Revision as of 15:30, 14 March 2011

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 17 active arbitrators. 9 support or oppose votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

None.

Proposed temporary injunctions

None

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Role of the Committee

1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to rule on content disputes among editors.

Support:

1. Por supuesto. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Sorry, late to party - had to go make dinner. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. True, although occasionally we are asked to design some method of breaking a logjam when everything else has failed, and once in a blue moon we even do it. (As a matter purely of drafting style, for what if anything it is worth, I usually prefer to put the principles about what the Arbitration Committee does not do lower down, below the more useful and affirmative ones.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

2) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas—such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological, religious or political dispute – or to publish or promote original research or Fringe theories that have not gained widespread acceptance is prohibited.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Although, as I also noted in voting on Kehrli 2 the other night, our including a general principle such as this in a decision does not mean that every one of the problematic behaviors listed is relevant to this particular case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Articles should be widely understandable

3) Articles in Misplaced Pages 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.

Support:

1. This is from WP:TECHNICAL, but seemed very apposite. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Yes, although this does not negate the possibility that an article will have more complex sections as well as less complex ones, or that some topics are inherently complicated. (Einstein, chided because the theory of relativity was very complicated and hard to understand, supposedly once said that "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not more simple than that.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral Point of View

4) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view.

Support:

1. second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

4.1) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where the mainstream of sourcing provides multiple or opposing viewpoints, the article must not focus on only one of these viewpoints.

Support:

1. technically true...third choice as others are better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. third choice. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Second choice (equal with 4). Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. on the balance, best option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. This one is better Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. First choice. There are still other wordings available from recent cases, but enough choices is enough. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editorial Process

5) Misplaced Pages 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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conduct and Decorum

6) Misplaced Pages 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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Equal preference with 8.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer 8.1, proposed below. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

8.1) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are predictably or repeatedly disruptive.

Support:

1. Proposed. Not all disruption is avoidable. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Equal preference with 8, at least for now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of article talk pages

9) The purpose of a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages 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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. overwhelming the talk page in a way that meant no-one else could get a word in edgewise was a real problem in this case.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. "Will not be tolerated" is a bit strong--prefer "is disruptive" as a simpler formulation, but not sufficiently to propose an alternative. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Per Elen of the Roads. Although I wouldn't take it too far, there are some parallels to the Shakespeare case we decided last month. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Expert editors and original research

10) Expert editors with published resources are welcome on Misplaced Pages, 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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. (Spelled out an acronym.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Original research (Mathematics)

11) Routine arithmetic calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are permitted within articles. However, deriving mathematical results from first principles, without reference to a published source, constitutes Original research within the definition used by the English Misplaced Pages.

Support:

1. Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. First choice (it's what it says in WP:OR). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. First choice at least for now; see my comment on 11.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

11.1) Routine arithmetic calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are permitted within articles. However, deriving mathematical results from first principles, where the derivation hasn't been published in a reliable source, is original research within the definition used by the English Misplaced Pages.

Support:

1. Rephrased following a note on my talk page from Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs). PhilKnight (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   Second choice - I would prefer editors to give a reference for the derivation. This is the opposite of the outcome desired by Kiefer Wolfowitz BTW --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Moving to oppose.

2. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC) See discussion on talkpage. This stricter version would appear to prohibit the use of substitute figures in examples of derivation, and does not match the wording in WP:OR. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Need to think about this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Per Casliber; I also want to think about whether this is a policy decision of a type the committee generally does not make. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:37, 14 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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Subject only to a query about nomenclature. A couple of years ago the committee moved away from using terminology such as "probation," "parole," etc. in its decisions, I believe to avoid what were perceived as excessively legalistic overtones. The current term "discretionary sanctions" was coined (I believe by Kirill) at that time. At this point, I'm honestly not sure whether we (or the community on the noticeboards) still "put articles on probation," or whether discretionary sanctions is the way to go. But I'm open to the possibility that I'm just being finicky. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

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.

Support:

1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Exactly so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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'.

Support:

1. Rewritten at request of Martin Hogbin and others (see talkpage) prior to other votes being cast. The desire is to elucidate why a maths problem has a war going on over the solution, since you have to get extremely far advanced to come across math problems that don't have just one right answer.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. I wonder if the real answer here is that there is not a Monty Hall problem, but two or more problems of a very similar nature that are being conflated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Article has been subject 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 .

Support:

1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Glkanter

6) Glkanter (talk · contribs) has engaged in tendentious editing, albeit that this may have been with good faith intentions, and has engaged in poor conduct during this case.(,;statement repeated four times in different places;)

Support:

1. I do not believe his intention is malicious, but the effect is such that it made discussion towards a consensus impossible. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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 (,,,). His conduct during the case has been poor.

Support:

1. One can see him doing this, even in the case--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Rick Block

8) Rick Block (talk · contribs) has displayed ownership of the article, and has been excessively controlling of both content and presentation (, pick any archive of the talkpage).

Support:

1. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Richard Gill

9) Gill110951 (talk · contribs), real name Richard Gill, has used his experience of editing and discussing this article to provide material for published research, which he has then introduced into the article.

Support:

1. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed 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.

Glkanter topic banned

1) Glkanter is topic banned from the article or talkpage for a period of one year. He may take part in discussions about the Monty Hall problem on the talkpages of other editors.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.1) Glkanter 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.

Support:

1. This is my preferred sanction --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Nijdam topic banned

2) Nijdam is topic banned from the article or talkpage for a period of one year. He may take part in discussions about the Monty Hall problem on the talkpages of other editors.

Support:

1. Preferred sanction. He needs to stop editing the article and talkpage, but could still contribute to discussion in other places. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. First choice --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

3.1) Rick Block is topic banned from the article or talkpage for a period of one year. He may take part in discussions about the Monty Hall problem on the talkpages of other editors.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Richard Gill restricted

4) Richard Gill is restricted to 1RR (one revert per day, unless reverting vandalism) on the Monty Hall article for a period of one year

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

4.1) Richard Gill is topic banned from the article or talkpage for a period of one year. He may take part in discussions about the Monty Hall problem on the talkpages of other editors.

Support:

1. First choice and his own suggestion. He must have put everything into the article from his publications by now - give other editors a chance to integrate it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discretionary Sanctions

5) Any uninvolved administrator may place Discretionary Sanctions on accounts editing in this area, after a first warning.

Support:

1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. after 22 pages of archives...indeed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discretionary sanctions (original research)

6) More specifically, since a particular issue in this case has been the desire of many editors to put forward their own original explanation of the outcome, discretionary sanctions may be applied to any editor who attempts to insert explanations derived from first principles (rather than from secondary sources) into the article, or who persists in inserting lengthy first principles expositions into the article talkpage.

Support:

1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any sanctioned editor violate any sanction placed on him by this decision, he/she may be blocked for an appropriate time by any uninvolved administrator.

Support:

1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass

{Passing principles}

{Passing findings}

{Passing remedies}

{Passing enforcement provisions}

Proposals which do not pass

{Failing principles}

{Failing findings}

{Failing remedies}

{Failing enforcement provisions}

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

Oppose

Comment