User talk:Kehrli/a

Request to ban: Kkmurray
Initiated by  Kkmurray (talk) at 03:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 1.1) Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z.


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Username2 (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)

Amendment 1

 * Remedy 1.1) Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z and from articles related to Kendrick mass and mass units.

Statement by user:kkmurray
There is a dispute regarding WP:OR and WP:SYN at Kendrick mass and Kendrick (unit) that is a continuation of the dispute that was discussed in the resolved arbitration case Kehrli involving the mass and unit articles Mass-to-charge ratio, Thomson (unit) and Mass spectrum. User:Kehrli violated the letter of the arb ruling on two occasions and now, while not violating the letter of the arb ruling, is violating the spirit of the ruling by reengaging in almost identical original research editing. Prior discussion is at Talk:Kendrick mass.

As in the resolved arbitration case, User:Kehrli has over several months pushed original research and POV. As in the previous dispute, User:Kehrli has used the general guidelines documents ISO 31, the IUPAC green book and other general documents to justify point of view pushing regarding mass units. This argument is synthesis because it goes beyond the cited documents that do not mention Kendrick mass or unit. User:Kehrli claims that these general documents "define what physical quantities and units are and how they are handled. Hence they define how a mass and therefore the kendrick mass scale must be handled." The argument is that the IUPAC Green Book and ISO 31 have guidelines on mass units and how they are to be used and defined. Kendrick mass is obtained by scaling other units therefore IUPAC Green Book and ISO 31 as interpreted by User:Kehrli are the final authority on Kendrick mass to the exclusion of scientific literature that is in conflict with this view. This is the same justification that was used in the resolved arbitration case..

User:Kehrli has used this argument to dismiss all sources from the scientific literature on this topic. For example, an article in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" 10.1073/pnas.0805069105 that defines Kendrick mass in a way that User:Kehrli believes is inconsistent with the IUPAC Green Book and ISO 31 is "faulty and extremely poorly reviewed" and "a disgrace for science", contains "terrible errors" is "rubbish" and "should never have been published in this form. The peer review process failed completely." Numerous other papers in journals such as Analytical Chemistry, Accounts of Chemical Research and Atmospheric Environment that define Kendrick mass in ways that are inconsistent with User:Kehrli’s view are described as "so faulty that one has to wonder whether they were reviewed at all." These statements and views are not consistent with WP:VERIFY because they advocate the higher truth of IUPAC Green Book and ISO 31 over the verifiability of the scientific literature.

As in the past dispute leading to the resolved arbitration case, User:Kehrli has engaged in disruptive activity such as deleting talk page comments, inappropriately flagging other users talk page comments., merging without consensus., removing page flags during discussion, , WP:PERSONAL and general lack of WP:AGF.

Dispute resolution steps so far
This dispute has been discussed extensively for several months (primarily at Talk:Kendrick mass) and has gone through a proposed merge and a request for comment. A limitation the discussion is that it has been difficult to recruit a large number of editors for comment. However, the discussion has been useful in establishing the views of the editors and several new scientific references have been found that provide additional facts that shed light on the dispute. Further discussion will not likely be useful as the participants have expressed their opinions and User:Kehrli does not seem willing to back off on the ISO 31/IUPAC Green Book supremacy argument. Since the dispute involves user behavior rather than content and is a continuation of the prior dispute regarding mass units and original research, the avenue of a request for amendment of the prior arbitration seems appropriate.

A summary of the dispute and resolution to date is below.

Kendrick unit article created December 18, 2009 by User:Kehrli 

PROD January 17, 2010 by User:Glenfarclas 

dePROD January 17, 2010 by User:Glenfarclas 

Move Kendrick unit to Kendrick mass January 25, 2010 by User:Kkmurray 

Reverse move and redirect Kendrick mass to Kendrick unit August 17, 2010 by User:Kehrli  

Restore Kendrick mass and propose merge from Kendrick unit to Kendrick mass August 17, 2010 by User:Kkmurray  

Request for comments from WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Mass spectrometry, September 24-27, 2010 by User:Kkmurray   

Open RfC October 17, 2010 by User:Kkmurray

Examples of recent original research related to Kendrick mass

 * Kendrick mass
 * Kendrick (unit)
 * Atomic mass unit
 * Thomson (unit)
 * Mass-to-charge ratio
 * The "Kehrli Plot" and original methods:
 * Rationale for original research and rejecting published scientific literature:

Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

 * Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).