Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2/Evidence

Response to Evidence presented by Kehrli
Jargon - As Nick Y. indicates in his evidence, Kehrli's evidence section is an additional indication of his perceived conflict between chemistry and metrology and is another appeal to the authority of the metrology guidelines document VIM. IUPAC mass "nowhere properly defined" simply indicates that its meaning is not described in a manner consistent with Kehrli's interpretation of these guidelines documents.

Source - Proper sourcing is here again defined as "consistent with Kehrli's interpretation of general metrology documents." Seventeen primary and twelve secondary sources were described in informal mediation, but Kehrli does not consider these sources proper. This is not consistent with WP:PSTS and continued advocation of this position is disruptive.

Not understandable - This is another indication of Kehrli's perceived conflict between chemistry and metrology. WP:TECHNICAL does not advocate weighting sources based on their understandability. This goes back to the 2006 arbitration case : "The scientific notation used by the bulk of contemporary experts in a field is the preferred usage." The article should be sourced with proper weight and understandable.

Biased writing - This is another appeal to the authority of metrology guidelines documents. WP:POV rests on WP:WEIGHT and WP:SOURCE. This was discussed at length in informal mediation.

Kmurray provokes Disputes - It is not true that "Kmurray has renamed the article under dispute without any prior discussion about this renaming." The article was not under dispute and it was not renamed without discussion. The chronology of the original article renaming was January 17, 2010, PROD and dePROD by User:Glenfarclas with the edit summary comment "Remove PROD, I guess the Kendrick mass scale exists, but it's not generally called the 'Kendrick unit'" ; January 25, 2010, Kendrick unit moved to Kendrick mass by Kkmurray with the edit summary comment "moved Kendrick unit to Kendrick mass: There is no 'Kendrick unit' to be found in the literature - it appears to be WP:OR - Kendrick mass is used as defined in the article". Seven months later IP User:85.5.41.238 (possibly Kehrli) reverted the article with the comment "the Kendrik mass scale does imply a unit". Kkmurray reverted the IP editor with the comment "Discuss before deleting refs please" (several refs were lost in the edits). Kehrli then edited the redirect Kendrick (unit), initiating the content fork []. Kkmurray added merge tags to Kendrick mass and OR  and merge tags   to Kendrick (unit). Kehrli removed the OR and merge tags. This was mid-October 2010. Concurrently (September 24-27, 2010) Kkmurray requested comments from WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Mass spectrometry   and October 17, 2010, opened RfC

Unproven accusations - My evidence was presented with diffs and can be judged on its merits. I don't think that I have had any lapses of good faith during the dispute resolution process, but if Kehrli would provide diffs, I could address any that he sees.

Technical questions - This is largely rehashing content issues that were covered at length in informal mediation. The particular assumption that leads Kehrli to believe that chemists are "redefining a unit" (they aren't) was pointed out.

Other issues - I think that it is clear from the informal mediation discussion that Kehrli was not willing to build consensus through information mediation that ultimately failed due to "I didn't hear that" and "refusal to get the point" arguments.

Organizations that support my terminology - Additional appeal to general metrology sources that do not Kendrick mass or Kendrick unit.

Scientific papers that support my terminology - This was discussed in informal mediation. Even with the most generous interpretation of the sources, the "Kendrick unit" view is in the minority.

Scientific papers that contradict Kmurray's terminology - This was discussed in informal mediation.

Problems with the terminology by Kmurray - Kehrli is using the no true Scotsman argument here. As in mediation, he has asked for definitions of Kendrick mass and IUPAC mass and when they are supplied, the definitions are not "proper" and the sources invalid. This is another example of tendentious editing.

The big picture - False dichotomy of chemistry vs. metrology again.

The case - It is true that Kehrli has not edited as aggressively in this case as in the 2006 case, but he has still been disruptive.

Conclusion - If Kehrli has any evidence to suggest improper behavior on my part, he should provide it.

--Kkmurray (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Improper behavior of Kmurray
Kmurray asks for evidence of improper behavior. I have given this evidence many times before. I can do it again:

No good faith
In WP:Discussion it says:
 * Disputes or grievances should always be reacted to in the first instance by approaching, in good faith, the editor or editors concerned and explaining what you find objectionable and why you think so.

Improper behavior: Kmurray has renamed the article under dispute without approaching the editor (me) and without any prior discussion about this renaming. There by he has started this case. See here. He claimed that "Kendrick units" cannot be found in literature. That is not true. Kendrick mass units can be easily found in literature. He could have asked and discussed before the move. Kehrli (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not defined, not sourced
The term "IUPAC mass" does not have a definition that is sourced from ANY literature. Kmurray tries to make you believe that it is only not sourced in the metrology literature. This is not true. He has no source at all. Kehrli (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jargon
Kmurray pushes aggressively his jargon terminology. Kehrli (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We need an expert in metrology
Kmurray claims that he is not redefining the Da unit. Well, he is. I do believe Kmurray that he firmly believes what he says, but it is not true. He is just very incompetent in this field and does not know what he is doing. Hence we need an expert. If he truly believes that he is not redefining the Da, then he will never understand my issue with his edits. Kehrli (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Kehrli has ignored the findings of previous arbitration - recent edits
Adding to the evidence presented by Nick Y., Kehrli today restored POV content to Thomson (unit) and mass-to-charge ratio. These were the articles Kehrli was banned from editing in the 2006 arbitration. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted edits that were added by the "inventor" of the Thomson unit and that he personally added to the article because Kmurray distorted his proposal. Kehrli (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Evidence Presented by PauloNapolitano

 * I don't see that this is relevant but just to respond: I have contributed extensively to AFD. E.g., , , , , , , , , and many more. I have hundreds of such edits. AFD activity is a service to the overall quality of wikipedia.


 * I also contribute to other articles. E.g. Movies, Video Games , Video Games , Election results , Geography , Korean Food , Pizza , more geography , Mathematics , and more.


 * I have also served as a mediator in the mediation Cabal. I was commended form my work there and suggested that I stand for admin election.


 * I'll admit that I contribute primarily to mass, weight, biology and chemistry but also physics, and general cleaning and maintaining of wikipedia as a whole (AFD, Mediation Cabal). I'd say that is getting fairly broad and certainly not a SPA.--Nick Y. (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Judging by your contributions, more than 90% of your edits have been related to mass, weight, chemistry, biology and physics. I have no objections about your knowledge and work on these topics, but I unfortunately have to say that your project interest is narrow. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The mediation case that you mediated in was also physics-related. --PaoloNapolitano (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But I have more total contributions to administrative efforts than anyone else here, save administrators. 500+ contributions to AFD clearly makes me not a SPA. Who else here has mediated a mediation cabal case? I was requested by the Mediation Cabal Committee to mediate that case due to my knowledge in the area and that I had no interest in it, thus not in line with SPA. I think you misunderstand SPA. SPA does not mean single branch of knowledge (e.g. science), but single purpose. Mediating someone else's dispute doesn't go toward any purpose of mine other than helping the community. From SPA "A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is broadly limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. Many SPAs turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy." I hardly think mass, weight, chemistry, physics and biology constitute "one very narrow area". What would be my common purpose in all of my edits? Also there is nothing necessarily wrong with being a SPA. Again from SPA "If you wish to continue working as a SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly as regards sources. Be willing to buy or borrow books and articles on your chosen subject. Search thoroughly for information on-line. Make notes reminding you from where your information comes, carefully check its reliability and neutrality. Reproduce it in the form of citations." I.e. be neutral, use reliable sources, be civil, generate citations, do not give undue weight, no OR,  etc. But my contributions are not that narrow. Being a SPA is only a potential indicator of other misbehavior, not a problem in an of itself. Nonetheless I do not fit the profile.--Nick Y. (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)