Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motion by Martin Hogbin
1) That the accusations of gross incivility, personal attacks, and edit warring against one editor in particular be dismissed.

This argument has lasted nearly three years now and has got a little heated at times with most editors losing their temper at times and making over-the-top remarks. That one or more editors might have briefly overstepped the mark in nearly three years of heated argument should not make an arbitration case.

The accusation of a SPA is a laughable case of wikilawyering and the RfC ended in no action of any kind. This is clearly an attempt by the filing party to discredit editors who disagree with him and should be recognised by the arbitrators as such and dismissed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't think we're in a position to dismiss any of the case at this time. However, the parties can rest assured that we rarely base a finding or sanction on isolated remarks or losses of temper, but rather only on a consistent or serious pattern of misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Brad has it right. We will wait to see what evidence is provided to substantiate complaints before considering any claims. SirFozzie (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * I support the motion (and agree with the supporting arguments), full heartedly. Richard Gill (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence concerning Glkanter has been posted now. I trust the arbitrators can decide for themselves whether this is a laughable case of wikilawyering, or whether accusing me of wikilawyering is a laughable attempt to discredit me.  -- Rick Block (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The arbitrators are of course correct that the motion is premature before the evidence is posted and examined. But from my position as an observer of the disputes, the assertion that one person is responsible for the lack of progress on the article seems absurd. I trust evidence will be presented to offset that claim and put it in perspective.  Woonpton (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I largely concur with the analysis and sentiment expressed in this motion. --Lambiam 11:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Motion by Martin Hogbin
That the editors who have shown a degree of long-term page ownership should be prevented from exerting undue control over the article.

Rick Block, Glopk, and later Nijdam have exerted a disproportionate level of control over the page content despite numerous objections from a total of 12 registered editors and 10 different IP addresses. Over the same time 5 registered editors (including those named above) and two IP addresses have shown support for Rick's position. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Although really a proposed remedy not a motion, it can stay here for now. If you want to create a section of proposals, you can move it yourself.  This is the sort of thing that Arbcom will want to look at as one potential way forward - although naturally one always hopes it won't come to sanctioning editors who believe they are acting for the best, and who should be able to conform to Wikipedia norms for best practice.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * As it comes to facts, there isn't such thing as proportion and disproportion. It is a pity that a lot of people, including Wikipedia editors do not understand the issue, and yet consider themselves as experts on the matter. At least Rick Block, Glopk and myself, we know what we're talking about. Nijdam (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Nijdam refers to what he considers Truths, not to verifable facts. I also had to learn the distinction, the hard way. Everybody believes they know what they're talking about. Not everybody sees it the same way. Most importantly, reliables sources don't see it the same way. See WP:Truth. Richard Gill (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * T'row da bums out! Glkanter (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comment Martin makes in support of his motion. This has been my experience and the experience of others. Voluntary restraint on the part of those editors would be a good solution. Richard Gill (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you a party??Nijdam (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean, should I voluntarily restrain myself? Yes, I should. Difficult, because I'm quite addicted to my daily shot of MHP. So someone should tie me down. Richard Gill (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the evidence on which this claim is based (diffs, please)? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)




 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Question to GLKanter
In section 1.4 of your evidence, you post a diff of you saying the same thing four times as proof that Rick Block is editing tendentiously. I cannot figure out why you have done this. Could you explain please.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for asking, as I was not aware that 1.4 was ambiguous.
 * The objective of 1.4 is to show that Rick Block was choosing the worst parts of my diffs, and that only by taking them out of context, he makes me look like a bad guy. So the section begins with me copying Rick Block's exact posting. That's actually Rick Block saying that Glkanter edits tendentiously, using a small portion of my actual diff.
 * Then, I show the entire diff, which is meant to show that rather than editing tendentiously, I had made a very thoughtful post.


 * Later in a subsequent section, I realized Rick Block had actually abridged the quote he used, eliminating the first words from:
 * "My viewpoint is, 'There is no possible way I am wrong about this'."
 * and making it:
 * "There is no possible way I am wrong about this"


 * It's my considered opinion, from interacting with Rick Block for 2+ years, that he did that truncating in order to make me look bad, rather than to present the truth for the benefit of the arbitrators. It's consistent with the Gamesmanship and intellectual dishonesty I have accused Rick Block of perpetrating all along. He's been doing this since before I joined the MHP discussions, but unlike nearly every other editor who was stifled by Rick Block, I decided to stick it out, and state what I believe he is doing. Glkanter (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So you did repost that thoughtful post verbatim in several places (which appears to be Rick Block's key point), but you feel that doing so was not tendentious. I'm not sure I see a difference between 'I'm right' and 'my viewpoint is that I'm right', but you obviously do. Could you perhaps explain. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the 4 postings of the same diff were over a period of 2 years, addressed to 4 different editors, and on 4 different pages. I'm trying to show to each new audience of editors that I am a thoughtful person, who is disagreeing with Rick Block, why I am still disagreeing after all this time, and that I am not some grandstanding gadfly, regardless of what Rick Block may have been posting about me that day on that page.

As far as the difference in the actual quote and the modified quote goes, I can't coerce you to see things as I see them. I see no reason other than 'deception' for Rick Block to alter the quote in the first place. Why do *you* think he did that? I don't think altering quotes is either a standard practice, or a good practice. In any case, it's not something I would do. Glkanter (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a very real expectation that Rick Block would indicate that a portion of a sentence from my direct quote is missing, via the inclusion of ellipses. He should have, at a minimum, made it:
 * "... 'There is no possible way I am wrong about this'."

Of course, he shouldn't have altered my actual quote at all. I can't explain why Rick Block didn't follow this convention. Other than as a means of deception. It's just more of the same intellectual dishonesty on Rick Block's part that I have been subjected to for over 2+ years.

You should have seen the wrath of God he brought down on me the *first* time I accused him of ownership, back in February, 2009, I believe. He got some buddies from the Wikipedia Mathematics group to explain how I simply didn't understand probability. Of course, I was just saying the same thing as countless reliable sources, but *I* was uniquely stupid. And wrong. And disruptive. Automatically. That was back when we had endless arguments about the math, and Rick Block, I believe created a talk page exclusively for arguing the math. Which is wrong in *so* many Wikipedia ways. But what did I know? I was the newby, and he's an admin. And everybody else was going along. He's quoting chapter and verse about Wikipedia policy every time I disagreed with him, but that little thing about reliable sources gets overlooked somehow. It's all still there on my user page. Glkanter (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Wikipedia is not a battleground
1) talk:Monty Hall problem is not the place to argue about The Truth concerning the Monty Hall problem. The subpage Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments was created as a place for editors to discuss mathematical issues underlying the Monty Hall problem if they feel the need to do this.  Discussions on the talk page itself should be restricted to proposed changes to the article based on what reliable sources say.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If there is a side that pushes for The Truth in this article it is that of Rick, Glopk, and Nijdam. I have long tried to argue that we can cover the subject in the most appropriate way for our readers without having to make a firm decision on 'The Truth'.  We can do this by having a first part where the problem is explained simply and clearly and 'The Truth' is temporarily put on hold in the interest of clarity.  After that the subject can be fully discussed in a detailed and scholarly way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I recall being told off by Rick Block for discussing issues of Mathematical Truth on user talk pages rather than on the article's own talk page. I am not a diff warrior so I'm not going to search for it. And when I propsoe a change on the talk page I have to support the proposal ... and that is where content comes in again.
 * And what if the editors disagree what the reliable sources say? Sometimes it could be necessary to take some content or context into account, to determine what they are saying. e.g. an article in a mathematics education journal, or an article in a mathematics research journal ... might require some professional background knowledge to read sensibly. Richard Gill (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Happily there are reliable sources that stand up for the truth. No need for a battle, let the sources speak And no leaving out a source because its message is not understood and hence not welcomed. Nijdam (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Problem imo: The lemma, as it is, does not present the point. To the detriment of the reader. Connections remain unclear, violating the logic. The point is that "better knowledge" –  than the pure average probability to win by switching of 2/3  –  just depends on additional underlying assumptions, and joining additional information, and not on the "numbers of the doors" only (see Nijdam's endless urn-problem-discussions). It depends on the "characteristics" of the doors (door selected, door opened by the host, door offered to switch on), and possible (additional) assumptions to be made. And this should be clearly accessible to the reader. Not "nothing but maths obviously can guarantee available additional accurateness and closeness". Actually everything is hidden behind the "mathematical truth". Nothing but question marks for the reader. Of course the article should show the ability of qualified conditional probability also. And, casus belli, foremost it is not meant to be just only a textbook. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get what this attempts to achieve; apparently the proposer has a completely different understanding of the conflict than I have. Given the available sources, it is necessary, as part of the harmonious editing process, to discuss and achieve consensus on: (A) the meaning of what they are saying – which version(s) of MHP are presented, how they are modelled mathematically, the nature of the proofs (if any); (B) the weight that should be given to them, so as to maintain a neutral point of view while not giving undue weight to fringe aspects; (C) how best to present this. You can't skip (A) if you need to discuss (B) and (C). The conflict already arises in that stage, with some editors having a tendency to ascribe disagreement with other editors to a presumed lack of their capability to understand the issues, something that is not helpful. The lack of consensus on (A) percolates then to (B) and (C). Discussing (A) should not be considered "arguing about The Truth". --Lambiam 12:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea that there are 'multiple MHPs' is a canard put forth to foster the confusion that allows OR to masquerade as the mainstream POV of reliable sources that dominates the MHP article. There is only 1 MHP problem statement that results in the 'why is it 2/3 & 1/3 rather than 1/2 & 1/2' Monty Hall Problem paradox. Which is what all the delight is all about. Glkanter (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, not all presentations of the problem use identical formulations, so even if they are abstractly the same problem, it needs some analysis and discussion to reach consensus that they are the same. Then, as you know very well, the infamous paper by Morgan et al. transmogrifies the original problem, as posed by Whittaker/vos Savant, from a one-player game into a two-player game, using a reformulation (search for: "To avoid any confusion, here is the situation:") and uses this sleight-of-hand to excoriate vos Savant for giving "a false proof" (see Seymann's comments on the paper in the same issue of The American Statistician, with which I agree). So there are at least two versions: the original one, and this transmogrification. --Lambiam 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Morgan called the solutions favored by Rick Block and Nijdam 'false' for the very same reasons they call the simple solutions false. Somehow, the MHP article doesn't recognize that. As I wrote above, the problem statements must result in 2/3 & 1/3 or it's not the famous MHP paradox. Morgan's paper claims the result is something else (switching wins at least 50%, as high as 100%). They have since agreed in writing that the outcome is 2/3 & 1/3, but have not clarified their MHP problem statement. All other problem statements have changed premises, generally in text books to demonstrate the need for the tools available in Probability. These do not result in 2/3 & 1/3, and are *not* MHP paradox problem statements. Glkanter (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Lambian - The discussions you last participated in are archived at Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 6. At the time the discussions were at least fairly reasonable (about sources and article content).  The talk page now has 22 (!) pages of archives.  Very recent discussions are again fairly reasonable (about sources and article content), but a lot of the intervening discussions (feel free to peruse these) are not rooted in sources but rather opinions of individual editors about the problem.  -- Rick Block (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of stuff there that does not belong – just as on the 16 archive pages of the talk page of 0.999.... Of course, if you engage in discussion with the non-believers instead of just telling them off, you actually encourage that. But actually much of what I see are suggestions for improving the article by simplifying the treatment, and a small group of editors shooting such suggestions down and telling the wrong group of people off. If there is a relation between the patterns I see in the talk page archives and the rut this process is in, it is more an issue of a small group of editors rigidly clinging to an idiosyncratic interpretation of the problem than anything else. --Lambiam 23:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Shooting such suggestions down and telling the wrong group of people off"? Please read the whole section from which this diff was extracted .  I see a good faith suggestion, followed by a polite, policy-based response, followed by increasingly agitated responses from the original poster, with nothing but further polite responses.  What are you seeing?  -- Rick Block (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A stubborn and inflexible attitude, expressed o so politely, that prevents presenting a simple but adequate treatment of the problem as it is understood by the vast majority of sources. --Lambiam 01:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Reproaching the other party of being stubborn and inflexible is mostly done by stubborn and inflexible people who doesn't get there way.Nijdam (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. If someone had written this as intentional satire, they couldn't have done a better job of it.  In other words, the discussion  serves as a perfect illustration of the point that battleground thinking and battleground behavior is a serious problem in the topic and that this principle should be included in the decision, along with a finding of fact and a remedy that delivers sanctions to people who insist on making this topic a battleground. Woonpton (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any chance you see Rick Block's accusations against me, that prompted this arbitartion, as meritless?:
 * "Although more than one of the involved editors have exhibited problematic behaviors, one editor in particular exhibits nearly all the classic signs of disruptive editing and has essentially singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made."
 * Posted by Glkanter (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Core content policies
2) No original research, Verifiability, and Neutral point of view are fundamental content policies. Whether editors agree with what reliable sources say has no relevance to the editing process.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * There is no dispute that No original research, Verifiability, and Neutral point of view are fundamental content policies but, unfortunately, these policies do not help us resolve this dispute; everybody claims to have WP policy on their side. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This needs to be a key principle of the final decision, in my opinion, and I disagree with Martin about whether these policies can be useful in resolving the dispute. I think insisting that editors adhere to core content policies is the only reasonable way forward.  But just as a point of clarification: In all my reading of the interminable circular arguments in this dispute, I've seen very few instances where editors were claiming WP policy or sources in support for their positions;  the overwhelming majority of the arguments have been argued  not on WP policy or interpretation thereof, but on the basis of the editors' self-perceived "rightness" of their logical argument or their mathematical formulation, the necessity and utility of their original-research solutions, or even their superior credentials.  Woonpton (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of an article talk page
3) The purpose of an article talk page is to discuss changes to the article, not to advance one's own opinions about the topic of the article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee
4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * It is not the role of the committee to rule on content disputes. Subtle difference, may or may not be significant. Also note AGK's comment below --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I do not doubt good-faith of Martin Hogbin, the pitiful point is, he doesn't fully understand the point of discussion. Nijdam (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is very generous of you not to doubt my good faith. That is the way you have been making your points throughout this discussion, by attacking the speaker rather than what they say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As a 'content dispute' itself doesn't *have* or *lack* 'good faith', I'd like to restate, in my own words, what AGK and woonpton posted below:
 * "One or more editors ceased editing and discussing the MHP in good faith a long time ago."


 * And now I will add Glkanter's interpretation/expansion of the above:
 * "These editors obscured this fact in order to maintain improper ownership of the article, and did so by, among other violations of Wikipedia policies, harassing any editors who challenged their ownership. This harassment includes the request for this arbitration against Glkanter."

Posted by Glkanter (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I think the issue here is that this stopped being a good-faith content dispute a long time ago. AGK  [&bull; ] 12:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with AGK. Woonpton (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This dispute is about how different editors see the MHP and how it should best be presented.  2.102.214.97 (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The underlying content dispute may very well be as you describe, but it is not the role of the arbitration committee to rule on content disputes. Not only that, but it is not the role of the arbitration committee to rule on content disputes. Did I mention that it is not the role of the arbitration committee to rule on content disputes? what I am getting at is that it is not the role of the arbitration committee to rule on content disputes. Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Glkanter has engaged in disruptive behavior
1) Glkanter has engaged in a wide range of disruptive behavior, including treating Wikipedia as a battleground, edit warring, and repeated incivility and personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Glkanter has promoted his opinion here just like all other editors. His views are broadly representative of a majority of editors.  Martin Hogbin (talk)
 * This comment seems completely unresponsive to the proposed finding of fact. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Promoting the opinion of the majority of editors against a small but persistent minority is not disruptive behaviour. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The point that in eyes of various people Glkanter was apparently not just promoting an opinion (nvm the alleged minority/majority claims). Being disruptive refers to a discussion & editing style nevermind which opinions it might promote. You cannot simply judge his disruptiveness (or lach thereof) based on whether he promotes your personal opinion or not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but i can't see how Glkanter is "broadly representative of a majority of editors".--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * The statement "Glkanter is broadly representative of a majority of editors" above is irrelevant. One can be in the minority and disruptive, in the majority and disruptive, in the minority and non-disruptive or in the majority and non-disruptive. This statement highlights the basic error that most of the parties keep clinging to, which is that being right on content somehow mitigates improper conduct. It doesn't. You can be completely wrong on content. The Arbitration Committee doesn't care about that as long as you behave.  You can be completely right on content. The Arbitration Committee doesn't care about that and will still sanction you if you misbehave. It simply does not matter whether his views are broadly representative of a majority of editors.


 * Likewise, the statement "Promoting the opinion of the majority of editors against a small but persistent minority is not disruptive behavior" shows the same basic error. Promoting the opinion of a small minority against the majority of editors is not disruptive behavior either. If you are being disruptive, it doesn't matter whether you are in the majority or whether you are alone in your position.  Likewise if you follow the rules. Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Many editors have misused the MHP talk page
2) Rather than use the talk page to discuss proposed changes to the article, many editors have used talk:Monty Hall problem to argue about the mathematics of the problem or that what various sources say is wrong. Although this hasn't directly affected the content of the article, it has had the effect of disrupting discussions about changes to the article content.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * These discussions have led to hard-fought but positive changes regarding content and scope and style of the article. Those who wish the article frozen in its state of several years ago are very wiki-skilled in playing the rules to keep it that way. But sure, I'm as bad a guy as anyone else, have a biological need not just to be right but to convince others I'm right too. We need more women editors on the page. Richard Gill (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that they were probably once useful but have steadily became circular. Indeed, they became markedly disruptive toward the end: those discussion about the mathematics of the MHP helped affirm to every editor that the sources were wrong, and the result was that compromise became impossible. AGK  [&bull; ] 12:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I hardly know of any "wrong" sources! The few authors who really made a mistake corrected it later. Quite a few disagree. And some present very different solutions alongside one another, without apparently seeing a need to compare them or choose between them. There is a minority of sources which are dogmatic, like some editors. If you read the literature, you'll find that many other writers from the same field are highly critical of the dogmatic guys. Lots of excellent mathematicians slammed Morgan et al. and defended Marilyn Vos Savant. The editors who can't compromise are those who have a fixed and extreme point of view: "my solution is RIGHT the other is WRONG". Of course the critical literature needs to be referred to. There are some valid points in it. But presently the paper is biased to their point of view right from the start. Note: mathematics can never tell you what you *must* do. It does not carry moral authority or legal authority. It can only advise you what it might be *wise* to do, and the wisdom can be explained. And one may choose to ignore it. Richard Gill (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The way you present the conflict gives the wrong impression. For instance I (who I suspect you to refer to) do not claim something like "my solution is right, etc." I'm claiming (sourced!), and you agreed with me, that the so called simple solution is not a correct solution to the common MHP. And the article should make this clear. Any other way of thinking about the MHP, be my guest, as long as it is sourced and correct. Nijdam (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you that what you call "the common MHP" is the common MHP. Sourced. The popular literature, the psychology literature, the economics literature is not inferior to the literature in which Bayes theorem is taught to poor mathematics students. Anyway, maths does not tell how you must make decisions, it only advises you what might be wise. Please source the reasoning for must if you can. Richard Gill (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that's not quite true as far as your comment on literature is concerned. Principally the domain of the literature matters and of course if a problem primarily falls into a particular domain than literature of that domain is preferred in doubt (crude speaking usually you don't want to consult biology literature on a math problem and you don't want to consult math book for a biology problem). As a rule of thumb (academic) domain literature is higher ranked than non domain literature and in particular than general literature. Now I agree that you can look at various aspects of MHP that can fall in to different domains, so literature from different domains matters. But the above insinuated somewhat nonchalant relativistic treament of literature/source is imho a clear no-go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * +1  That's it, yes. You have to look at those various aspects of the MHP  that can, and  undoubtedly will  fall into a range of very different domains. Those different aspects of "The!?" MHP should not and may not be flatly denied, may never be lost of sight, as especially one source, in an act of gloating, prominently did.
 * Beyond any dispute is that the MHP first and foremost is one of  the  famous brain teasers that shows very impressively and clear a phenomenon: Our psychological mechanisms for (not) solving this tenacious puzzle, the tendency to our firm belief in the equiprobability of the two remaining doors.
 * The MHP is not about "mathematics", but mathematics can even deal with additional presuppositions. Besides all other important aspects, these are two completely separate and completely independent factors that should be made clear in the lemma. But that never should be mixed in a pointless confusion. This "problem" exists for years now, and this "problem" of the MHP-paradox has to be resolved, finally. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is indubitably true and has been well-demonstrated.  However, I might quibble with the assertion that the disputes haven't affected the content of the article.  I think they have, and not in a good way; I would prefer not including that phrase. Woonpton (talk)
 * Just as on Talk:0.999..., users come and argue about the mathematics of the problem. I don't see this has disrupted discussions about improving the article content. But I'm afraid the proposer of this "finding of fact" means the same as in the principle Wikipedia is not a battleground above (see my comment there), taking discussion of the content of the sources for talk page abuse. --Lambiam 12:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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 indefinitely prohibited from (i) editing Monty Hall problem and any related pages, broadly construed, and their talk pages; (ii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iii) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This would be an outrageously disproportionate remedy even if any sanction against Glkanter were justified, which it is not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Martin. Just about everyone has been misbehaving themselves. Richard Gill (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Is this a remedy, or punishment for daring to withstand other editors' POV? --Lambiam 13:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a remedy. The Arbitration Committee doesn't care who is right about the content. The Arbitration Committee doesn't care who holds that majority view about the content. The Arbitration Committee only deals with conduct, not content. Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Glkanter's user and talk pages
2) Personal attacks archived proudly displayed on Glkanter's user and talk pages will be deleted. Any similar use of these pages in the future to disparage other editors will result in a 3 month site ban for the first offense and a permanent site ban for any subsequent offense.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * To avoid any confusion about this, I mean specifically the following sections (which are still on his talk page, i.e. not archived):     . -- Rick Block (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't even attacks. Read 'em, for goodness sakes. They're copies of unedited diffs, with the smallest bit of commentary preceding and concluding. These were not conversations, rather they were monologues. Nobody was threatened, nobody was invited to read them, or take part in them. Actually, they show what thugs C S and Dicklyon were acting like. I documented their horrid behaviour towards me on my own talk page. The other stuff is, once again, me not agreeing with Rick Block. Which Rick Block thinks is a crime. What else is new? Glkanter (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Even more explicitly:
 * : "This guy is a POS" (the section title - this entire section is Glkanter calling user:C S a piece of shit)
 * : "... I have just one question. Who the fuck does this guy think he is? ..." (another entire section dedicated to attacking another editor, this time Dicklyon)
 * : "How you like me now, Bitch!?" (another section, referring to the "facts" presented in the previous section)
 * : "The Undead" (referring to all his "opponents" here)
 * : "Typical gamesmanship by Rick. Typical lack of good faith. No way was it not intentional." (his accusations of gamesmanship against me are tiresomely repetitive, and reached the point of personal attack a long time ago)
 * : "Intellectually dishonest. Abhorrent behavior." (again, referring to all his "opponents" here, particularly Richard Gill and, of course, me)
 * -- Rick Block (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * That seems a little petty to me. If it's in the archives, it's gone: out of sight then out of mind. AGK  [&bull; ] 12:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A bit late to the party but what part of "(which are still on his talk page, i.e. not archived):..." am I missing? If those posts are still on Glkanter's (not archived) talk page then perhaps it's not so "petty". hydnjo (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's hard to make anything of these diffs as a whole, or even to follow some of them. The first doesn't appear to contain any personal attacks by Glkanter, or even any posts by Glkanter at all.  The second and third contain several egregious personal attacks by Glkanter, and Glkanter should redact those at the very least; if he doesn't choose to remove them himself, they should be removed, in my opinion.   The fourth is uninterpretable; one has to go to the history to discover that Glkanter wrote it, as it's unsigned, and it's impossible for this outside observer to guess what it refers to.  The fifth is a  discussion between Glkanter and a mediator about Glkanter's behavior on the mediation page, which contains no personal attacks that rise to the level of needing removal.  The sixth appears to be a discussion between Glkanter and Richard Gill  in which personal comments are made by both parties.  On the whole, I wouldn't say that all of these diffs show personal attacks on the part of Glkanter that should be removed; some do and some don't. I do think that the actual personal attacks   should be removed, but I don't agree that all the sections listed should be removed. Woonpton (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Rick Block: Okay, I said some of those diffs are hard to follow, and apparently required more parsing than I gave them, but given the further explanation, I can see how more of these qualify as personal attacks than I was counting.  I have struck some of my characterizations, and won't comment further. Woonpton (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, Rick Block is providing his personal interpretations (of which at least 2 are incorrect) of the meaning and intent of my diffs, and has added profanity that is not present on my talk page. Glkanter (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In two of the diffs, all I do is quote the other guy verbatim, after the brief intro Rick Block quotes. Glkanter (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Or more simply, "How can there be a Personal Attack with no person and/or no attack?" Glkanter (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this a correct interpretation of your postings?: A half dozen or so profane words should be removed from Glkanter's talk page. Glkanter (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * [after woonpton specifies the remedy] Those aren't personal attacks. They certainly contain profanity, but for cannot be defined as 'personal attacks'. The bigger picture, anyways, is once again, Rick Block makes a mountain out of a non-existent molehill with this specious 'Personal Attacks' where I 'disparage other editors' accusation in this arbitration. Only because I dare to state that I disagree with him. And I have been not cowered by the repetitions with which he defends his ownership of the article. Glkanter (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please explain a few of the "countless reasons" why you believer that "This guy is a POS" [Pile Of Shit] is not a personal attack. Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have the courtesy to rephrase your question, Guy Macon, this time omitting the Straw Man portion containing things I didn't say, I'll consider answering your question. That is, if you still offer me the presumption of good faith. Which the phrasing of your question puts into doubt. Glkanter (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, some of you guys are trying to paint me with the same broad brush as the most notorious Wikipedia editors. The only problem is, the actual record of my actions doesn't support that. You want to associate me with people who make all sorts of heinous Wikipedia attacks on other editors. People who do malicious things. People who want to overthrow Wikipedia. People who are intentional scofflaws. Gadflys, etc. Except I'm just a guy who recognized that there were ownership and other problems with the MHP article and talk pages, and just as is happening now, because I pointed it out, which is never pleasant, I must be guilty of something. J'excuse/J'accuse is very tiresome to defend oneself against. Nearly impossible really. The fact is, there is a proposed finding of WP:OWNERSHIP against admin Rick Block. This ownership, and it's various techniques and symptoms, are the root and sole cause of any behaviour of mine which anyone feels is out of bounds. And it's this very Catch 22 of having to defend myself against Rick Block's intentionally spurious and false allegations - the very guy who caused the whole situation - that it looks like I may get topic banned for my 'conduct' during the arbitration. That's fair play? Glkanter (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem article placed on article probation
3) Monty Hall problem and its talk page are subject to the following terms of article probation:
 * Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and arguing about the math of the problem without reference to sources (after being warned that the talk page is not the place for such arguments).
 * Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Monty Hall problem page and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 week in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
 * Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.
 * Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.
 * All sanctions imposed are to be logged at General sanctions/Monty Hall problem article probation/Log of sanctions.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Something that the committee is likely to look at in some form or another. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I admit this might be overkill. However, I really don't see a sensible alternative since the parties involved don't seem to be willing to stop arguing about the math. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But you are one of the parties, Rick, and you have often argued about the maths. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tried for nearly two years to keep the discussion focused on what sources say        etc etc, and even on the Arguments page  -- Rick Block (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting comment, Rick Block.
 * When I post things in support of the simple conditional solutions, you tell me I don't understand propability, that I haven't read enough sources, that I edit tendentiously, that I'm disruptive, etc. You've even filed an RfC and an arbitration against me. But I'm just repeating what countless reliable sources (Selvin & vos Savant among them) are saying. Don't those sources count, or do you agree with Nijdam that [paraphrasing], 'since they're wrong, they're not reliable'?
 * Do you have any diffs where you instruct Nijdam to stick to the reliable sources?
 * Are there more than the 5 so-called critics of the simple conditional solution that you've enumerated, of which I have already debunked your classification of 3 of them as 'critics' ?
 * Do you still consider every source that gives a conditional solution a de facto critic of the simple conditional solutions?
 * Is that what you mean by 'what sources say'?
 * Posted by Glkanter (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to this unless an arbitrator or clerk suggests I should. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But why? I'm just asking you to help me understand what you mean by 'what sources say'. Which of those 5 questions do you feel is inappropriate in some way, and why? You made the above comment, "I have tried for nearly two years to keep the discussion focused on what sources say" of your own volition. Why demure now? Here's your chance to bring an end to what you've described as the way Glkanter has "essentially singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made". Glkanter (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I think this is headed in the right direction, but I would prefer to see more emphasis on violations of content policy like reliable sources and original research, which I think is the key problem in this dispute. Here, that concern is almost lost behind the standard discretionary sanction boilerplate about civility and personal attacks etc,  and is even more likely to be missed because all the others are blue. :-)  I can't think of a better wording so far, but maybe it would help to reverse the order just to make the point that this isn't a minor issue in this case? Woonpton (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources is a content guideline. No original research is a content policy that refers only to content in articles, not talk-page discussions (but WP:SOAP does apply there). In your analysis, do violations of WP:OR in the article itself play an important role in this protracted kerfuffle? If so, can you give some evidence of that? --Lambiam 13:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

2/3 : 1/3 (popular: academic)
1) There are two literatures on MHP, two readerships on wikipedia. Roughly speaking: "popular" and "academic". The first 2/3 of the article should be written for and/or by the people (the Great Unwashed, in Glkanter's words), the last 1/3 should be written for and/or by the High Priests and novice-priests.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * We're not talking about rocket science here. It's high school level probability.  Between Make technical articles understandable and WP:NPOV we have all the guidance we need. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice quote. That's what the judge said in the Sally Clark case. Refusing to have evidence presented in person by the president of the Royal Statistical Society. That together with the arrogance of Sir Roy Meadows (MD) killed her. Richard Gill (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rick shows an extraordinary arrogance here. Read the lead to the article, 'Even when given a completely unambiguous statement of the Monty Hall problem, explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still meet the correct answer with disbelief'.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)
 * Martin - I'm not saying the topic is easily understood - I'm saying the explanation only requires high school level probability (no advanced math). -- Rick Block (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The explanation does *not* require high school level probability. The complete explanation is: Would it be a fair bet at odds 2:1 that the car is not behind the door you first chose? Would it be a fair bet at odds 2:1 that the car is not behind the door you first chose (door 1), after you saw the host open door 3? The sensible answer to both these questions is YES; the reasoning for the first is so obvious it is not worth writing out; the *reasoning* why it is YES in the second case is just a tiny bit longer (and according to many reliable sources in academic probability and statistics, whether it is worth writing out or not is a matter of taste): add the words "by symmetry, it doesn't make a difference which door the host opens, so I would still bet at the same odds". Richard Gill (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope you do not mean by popular literature, the incorrect literature, deceiving the readers. Nijdam (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Nijdam, that you disqualify yourself from editing the MHP page: you want to promote a personal POV. Wikipedia can report criticism of some part of the literature which is contained in another part, in a neutral way. If editors collectively think it adds to the topic. But it seems you are so committed to one side of the argument, it will be hard for you to report it neutrally. Richard Gill (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fortunately that's not up to you. And it's also not very constructive such remarks. As you well know it is not just my opinion, but several reliable sources say so, and indeed, I agree fully with them. Also, if you have followed the discussion well enough, I and others only want every reader to be aware of the criticism, not being hidden somewhere for I don't know what reasons. The main reason several editors do not like this, is IMO because they do not understand the criticism. Do you BTW? Nijdam (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Nijdam, please allow for one question. You just said  The main reason several editors do not like this, is IMO because they do not understand the criticism. Do you BTW?  –  Do you mean that later on, after showing of one goat, you are considering the two still closed doors are made of glass or some similar material, and a little additional light could be thrown on the two hidden objects located behind them? Do you think of "that variant" that some (not all) sources report on?  Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to answer, if I only would understand the question.Nijdam (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, that is worse than I had feared. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But I still remember your preferred variant where the host who, in opening of his unwanted and avoided door, that he never uses to open if any possible, but in 1/3 of cases will be forced to open, because the car will be behind his "preferred" door that he always uses to open if ever possible, and that by doing so your host shows that the car is very likely to be behind his preferred but unopened door, similar to open all three doors altogether, at once. For years now I have learned that this is your favored variant. Because this variant authorizes and entitles you to criticize every "false solution" that does not, just from the outset, pay regard to exactly your "known" bizarre host's behavior as per your favored variant.
 * And yes, the lemma really should show that conditional probability is able to come up also with the famous question "to switch or to stay". Preferable in odds-form, easy to get for the reader. And later, just in the "variants section", for those interested in, should be presented "given and known special host's behavior". With much expansions as to "the lazy host", or "the forgettable host" and the "toppled host". Conditional probability can be shown just in the beginning of the lemma, and should be shown, in odds-form. But the lemma should stop to be a textbook in conditional probability theory only, declaring that you "must" do it that way, but forever concealing "why this is the only right" method to get the answer "switch or stay". Concealing "why", but just stating that any other approach forever is "incorrect, just from the outset". Even given that there is sufficient evidence that other reliable sources don't say that. Please stop the battle. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This proposal deals with content and as such, is out of scope. In the best of Wikipedia worlds, editors working collaboratively would weigh the sources and determine whether/how/to what extent the material should be described at varying technical levels.  Certainly it won't, and shouldn't, be decided by one editor stating his personal opinion  that the allotment should be 2/3 popular and 1/3 technical.  Coincidentally, I agree with Rick Block above about the level of statistical sophistication required for describing the problem to any audience. Woonpton (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Woonpton (as do Rick Block and Nijdam) has a biased point of view about the level of statistical sophistication needed to describe MHP. The reliably sourced general opinion on this, also among statisticians and probabilists, is that "high school probability" is not needed at all. In fact it is a hindrance rather than a help. See eg Bell's 1992 letter on the infamous Morgan et al 1991 paper (thanks to Rick for pointing out this reference to me). Richard Gill (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Contents out of scope.
 * The lemma is a masterpiece of one-sided presentation of the contents, and the battle steadily has been activated by one-sided and retarded presentation of the sources, featuring just only one minor bromide: That of course conditional probability theory can cope with any and all additional bizarre presuppositions, not even needing door numbers, contradictory to the lemma. Obscure presumptions about "additional info" on the contents of the two remaining closed diaphanous doors. Conditional probability has to be presented in a clear and sane way, not as a one-issue, dominating the lemma. The overwhelming majority of sources has a clear view on the paradox, and the lemma could be presented benefiting for the reader, not atomized on bizarre presuppositions only, for the overwhelming majority of sources not even worth mentioning. So all of that interdependency could be shown clearly, in an own section. Actually the lemma is a retarded, unbalanced and unstructured mix, not paying regard to the perception and the view of the relevant sources. Hideous for the reader. Retarding forces, forgetting about the reader, prevent progress. Contents out of scope, retarding forces out of scope, the fight will be eternalized. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an eminently reasonable content proposal; but it is not the role of Arbcom to make such decisions. Whether any particular ratio gives appropriate weight in this article is far too particular to be asserted as a statement of general editorial policy or Wikipedia principle. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually this proposal makes little sense to me since much/most of the reputable sources on the subject are academic. Moreover the idea the idea of the simple popular solution is to keep it simple. i.e. there isn't that much to write. So why should we reserve 2/3 of the article for the content part that is by its very nature the shortest? Also this is not even really addressing the original editing conflict, which was about the (strict) separation from simple/popular and advanced and what gets described first in the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think that there is any need to predetermine the volume of content in each section. There really is no a battle between two POVs anywhere else than on WP.  All we need to do here is present the subject simply so that people can understand it, then discuss it in more detail in a scholarly fashion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

2/3 : 1/3 (refreshment of editors)
1) Roughly 2/3 of the editors are quarrelsome, proprietary, uncompromising. Roughly 1/3 are modest, sensible. Let Richard Gill, Rick Block, Glkanter, Glopk, Nijdam go and edit articles on other subjects for a few months; let Gerhard Valentin, Martin Hogbin and Kmhkmh do some unhindered editing according to Principle 1). Get some more editors involved. Preferably women.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * 'Quarrelsome' and 'uncompromising' when standing up to Gamesmanship, Ownership, and Wikilawyering is no shame, and shouldn't be 'punished'. I have no idea what 'proprietary' is meant to convey in this instance. Glkanter (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Proprietary meant having ownership-issues (you know who I mean). BTW a "temporary page ban" is not meant by me as a punishment, see it as an honour. Your standing up against Gamesmanship, Ownership, and Wikilawyering deserves a medal (I can even give you one, as president of the Dutch statistical society). Richard Gill (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We have argued about language before. I believe a 'ban' is a 'ban'. And I believe I've done nothing to warrant a ban on discussing or editing the MHP (or anything on Wikipedia). Maybe you could explain how your 'medal of honour' would affect Glkanter differently than the 'behavioual sanctions' Rick Block proposed? "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck... maybe it *is* a duck." Glkanter (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Voluntary is of course better than enforced! Take a break. Do some work for wikipedia on some different topics. Make some friends and have fun, instead of making enemies and getting all stressed out. The proposal is that 2/3 of editors quit MHP for a while. Including the ones who you and I believe have ownership issues. Richard Gill (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * This is an interesting proposal, though unworkable. I do think clearing the article and talk space of all editors who have participated in turning a fascinating puzzle into a mind-numbingly dull  argument over tedious, trivial, irrelevant detail, is a smashingly good idea.  And if all editors who have participated in that transformation would volunteer to remove themselves from the article en masse and let fresh editors take over, that would be great.  And since I'm a woman, and a statistician to boot, I'd be a perfect candidate for the new team, since Gill has specified women especially for this new team, and I wouldn't mind editing the article if the bickering would stop.


 * But there's a problem or two. First, the identification of the "problem" editors has to be accompanied by evidence, and the evidence against these six editors is wildly variable.  For some, evidence has been presented to support assertions of policy violations (and it remains for the arbitrators to decide how convincing the evidence is); for others, little or none.  For glopk, for example, only one diff appears in evidence; the assertion accuses him of "tag teaming" and it isn't very convincing (to me), since it shows him reverting an IP edit that changed a section header in an unhelpful way; this is hardly evidence for tag teaming to advance a POV, and even less so for his being "argumentative, proprietary, uncompromising."  The only other place where glopk's name appears on the evidence page is an assertion from Richard Gill that glopk, in particular, resisted the inclusion of Gill's original synthesis in the article because the synthesis wasn't supported by sources.   There are no diffs offered to support that assertion, and besides, even if he did argue against an unsourced synthesis being included in the article, it would hardly be evidence of a policy violation.  Now it may be that glopk has been "argumentative, proprietary, uncompromising," although if so I haven't seen much evidence of it in the months I've been observing the dispute, but in order to make the case that glopk should be topic-banned, even voluntarily, you need to provide evidence of misconduct rising to the level that his absence from the article would improve the situation; there has to be more convincing evidence than "he disagreed with me."   Woonpton (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You, and others, may laugh, but "he disagreed with me" is the only thing I think Rick Block has on me. Glkanter (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't have to think in terms of "problem editors" and in terms of "punishment". Let the editors themselves by some demcratic procedure choose a subgroup of editors who agree that they can work together. Give them the brief to recruit some "new blood". Give the others a well earned vacation. Ask each editor to nominate one other editor who they think will represent their POV and another who they believe doesn't. The final group must include someone who can be seen as a representative of each of the two main parties, and a third who can be seen as more or less neutral. Richard Gill (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This latest suggestion is so different from the proposal under discussion that it should probably be posted and discussed as a separate proposal. However, it's as unworkable as the first proposal.  For starters, the idea that a group of people who can't even decide among themselves what the MHP is, is suddenly going to amicably choose among themselves who will edit the article and who not, seems overoptimistic, at best. Every  editor in this dispute is going to have a different idea about who are the intransigent, uncompromising editors  and who are the ones "I can work with."(And what if someone new comes along, who wasn't "elected" by this process or recruited by the elected editors, and upsets the balance? Then what?)


 * But more than that, Wikipedia doesn't settle content disputes by voting editors on and off articles based on their personal opinions about the content of the article; that's not how Wikipedia works. That's why we have the policies you have expressed so much disdain for disagreement with, to resolve content disagreements by using criteria that everyone agrees to to abide by when they join the editing community... NPOV, RS, NOR ... these are the things that make Wikipedia work. We work by summarizing sources, using these policies to guide us, not by voting editors on and off the island based on their personal POV.  Woonpton (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Woonpton, I have no disdain for Wikipedia policies. They are wise, well motivated, and everyone who uses wikipedia has signed up for them. I have disdain for persons who abuse those policies in order to maintain the point of view which more than two years ago severely biased the article in question. I have disdain for persons who use the letter of the policies rather than their spirit to convert the policies into a travesty. Richard Gill (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to know that you have no disdain for Wikipedia policies, and I have struck my remark about "disdain" above, accordingly, as irrelevant to the discussion here.  Whether the clarification clears up anything about your disdain or lack of it toward core content policy, it doesn't help me much in considering the present proposal (the idea that editors should elect representatives to edit the article).  It's hard to see how a respect for Wikipedia policies is reflected in this proposal, which sets aside content policies altogether  and proposes a novel process for resolving content disputes. Woonpton (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe this is a novel kind of problem, requiring a novel kind of problem resolution. The quarrel between the editors is merely a duplication of the same quarrel between reliable sources.
 * I'm glad @Woonpton no longer accuses me of disdain of Wikipedia policies. Now she only says I diagree with them. But I do not disagree with them.  She earlier accused me of abusing my status as subject matter expert. She however appealed to her own status to say that my own  "own research" stinks. Just as Rick Block appealed to Nijdam's status as subject matter expert to support his and Nijdam's minority POV. She also interpreted my camaraderie in asking her her own opinion about MHP, as a fellow subject matter expert, as another example of me aggressively promoting my own OR. This kind of behaviour already chased away a number of other expert editors away from the MHP page. Richard Gill (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. I think this might be a record for the most words put into my mouth in one paragraph.   Let's take it one assertion at a time:
 * Gill says (above) that he doesn't disdain Wikipedia policies, only those who abuse those policies. Here are his own words: I call your OR labeling a formalistic excuse to avoid thinking, and I imagine that you do this because of a fear that thinking might lead you to realise that you had overlooked something in the past.... I think that the legalistic approach to resolving disputes on wikipedia by invoking OR, NPOV, etc. is disgusting and/or chiildish. It is the last resort of admins. On my talk page, after I expressed an opinion that his original work doesn't qualify as a reliable source, he referred to people who invoke reliable source policy as "stupid."  I think the diffs speak for themselves.


 * I don't see a contradiction. @Woonpton retracted her accusation that I have disdain of Wikipedia policies to the accusation that I dislike them. That is not true. I embrace and love the policies, or I would not be active on wikipedia. I dislike it when they are childishly (ab)used. Richard Gill (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * She earlier accused me of abusing my status as subject matter expert. She however appealed to her own status to say that my own "own research" stinks. First, I never said his research "stinks."   My comment about his research was  made in response to his assertion on the case pages that It's only the editors with an inflexible point of view...who dislike these. (his syntheses relating to the MHP).  All I said in response was ...as a statistician I don't find the solution compelling or necessary to an explanation of the Monty Hall problem for the Wikipedia article. which is a very far cry from saying it "stinks." My point was that it wasn't fair or accurate to dismiss everyone who "disliked" these ideas as "inflexible," and I invoked my profession not to intimidate or best anyone in a content dispute, but because having read hundreds of Gill's communications to fellow MHP editors, I suspected that if I didn't specify that I am a statistician,  my dissenting opinion would be dismissed as uninformed and irrelevant.


 * She also interpreted my camaraderie in asking her her own opinion about MHP, as a fellow subject matter expert, as another example of me aggressively promoting my own OR.   Gill did not ask me my own opinion about MHP; he came to my talk page with two links to his own ideas and asked what I thought about them, (the edit summary reads "Comment on new approaches to MHP?")which is not the same thing as asking my opinion about the MHP. I responded that I would prefer not to get drawn into this dispute, to which he responded that he's not part of the dispute but providing reliable sources. Hence my sincere interest to know your reactions to new articles on MHP in other locations. In an attempt to get it right at the core.  I had of course read his papers some time before, as links to them had been posted all over the MHP pages and user talk pages of participants, and did not care to get into a discussion with him about what I thought about them, but his persistence seemed to require a firmer refusal than I had given before, so I  said] "Trust me, you don't want to know what I think," and then went on to say that it doesn't matter what I think anyway, since Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, and if his ideas are found compelling and useful by others in the field, they will be cited in literature reviews and academic books, and those sources will be reliable independent sources for citation of his ideas in the Wikipedia article.  That was when he referred (diff above) to people who invoke reliable sources policy as "stupid." If this is camaraderie, maybe I don't understand the word.  I have not at any time used the word "aggressive" to characterize this conversation; I simply posted his initial post as part of evidence that he posted links to his research in many places.  However, looking at the whole conversation now, I have to agree that the phrase "aggressive promotion" does seem to describe the exchange fairly accurately.


 * My behavour is how fellow scientists behave normally all the time. We are enthusiastic about what we have found out and want to share that with others. By doing so we get criticism and that is what science lives from: from disagreements. Einstein said "at last we have a contradiction, now we can make progress"! He was glad that Niels Bohr attacked his approach in a way which opened up a possibility to understand the difference of opinion. Richard Gill (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This kind of behaviour already chased away a number of other expert editors away from the MHP page. Hunh? This seems to be suggesting that I personally have chased experts away from the MHP pages; as a nonparticipant there, and as an expert who has stayed away from the MHP pages because I find the pedantic squabbling extremely distasteful, this suggestion seems especially off the mark. Woonpton (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Woonpton, you are interpreting my remarks with bad faith. I didn't refer to you but to the behaviour of Glopk and Rick Block. I said "this kind of behaviour" referring to this kind of behaviour: behaviour that comes across as possessive, aggressive, negative. Waving the rule book in what seems to be an attempt to refuse to think, rather than thinking constructively about the content. Think about the content of someone's edit proposal. Agree or disagree. Correlate the results of common sense and elementary logic with the literature. (Note: the conflict between editors merely reflects the same conflict within the literature!). If it's not rocket science, then common sense and ordinary logic should go a long way in content discussions. They are needed since the literature which we are to summarize on wikipedia contains aggressive content discussions! Discussions about issues which for many readers are subtle and easily misunderstood. You'll find that what ordinary people come up with again and again and try to get into the article is in fact in the reliable sources but appears to be wilfully ignored by conservative forces who have presumably previously invested a lot of energy and pride into getting the article like it is (was), without realising that they were adopting an extreme minority point of view on MHP, which has itself been attacked numerous times in the literature by numerous reliable sources. You said something like "I'm a statistician and I don't find Gill's synthesis useful at all". Why didn't you say that to me personally first, when I asked you colleagially for your opinion; instead you saved it for part of what came across to me as a violent personal attack? Richard Gill (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way I also find the pedantic squabbling extremely distasteful. Richard Gill (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The POV that the simple solutions are erroneous belongs to editors Nijdam and Rick Block, not to the reliable sources as demonstrated by the collapsed table in my evidence. Rick Block claims 5 critics, including Morgan. Morgan has recanted much of their criticism in response to the published letter from Wikipedia editors Martin Hogbin and Nijdam. I have shown that Rick Block misinterprets 2 other 'critics'. There is no 'significant minority viewpoint' for the POV that continues to dominate and ruin the MHP article. Glkanter (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My and Nijdam's POV is NOT the issue here. The issue is the POV of numerous sources, see e.g. . -- Rick Block (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Proposals to topic-ban individual users should be made individually and, as Woonpton notes, with evidence pertinent to the individual cases. "Get some more editors involved" is fine and dandy but is not something that Arbcom can enforce, and restricting participation in order to do so seems counterintuitive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Woonpton, I am distrubed by the suggestion that Richard Gill violates policies such as RS and NOR. The diffs you incorporated in the evidence section confirm that he has had his own research published, but not in violation of Wikipedia's policies.  WP:OR states "Wikipedia does not publish original research."  Having been previously published in external sources, the self-authored sources that Richard Gill has included do not represent original research published on Wikipedia.  And since the publications in which those items appeared are reliable sources, there is no WP:RS violation either.  At most, there could be a WP:COI violation if there has been "excessive self-citation".  But in the various versions of the article I sampled, there have been no more than 3 or 4 references to Richard Gill's articles.  WP:COI itself states that "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies." Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this concern belongs here (nor does most of this discussion for that matter, which isn't directly related to the proposal under question). If I, or if anyone, had written a proposed finding of fact related to Richard Gill's original research, or/and a remedy proposing to sanction him individually for engaging in original research, that would be the place to raise this issue with me, but I have no intention of writing such a proposal.  I presented this evidence as an example of the widespread OR disrupting the discussions of the article; my goal was to bring this general problem to the attention of ArbCom in the hope that they would vote a general remedy intended to keep the article discussions focused on reliable sources rather than the discussions being dominated by editors arguing for their own original ideas about the MHP itself. I am not asking for any sanction against Richard Gill himself.  Since I needed evidence in order to bring this concern before the arbitrators, and since Gill's arguments based on his own reasoning have been very prominent in the discussions for the last year or more, it was convenient to sample diffs from those arguments.  The fact that these discussions have resulted in very recent publications in Gill's case is immaterial to my concern; my concern isn't about the publication or about the use of the publication in the article, but about the disruption of talk pages by  editors arguing their own personal theories. Hope that answers your questions. Woonpton (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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 the contributors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard. SirFozzie (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I'd prefer an expanded version that directly addresses the problem of original research, something like this: 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 encyclopedia to advance personal agendas or to publish or promote original research is prohibited. I removed one phrase about ideological and religious agendas that seems to be more pertinent to that specific case than this one, but otherwise this is directly lifted from the TM arbitration final decision. Woonpton (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Or maybe better, a separate principle emphasizing the importance of core content policies.Woonpton (talk) 15:42, 1 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 editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * made an interesting suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question/Proposed_decision. Thought I'd try it here to see if anyone preferred it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Who can object to this, but it does little to solve the problem, there have been several years of, mainly polite, discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Conduct and Decorum
3)Wikipedia 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 conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This has been an issue with some if not all parties. SirFozzie (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

3a)Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another, even during disputes. Confrontational conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This was RexxS's suggested wording. The flow seems better this way round, 3a more naturally arises from 2 Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Either would be ok, however I prefer describing the prohibited conduct as 'unseemly' as opposed to 'confrontational'. PhilKnight (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Content Disputes
4)It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Despite the urgings of the clerks and the arbs, most of the text in this case has focused on how the article should read, or the conditionals behind the MHP. As I said previously, we cannot judge those things. SirFozzie (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, but prefer 'It is not the role of the committee to rule on content disputes' suggested by Elen. PhilKnight (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Is it not possible for the committee to comment on the appropriate structure of a complex article in order for it to be accessible to the widest range of WP readers. One side in this dispute wants to focus on a treatment suitable for students of elementary probability at the expense of laymen and real experts. A appropriate structure would make the article useful to all levels of reader. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, this completely misrepresents at least what I want, which is an NPOV structure that makes the article useful to all levels of readers. At the risk of misrepresenting what Martin wants, what I keep hearing him suggest is that the article cannot be written to be accessible to laymen without structurally endorsing the "popular" POV.  Perhaps arbcom could comment on the relative importance of WP:NPOV vs. WP:TECHNICAL. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What your 'hearing' doesn't exist. There is no "popular (simple) POV" or "conditional POV" or 'anti-popular (simple) POV" amongst the reliable sources. There are a variety of solutions provided by a great many and varied number of reliable sources, based on various disciplines and of varying complexity. The conditional solution sources and the tiny number of sources you claim as 'anti popular (simple)' do not claim what you, Nijdam, and the article promote. Only certain Wikipedia editors promote the current NPOV violating current article, not even a significant minority of reliable sources. Glkanter (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And by now, there are probably more reliable sources critical of Morgan's paper than there are supporting reliable sources. Morgan now agrees its '...2/3, period....', Seymann had concerns that accompanied the original article, vos Savant, of course, Richard just mentioned another critical paper, and I recall one that dressed them down for their tone and dogma. But the article doesn't mention these reliable sources as critics of Morgan, the one-time (but no longer) critic of the simple solutions. Please, don't wrap yourself in the flag of 'protector of NPOV'. Glkanter (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To make sure this idea of yours about Morgan, agreeing to something, does not lead to confusion: Morgan does not say they agree to anything. They just wrote that with the appropriate assumptions, generally made by most authors, the answer to the conditional probability they are seeking is 2/3.Nijdam (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Without those 'appropriate assumptions', in 1991 Morgan also calls your preferred solutions, the Bayes solution and the conditional decision tree solution, 'false':
 * "Mosteller's solution (Solution F6), like the others we have seen, assumes information that is not given in the problem."
 * "We begin by enumerating and discussing the most appealing of the false solutions."
 * "Solution F6. The sample space is {AGG2, AGG3, GAG3, GGA2} where the letter triples have the same meaning as in Solution F2, and the number indicates the door opened by the host. The probabilities for the sample points are, in order, 1/6, 1/6, 1/3, and 1/3. Labeling events W, = "win by switching" and D3 = "goat shown behind door 3," Pr(W, I D3) = Pr(W, and D3)/Pr(D3) = Pr(GAG3)/Pr(AGG3,GAG3) = (1/3)/(1/6 + 1/3) = 2/3."
 * "Solution F6 (cf. Mosteller 1965) attempts to correct the wrongly specified sample space of F4. One must ask, however, how the probabilities for this sample space are determined. It turns out that this is a correct specification only if one assumes a certain strategy on the part of the host. We will show that the problem can be solved without any assumptions of this type, which is to say the problem can be solved."
 * And here's that solution:
 * "Nevertheless, in the vos Savant scenario we can state that it is always better to switch. The fact that Pr(W | D3) ≥ 1/2, regardless of the host's strategy, is the key to the solution."
 * The article makes no mention of Morgan's criticism of the Bayes and decision tree solutions, but has plenty on their criticisms of the simple solutions, both conditional and unconditional.
 * All of which is moot, and serves to support my comments, because Morgan said in 2010, in their response to your and Martin's letter correcting their math error:
 * "To wit, had we adopted conditions implicit in the problem, the answer is 2/3, period."
 * Which is very different from their 1991 solution. Glkanter (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And Morgan's 2010 statement, unlike your statement above:
 * "They just wrote that with the appropriate assumptions, generally made by most authors, the answer to the conditional probability they are seeking is 2/3."
 * ...Morgan does not make any mention of 'conditional probability'. Which is OK, anyways, because many of the simple solutions are conditional. They are conditioned on the 100% certainty that the host will open a door to reveal a goat. The Bayes and the decision tree are not the only conditional solutions to the MHP provided by reliable sources. Glkanter (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And since the 'critics' (Morgan almost exclusively, until they backed up) have critics, introducing this insignificant POV and it's critics, with the solutions is unwarranted, and certainly confusing and of little value to Wikipedia readers. And since Morgan criticized the conditional solutions equally to the simple solutions, important information regarding the criticisms has been intentionally omitted from the article, clearly and improperly favoring certain editors' POV. Glkanter (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reference to WP:TECHNICAL is reflective of your bias. There are countless reliable sources, including the most well known, and the problem's originator who don't rely on the 'technical' formal, academic conditional solutions. The MHP would hardly be the world famous paradox if Bayes Theorem or a conditional decision tree were the only way to convey why it's 2/3 & 1/3 rather than 1/2 & 1/2.
 * However WP:TECHNICAL does make it clear that easy solutions should precede the more complex solutions. For the very reasons Martin has repeatedly put forth. And since there's nothing wrong with the simple solutions as per the reliable sources, WP:TECHNICAL is not a concern. Glkanter (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Talk pages - disruption
5)The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * suggested adding the decision from Shakespeare. I think it's worth adding the one from speed of light as well Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This suggestion gives us no clue what to do when we have a disagreement in which both sides believe that they are right and that the majority of reliable sources support their POV. Both sides have accused the other of OR.  How is this situation to be resolved? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Talkpages - original ideas
6)The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Talk pages are not for forum-like debates, proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, or so forth (see What Wikipedia is not). 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.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * From Speed of Light. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Advocacy
7) Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Another one (or part of one) from Speed of Light. I think we've seen a great deal of deriding of views.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Last one from Speed of Light. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I think this is a good addition. Woonpton (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest some rephrasing. Are "inappropriate behavior" and "actions (which) are disruptive" one and the same?  As this will guide editors in their work, I suggest greater clarity.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This seems to imply that it is required to prove the inappropriate behavior has directly caused disruption. "No harm, no foul" creates a high burden of proof for a harm as nebulous as "disruption" and, though it can be used to forgive isolated incidents, it ought not be used to justify a persistent pattern of inappropriate behavior. Furthermore, and importantly, methinks reckless driving can and should be sanctioned before it causes a wreck. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone could explain what 'disruptive' means in this context and 'inappropriate' for that matter. This continued talk of sanctions also seems to be against the spirit of WP. What we need is a resolution of the problem not sanctions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Martin, I think it's clear what remedies you are not interested in seeing. Perhaps you could help me understand what remedies you think would be beneficial, and why? Glkanter (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The remedies that I support are as shown in my 'Proposed remedies' section below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless editors change their ways, what would be different? Which editors do you think would voluntarily change their ways? Glkanter (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {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.

Discretionary Sanctions
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles related to the Monty Hall problem. The sanctions should be administered in such a fashion as to treat all contributors fairly while ensuring that future editing of these pages adheres to the high standards expected of Wikipedia's editors


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This will be part of but not the whole of the solution I think. There could/should be focused remedies against individual parties, but we need to provide the framework to improve the conduct in this area. SirFozzie (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * So, the only practical outcome of this case will be a Sandstein2 case (<-- substitute wiki-politically correct title) down the road? Or maybe an IRC n+1 case given that some of the parties are admins? Tijfo098 (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Template
2) {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:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
WP is an encyclopedia and all articles should be written for the benefit of the expected readership. This readership is likely to cover a wide range of education, academic ability, experience and interests. Articles should be written to appeal to and be understood by as wide a range of reader as possible. This applies to both content and structure.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * There is no dispute about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

The article should be structured is a way to make it accessible to the widest range of reader
The simple solutions should come first, complete with all necessary explanation and without disclaimers. This is the order of nearly all good text books and encyclopedia articles. This order suits all readers. The non-specialist reader will be able to follow the basic, and by far the most notable, aspects of the MHP. Experts will quickly see from the following academic section that the subject has been covered in a complete and scholarly manner and may regard the first section as lies to children. All editors may be satisfied that 'The truth' is on the page.

Please note that this is not a dispute over content and it is not a request that the arbitrators should rule on the article content. In the incident over the "Aids to understanding" section that Rick bitterly complains about, etc. there is no change in the content of the article, just the order of that content. If the article order is left in the order it is now, there is a good chance that, after a few ruffled feathers have been preened back into place, all the editors will be able to work together in improving the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If only it were so, Martin. The 'Conditional solution' section spends the first 2/3 of it's content on criticisms of the simple solution and presenting and solving problems that are *not* the MHP, but rather are similar sounding problems with at least one premise changed. This misplaced discussion is so prominently featured only in order to discredit the simple solutions. It is *not* there to benefit the readers' comprehension of the paradox. And it's all there despite the December, 2009 consensus of the editors for its removal. That was what led directly to the mediations.
 * Only after a paragraph of criticism and then a dense, vague, and impenetrable paragraph is the conditional solution even presented. Followed by another paragraph of dense, vague, and impenetrable stuff about things other than the MHP paradox. I could go on, but will leave it at that, for now. Glkanter (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that the 'Conditional solution' is good as it is now, only that by separating discussion of this subject from the simple solutions we might all be able to work together to improve it. The problem is that now, some editors feel the need to make some kind of point in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Here ("complete with all necessary explanation and without disclaimers"), you're asking arbcom to decide a content issue. Arbcom has repeatedly said they are not going to do this.  -- Rick Block (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot see why anyone would want to do it any other way, except to make a point. Most people find it hard to see why the answer is 2/3 and we need to show them why, and why it matters that the host knows where the car is, before we confuse the issue with academic discussions about conditional probability. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this repeatedly, but in addition to editorial reasons (which amount to a content dispute) the policy-based reason to not start with an extensive "simple" solution section is NPOV, specifically subsection WP:STRUCTURE - IMO doing this would make the article effectively promote the POV that these solutions are "true" and "undisputed" (which is clearly not the case). You keep arguing that we should, in effect, ignore NPOV (at least, at the beginning of the article) in the interests of making the article more accessible to the non-expert reader.  My counter argument is that we MUST NOT ignore NPOV, and if we can't make the article both NPOV and accessible we're lousy editors.  Again, we're not talking about rocket science here.  I think any reasonably intelligent 12-year old should be capable of understanding the salient points.  -- Rick Block (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ownership? I don't see any Rick Block ownership issues. Who said anything about ownership issues? None here. Nope. Not at all. Come on, who ever heard of a topic being presented 'simple to complex'? Absurd! Of *course* Martin's proposal 'ignores NPOV', just like Rick Block says above. Good thing Rick Block is here to keep Martin from befouling the article with his crackpot ideas and especially his NPOV violating suggestion of 'simple to complex'. But ownership? No. Not here. That's crazy talk. Glkanter (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As Glkanter says, Rick's reply shows exactly the problem this article has been having for the last two years or so. Nothing other than than Rick's POV in the order he wants will do for Rick and the other page owners.


 * The argument as to whether the simple solutions are "true" and "undisputed" simply does not exist outside this WP discussion and no one reading the article would ever suppose that my proposed order is a dastardly plot to promote my POV, any more than a reader of a book on relativity that starts with a chapter on Newtonian physics would suppose that the author is a secret critic of Einstein. It is the way things are done, it even has a name lies to children.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rick says, 'we're not talking about rocket science here' but the truth is that Even when given a completely unambiguous statement of the Monty Hall problem, explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still meet the correct answer with disbelief, the last thing people need is an additional academic complication thrown at them before they understand the basic solution. After they have understood the basic problem, those that are interested can study the fine print. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Part, not to say almost all, of the dispute is the refusal of some editors to accept the criticism on the simple solution. This criticism is in the literature - and for good reasons! - and should be available for all readers, immediately after the simple solution is presented (if it has to be presented at all). Nijdam (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above statement by Nijdam is his opinion. He is not able to provide reliable sources to support it. *That* is what the dispute is about: Nijdam's and Rick Block's OR that currently dominates the article. Glkanter (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Wikipedia editors cannot rule on The Truth. But Nijdam has told us that he insists on a "health warning" being placed on the simple solutions because otherwise the students in his probability theory class will complain when he does not give them a passing grade when they use a simple solution instead of a conditional probability solution. In my opinion this is his problem which he can solve by more careful formulation of his own examination questions. It is true that some sources criticise the simple solutions. Typically they do this by first rewording Vos Savant's question and then by writing down supplementary mathematical assumptions, not needed to justify the simple solutions. Other highly reliable sources stongly criticise the criticisers. The first task anyone has who knows about MHP and who wants to introduce it to someone else is to get them to realise that the answer is not 50-50. The simple solutions do this splendidly. And within their own terms they are entirely correct. Constructive criticism of such approaches, and the offering of alternative, more complex solutions, can (and should) come later. The reader can decide for him or herself on the basis of the evidence presented whether that extra mileage is worth the extra complexity. The idea that presenting the material in this way constitutes violation of NPOV is ridiculous. Wikipedia presents the material that is out there in the literature, structured to make it accessible. The recent excellents books on MHP or with chapters on MHP (Rosenhouse, Rosenthal) procede in exactly this way. Simple first. No "health warnings". Inform the reader and let the reader decide. Richard Gill (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Core content policies
No original research, Verifiability, and Neutral point of view are fundamental content policies. Whether editors agree with what reliable sources say has no relevance to the editing process.

I add this as a mantra recited by others. I fully agree with the above principles but they have proved of little value in settling this dispute. All editors claim to have these policies on their side. More than one editor has published work on this subject in what would generally be regarded as a very reliable source, thus it is hard to distinguish OR from published sources. I do not see any COI from any editor.

I also draw attention to WP:notable. The MHP is, by a considerable margin, most notable for being a simple mathematical puzzle that vos Savant got right and nearly everyone else got wrong. The article should reflect this.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * The first paragraph of this is a principle. The rest ("I add this ...") is NOT a principle, but your comment on this principle.  Re WP:Notable, you again asking arbcom to decide a content issue.  -- Rick Block (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am asking arbcom to support the WP:notable policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee
Although the arbitration committee do not rule on content disputes they might in this case consider ruling on an article structure that promotes cooperation, avoids conflict, and best addresses the needs of our readers.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Again, mixing principle and commentary. The principle is arbcom does not settle content disputes (period).  What you're suggesting is that arbcom violate this principle in this case, presumably to satisfy some more important principle (e.g. harmonious editing). -- Rick Block (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that WP:NPOV is a good enough wikipedia principle to free the Monty Hall page from the fundamentalist/extremist straightjacket which it has been wearing for several years. Richard Gill (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

A small group of editors has exerted disproportionate control over the page content and structure
Rick Block, with Nijdam and Glopk have acted over a long time and against a clear majority of editors to have the article represent their POV. There is no accusation of bad faith only that things have worked out such that the views of other editors other have not been given appropriate weight and consideration.

Since the start of the article a total of 5 registered editors and 2 IPs have supported the 'page owners' and 12 registered and 10 IPs disagreed with them.`


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * If you're talking about WP:WEIGHT, the "appropriate" weight is none, whatsoever. Views of editors don't get "weight", views of sources do.  Arguing WP:WEIGHT based on number of supporting editors is fundamentally missing the point. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about number of sources then? How about number of academic sources then? The only count which supports your position is the that of only sources that agree with you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Agree with Rick Block here, first, that "views of other editors" are not relevant to Wikipedia articles, only the views of sources, with the caveat that the views of sources should be weighed according to the prominence of their views in the entire body of literature, especially in secondary sources.  As for the basic proposal, as I've commented to another similar proposal, the evidence offered to support this assertion is uneven at best, especially for glopk for whom only one (rather unpersuasive, IMO) diff has been offered in evidence.  I don't know any of these people, have no history with them and have not taken a position on the content disputes, but I need to see some data on this charge which has been made by several people but without much supporting evidence, and  I will be tabulating and presenting data in the next day or two.  Woonpton (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Also  I don't understand how the second paragraph is derived (on what evidence);  could you expand on that? Woonpton (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence, for the registered editors is given on the evidence page. All of it can be seen on my page User:Martin_Hogbin/Monty_Hall_History Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Woonpton, talking about the views of sources does not help . It is not that a large number of editors disagree with the sources, the problem is that editors disagree on what the sources say and what their relative prominence is.  It is this subject that Rick is in a small minority.  In the end WP content is decided by consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification re evidence; I was thinking more of actual evidence of ownership, rather than a list of editors expressing an opinion that there is ownership, but now I see what you're basing it on, thanks. The six diffs from Rick are so old, stretching back to 4-1/2 years ago; that's a long time back. I'll have some more recent evidence that might or might not be helpful to you.   I "get" your objection about "views of sources" but don't think we're quite in agreement on that; in my opinion, while consensus is important, in the end the article still has to reflect views of sources,  rather than views of editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woonpton (talk • contribs) 2011-03-03T22:29:48
 * There are no sources offering views on how best to structure and present the material in an encyclopedia article – which is at least half of what the dispute is about. Even if there were such source-supported views, I see no reason why editors should feel compelled to take account of them in deciding how to organize this article. --Lambiam 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Woonpton, in the end the article has to reflect "views of sources". But a minority of editors for years have succeeded in avoiding that principle, to combat that principle and to fight against that principle. And as a result, the article for years reflects just only one retarded viewpoint of sources, of actually prominently disputed and less important sources, while weighty sources just "are not allowed", in the lemma. The article is restricted to strictly negate and to object any other weighty sources. Yes, and exactly that is the reason of the ongoing and unsettled conflict. The lemma is constricted to show only one unimportant side issue in great over-representation. Bemusing. And arousing the opposition of a great number of good editors. But all interested and capable forces meanwhile have been banished. The goal is clear, for any observer clearly to be seen. And this typical and characteristic Arb Campaign against any remedial action shows that dilemma in an extraordinary clear manner. No surprise. – To solve the dilemma would be easy. Just aspects of "editors faith" still exceed the weight of reliable sources. In the end the article has to reflect "views of sources". But not in the MHP. That finally must have an end. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Woonpton, I hope your study of MHP article edits (and specifically reverts?) keeps track of Nijdam's revert activities. As he refused to engage me, Glkanter, at any time in 2010, and only refers to reliable sources when he chooses to demean them, it seems to me that any reverts by Nijdam are unsupported, and violate many, many Wikipedia policies. I wish you were as interested in the negative affect of Nijdam's OR on the article as Richards's.
 * I almost forgot. Here's Rick Block's bogus RfC against me. One of his trumped up, illogical, charges against me is:
 * "...is apparently not here to help build an encyclopedia (6 article edits out of about 1000 talk page edits)..."
 * "Spend more time editing and less time arguing on talk pages."
 * " 500 edits from February 14, 2009 through December 12, 2009, nearly all to talk:Monty Hall problem including only 5 article edits."


 * So, I try to edit the article as per Rick Block's complaint, and I get reverted every time. That ain't right. Glkanter (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the proposed finding about editors who have supported or disagreed with "page owners" since the start of the article:
 * 1) The wording discounts the possibility of supporting a person with whom one disagrees on a question, agreeing on some questions while disagreeing on others, or multiple permutations of considering and rejecting alternatives proffered in the course of seeking consensus.
 * 2) The figures do not reflect the large number of contributors who have interacted with Rick, most of whom evidently did not feel it necessary to state whether or not they thought Rick was being reasonable.
 * 3) Martin's tabulation of editor's positions (linked above) includes a post by me (67.130.129.135, 23:41, 29 February 2008) that should not be construed as a statement of opposition to Rick. My main post of that date explained the position I advocated more fully (and less glibly), and espoused a view with which Rick expressed complete agreement. At no time did I ever express opposition to Rick's Sisyphean efforts to find a compromise that would be equally unsatisfactory to all participants.
 * ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Responses to Ningauble
 * The situation is of course more complex than my simple analysis might suggest.
 * I looked through the history of the talk pages trying to pick out the views on the dispute expressed by every editor. I obviously did not include those who did not express a view and we can only guess what the views of editors who did not comment might be.
 * This is what you said, 'On point 5, unfortunately, there is no way to appease probability purists, at least not all of them, because there is more than one school of thought. Indeed, there is an unresolved (unresolvable?) problem in trying to define the meaning of probability and randomness in a fundamental and rigorous way: they tend to be circular. But that is a story for another topic. Seriously: it is a whole other article; it does not belong here. The only way to achieve point 2 is to agree on point 3, i.e. to adopt a notably conventional meaning for what is notably agreed to be unfortunate wording of the original problem, and give poor Marilyn a rest'.


 * That looks like opposition to 'probability purists' and support for vos Savants position to me. It also looks like support for the position put forward by myself and Richard Gill that there is no agreement on the fundamental meaning of the word 'probability', but if you like we can reduce the number of anons opposing the page owners by one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * " The only way to achieve point 2 is to agree on point 3, i.e. to adopt a notably conventional meaning for what is notably agreed to be unfortunate wording of the original problem, and give poor Marilyn a rest'." This is circular! This is the problem! There is no notably conventional meaning for what is agreed to be the wording of the problem. And that is why the problem is alive and fascinating and will continue to be so. It does not belong to one academic community. And the article must reflect this. Richard Gill (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Richard, this strikes me as unduly tendentious. Firstly, I already pointed out above that what you quote was a glib response to Rick, and I pointed to my more substantive post of that date. Secondly, you ignore the general context of my remark. At the time of that exchange the analysis of Morgan et al. had only recently been introduced and it was by no means clear that the "simple" treatment they criticized was not conventional. On the contrary, I think it was fair to characterize such sources as rebutting what they believed to be a common, or "conventional," misunderstanding. Thirdly, you ignore the specific context of my remark. In reference to point 2 in Rick's post (full text), which point reads in full "Stop squabbling," my response (full text) that adopting a convention is the only way to achieve it was an admittedly glib rejoinder to a nonspecific suggestion that a minor tweak of the wording in a main solution section might appease everybody. I stand behind the proposition that no such tweak can appease everybody in the absence of an accepted convention. Experience appears to bear this out: there is no universally accepted convention, and squabbling has not stopped. Fourthly, I frankly cannot conceive how your criticism of my remark from three years ago would lead Arbcom to rebuke me for circularity or tendentious use of irony. Unless you are quoting me as evidence of misconduct on my part, or on the part of the above named editors, your remarks are misplaced in this proposed finding of fact about user conduct. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Two main comments:
 * That particular exchange is not evidence of intransigence on Rick's part. I will not elaborate on where the substance or basis of evolving content proposals stood at that time, except to reiterate that Rick and I were in complete agreement on the fundamental question under consideration.
 * More generally, surveying positions taken on different content proposals from different discussions at different times is not effective evidence of refusing to resolve disagreements through consensus within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which is what "ownership" is about.
 * As an aside: (Apologies to the committee if this should be on the talk page or elsewhere.) As it happens, my current opinion on the application of guidance at WP:STRUCTURE for "folding debates into the narrative" so as to avoid back-and-forth between points of view is closer to your recently expressed opinions than to Rick's recently expressed opinions. This is a content issue about which I forbear to elaborate until the arbitration has settled; but I mention it to underscore that my comments in this thread are not about the substance of positions taken in content discussions, but are about the evidence for allegations concerning the conduct of discussants.
 * ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor behaviour has generally, over a period of nearly three years, been good
There has been a degree of badness, including obvious and more subtle personal attacks, and incivility from all editors, mainly due to frustration and the failure make progress. Such cases have been adequately dealt with at the time and no further action is necessary.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:

The MHP talk pages are fine
The main talk page is for improving the article but that necessarily involves some discussion on the subject itself. Further discussion of the subject matter has taken place on the 'Arguments' page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:

A group of editors has engaged in tendentious editing
A group of editors, and Rick Block in particular, has engaged in WP:Tendentious editing. Here are some of the relevant characteristics of problem editors from the article on the subject:


 * One who accuses others of malice
 * One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources
 * One who repeats the same argument without convincing people
 * One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * My understanding is findings of fact are meant to be based on evidence presented on the evidence page. Does any of the evidence provided by you or anyone else show I exhibit these characteristics? For the record, I emphatically deny all of these.  Some diffs showing the opposite: assume good faith (despite repeated personal attacks) , suggest NPOV treatment including sources presenting different views           .  It's hard to show not repeating the same argument (although I think the immediately preceding extensive list of diffs actually does this, the underlying point is the same [i.e. the article needs to include all significant POVs without expressing a preference] but the argument is presented from many different angles with many different proposed solutions).  It's also hard to show not assigning undue importance with diffs (and this is a fundamentally a content issue that arbcom is not interested in hearing about).  -- Rick Block (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There's something about "can't see the forest for the trees" that comes to mind here. Somehow, Rick Block and Nijdam and the other 2 are not subject to the fundamental Wikipedia requirement for 'editing by consensus'. No matter how many editors disagree with them, their response is essentially that the article is POV perfect as it is. Or at least that the oft requested changes that are agreed upon by the consensus of editors would be less POV-perfect than the way he prefers the article. They then assign themselves the responsibility for determining what are POV violations, and they determine that presenting simple solutions first, with criticisms later, is a de facto POV violation. This conclusion is *not* support by the reliable sources, no matter how one measures them. Of course Nijdam is one member of this small cohort, and he does not refer to reliable sources anyways. And when needed, like in this arbitration, that unsupportable claim of POV violations becomes their excuse for ignoring the consensus of editors. Despite the absence of newer editors to their POV, and despite the ever present, ever changing, and ever growing cast of editors who tell them they are wrong. There's no question that evidence of Rick Block's tendentious editing has been clearly and repeatedly presented by many contributors to this arbitration. Glkanter (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to Lambiam... Thinking out loud about it, "Thwarting the good faith will of the consensus of editors for a period of years", aka 'ownership', is the real issue here, isn't it? Everything else is either a symptom, or by-product of that goal. And it's certainly a topic the arbitration committee is empowered to address. Glkanter (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt the "conditionalists", as Martin called them, also think their actions are for the greater good and in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. But the arbitrators will certainly try to see what frustrated the efforts to reach consensus for years, and to relate this to our policies; how you label it (ownership, tendentious editing, ...) is, as far as I'm concerned, not frightfully important. --Lambiam 18:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We're 99.999% in agreement, Lambiam. The reason I recognize a difference is that 'tendentious editing' may not necessarily affect the article, but rather may be a source of aggravation to the other editors. 'Article ownership', of course, always affects the article. And as you originally pointed out, the ownership issue may be better 'proven' in a way other than rote references to diffs. And some (many?) times, you'll have both tendentious editing and ownership, and the difference isn't so vital to dissect. Thanks. Glkanter (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I agree with Glkanter that the small group of editors who make it impossible to reach consensus has managed to do so largely without engaging in obvious violations such as can readily be documented by diffs. But consistently, through the years, they have thwarted all proposals, also those offered in compromise, to give less prominence to their beloved conditional complications – of no interest and largely unintelligible or off-putting to the typical reader – and to postpone them to later parts of the article. The evidence can be found in the Page ownership section of the evidence presented by Martin Hogbin, with more in the Monty Hall History page in his user space, linked to from his Proposals section on this page. If this minority had been willing to achieve consensus, even though the result would not quite have agreed with their preferred point of view, it would have been reached years ago and we would not have this case. --Lambiam 12:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The editors who have exerted disproportionate control over the article should be asked to allow consensus decisions
Decisions on WP should be made by consensus. Although this does not necessarily mean a majority, when discussion has failed to reach a unanimous conclusion, a majority of editors should be considered as a consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:

Editors should be commended for their generally good behaviour
There is nothing here that warrants draconian action such as a permanent topic ban. Lesser action such as short term bans or even admonishments will do nothing except cause bad feeling.

For the most part, editors have behaved well and they should be encouraged to continue to do so.

The arbitrators should rule on article structure and purpose
WP is an encyclopedia and this article should be structured is a way to make it accessible to the widest range of reader. The simple solutions should come first, complete with all necessary explanation and without disclaimers.

This is all that is needed to bring this dispute to a conclusion. Note that, as explained in the 'principles' section above, this would not be a ruling on article content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:

Again, I wish it were so, Martin. There is so much trivial content given undue weight and repetitious inclusion in the article, that only the elimination of the violating editors, with their heavy handed Wikipedia violating tactics, from the discussions and article editing will enable the article to take any semblance of proper form again. Glkanter (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Neutral point of view
1) All Wikipedia content must be written from a neutral point of view. They must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject, in accordance with their prevalence as reflected in the best and most reputable sources, and without giving undue weight to minority views. Good faith content disputes should be resolved by consensus, and, if necessary, through dispute resolution procedures. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The difficulty with applying this principle to Monty Hall Problem is that there is no unanimity what are "the best and most reputable sources". IMHO, the present page has been slanted for several years towards a point of view put forward in Morgan et al. (1991), who at the time were widely criticized by equally reputable sources for rephrasing Vos Savant's question in order to argue that she gave the wrong argument for her answer! They are still criticized today by authors of new standard works, such as Jason Rosenhouse in his recent compehensive book. The Wikipedia page must therefore reflect the diversity of opinions in the best and most reputable sources, including the diversity of opinions concerning what sources are "best" and "reputable". Editors Rick Block, Nijdam, and Glopk have, in the experience of the other editors in this dispute, been maintaining a minority POV hold on the article, through fair means or foul, but undoubtedly with the best of faith, for more than two years. Morgan et al were certainly influential and their point of view, including the rewriting of Vos Savant's question, found its way into introductory statistics texts, where MHP is used to illustrate the workings of Bayes Theorem and get students familiar with formal probability calculus. These sources regularly duplicate Morgan et al's rewriting of Vos Savant's question, and often also duplicate their snide words about her intelligence. The dogmatic tone of such authors "you *must* solve MHP in this or that way" rightly offends common sense and the role of MHP as a popular brain-teaser for young and old. Especially since rarely, if ever, do those authors explain why they think the problem *must* be solved in a particular way.


 * Ordinary logic is equally able to give a full analysis of MHP. In fact, there are several routes to do so. They are documented in reliable sources, and they each give insight into the paradox. For students of probability calculus it is a useful exercise to translate each correct verbal argument into the formal language which they are busy learning (but many are busy hating). But solving MHP by going back to formal definitions followed by either lengthy formula manipulation or arithmetic does not give insight into MHP; it just shows that formal mathematics is not always the best tool for solving a conundrum, though of course it is always available, perhaps as a last resort. Richard Gill (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC).


 * Comment by others:

Glkanter is banned and indefinetly topic banned
1) Glkanter is banned from editing Wikipedia for a minimum of one - 1 year for making personal attacks and being uncivil towards other editors. After one year, the arbitration committee may lift the ban. If the ban is lifted, Glkanter is then subject to a topic ban. Further disruption and incivility may lead to a ban for a indefinite period of time.


 * Comments by proposer
 * It addresses the problems that have been taKen forward in the Evidence page and the main case page. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators


 * Comments by parties
 * What problem does your proposed remedy address? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments by others

Article probation
(To be applied in addition to, not instead of, any topic bans) Apply General Restrictions (Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies). In addition to the above general restriction, apply a specific restriction consisting of a "no tolerance" policy towards personal attacks. Warn all editors that behavior that was tolerated before may now result in topic bans, and suggest that they re-read the content policies and that they carefully review any comment containing a personal pronoun referring to another editor before posting. Administrators should enforce this starting with a 24-hour topic ban and escalate the response to longer and longer periods if the offense is repeated. Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Original research (Mathematics)
1) Routine mathematical calculations, including simple arithmetic and combining numerical inequalities, are permitted within articles, as are straightforward and uncontested logical deductions. However, the derivation of mathematical results from first principles, where the conclusion hasn't been published in a reliable source, is likely to constitute original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not quite there yet. If you read WP:CALC it is absolutely clear that it is referring only to the calculation of simple sums - This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus agree] that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources sources]. See [http:/wiki/Category:Conversion_templates here] for some conversion templates.  It may be that in a maths article, combining numerical inequalities would be as uncontroversial as converting dollars to yen.  Logical deductions are a problem.  WP:PSTS says All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about [http:/wiki/Primary_sources primary sources] must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.  I'm struggling to think of a logical deduction that won't be trapped out by this (it would have to be as noddy as presuming from 'he was interred at Valley Oaks cemetery' that he was dead at the time.) Actions such as putting a list in numerical or alphabetic order would probably not be seen by most as a calc, but would fall into that small subset of analyses which are permitted. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * The wording isn't perfect, but I refer editors and arbitrators to this, this, this, and this. Geometry guy 22:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Algebraic derivations from first principles, of the kind that 15-year-olds can do (but undergraduates at universities cannot) should not be, and are not, considered "original research". Michael Hardy (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) This case involves a protracted debate over the Featured article Monty Hall problem, a paradoxical probability problem inspired by the popular game show Let's Make a Deal. Since the problem was first published in 1975, there have been various problem statements published by people from different disciplines with different target audiences in mind, varying numbers of assumptions and consequently different correct solutions.  These varied problem statements and solutions have had their share of criticisms.  No party wishes to exclude information about the various problem statements and solution, although there is dispute as to how much weight each aspect should be given in the article, and how it should be structured so as to provide complete coverage of all the facets of the problem, without overwhelming the general reader.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed I have tried to sum up the proposed FoF 1-3 into a single Finding of fact, avoiding the technical details while still explaining that the nature of the dispute is WP:WEIGHT and WP:STRUCTURE. The aspect that this doesn't describe very well is "Editors have largely fallen into two camps".  Comments and copyediting welcomed.. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to fix the grammatical issues. In that diff I have opt to continue using 'problem statement(s)' rather than start use 'problem interpretation' in the last sentence.  If 'problem interpretation' is more appropriate, is it also more appropriate to use 'problem interpretation' in the second sentence? John Vandenberg (chat) 12:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think this is an excellent summary, and since I think there are more than two camps losing the bit about editors falling into two camps doesn't bother me at all. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nijdam is unwavering that mentions of the simple solutions in the article *must be* accompanied by criticisms that state that 'all simple solutions are wrong'. This POV is OR. Glkanter (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Felicitous:
 * ''    ... published by people from different disciplines and target audiences,
 * with varying numbers of assumptions
 * and consequently different correct solutions.
 * These varied problem statements and solutions have had their share of criticisms.''
 * The article, with undue weight, has been single-edged focused on just "only one correct solution" for more than two years, officially declaring any other interpretation as "false and void" (see good faith ceterum censeo of very few editors Nijdam, Glopk and others, as said in good faith), the article is since indurated and, from the view of other editors, long ago unsustainable in its tenor. Besides textbooks for teaching the technique of conditional probability theory and calculus, using the MHP as a welcome example, most sources recognize other perspectives, also. It is a blessing and mercy that experts are able to appraise those other sources, as well. No unsourced OR, no commercial nor self-serving POI. Just considering and allowing for other basic views also, and accepting that not all readers of en.WP are students of cond.prob.  Gerhardvalentin (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a sensible proposal, even if tweaks are needed in the wording (e.g. "from different disciplines and target audiences") Geometry guy 20:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is an excellent draft. There is a slight grammatical glitch with "from different ... target audiences" [emphasis added] and with "various problem[s] and solutions." For the latter, I would suggest "various problem interpretations and solutions," since nobody disputes that anyone can make up whatever problem they want, but people do dispute how to interpret them. The clause about "No party wishes to exclude..." is probably superfluous, since the arbitration is about the disagreements rather than the agreements, but that's not a problem. (There is an extreme minority that would like, if not to exclude, then to severely deprecate some treatments of the problem, but that need not be mentioned in finding the locus of dispute.) I also agree with Rick that there are more than two camps. Furthermore, if none of the other findings or sanctions ultimately refer to these nominal camps then it doesn't add value to point them out. Subject to some tweaks, I think the thrust of this is much better than existing findings 1-3. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Statements" is as good as "interpretations," and is more objective. It is apparent that the reason there are so many restatements of the problem is because some of them are open to interpretation; but this is an inference that need not be introduced in finding the locus of dispute. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation failed
2) WP:Mediation was requested on 14 January 2010 soon after a MedCab case, and has been unable to resolve the dispute.*


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed While ArbCom doesn't want to go into the specifics of the mediation, and why it failed, I think it is important to indicate that best efforts to mediate have failed. It provides a solid rationale for ArbCom to provide extreme remedies. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I see no logical justification for that claim. In any case mediation was virtually non-existent.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is untrue, Martin. Mediation was exhaustively attempted - multiple times - but never succeeded. Why it did not succeed, however, is not something that I as a mediator would comment on. AGK  [&bull; ] 13:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it is OK for me to give my opinion why mediation failed. The first time it stalled because the mediator wanted me to engage in a private off-wiki discussion.  I was not willing to do this for reasons which have since become accepted into mediation policy.
 * In the second attempt there appeared to have been a distinct lack of activity from the two mediators, as Rick agrees below. Sure not was not an easy job but I personally feel that more could and should have been done.  However my main point was that I sas no justification for extreme remedies.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is medcom was at least discussing, if not on the verge of, referring this case to arbcom on its own. Given this, I'm somewhat surprised by the complete lack of meaningful participation in this arbitration from anyone involved in medcom.  Wouldn't the mediators' opinions be of interest to the arbitrators? Perhaps this might be seen as a violation of the privilege clause at Mediation Committee/Policy, but as this mediation was conducted solely on public Wikipedia pages, and at least some of the participants were not even aware of this policy of privilege (e.g. Glkanter's dismay at not being allowed to use diffs from the mediation as evidence) it's not at all clear to me what harm would or even could be caused by the mediators participating here.  Certainly if any of the mediation had been conducted in confidence, I can see how this would be entirely different. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The role of the Mediation Committee is to resolve disputes by providing the service of mediation, whereas the role of the Arbitration Committee is to resolve disputes by issuing binding decisions. Whereas this dispute has moved from the first to the second, the mediators are no longer involved. On a personal note, I am especially reluctant for the mediators to become involved, because that would give the impression to parties in future cases that, should the case be referred to arbitration, the mediators could participate in that by submitting a critical analysis of the dispute—which is fundamentally against the spirit of the privileged nature of mediation. Rick is correct that we were very probably going to directly ask ArbCom to take this case, but that does not diminish the very good reasons why it would be undesirable for the MedCom to participate in this. On a separate but important topic, I am in any case sure that the arbitrators are capable of evaluating this dispute without guidance from the Mediation Committee, so our participation would do bad without, in my view, doing any good. AGK  [&bull; ] 22:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * There is an old joke about a drunk who is driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio that there is a drunk who is driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peers through the windshield and says "There are dozens of them!" I might believe the story about mediation failing because of some deficiency in the mediator if there was only one mediator, but multiple mediators?  If the same group of editors ends up with failed mediation again and again with different mediators, then simple logic tells me that the problem is the editors, not the mediators. I am going to make a prediction that when this case is decided some of the involved editors will then say that the arbitration committee did not do a good job. Same basic error.
 * I agree that extreme measures are called for. I don't see how anything short of that will get through to a bunch of editors, each of whom is 100% convinced that they are in no way part of the problem. I would even encourage the arbitration committee to consider applying minor sanctions (perhaps a one day topic ban) to editors who have only been a little bit disruptive just to pound home the point that pushing the boundaries is a Very Bad Idea. This would also discourage any attitude of 'Ha! I was right about the content (I didn't get sanctioned) and you were wrong about the content (you did get sanctioned)!' even though it has been explained again and again that it is not the role of the committee to rule on content disputes.Guy Macon (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Persistent disruption
3) The collaborative editing environment on Monty Hall problem has been dysfunctional for several years. A series of editors have behaved poorly, some of whom are no longer active. The problems are demonstrated by the fact that Talk:Monty Hall problem has 22 archive pages, and Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments has a further seven archive pages. Extensive and lively talkpage discussion on an article may sometimes reflect active, productive collaborative editing by engaged and knowledgeable editors happily working together&mdash;but not in this case. Rather, these talkpage archives reflect a miserable history of talkpage misuse and disruption, fully consistent with the troubled history of the article itself.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Copy from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question with minor changes needed to refer to this article and its talk pages. I think this one needs additional tailoring to the specifics of this dispute. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 10:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {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:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * 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:
 * Non-workshop question moved to case talk page. ( X! ·  talk )  · @262  · 05:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others: