Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2

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)

Case Opened on 15:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Case Closed on 17:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

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.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

• Kkmurray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Nick Y. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kehrli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statements by parties

Statement by Kkmurray

This request involves WP:SOURCE, WP:WEIGHT and the disruptive editing of User:Kehrli at Kendrick mass and Kendrick (unit). The dispute is similar to one resolved in 2006 in the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli that involved the mass and unit articles mass-to-charge ratio, Thomson (unit) and mass spectrum. The recent issue has over the past year been extensively discussed at Talk:Kendrick mass, has gone through a RfC,[1] was proposed as an amendment to the resolved arbitration case [2] (denied as too old; needing a new case), then went through informal mediation [3][4] that was ultimately unsuccessful.

Kehrli has good intentions but also has deeply held misconceptions and an unwillingness to negotiate and compromise coupled with aggressive POV editing that make it impossible to follow the concepts of WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV in the articles in question. Thanks to the guidance of the Mediation Cabal over the past few months, important issues of sources and weight related to the article content have been thoroughly discussed. Unfortunately, the unwillingness of Kehrli to compromise has moved the dispute beyond article sources and content and into the area of disruptive editing.

The current dispute relates to the units associated with the quantity called Kendrick mass. The majority of sources identified in the mediation process indicate that the unit associated with Kendrick mass is the Dalton unit (abbreviated Da). The minority source view is that the unit associated with Kendrick mass is a new Kendrick unit (abbreviated Ke). The compromise proposed by mediator Lord Roem was 1) merge the content fork Kendrick (unit) article to the Kendrick mass article, 2) in the article lead cite the majority view of the "Dalton unit" approach and note the minority view of the "Kendrick unit" approach, and 3) include an additional mention of the Kendrick unit approach in the article body. This compromise was supported by Kkmurray and Nick Y. but not supported by Kehrli. While informal mediation was successful at identifying appropriate sources, it was ultimately unsuccessful in achieving agreement on due weight.

This is a continuation of tendentious editing in articles related to mass and mass units that resulted in Kehrli's ban and editing block in 2006. Arbitration appears to be the only remaining recourse in the current situation.

Statement by Nick Y.

The case has already been accepted and Kkmurray has given an excellent statement above. I will only add that I would like to see as an outcome a more persistent solution to the problem than resolving this one issue. This is not a content dispute per se, it is a philosophical dispute about the nature of Wikipedia. The issue reduces down to the whether the most prevalent notations and units in a particular field/context should be used or the most "correct" and universal notations and units and what weight should be used in representing them in articles. There are of course factors beyond commonality of usage that do come into play that can make this complex; however, the positions that Kehrli takes are far from the sort of subtlety you might expect from the average editor. This case involves two notations/units. One has many literature sources over many years the other essentially one (from 2010), although Kehrli interprets a couple others to his/her favor. There are no harmonization committees that have even considered weighing in on this. There are some documents that have broad applicability that could possibly be interpreted to suggest that one is better than the other, maybe. The only person doing such interpretations is Kehrli. Essentially, Kehrli claims that we should use this new notation because it is better in his/her opinion. This particular case is a good example, but please look beyond it and find a persistent solution. Should common units that might be interpreted here on Wikipedia discussion pages as being on conflict with metrological standards be deprecated by Wikipedians, themselves? Should nascent units that are consistent with metrological standards trump established, common units that are not (according to whom)? Should we have a wikipedia page about every unit ever proposed, but that has really never/yet taken off? Does context matter? Can different fields use different units? I think all of this is well summarized in Wikipedia documents such as weight, yet in this case there needs to a persistent and enforceable guidance for Kehrli as he/she persistently misinterprets these over many years and is not open to guidance that lacks teeth. --Nick Y. (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Kehrli

(Clerk note) No statement was provided by this party before the time of opening. AGK [•] 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This request involves WP:SOURCE, WP:WEIGHT and the disruptive editing of User:Kmurray at Kendrick mass and Kendrick (unit).

Kmurray has good intentions but also has deeply held misconceptions and an unwillingness to negotiate and compromise coupled with aggressive POV editing that make it impossible for him to follow the concepts of WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV in the articles in question. The Mediation Cabal over the past few months failed due to the lack of technical knowledge of the mediator, the unwillingness of Kmurray to provide sources and to compromise.

The current dispute relates to the terminology used to describe "Kendrick analysis". Kmurray insists on a term "Kendrick mass" that is not properly defined and hence the understanding what it means is ambiguous. Kmurray failed to give a definition and its source of "Kendrick mass". Still he insists on this term. This is ok with me. What is not ok is that he deletes and changes my articles and my edits which use better, more modern and well defined terminology that is according to the international rules of metrology.

Kmurray tries to frame the issue as a disagreement on methods. This is not true. It is purely a disagreement on terminology. Kmurray pushes an outdated chemistry jargon that nobody can understand outside chemistry. Unfortunately, this outdated jargon is still used in chemistry even though it does not comply with the IUPAC green book, e.g. the rules of terminology that the chemists agreed on.

Kmurray claims a majority position without having supplied any proofs or sources for that claim. He also relates his "majority position" to the chemistry community, which is not appropriate. Majority in this case should refer to the whole field of science. All in all Kmurray has a very chemistry-centric view and misses the bigger picture. He does not realize that Wikipedia is not a site for chemists and that therefore a language must be used that is free of jargon and that can be understood by regular Wikipedia users. This translation from jargon to understandable language is what I have been promoting. The "understandable language" is given by the international vocabulary of metrology which is an international consensus on language on quantities and units. However, the understandable language I choose can also be sourced from chemistry publications about the Kendrick analysis.

This is in some way a continuation of the case that resulted in a ban and editing block in 2006. This ban was the result of ambiguous wording in an article to which I referred. In the mean time, one of the authors of this article in question came to Wikipedia and clarified the ambiguity in my sense [5] and complained to Kmurray about his editing style [6]. Therefore the ban of 2006 was inappropriate in hindsight. However, I have to admit that my editing style was a bit rough at that time. Today I have learned and I claim that Kmurray is now the rougher editor. For example he renamed a page I created without discussion.

I do not think arbitration is the correct venue. This case is purely technical and should go to mediation with a mediator that is an expert in metrology. The limited information from the user pages would lead me to believe that Kirill has a strong technology background and is maybe best qualified to understand the issue and do a proper mediation. However, I do understand that I may be too late with this suggestion.

If we continue with arbitration, the real issue (jargon vs. understandable language) will not be judged properly because this can only be done by experts in metrology. It will come down to a judgment about formal editing behavior. Even then I should win this case because Kmurray has engaged in disruptive editing by renaming an article I created without any prior discussion and thereby started the case (see diff [7]).

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (10/0/0/0)

• Waiting for other statements, but my first inclination is to Accept, as other forms of DR have been tried. SirFozzie (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ditto, looks like all options of dispute resolution or consensus-finding have been tried. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Tentatively Accept at this point, it seems it's reached the threshold for Arbcom's remit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. This also is a tentative accept in that it's subject to reviewing Kehrli's statement, but given that we've been here before I think we will need to proceed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. Risker (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. Shell ^babelfish 03:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Accept  Roger ^talk 08:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

(Clerk note) There was no temporary injunction. AGK [•] 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) 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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Editorial process

2) 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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy

3) Wikipedia is not a venue for advocating or advancing a viewpoint or position. 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 13 to 0 at 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Scientific notation

4.2) Articles containing units of scientific measurement should generally use the units and notations that are used most often by contemporary reliable sources within the field. Exceptions may be made for valid reasons, such as in historical contexts, or in articles concerning the units of measurement themselves.

Passed 13 to 0 at 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Original research and synthesis

5) Wikipedia does not publish original thought. Articles may not contain any original synthesis, that is, a combination or analysis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly stated by the sources.

Passed 13 to 0 at 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) 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 that its use violates Wikipedia's guidelines against inaccessible jargon.

Passed 13 to 0 at 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Kehrli

2) Kehrli (talk · contribs) has improperly used sources to support his views on the use of Kendrick units.

Passed 13 to 0 at 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Remedies

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 topic banned

1.2) Kehrli (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from metrology-related articles, broadly defined, including talk pages and discussions.

Passed 13 to 0 at 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement

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-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.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

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.

• Kehrli (talk · contribs) — Warned for violation of his topic ban from metrology, per a discussion at AE. It was decided to withhold a block this time but log a warning of future action. Editor notified. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)