Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli/Workshop

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

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 temporary injunctions

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:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

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]

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]

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:

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:

Proposed findings of fact

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]

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]

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]

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:

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.

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:

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]

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:

Proposed enforcement

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:

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:

Analysis of evidence

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:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: