? Anyway, it is really late here and I need to go asleep. See you soon.
BTW: my Millikan is a much better name for e. I don't know if you know this, but Millikan actually was the person who measured your e, which therefore should be called Millikan. This goes much better with Dalton and, you guessed it, Thomson. e is a really bad name for a unit, because it is not realy a name but a symbol. Therefore we would still need a name and it would be someting like "elemetary charge unit". Nope, too uggly. Millikan is much better. --- Caution: this, by the way, is pure OR
1) I insist that Th has only been used with m/z ...
2) The new rules indicating that the term mass-to-charge ratio is deprecated is a draft rule not official yet.
This ruling would instead seem to indicate that we should delete Kehrli's favorite article Mass-to-charge ratio and all references to the unit Th from Kehrli's logic.
3) ... if metrology is ignored by ~100% of those in the field
4) Again we should not ignore the prevailing usage.
6) In other words:IUPAC has accepted the term for use in mass spectrometry.
7) The green book exists, the gold book exists, metrology exists, mass spectrometry specific notation exists and they are all in contradiction.
Kehrli uses wikipedia to criticise decisions by IUPAC often in essay or bulleted list format, this behavior has continued for months and as recently as during the request for arbitration:
There are volumes of less obvious evidence in this regard which persists which more subtly degrade the quality of the affected articles.
Kehrli has expressed in the past the specific desire to correct the way mass spectrometrists notate their spectra:
Kehrli has, in a manner that appears to impersonate an administrator, threatened me:
Kehrli has recreated previously deleted articles in violation of admin rulings and wikipedia policy:
As recently as two weeks ago:
Kehrli has removed dispute tags from articles despite knowing that it is disputed. This has also been done as persistent edit warring manner:
Kehrli believes that wikipedia is a place to present and discover truth. As evidenced within his argument above and in the request for arbitration:
"Wikipedia is about verifiability and truth..."Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kehrli#Statement_by_User:Kehrli
His seventh assertion above.
This is also evidenced by his inability to distinguish between the fact that I agree with him about how many things should be but disagree with him about how things are. If I were to make the rules and force everyone in the world to subscribe to my POV I would make a new unit e for the elementary charge unit and make every one label their spectra "m/q (Da/e)". Pretty close to his suggestion. But unfortunantly IUPAC makes the rules, is somewhat inconsistent and confusing and everyone in the world (minus a few) follow the m/z convention for the x-axis of a mass spectrum. My suggestion is elegant, consistent and imho better but absolutely not notable and doesn't belong here.
There is a distinction between accuracy and truth that kehrli refuses to accept. I want wikipedia to be accurate. It should be apparant even on this page that kehrli wants wikipedia to present a greater truth and be more enlightened than the real world around it. To sort out the messy inconsistencies of the world and present a new more elegant thesis.
Many more examples in Talk:Mass-to-charge ratio
The bottom line is that the appropriate place for him to change the practices of scientists is not here but in the scientific literature. From a chemistry perspective biochemists use all sorts of "outdated", "incorrect" nomenclature (e.g. D-,L- designations for stereochemistry rather than R-,S-) however that does not mean that I should go around changing all of the biochemistry pages (except as footnotes/asides to assist chemists in understanding biochemistry nomenclature and visa versa) to the chemistry standard and try to suppress the prevailing biochemistry standards and argue against them incessantly on the biochemistry talk pages.
Kehrli presents original research by synthesis when not allowed to present opinion.
This is the most difficult for most to understand but essentially it goes like this:
1) IUPAC says "m" is the official symbol of mass and Q is the official symbol of charge.
2) Cooks and rockwood suggested the unit thomson Th in conjunction with m/z for use in mass spectrometry.
1+2) Therefore "m/q (Th)" is the right notation to use and should be represented as the most important notation. It doesn't matter that it has never ever appeared in the scientific literature since units and symbols are independent. It doesn't matter that IUPAC says m/z is the correct way to label the x-axis of a mass spectrum since they are being internally inconsistent.
This is spread all over the talk pages of the affected articles and this arbitration request. As I mention above I personally believe in much of the conclusions of Kherli's original research. That doesn't make OR okay.
Also I would note that the head of the IUPAC comittee with the proper jurisdiction in this matter has expressly disagreed with Kehrli's OR. Additionally Kehrli directly petitioned IUPAC with his OR and it was swiftly rejected.[16] In fact the original totally disputed tag was placed on mass-to-charge ratio by User:Kmurray, the head of the IUPAC comittee, who also later proposed it for deletion.
Kehrli has behaved in a retalitory manner.
For one by writing articles that criticize the conclusions of the IUPAC comittee that rejected his proposal. I think that this almost amounts to a personal attack.
Standard_definitions_of_terms_relating_to_mass_spectrometry Other deleted articles
Secondly by tagging "my" articles as disputed in retaliation for my tagging "his" articles and refusing to give clear requests for citations.
Kehrli has persistently disrupted the ability of other editors to carry on constructive discussions by presenting his agenda and POV on the talk pages of affected articles.
There is clearly a need to debate the accuracy of articles; however kehrli has refused to discuss issues of debate in the context of writing an accurate, better article. This again is an issue of distinguishing guinuine disagreement about accuracy and the pursuit of truth and a better solution for the world. By insisting on elegance and internal consisency we are unable to represent reality accurately. By insisting on everything being right or wrong rather than just "the way things are" we are unable to carry on discussions that produce higher quality more accurate articles. I guess I may have some culpability in engaging with him at certain points but I was assuming good faith; at first by thinking he was confused, then by thinking that he didn't understand the purpose of wikipedia and could be enlightened.
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.