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

Statement by Alanyst
To expedite the arbitration process I propose the following: I cannot see how this can possibly go wrong. alanyst /talk/ 15:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The evidence and workshop phases are skipped.
 * 2) The arbitration committee drafts offwiki and encrypts three proposed decisions and accompanying sanctions. Two of these are extraordinarily harsh towards the parties, and one is extraordinarily lenient.
 * 3) The parties collectively choose one of the encrypted decisions to apply to them.  The committee then reveals the text of one of the remaining harsh decisions and asks the parties to collectively decide whether to switch their decision to the remaining unrevealed decision.
 * 4) Space and time collapse into an ironic self-referential loop and the arbitration committee and the rest of us taste the sweet peace of oblivion.
 * I think I've just fallen in love. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the problem, Alanyst. I'm ready to decide to switch now. Or after we've chosen one of the three decisions/sanctions. Or anytime, really. Other editors will *insist* we wait until after a harsh decision/sanction has actually been revealed, before we can make our decision. But you've already given me the rules. I'm a thinking, sentient being, why *can't* I decide at some point in advance? Plenty of reliably sourced teams of editors make the decision without regard for *which* harsh decision/sanction is revealed.
 * By the way, will the decision/sanctions be assigned random #s in order to eliminate confusion and ambiguity? And if we select the lenient decision/sanction, how will the arbitrators decide which harsh decision/sanction to reveal? Will they choose 'uniformly at random? Will they have a bias towards one or the other? Will they share this bias with the MHP editors? This is mighty important, don't you know? Glkanter (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bravo. AGK  [&bull; ] 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this different from usual? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are the two harsh proposals going to be both equally harsh against all parties, or maybe each against a different set? I'm just wondering whether it would be possible to spice the process up with just a hint of prisoner's dilemma or something of that sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Alanyst, may I publish this in my next masterpiece in the Annals of MHP Studies? Richard Gill (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by kibbitzer Wehwalt
I see no solution to this case which does not involved the Arbitration Committee going on the show. After all, they probably won't need to get costumes ... just sayin'.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Glkanter clarifying question
I would benefit from some clarification. Was the vote 12/0/0/0 to look into sanctioning Glkanter and/or some other editors, or was the vote 12/0/0/0 to bring the 14 month old mediation to an end? Glkanter (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The 12/0/0/0 vote was to accept the case. The case is now open, so evidence can be submitted. ( X! ·  talk )  · @263  · 05:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a little difficult. The 14 month mediation talk pages have been disappeared. The only things I, or any involved editor, can refer to are either diffs older than 14 months, or are diffs made to either the MHP talk page or user talk pages.
 * A lot of my 'defense' is not available to me.
 * A lot of 'mitigating factors' are not available.
 * A lot of 'context' explaining the available diffs is not available.
 * The mediation talk pages were likely the vast majority of MHP related diffs for the last 14 months.
 * An editor who was aware of the request for arbitration *may* have strategically made out-of-bounds diffs on the mediation page. This 'strategy' would not have been available to the other editors.

So, whatever it is I'm being charged with, and that's not clear to me at all, happened prior to 2010, or is a grossly incomplete picture of the last 14 months. Please advise. Glkanter (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Further, I'm not clear on why this qualifies as an arbitration matter. A simple RfC requires 2 editors who have attempted to address the same issue with the trouble-maker in order to be accepted. It would seem that an arbitration case should, at a minimum, meet that same standard. That has not been demonstrated here. Nor has it been shown why arbitration, rather than an RfC is appropriate.

By the way, what am I supposed to provide evidence of? Rick Block offered up some old diffs, but what am I being 'charged' with, anyways? All I can see is that I disagree with Rick Block, and he doesn't appreciate that. Well, I don't appreciate his Gamesmanship, Wikilawyering, or Ownership of the article. Nor do I appreciate the disregard for basic Wikipedia policy demonstrated by Rick Block's ally, Nijdam, as he has already demonstrated in this arbitration. He unapologetically fails to offer the AGF to me and my edits, and he makes no effort to discuss or edit based on reliable sources. This has been going on for over 2 years. During the mediation, AGK agreed with my assessment/complaint of Nijdam's lack of responsiveness to my edits.

The 6 comments left with the acceptances all seemed to refer to the content dispute, not my conduct. Sorry, I don't 'get it'.

Please advise. Glkanter (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Amendment request: Monty Hall problem (April 2013)
Initiated by  Martin Hogbin (talk) at 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 3


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


 * Information about amendment request


 * Request removal of discretionary sanctions.

Statement by Martin Hogbin
Civil discussion on ways to improve the article now takes place on the talk page and general discussion about the subject that is relevant to improving the article continues on the arguments page. There has been no incivility, edit warring, or other bad behaviour connected with the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ningauble
Although the situation has improved since a time when the discussion page saw frequent, explicit personal attacks, our 17th most talked about article continues to be the locus of unproductive and unconstructive contention. A handful of frequent participants have effectively reached an agreement to disagree more or less civilly about their divergent views; but virtually any attempt to actually improve clarity, neutrality, and due weight in the article, especially by anyone outside this group, is overwhelmed and thwarted by tendentious objections and voluminous digressions, as the regulars seize opportunities to re-grind their favorite axes. This environment of antagonistic browbeating is so severe that Guy Macon, a member of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, has repeatedly (most recently in the thread started here) called for the regulars to just go away and let somebody else work on improving the article. Aside: My own view that editor contention has resulted in undue emphasis on contention within the article itself, and that the article interprets sources in ways that misrepresent what sources say, is supported by closing statements in last year'sRfC; but I would be nuts to try to improve it in this environment. (I have tried occasionally, so it is fair to say I sometimes do go nuts.) Distortions in the current article, such as the inadequately sourced and apparently incorrect narrative under A second controversy, and the (mis-)interpretation of the context sources refer to under Criticism of the simple solutions, appear to me to result from a kind of Groupthink consensus among a handful of disputants to defend the one thing they agree about – that the article should express their disagreements. I recommend against removal of discretionary sanctions. If anything, I think there has been inadequate moderation of the discussion page, from which all but the most pugnacious or masochistic contributors are regularly driven away. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "Statement by Guy Macon" below: Although I cited Guy's earlier recommendations along these lines as testimony about a dysfunctional editing environment, I should clarify that his prescription is not something I can endorse. Personally, as someone who has always striven to respect the need for consensus, and who has repeatedly stepped away for weeks, months, and even years at a time when consensus seemed unattainable, I do not like the idea of being presumptively banned for having occasionally tried to improve the article or break a stalemate. What is proposed here goes far beyond the existing discretionary sanctions, and I wonder if there is any precedent for this sort of "inverse semi-protection" that allows only newcomers. In saying that I think there has been inadequate moderation, I mean that the existing discretionary sanctions have not been used as effectively as they might to intervene in unconstructive discussion. Of course, it is not easy to do so without reviewing prodigious quantities of past discussion to ascertain whether, e.g, dead horses are being beaten. It is far easier to indiscriminately send everyone away but, as Richard Gill has suggested, it may be counterproductive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Richard Gill
Why the article will never stabilize: MHP appears to be a simple problem which you can solve with common sense. Most people's initial common sense solution is however wrong. So new editors will keep coming to the page wanting to rewrite the article according to their common sense understanding (right or wrong). But wikipedia articles have to be based on published sources, not on individual editors' common sense!

Next probem: there is a huge literature on MHP because it interests ordinary folk (people who like solving fun brainteasers), and it interests educationalists, and cognitive scientists, and mathematicans, and statisticians, and decision theorists. The mathematicians and statisticians and decision theorists have developed tools and language to solve problems like this in a systematic way ... precisely because ordinary human cognition tends to go wrong as soon as probabilistic reasoning. People have been debating what probability means for 300 years and there is still no consensus. There are a number of different schools who nowadays live mostly in peaceful coexistence.

Conclusion: the talk page of the article will always be a debating ground. The article will always be a big article, because it's a big topic. Yet right now, in my opinion, the article is reasonably balanced, comprehensive, and it's a fantastic resource. So there is no problem needing a fix.

Ningauble's small print comments -- inadequately sourced and apparently incorrect narrative under A second controversy, and the (mis-)interpretation of the context sources refer to under Criticism of the simple solutions -- should be raised on the talk page of the article. The inadequate sourcing is easy to fix. As to his claims of incorrect narrative and misinterpretation of context - I'm not aware of errors.

I agree that the "regulars" ought to move on now and give newcomers a chance.

Finally: I recommend lifting of discretionary sanctions. It would make the talk page of the article a more welcoming place to newcomers. Richard Gill (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kmhkmh
I mostly agree with Richard Gill's statement regarding the nature of the problem and the state of the article. However I don't quite agree with his final conclusion regarding lifting the discretionary sanctions. The article will always be subject to "opinionated" edits and always be high maintenance (unless it gets locked down completely in a somewhat reasonable state). Though it might helpful if old editors stay away (many actually did) to remove personal confrontation and frustrations, I seriously doubt it will improve the situation in the long run, because due to the nature of the problem chances are the new editors will sooner or later pick up exactly where the old ones left off. We will get the same or similar conflicts just with new players. The discretionary sanction may help to keep those conflicts under control. Moreover since the state of the article it somewhat reasonable, there is no need for an urgent improvement but the danger of a rapid deterioration.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon
In my considered opinion, we should rethink this issue and consider new solutions.

This is the longest-running content dispute on Wikipedia, and is featured at WP:HALLOFLAME.

I have been making periodic efforts to resolve this content dispute for the last two years. Some of my efforts have been:

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Evidence

Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments/Archive 8

Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 23

Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 24

Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 24

Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 25

Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 25

Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 29

Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 29

Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 33

Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 35

...and those are just the places where I created a new section.

After well over a million words, we have not reached a consensus on article content. To this day Talk:Monty Hall problem is full of spirited debates about what the content of the Monty Hall problem page should be. Another million words are unlikely to change that.

This has reduced the quality of the page, as evidenced by the fact that it is a former featured article. A comparison of the present page with the with the (featured 2005 version) is instructive.

Every avenue of dispute resolution has been tried, some repeatedly. Unlike many articles with unresolved content disputes, this does not appear to be the result of any behavioral problems. Instead, it is an unfortunate interaction between editors, each of whom is doing the right thing when viewed in isolation.

In my opinion, it is time to ignore all rules and start considering new ways to solve this, the longest-running content dispute on Wikipedia.

I propose applying a 6-month topic ban -- no editing of the MHP page or MHP talk page -- on every editor who was working on the page two years ago, one year ago, and is still working on the page today (this of course includes me). I predict that within a few months the remaining editors (and perhaps those who have gone away discouraged) will create an article that is far superior to the one we have now, and they will do it without any major conflicts. Giving the boot to a handful of editors who, collectively, have completely failed to figure out what should be in the article will have a positive effect. Of course it should be made clear that this does not imply any wrongdoing on anyone's part, but rather is an attempt to solve the problem with a reboot.

Two years is enough. It is time to step aside and let someone else try. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Related:


 * Talk:Monty Hall problem


 * Talk:Monty Hall problem


 * Talk:Monty Hall problem


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking about this, and on reflection I would not favor an arbcom-imposed topic ban (which I think is unlikely to happen as result of a clarification request anyway). What I would like to see instead is whether any arbcom members agree with my theory that there are ongoing and unresolved disagreements about what the content should be, and whether they think that those who have been discussing the content of the page for years should consider voluntarily stepping back for some period of time and letting someone else try. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I think that someone brought this up the other day on the mailing list the idea of doing a general cleanup of the sanctions ArbCom has handed out over the past several years. Monty Hall problem was on that list, if I recall correctly. We have a lot on our plate now, so I think it might take a few weeks or months before we get to this, but I personally would support such an action. NW ( Talk ) 23:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of tense discussion still occurring on the talkpage (which apparently amounts to well over a million words), I feel that loosening restrictions at this stage might be premature. I don't see that the sanctions are hindering progress, and may well be assisting contributors to discuss matters on the talkpage. Decline for now, though quite willing to look again as part of the general clean up that NW mentions above.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced that we should be removing this topic area from discretionary sanctions. In principle, I don't think sanctions should be hanging over the heads of constructive contributors; but in practice, I do not think a topic area can completely reform itself in a year or two, even if the roster of active contributors completely changes or the existing set of regulars reform their conduct. I would decline this amendment request, without prejudice to reconsidering in six or twelve months. It's a little too soon for my comfort. AGK  [•] 23:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Guy Macon (and Risker/Carcharoth) that parties who have become embedded in this dispute need to voluntarily withdraw. I recommend all this article's long-term disputants read and reflect on the first parts of this committee's "sober eyes" and "fresh eyes" principles: Part of "dispute resolution" is yielding an article to the wider community; there is no shame in stepping back and letting somebody else take over a problematic article. I would also counsel those disputants that if their conduct is brought back to us in future, we are likely to take remedial action like topic-banning. AGK  [•] 10:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As we can address this as part of the general sanctions cleanup, I think it's best to decline this for now, unless there's some special reason why we should address this immediately. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: Are there any specific editing practices or article improvements that the discretionary sanctions are interfering with? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Having read over the talk page (or at least bits and pieces of the ones linked above, I find myself moving toward Guy Macon's view. Perhaps we should consider having those who have more than 5 edits to the article talk page in the last six months (or an alternate metric) just step away from the article for one year. I don't know if it will ultimately change things for the article, but good faith editors who move away from a longterm controversy start finding out whether it's the editing or the arguments that draw them to Wikipedia. (I'm expecting most if not all of the editors involved here will find it's the editing.)  Risker (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Risker makes a good point here. I would prefer that the editors who have found themselves enmeshed over a long period in trying to resolve aspects of this content dispute, step away voluntarily rather than have that sort of solution imposed by ArbCom. A voluntary agreement among the current editors of that page, if you like. And then look at this again in a year or so and see if there are editors unable to do something like this voluntarily. Carcharoth (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)