This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Original research

1) Original research, however well done, is not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

My notation is not OR!! It is the standard notation as required by ISO 31 and the current version of the IUPAC green book. On the other hand, m/z does not comply to those rules, as is explained here: m/z.

No matter how right you are, still original research. In two years perhaps they will all catch up to you. Fred Bauder 14:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred - you are wrong - I am citing the current version of the IUPAC green book. Show me my OR and I will show you the place where it is stated in the official rules established by ISO 31. Kehrli 14:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kehrli, please try to understand that well cited original research is still original research. The bottom line in this case is that what notation people use is what they use and what IUPAC says is what IUPAC says and we can not combine them to synthesize a new thesis, that would be research. There is nothing wrong with stating in a non-disruptive manner (as a footnote and NPOV) that there is a conflict between certain rules, other rules and practice. I have done this myself in my contributions to this subject.--Nick Y. 17:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, what you are writing is wrong. My terminology is strictly according to ISO 31 and therefore cannot be OR. And you know this. --Kehrli 10:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The notation that I favor is according to the rules of ISO 31 which is the highest official body in the field of metrology, quantities and units. My notation is also used by more scientific fields than m/z. m/z is only used by mass spectrometrists, whereas m/q is used by mass spectrometrists, by electron microscopists, by lithographers, in high energy physics, in cosmology, and many other fields. --Kehrli 14:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this principle. I would clarify that proposed usages that are not completely accepted may sometimes be a notable footnote if sufficiently common. In other words I agree more strongly with the first sentence. I really hope not to confuse anyone by saying this but, m/q or m/Q is the only way to denote the mass divided by the charge in any physics sense however this does not make it the notation for the mass-to-charge ratio refered to in mass spectrometry, although they are roughly the same thing. (q=z*e) m/z (unitless) is near universal in mass spectrometry (less physics problems and some other minor exceptions).--Nick Y. 18:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol m/z for mass-to-charge ratio as pushed by Nick is the notation used by mass spectrometrists only and is not in line with the standards of the wider scientific community as established by the ISO 31. Even the mass spectrometry IUPAC comitee has recognized this and therefore no longer calls m/z a mass-to-charge ratio (see m/z). The use of m/z as a mass-to-charge ratio as pushed by Nick is therefore POV. --Kehrli 10:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ban due to disruption

3) Users who disrupt Wikipedia may be banned from the disruptive activity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree very strongly with this. This is even more important now that wikipedia is prioitizing quality.--Nick Y. 19:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick should be banned for disruptingly pushing a special interest group notation that is not in line with the standards established by the wider scientific community as outlined in the IUPAC green book. --Kehrli 10:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1) My work is not OR. It striclty follows the ISO 31 standards and the current version of the IUPAC green book.

2) I do not care if mass spectrometrists use m/z. I only care if they use it as a mass-to-charge ratio since this is no longer "legal". See m/z for details. Fred Bauder obviously has not understood the locus of dispute. --Kehrli 14:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Science, there is not something like 'legal or illegal notations. Yes, there are bodies that try to harmonize everything, but they are not agencies that issue laws. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is the ISO 31 body that issues directions about quantities and units. Wikipedia should keept to those standards since these are the international standards agreed upon by many national bodies and also bodies representing interest groups. It represents the widest consensus. IUPAC and IUPAP both try to keep the the ISO 31 standards. So should wikipedia. --Kehrli 10:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kim van der Linde. We should be cautious even after the adoption of the new rules to be in line with current usage. The rule may be rejected or the transition may take a very long time. I do think it is appropriate to note its historical usage, its deprecation by IUPAC and that its usage may be in transition. I would note that the term "mass-to-charge ratio" when used outside of mass spectrometry is somewhat incidental such that one could just as easily say "mass per charge" or "mass divided by charge" without any change in conotation. Thus an article exclusively about "mass-to-charge ratio" in the physics sense is somewhat pointless since it simply means m divided by q. It would be like having an article about "mass times velocity".--Nick Y. 18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, there is an article about mass times velocity. This physical quantity is called impulse and it indeed has its own article. Thanks for proving my point. --Kehrli 10:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is an article about Momentum (p=mv) and no article about mass-times-velocity. That was my point.--Nick Y. 18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually mass/charge is called mass-to-charge ratio in the same way as mass times velocity is called momentum. Thanks for proving my point. --Kehrli 08:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kehrli's viewpoint

2) Kehrli has set forth his viewpoint regarding the dispute at User:Kehrli/mz misconception.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

My viewpoint regarding the dispute is not at User:Kehrli/mz misconception. This page only stores my first edits that still contained OR. My viewpoint regarding the dispute is on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli/Evidence. It no longer contains OR. --Kehrli 14:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Kehrli has learned somewhat about what is appropriate behavior on wikipedia. However I have found that his motivations have remained the same and has continued to strive for the same goals through less blatantly unacceptable means. His goals are funadamentally at odds with wikipedia. In other words Kehrli's position has changed to navigate the best path towards his goals given the pressures around him.--Nick Y. 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick is correct, I still keep to the same goals: improving Wikipedia and making sure that not a special interest group (a sub group of mass spectrometrists) hijack the term mass-to-charge ratio and establishes bogous terminology that is not compliant to the consesnus of the wider scientific comminity as described in ISO 31. I think this is a very good goal in line with the wikipedia principles. --Kehrli 10:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Original research by Kehrli

3) Kehrli has engaged in original research [1] [2] [3] [4] deleted article viewable only by administrators and here justifies it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I do not engage in OR. All my edits are striclty according to the international standards of ISO 31. Nick's edits, however, are not according to this standard. --Kehrli 14:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this conclusion is clear. More recent edits by kehrli have become increasingly more sophisticated in obfuscating that it is indeed OR however I hope that with careful reading and a moderate understanding of the subject that even many of these can be seen by the arb commitee to be OR. Note for example the change from words such as "criticism" to weasel words such as "comments". I would also note that this OR is of pretty good quality. It is increasingly well cited and well argued OR.--Nick Y. 18:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is so well cited and backed up with ISO 31 and the IUPAC green book that it no longer is OR. That is a fact which Nick tries to hide with his weasel words. So far he failed to show me one single OR statement of mine (except on talk pages and private pages where OR is allowed) . --Kehrli 10:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, show me my OR! --Kehrli 10:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed standard

4) The draft of the new edition of the IUPAC green book [5] which Kehrli has used as a source and inspiration is plainly marked, "For Peer Review Only".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The current version of the IUPAC green book states exactly the same things regarding m/z as the new draft version. I often refered to the new draft version because I did not know that the current version is online. However, now I know that it is online and you can find it here: IUPAC green book. --Kehrli 14:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kehrli banned

1) Kehrli is banned for two years from articles which relate to m/z.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think this is reasonable. Although I would hate to see him casuing similar problems elsewhere. Perhaps there should be some probationary status outside of this area by which problems can be quickly adressed. I do think that the proposal here would need to be more broadly interpreted, as in artilces relating to m/q, mass spectrometry in general etc. I would warn the arb commitee to not allow wikilawyering of this proposed decision such that Kehrli can continue his campaign or otherwise cause disruption. Future enforcers of this decision should be encouraged to interpret it broadly when disruption has occured.--Nick Y. 18:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another proof that Nick is trying to hijack the term mass-to-charge ratio for a special interest group. Please stop him from doing this. The mass-to-charge ratio is a fundamental physical concept used by many different fields of science. Mass spectrometrists have no authority whatsoever to redefine this term or to even discontinue it (as Nick sometimes proposes). They are free not to use it anymore (as they did, see m/z) but they need to leave it alone. It is too sad to see how a group vandalizes wikipedia for their special interests. --Kehrli 14:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kehrli prohibited from changing notation

2) Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Fred Bauder quite obviously does not understand the issue. I do not want to change the notation m/z, I only want to make sure that it is not used as a mass-to-charge ratio because this use has been discontinued by all official bodies, even by the one cited by Nick. Read here: m/z. --Kehrli 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the proposal above this one. I think this has more potential for wikilawyering and continued disruption. It might be good in additon to the one above. I think Kehrli's response clearly demonstrated the potential for wiggling out of this and continuing his campaign. He will claim that mass-to-charge ratio does not include m/z via IUPAC citation and then put forward his thesis in that space carefully never mentioning m/z by name but instead grossly misrepresenting m/q, and mass spectrometry.--Nick Y. 18:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is: mass-to-charge ratio is a widely used term and should not be hijacked by mass spectrometry special interest groups. Mass-to-charge ratio needs to be defined according to the international standards od ISO 31. --Kehrli 10:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by block

1) Should Kehrli violate any ban placed on him by this decision or engage in substitution of notation, he may be blocked for an appropriate time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kehrli#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I suspect Kehrli of editing under several anonymous accounts. He may have access to / use multiple IP adresses. I do not believe that this was done with bad intentions in the past, mearly convienence.--Nick Y. 19:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: