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

Response to Martin
Martin's comment directed at me seems to merit a response, but it doesn't seem to belong in the evidence section, since it's not evidence or a specific comment/question about evidence. So I've put it here; if it's in the wrong place a clerk can move it, I'm sure.

@Martin: I'm equally puzzled why you think my evidence constitutes a "fierce attack." There is no attack. The diffs (which are his own words, after all) speak for themselves, I think; otherwise I wouldn't have taken the trouble to collect them. But ultimately the committee will decide how compelling the diffs are to them and will vote accordingly. My only "agenda" here is violations of WP:RS, which seems to me an important component in the problem. Unfortunately, ArbCom approaches content issues only indirectly, through specific editor conduct, so my general concern about rampant OR needed to be framed in terms of specific editor conduct in order to have a chance of being heard, and Richard Gill offers the most salient current example of OR. But if arbitration were set up in such a way that a person could register a request to "Do Something About OR!" without singling out anyone individually, I'd do that. This isn't personal; I'd be happy with any remedy that put some teeth into NOR and RS for all editors working in the area, that would be reliably enforced against violators going forward.

Obviously everyone sees this dispute a bit differently, but it's not helpful to disparage those who see it differently than you do.

The fact that I chose not to become involved in the ongoing dispute is immaterial to my presenting evidence. I have watched the dispute over several months, and there is no rule that a person has to be actively involved in a dispute in order to present evidence in a case; in fact I often prefer outside views to party's views when reading cases, myself, because they often have a fresher, more objective perspective than those who are closer to the dispute. Woonpton (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Woonnpton, I was genuinely surprised to see your comments about Richard Gill, out of the blue so to speak. It is hard to see how a commentary with sections entitled, 'Richard Gill belittles other editors', 'Richard Gill engages in original research','Richard Gill promotes his own research on Wikipedia', and 'Richard Gill and COI' would not be construed as an attack.  If this was not your intention then perhaps you should make this clear.


 * I do not believe that WP policy needs to be reliably enforced, in my opinion this is contrary to the spirit of WP. I think Richard adhered to the principles of avoiding a COI if not the letter.  He was openly adding and discussing his own material in full view of the editors of a very active article.  I consider this more akin to offering his views up for approval rather than promoting his own work.  It is very different from adding your own work to a relatively quiet article in the hope that nobody will notice until it become established.


 * I was not complaining that you had commented, outside views are always welcome, more noting that you had decided not to join in the discussion despite appearing to have strong views on the subject. In the end it appears that we agree on many things, especially the benefit of having experts present. Martin Hogbin (talk)


 * Never before on an arbitration have I had to spend so much time (or any time for that matter) explaining that presenting evidence is not a personal attack. I've already tried to explain it three or four times, one directly above in this very thread, and I am getting  tired of it.  Presenting evidence about a particular editor does not constitute a personal attack; this is how arbitration works.  If someone has concerns about the editing behavior of a party to an arbitration, this is how they are supposed to be framed:  x does y, followed by diffs to support the assertion.    I am tired of accusations along the lines of "You're attacking me" or "You're attacking my friend!"  No, I'm simply presenting evidence in an arbitration case. The arbitrators will consider the evidence and use it or not use it in the final decision; it's fine with me either way. But this is how evidence is formatted (see top of the evidence page).    Woonpton (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess not everyone is that experienced in arbitration cases. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In light of such inexperience, mayhaps you should re-read the arbitration guide. Your evidence section is heavy on content and low on evidence.  Content is used to frame the dispute and should be background at best.  I highly suggest following the templates.  Its hard to find a better way to give the arb's evidence than the way they explicitly ask for it (and woopton's evidence IS following that method). 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Where are the Clerks?
This arbitration is already spinning out of control, with the content dispute that has been raging for three years moving to the "evidence" page in the form of dueling content positions back and forth. There are now seven "evidence" sections, but only two of them actually contain evidence; the rest are just statements of opinions, opinions that have been expressed hundreds of times on the article and talk pages (and one of these op-ed pieces is already going on 2000 words). One finds oneself having to respond to opinions instead of evidence, just as on the talk pages of the dispute where people's own opinions are argued instead of sources. The evidence page should be a place where evidence is presented and discussed, not a replay of the content war that has been going on forever. I think part of the problem is that parties are unfamiliar with the arbitration format/process, but that could be remedied with a little advice from the clerks. Where are the clerks? Send in the clerks.... Woonpton (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I half agree with you. This, I suspect, is a very unusual arbitration and maybe a slightly unusual approach is required. On the other hand I do think that the arbitrators in general should maybe propose a halt to addition of more opinion on the evidence page by editors who have already commented, or at least give some guidance.  Maybe they plan to simply ignore opinion and look only at diffs but this would leave very little to arbitrate on and that is the problem, if this is just a conduct issue then it is far too trivial, in my opinion for arbcom.


 * I think the arbitrators will need to arbitrate on the editing process. Civility, no OR, and NPOV will not resolve this dispute. As the evidence draws to a close, I will propose my simple-first concept as a way to resolve it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take my chances with topic bans for every MHP editor that is shown to practice Gamesmanship, Wikilawyering, Ownership, Insist that only their OR POV is correct or that fail to AGF of other editors (even 'laymen'). The discussions and editing would be pretty straightforward then, as Wikipedia provided for, all along. Glkanter (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree about the uniqueness of this arbitration. Since I've edited mostly in fringe science areas I've seen a fair number of arbitrations (never been a party, but have sat through several as an observer and commenter) and I would say that rather than being unique, this is a fairly typical arbitration case:  a situation where there is an intractable, longstanding content dispute, with incidentally one editor who is sometimes uncivil or rude in interacting with other editors.  The case will be filed to deal with that one editor's conduct, and in most cases that I've seen, the case will end with that one editor being sanctioned and the underlying content dispute left to rage on unresolved, indeed unaddressed and unacknowledged.  The Wikipedia dispute resolution system just simply isn't set up to deal with deeply entrenched content disputes; the assumption seems to be that once you eliminate the troublemaker, then the rest of the editors will be able to work out the content dispute easily and peacefully.  This of course fails to recognize the nature of most content disputes. But ArbCom's remit does not permit them to address content disputes directly, so there we are.  Woonpton (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Woonpton, I hope you are wrong and that the arbitrators find a way of resolving this dispute. I do not expect them to get involved in arguments about probability but there is a way that I believe this dispute can be resolved and which might be a useful principle in future disputes. How do you think this dispute would best be resolved? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Lemme get a little philosophical here. So the only likely outcome of all this is that I get sanctioned? And we pretty much knew that once the arbitration was accepted? In that case, I'm glad I didn't go for the 'here are my diffs' defense, and rather have tried to present my viewpoint using logic, common sense, the other involved editors' behaviour in the arbitration, and aggregated comments from other editors, all peppered with some meaningful diffs. Glkanter (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't misunderstand me; I was describing some prior experience from observing arbitration cases, but while this arbitration isn't unique in type, it's also not exactly like any other arbitrations in specifics; my careless comment above shouldn't be taken as a reliable prediction of how this arbitration will turn out, nor do I think the committee has decided on remedies before the evidence is in.   In the other arbitrations I've watched where an uncivil editor was sanctioned, there wasn't much question about the incivility, the evidence was irrefutable.  I personally think that an editor's content contributions should be considered during "sentencing" for such violations of civility, but I suspect I'm in the minority among Wikipedia editors on that issue. Anyway, my point is, please don't let that offhand comment keep you from presenting evidence if you have evidence to present, because the decision will be based on whatever evidence the arbitrators have in front of them to consider. Woonpton (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

response to Glkanter
Since there seem to be no arbitration clerks or arbitrators monitoring the case to respond to arbitration-related questions, I'll field this one:

Glkanter asks whether the arbitrators will consider the conduct of Rick Block as part of the arbitration, or whether Glkanter needs to "make countercharges against Rick Block." If Glkanter wants the conduct of Rick Block to be considered in the arbitration, he needs to present evidence, in the form of diffs, to support any assertions of misconduct. However, I will say, having just recently combed through all the interminable discussion pages, that in all that stuff I didn't see evidence of misconduct on Rick Block's part. However, maybe I just wasn't looking hard enough. But counter-charges aren't enough, you really have to back up those charges with diffs. The committee won't (or shouldn't, anyway) consider unsubstantiated charges; they need diffs. Woonpton (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the response. I guess 'evidence' has a very strict definition in the world of Wikipedia. It seems you're suggesting, as you did previously on my talk page, that 'diffs' are the only acceptable form of evidence.
 * And you're probably right. But how do I show show the *absence* of diffs? Each time Nijdam (or Richard) over the course of 2+ years monopolized a talk page, including the mediation and this arbitration, with OR, and Rick Block, the admin, failed to respond? Or when Dicklyon mugged me on the MHP talk page, and only Martin would address Dicklyon's gross, unprovoked transgressions? Then Rick Block had the gall to turn that single incident into an RfC on me? I've provided the diffs for that.
 * Nijdam himself provided the proof that he ignores the AGF of other editors right in this arbitration, and I believe you provided a diff to a talk page example of the same. Never a peep out of admin Rick Block. But when Glkanter is perceived by Rick Block to have violated a policy, well, those diffs are everywhere. In fact, that's apparently the only issue of this arbitration. Kinda weird, no?
 * So far, 3 or 4 other editors have mentioned either directly, or described, Rick Block's ownership of the MHP. Doesn't that count for something? There's been much more posted on this arbitration indicating that the barrier to progress on the MHP article is Rick Block, and not Glkanter.
 * And I provided some diffs for the perverse ways Rick's favored POV have been used in the article to subvert the will of the other editors.
 * And, of course, when Rick Block attacked me personally in the mediation, well, for reasons still unclear to me, all those diffs have been deleted.
 * But, in the unexplained absence of official Wikipedia representatives in this arbitration, thank you very much for your thoughtful response. Glkanter (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a comment: I would urge you to be less angry at Rick Block for not taking action against people in the incidents you relate; the fact is that administrators are not allowed to use their administrative tools in content areas and/or disputes in which they have been involved as an editor or a disputant, and if he had done so, he could have been desysopped by the arbitration committee. It's too bad that there weren't other administrators watching, if administrative action needed to be taken, but it's unfair to blame RB for not acting, since as an involved administrator he really couldn't. It's unfortunate that no one has explained that to you before.  Woonpton (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * [written before edit conflict]
 * In addition, Martin Hogbin's evidence shows, I believe at least 6 diffs where named editors have been directly foiled by Rick Block in their attempts to make edits to the article that Rick Block just couldn't support. Because all of those otherwise highly regarded, long time Wikipedia editors were suddenly struck dumb in regards to NPOV. At least as Rick Block sees it, anyways. Honestly, and this is *not* directed at you woonpton, isn't enough, enough? I mentioned this stuff in the now-disappeared mediation, and I was told to stop, my edits were reverted, and I was threatened with removal from the mediation unless I could follow the ground rules I had agreed to. It was more important, apparently, to have good ground rules following in the mediation than good faith editing. And people can't understand why the MHP mediation, just like the MHP talk pages, couldn't accomplish anything? Oh, brother. Glkanter (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * [written after edit conflict]
 * I'm only pointing out that Rick Block took many, many measures against me, countless warnings on my talk page, filing an RfC, filing this arbitration, whining to mediators about my posts, that he *never* once, not a single time did with Nijdam. Probably not Richard, either. Not because I was violating rules, but because no matter how many times he repeated his baseless arguments, I would respond in a manner that did not support his NPOV violating arguments and edits to *his* article.
 * I don't think I've displayed anger. Righteous indignation, perhaps. It's about time Rick Block was held accountable for his actions, and inactions. Glkanter (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Filing an RfC, filing an arbitration, having an opinion in mediation, warning other editors about infractions of policy, are not administrative actions; any editor can do the same. I feel your sense of injustice, but in order to demonstrate the injustice, you'd have to show that the behavior on the part of other editors in each case was as "bad" as the things you were warned for, and while that may be the case, it's a harder case to make.  Everyone has their own opinions about whose behavior is disruptive  and whose is not, and people  aren't required to agree about this. And of course anything that happened in mediation cannot be an issue here. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Woonpton (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the beauty of Gamesmanship & Wikilawyering isn't it? At first, you don't realize it's happening to you. Then, to make other people recognize it, you have to say something about it. *But*, until you're proven 'right', you're prima facie guilty of personal attacks. Plus, everything in dispute resolution makes it clear that the complainer will *probably* be seen as the real offender. The ultimate Catch-22. Of course, why that rule of thumb (j'excuse/j'accuse) doesn't blatantly apply to Rick Block's filing of this frivolous arbitration against me escapes me. And why, unlike everything else on Wikipedia, are the mediation diffs unavailable? That makes zero sense to me.
 * But thank you for addressing these issues, and giving me the opportunity to express my concerns in a structured, (non-pontificating) manner. Glkanter (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note for anyone reading this: Glkanter's claim that I've never said anything about policy to Nijdam or Richard is not in the least accurate. Two examples that took all of 5 minutes to find:  -- Rick Block (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * June, 2009 and an irrelevant diff? How about something just a *little* more current and relevant? Are you aware of a single instance of Nijdam referring to a reliable source without demeaning it? And how many times did you admonish him for this violation?  How about the times when he wrote that he dismisses the views of certain other editors (woonpton provided that diff, and he says it right in this arbitration), clearly violating AGF? I know for a fact you mentioned that Nijdam refuses to respond to my comments, at least once, in an attempt to belittle me. I'll have to search for that diff. You never warned Nijdam [about the AGF expectation from all editors], as you so eagerly did me, anytime I challenged your dominion over all things MHP on Wikipedia.  Glkanter (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm late to this conversation, but I would like to say that you will have a very hard time getting an admin sanctioned for not acting. Admins have the discretion to not use their tools and all their actions are still the actions of a volunteer. Its difficult to sanction someone for not volunteering. Its MISUSE of their tools which is what they can be sanctioned for. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrator
In response to some of the above, please note the following


 * 1) Glkanter - your evidence is nearly 1500 words and needs to be reduced to 1000 or I'll have the clerks just chop it off at the 1000 word mark.  Same goes for anyone else, so please check your word counts now and adjust accordingly.
 * 2) Please post evidence.  If you accuse someone of edit warring and post diffs it is evidence.  If you just rant at them without diffs of specific breaches of policy, it is a personal attack and I will have the section collapsed or removed to the talkpage.  Glkanter, I have done you the courtesy of asking about one section of your 'evidence' here, but it is up to all of you to make coherent statements.  I'm not going to work it out for you.
 * 3) Arbitration is not for content disputes, however the Arbitrators can examine whether what you put in an article is in keeping with the aims of the project.  This means that it is possible that in some situations the question of whether the way the article is written is appropriate for the target audience of the project, may be relevant; particularly if it is linked to problematic behaviour to keep the article in an unsuitable format.  The committee has not made a decision yet on whether this is the case here - I mention it because it has been raised by one of the parties.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification.
 * It seems if more than one editor can go up to 1,000 words to present the case that I'm problematic, like Rick Block and Dicklyon have the ability to do, then I might need more than 1,000 words to defend myself. But, you have your rules, which I abide by.
 * I have a strict policy of not self-censoring myself in terms of factual statements.
 * As far as the appropriateness of my 'defense', I understand your expectations, and have done my best to meet them.
 * Accordingly, I will not be reducing the size of, or otherwise revising, my Evidence section, and will (regretfully) accept the results of my decision. Glkanter (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Quick question: my understanding in the past has been that the evidence limit refers just to the evidence itself, and the responses can go beyond the limit, as long as they don't get out of hand.  I don't see any rules about limits on responses, but since I've had to respond to some rather serious accusations about evidence, that weren't directly related to evidence but more to questioning my motives in presenting evidence at all, my responses have gone longer than I like.  Last I checked, my evidence was well under 1000 words, but if that limit has to include responses,  I'd be happy to move the responses to the talk page if that's acceptable.  Thanks, Woonpton (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Another quick question - is the limit per major section ("Evidence presented by xxx")?  I ask because with the combination of my two sections ("Some background" and the evidence I've presented concerning Glkanter) I'm over 1000 words.  My question is does the "Some background" section count toward this limit?  The background section is not exactly evidence, but I thought it would be useful. If someone could comment on this I'd appreciate it.  Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As the defendant in this arbitration, I'm curious why Rick Block thinks the rules of Wikipedia Arbitration should be applied differently to him than to anybody else. It doesn't surprise me, of course. That he would posit/suggest that his "Some background" section is *neutral*, and therefore 'exempt' from the rule is pretty funny. Well, it would be funny, except he's serious. This arbitration is probably (finally) the right venue for him to explain why he continues to expect such special treatment, and edits accordingly. Glkanter (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Followup from the other drafting Arbitrator
Keeping an eye on the evidence. I have to agree with Elen above that things have not gone quite the way we want so far, so in an effort to assist the parties, Here's three each do's and don'ts, that I've come up with. Call it "SirFozzie's rambling guide to being a party to an Arbitration Case".

DO's:

Brevity, wit. I must be still on the Shakespeare kick after the last case I worked on, but I feel compelled to bring up the Bard's famous quote from Hamlet: Brevity is the soul of wit. There's no need for rhetorical flourishes and long, meandering sentences filled with asides (trust me, it's something I struggle(d) with on both sides of the Arb fence). Be a word miser. There's no need for long paragraphs. Give us the facts. Keep it dry, factual and succinct. If you want to create an evidence subpage off your user page for background or additional thoughts, go right ahead and link it to your evidence statement, but keep actual evidence succinct. (Just note that more and more, we require folks to delete their evidence subpage or move it to the arb-page at the case's conclusion.)

ArbCom is ConDUCT, not ConTENT I said this about a year ago, and it only needs a minor tweak today. ''Here's why I don't think that ArbCom will ever willingly get dragged into deciding content. Usually in such heated disputes, there are experts on one or both sides. They have done the legwork, provided references that support their wording. They know just about everything there is to know about the area. And then you're asking 16 (note: now 18) men and women, to decide content that in some esoteric areas, they know NOTHING about. To mangle a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, we don't even know what we don't know! I'd much rather see if by identifying the bad actors in a topic area, the community can decide the content themselves'' Let's look at this another way: If ArbCom was going to willingly decide on Content, in the last ten months to a year, we'd have to collaboratively become near world-class experts (better than those who already post here) in the following categories: Transcendental Meditation, Climate Change, Race and Intelligence, World War II, Shakespeare, etcetera. Needless to say, that would be.. rather difficult. Save your words for things that ArbCom WILL consider(remember, you're on a 1,000 word budget here)

Maintain Composure. An Arbitration case can be viewed as a prism of the area in conflict. The drafting arbitrators look over this page constantly as we look toward writing our proposed decision, and our fellow arbitrators also keep an eye on ongoing cases, and review the whole area before voting on any proposed decision. If the Committee sees you at your worst during a time frame that requires your best behavior, how can they trust you to act to Wikipedia's norms and policies when the glare of the magnifying glass is NOT on you? I've been on the other side of the Arb-fence for several high-visibility cases, and I know how hard it can be (especially several weeks into a case). But it is necessary. See also: Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration

DONT'S

No Did Not/Did Too's Again, you're limited to 1,000 words. Don't get caught up in using too much of it getting into arguments with other editors. Again: "Dry. Factual. Succinct.". If someone is making wild accusations, you don't need to counter that (unless asked to, of course). This generally falls under the Maintain Composure DO above and the old saw "Give a man enough rope, and he'll hang himself."

Do not wait till the last minute. Yes, all the evidence is reviewed before we write a decision. However, as we are monitoring the case frequently, you want to get your evidence in as quickly as possible. Why? Because it's quite possible that if an evidence page degenerates into further arguing, your evidence may be lost in the general chaos. We try our hardest to get the signal from the noise, or put another way, we try our hardest to separate the wheat from the chaff, but we're human. ((There's no truth to the rumor that Jimmy is looking to replace us with IBM's AI named Watson.)

Don't Make it Personal. This really details with Maintain Composure above, but.. sometimes parties need to be reminded that behind those words you see on the screen, is another human being. I've seen times where someone writes themselves INTO a ban (be it an interaction ban, a topic ban or even in extreme cases, a site ban), just because they made it personal. Collaboration is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. We may sanction some people in a topic area, but I don't think we've ever banned EVERYONE in a topic area, (although the Climate Change case probably was the furthest the Committee has gone down that path). So, even if we apply sanctions in an area, you will still need to work with at least some of the editors in the topic area. This goes double for cases where the Committee enacts discretionary sanctions. So, don't make it personal, keep it cordial or at least collaborative.

Anyway, hope this helps the parties, and I'll stop here, before NYB comes after me for threatening his title as the "Longest-winded Arb" ;) SirFozzie (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the history of the MHP in and outside WP, the chances are good that this turns into (one of) the "longest winding arbitration" anyhow completely inpedent of your contribution :-)--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Formulation conducive to misunderstanding
In his evidence section, Nijdam wrote:
 * This whole dispute mainly concerns the refusal of in particular Martin Hogbin and Glkanter as active participants to understand or accept that what is called the simple solution, does not solve one important, not to say the most important, version of the MHP, what is called in this discussion "the conditional problem".  Being a mathematical fact, Gill agrees, (User_talk:Gill110951), but for some reason wants to promote this simple solution by changing the description of the MHP.

This might give rise to the misunderstanding that it is claimed here that Gill agreed that "the conditional problem" may be considered to be "the most important version" of the MHP. From Gill's contributions (including the one referenced here), it is clear that that is not his point of view at all.

More in general, I feel that this statement misrepresents the issue. The disagreement is not whether the simple solution solves "the conditional problem" (unless also a symmetry argument is invoked, in which case it clearly does), but whether "the conditional problem" is such a particularly important version that the prominence Rick Block and Nijdam insist on giving it is appropriate. --Lambiam 12:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no support for Nijdam's POV in the reliable sources literature. Certainly not from Selvin, who created the puzzle and first named it the 'Monty Hall problem', or from vos Savant. In fact, they each offer the simplest solutions of all, an unconditional table of all possible outcomes, to derive their 2/3 & 1/3 solutions. The editor/admin who requested this arbitration will disagree with me, and point to 5 specific 'critical' sources (he will also explain how I fail to properly understand Selvin's paper). During the formal mediation, using nothing more than the English language, I debunked 3 of those sources as 'critics' of the so-called simple solutions. I expect I would have debunked the other 2, but the mediation pages got disappeared. That same editor on many occasions has offered the unique interpretation that *every* source that gives a formal conditional solution was, by his definition, also a critic of the simple solutions. Even if they made no such criticism, or made no mention whatsoever of simple solutions in their paper. That's a doozy, no? Glkanter (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that your previous collection of diffs is gone (can't an admin undelete the page and copy the relevant bits to your user pages?), but instead of complaining about editor behaviour to me here, which is quite ineffectual, you should put relevant diffs of inappropriate behaviour (which can also be on talk pages) on the Evidence project page. --Lambiam 23:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly, @Lambian! There is (IMHO) no "one true correct mathematical formalization" of Vos Savants ambiguous, verbal question. All are interesting, the relations between them are interesting. (Of course, some sources and some editirs are dogmatic: they is one superior formalization. Richard Gill (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. There is something about 'the privileged nature of formal mediations' that required the deletion of the entire 14 month's worth of all the talk pages. I'm led to believe this is SOP. I've already exceeded my 1,000 characters on the evidence page. Thank you for your contributions to the arbitration. Glkanter (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

While We're All Here...
I am still reeling over the disappearing of all evidence of the MHP formal mediation.

As we went through mediator after mediator after mediator team after mediator team, we always started with The Ground Rules. One could only participate if one expressly agreed to abide by these Ground Rules. That would probably be the right point at which to inform the participants that unlike every other diff they ever post on Wikipedia, these most important diffs will be deleted without any notice or cause, save for the (probably unknown to the participant) 'privileged nature of formal mediation'. Glkanter (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard's Veiled Reference to Rosenthal's Paper & Glkanter's Interpretation In His 'OR Rampage' Section
Come on, Richard, that's not your style. Please provide the sentence(s) in question, a link, and anything else to put it in context (like his comment about how he 'callously ignored' some aspects of the traditional problem with his proprietary problem statement). What's the topic and purpose of his paper, anyways? Please, address these on this talk page, at least. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Glkanter, the arbitrators are interested in behaviour, not content. On the Evidence page I was defending, sorry, asking for some consideration of, my behaviour. I don't want to make complaints about any one else. We can all be arrogant bastards from time to time. "All's fair in love and war". I have some very annoying bad editing habits like constantly making small changes and then saving rather than previewing. (Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. Take the beam out of your own eye before the speck of dust in your brother's).


 * We have been through this particular issue on the talk pages endlessly, I don't care to bother the arbitrators with that here. Remember, Rosenthal confirmed the reading of his paper that he thinks the simple solution is wrong. Of course, in a particular context ... a particular context which will also be the context of many people coming to wikipedia - all those students in Nijdam's, Rosenthal's, Carlton's, Morgan and friends' Statistics 101 course!


 * If you do want to talk about that with me somewhere else, you know I'm always ready to jump into the fray. I wish you'ld understand my point of view that you weaken your own position when you use what are for many people evidently ludicrous arguments to support it, when that is not necessary at all: the good arguments are good enough. Richard Gill (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Experts on Wikipedia
@Woonpton : I'm putting this here because I'm under the impression that the Evidence project page is not an appropriate discussion venue. I'll gladly concede a content dispute to someone who is so much more an expert in a particular field than I am, but that does not mean I give them a licence to ignore established Wikipedia policies, such as our verifiability policy. I would actually have thought that that would not need to be stated expressly. I was particularly thinking of several instances where said expert was in an unresolved dispute over the interpretation of statements in relevant articles that could serve as a reliable source. (Astronomer: Here, it says that the moon consists of minerals of silicon, aluminium, calcium, magnesium, and iron. Amateur: Aha, so it's made of mineral cheese.) However, concerning this particular expert editor, I also think the complaint of COI is overblown. And WP:COI is not a policy; it's a guideline that should be applied with common sense – something that is dearly lacking in this whole dispute. --Lambiam 23:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough; it looks like a simple misunderstanding. You said you would concede to Gill on a content issue because of his expertise. Since the main focus of my evidence section is  Gill's formulation of a novel synthesis  and his efforts to use that synthesis to influence the content of the article, I assumed you meant you would support Gill's use of original research in writing the article.   If you simply meant you would concede to Gill on his interpretation of a sources's meaning, I might agree with you, but if that is what you meant, maybe you should have said that.  At any rate,  that section of my evidence was about tone, not about whether he was right or not.  Whether he was right or not is not the issue; even if he was right, it's not acceptable to belittle other editors, was my point.  I hope we've cleared that up.


 * About COI, I'm not claiming or charging COI; I don't even have an opinion about COI here (other than that in my personal private opinion, his adding his paper to the article as a source was a problem, but I didn't include that in the COI section, in other words I'm not raising that or anything else as a COI issue in this case.)  My COI section simply notes that Gill has claimed COI for himself (see diffs) for the last six weeks, saying that he shouldn't edit and would not be editing the article any more as a result of publishing this article.  But he has continued to edit. I just find that discrepancy puzzling, is all.  Woonpton (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It was indeed foolish of me. But I noticed that despite the mediation and arbitration other editors were also still hard at work on the paper. And on the talk pages we had discovered well sourced new solutions to the conditional problem which, in my opinion (shared by some other editors), go quite some way to de-fusing the conflict. Richard Gill (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My "new synthesis" was not new, by the way. It was well known to other experts and after some research could even be reliably sourced. It *was* new to the discussion here. Richard Gill (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As to my "papers", I filed them on arXiv.org under "mathematical recreation" and "mathematical humour", as well as under some serious key-words. If so many people think they shouldn't be referred to on the MHP page I don't see why they don't remove them. I will not put them back. So I assume someone else finds them useful references. Richard Gill (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As for the "new solutions to the conditional problem which, in my opinion (shared by some other editors), go quite some way to de-fusing the conflict," that assertion would carry a good deal more weight with me if I could see any evidence at all that the conflict has become defused during the months those "new solutions" have been hammered out on the talk pages (and it is original research, whatever spin is put on it; it was a previously unsourced synthesis). The conflict continues to be at impasse; at the time the request for arbitration was filed, the mediation had been stalled for some time; there has been no progress on the talk page for months or even years,  and a glance at the talk page today shows no sudden leap toward a peaceful resolution. See this discussion from the last few days, and this one from today.


 * I assume good faith on Gill's part; I'm sure his intention was to provide a solution that would defuse the conflict, but I don't see any evidence that it has had this effect. And while removing one or more editors might remove one or more obstacles, it wouldn't solve the underlying conflict; to my mind the best hope for resolving the conflict would come from all editors abjuring original research and synthesis, and strictly sticking to sources.  My goal in providing evidence was not to get any person banned or sanctioned,  but for a sharp reminder to all editors, at least, or maybe an article probation enforcing the use of sources rather than original research both in editing the article itself and in talk page discussions. I'm not entirely sure it's within ArbCom's remit to do that, but I personally think that is the best direction to take in resolving the conflict. This isn't personal; I have had no encounters with Richard Gill before he posted a link to some of his work on my talk page just before the arbitration began (or with any other parties in the conflict, other than related to this arbitration) and have no animosity against anyone.  I'm just trying to offer a solution to a conflict that otherwise seems utterly intractable.  Woonpton (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Actually, quite a few editors did like the things I found (and sourced). It's only the editors with an inflexible point of view (e.g. only one kind of solution is right; or, there is a huge difference between the two kinds of solution) who don't like these. Every time I find a formal mathematical version of Glkanter's informal solution in the peer reviewed literature, Glkanter accuses me of O.R. And when I say that the sentence in a paper by a mathematical colleague which he clings onto to support his extreme point of view, actually means something else from what he thinks (and every single other editor agrees with me!) he accuses me again of O.R. and faulty E.S.P. and behaving like a High Priest of a bad religion. I actually fully support his aim to show (with sources) that MHP can be fully solved with logic, no need for formal probability calculus. And I show that it can be done and that it has been done (with sources). O.R.!!! Of course the conditional diehards don't like this either. But he too, like everyone I believe, is acting in good faith. Richard Gill (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My point was that this solution, which you say was offered to "defuse conflict," has clearly not done so, as demonstrated by the continuation of the conflict here on the case pages, besides its being OR.   Whether individual editors "liked" it is rather beside the point, and it seems somewhat dismissive to label those who don't "like" it as "editors with an inflexible point of view."  While I haven't, and won't, edit the article because I find the bickering aversive and pointless,  as a statistician I don't find the solution compelling or necessary to an explanation of the Monty Hall problem for the Wikipedia article.   The whole purpose of working out this synthesis seems to have been to try to smooth over a disagreement that IMO wouldn't have arisen if editors had used secondary sources instead of primary sources and OR as a basis for their positions re the article, so to me it's a  solution jury-rigged to solve a nonexistent problem.


 * Re secondary sources: Poor Rosenhouse, the best secondary source available, appeared in the article as a source last September but is only barely mentioned as a good overview of the problem; as far as I can tell he has yet to be actually cited in the article, while editors natter on for months and years about "simple" vs "conditional" solutions, about Morgan and criticisms of the simple solution, about symmetry, frequentists vs subjectivists, LaPlace, whether 2/3 is the same thing as 2/3, whether "door 1 and door 3" is the same thing as "the door the contestant opens and the door the host opens,"  what Rosenthal really meant, and on and on and on.   None of this is essential, or even helpful, to the article itself; it just creates a distraction, as well as an impassable obstacle for any neutral editor wishing to edit the article. As for the tirade about Glkanter, I'm not sure what you're going on about there, but it seems immaterial to my point. Woonpton (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Re Rosenhouse: I wish all editors would buy it and read it carefully. I did so, the moment it came out. He has a whole chapter on the issue that the interpretation of probability does play a significant role in how different writers approach MHP. I hope you study it carefully before you join the editing of the page. Various criticisers of Morgan et al. raised the symmetry issues. Discussion about these issues on the talk pages was part of an effort to simplify the article and restore its NPOV. Richard Gill (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Re my "tirade" about Glkanter: I find him a difficult person to communicate with (and I'm not the only one) and he finds me a difficult person to communicate with (and he's not the only one). @Woonpton, you accused me of arrogant behaviour when I deigned to criticise Glkanter's understanding of a sentence taken from an article by Rosenthal, published in a journal on mathematics education, about how to teach conditional probability, and how to use MHP for that purpose. Rosenthal is a professional colleague of mine, I think I understand what he was getting at, and I think it was a bit subtle, and I think it was not what Glkanter thought. Incidentally, every single other editor agreed with my reading of Rosenthal's article. Later I asked Jeff Rosenthal himself to comment and he kindly did so, agreeing with my reading, and giving permission to be quoted. I fully support Glkanter's general position and I do my best to support him; unfortunately he sometimes (IMHO) weakens his own position by using arguments which are (IMHO) manifestly incorrect. They are unnecessary since his good arguments are good enough. I think that offering such criticism is called camaraderie and collaborative editing. His own insights have stimulated my own thinking and my own literature research, turning up alternative proofs in the literature which destroy the hegemony of the Morgan et al. approach. Richard Gill (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is what Glkanter refuses to recognize as a 'criticism' of the simple conditional solutions:
 * "Shaky Solution: When you first selected a door, you had a 1/3 chance of being correct. You knew the host was going to open some other door which did not contain the car, so that doesn't change this probability. Hence, when all is said and done, there is a 1/3 chance that your original selection was correct, and hence a 1/3 chance that you will win by sticking. The remaining probability, 2/3, is the chance you will win by switching."
 * "This solution is actually correct, but I consider it "shaky" because it fails for slight variants of the problem. For example, consider the following: [new paragraph begins]"
 * I think you should check with Martin before saying I am the only editor who interprets Rosenthal this way. Glkanter (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why I declined to participate in the topic area when invited, because I didn't want to get drawn into these tedious, trivial arguments about irrelevant details that seem to characterize this dispute, but when one's position is so utterly misrepresented, one must at least try to set the record straight. You brought Glkanter and Rosenthal into this thread, and when I said I didn't understand what you're on about but it has nothing to do with my point here, you've persisted in pressing the point.  If it's true that all of the diffs I give in my evidence section about "belittling other editors" relate to the Rosenthal issue and were always directed at Glkanter, I wasn't aware of it; I just pulled out diffs, as I was reading through various talk pages, that showed you belittling other editors.  Who you were talking to, what the issue was, and whether you were right or not was not of interest to me; as I say in the evidence section, Even if he's right on the issue, it's not pleasant to be talked down to. But now that the question has been raised, I've gone back and checked all those diffs again; as it turns out the diffs are addressed to various people: Nijdam, Rick Block, Martin, as well as Glkanter, so the idea that this is all about Glkanter is inaccurate, in addition to being completely beside the point.


 * I have taken no position on the issue you're so exercised about here or on any content issue; content has no relevance here. As I've said five times already, my assertion on the evidence about "belittling other editors" has to do with tone, not with content, and it's not helpful to keep arguing the point from a content perspective. As to I think you should check with Martin before saying I am the only editor who interprets Rosenthal this way, this is such a complete misrepresentation of my position that I simply must say that it bears no connection to reality.  I have never said anything remotely like this.  I don't know,  don't care, and have never offered an opinion about, who or how many agree with you about Rosenthal; I'm just concerned about the tone that experts editing in this topic area use when talking to other editors.    The merits of the content arguments one way or the other have no bearing here.  Woonpton (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not recognize the Glkanter you are describing above. I have *no* idea what 'formal mathematical version of Glkanter's informal solution' you're referring to. Glkanter doesn't have a simple solution. The sources have simple solutions. I've complained about min/max, game theory, opyimal solution, etc all being OR and not relevant to the front of the article. I asked you to fully document the Rosenthal conflict on these pages if you were going to bring it up, instead you do this 'drive by shooting' smear. My 'extreme point of view'? That there is no significant minority viewpoint in the literature criticizing the simple conditional solutions? And that this being the focal point of the current article is therefore inappropriate? I thought you agreed with that yesterday, starting here. Please, tell me who (Morgan? oh, brother), and what they say. You amaze me more and more each day with your fictions, Oh Greatest Of High Priests. How was your vacation? Glkanter (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Glkanter: I was struck by your emphasis on indifference to the door numbers. I connect this to Laplace who uses indifference as basis for the probability calculus, and to using symmetry in advance to say the door numbers are irrelevant in MHP (Vos Savant, Diaconis). Rosenthal: this was discussed at length on the talk pages including Rosenthal's own letter agreeing that he considers the simple solutions incomplete and insufficient: "In summary, I would say that the Shaky Solution can be "made" to be correct, but only by providing a clear justification for why this conditioning does not change the probabilities; without such justification, the solution is incomplete and insufficient." Regarding min-max, game-theory, optimal - that is all in reliable sources, in the literature of economics and game theory on MHP. Corresponding to the very popular (Monty Hall's own) solution: "since I choose my door at random there is 2/3 chance I'll get the car by switching", which is suppressed by the de-facto owners of the page. Richard Gill (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. All that OR, arguing the math, creating special pages for arguing the math, and other inapplicable stuff just pollutes the airways, suffocating anything of value. fyi, I raised this exact issue regarding Richard and one of his endless (literally more than 1 screen in length) diffs about min/max or optimal solutions or game theory or who knows what with one of the mediator teams. The guy that responded said something like, 'well, I'm sure he could find sources'. And as I've mentioned before, my complaints of Gamesmanship, etc were rebuked with "against the ground rules, bring it up again and you're out of the mediation". You can still see that one on my talk page.

Outlaw the already inappropriate OR, eliminate the offenders as needed and deserved, make everybody stick to the actual English words in the sources rather than esp and non-logic, end the gamesmanship & stuff, allow some editors to clean up the blatant NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT and OR violations without fear of instant reverts, and maybe some previous interested editors will come back. In short, assure that Wikipedia's interests are being followed, rather than being co-opted, as they have been. Glkanter (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There Is One Measurement Where Rick Block Is The *Least* Ownership Wikipedian Of All
That would be in the number of other Wikipedia editors to whom he has 'emphatically denied' that he is *not* guilty of ownership. Over the span of nearly 6 years, Rick Block has explained many, many times that despite what the editor might believe, Rick Block is *not* acting like an owner.

On Feb 11, 2009, Rick Block wrote this on his own talk page after posting a help request from the subject matter experts:
 * "There's a current crowd (Glkanter is one of them) unhappy with the Morgan et al. approach who want it removed, commenting on the talk page to gain consensus for their desired change. I guess rather than convince them I could just let them know they will never gain consensus for this change. -- Rick Block (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)"

"...commenting on the talk page to gain consensus for their desired change." Can you believe the audacity of those other editors? But read the whole diff for yourself, there's some classic stuff there.

Still on Feb 11, 2009, here's where Rick Block explains his personal 'style' of controlling the discussions:
 * "I generally treat the talk page of the Monty Hall problem as a sort of "virtual office hours". My intent is to respond to any and all posts in a friendly and welcoming manner, in much the same way as you presumably respond to students who drop by during your office hours. From a Wikipedia perspective, I treat this page somewhat more like Reference desk/Mathematics than a normal article's talk page."

Here's the link Rick Block just included in his evidence where I try to follow Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution on Feb 13, 2009.

Here's his 'emphatical denial' to me on Feb 13, 2009.
 * "I emphatically deny that there is an ownership issue. I have never claimed I own this article, have never edit warred over content, and, if you check the history you'll see numerous editors have contributed content. I have done my level best over many days now to help you understand why the change you seek won't happen."

Still on Feb 13, 2009, an anon joins in.
 * "Hold your horses. "I have done my level best over many days now to help you understand why the change you seek won't happen" This to me implies that "Rick block" acctually belived that he can determine what changes should be made !!!!"

I happened to come across this diff on Feb 14, 2009. Here's where he mentions that the sources, not the math are what count:
 * "Arguing that what these papers say is wrong in a mathematical sense has no bearing on whether the content should be included or not. If you would like to discuss the points they make, please post at /Arguments or Reference desk/Mathematics."

Seems that message never got conveyed to his buddy, Nijdam. Glkanter (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

1000 words
Gentlemen, your primary statement of evidence must be no more than 1000 words. It must include specific diffs if you are making accusations of behaviour. Rebuttal responses are not normally included in the 1000 words, but must be short. Since the evidence section is not for threaded discussion, any to-ing and fro-ing will just be removed and dumped on the talk page.

You should note that the Arbitration committee will not consider which mathematical proofs are correct, or arguments about which source is reliable/not reliable. The focus of an RfAR is on the behaviour of the individuals concerned - personal attacks, edit warring etc, and whether their actions are posing a threat to the generation of good content.

You should note that our clerks have advised me that neither will be available over this weekend, therefore I will be in charge of the shop. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved section from Glkanter's evidence
This section appears not to be evidence but some sort of comment on the Arbitration process and you are over on word count.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The 'This Arbitration Is Not About Content' Paradox I suppose that's the case. Please bear in mind that the article's content has been my *only* concern regarding the Wikipedia MHP article for over 2 years. So, when you read the diffs that Rick Block linked to, please bear in mind that I am trying to use reliable sources, Wikipedia policies, logic, and common sense in order to persuade other editors to agree with my editing goals.

Since my second day on the MHP talk pages, I was pretty certain that Rick Block's intentions for the article, and later on, Nijdam's, were not consistent with Wikipedia's expectations. And like I wrote in my 'Conventional Wisdom' section, I had no idea how to make 'Wikipedia' aware of this bifurcation. Well, I guess that's how we ended up here now. Glkanter (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed section from Nijdam's evidence
Nijdam, you were right. It wasn't the right place to put it. I have left the section on sources.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Versions
Although I'm not sure whether this is the appropriate place, I take the opportunity to explain about the versions of the MHP and the solutions.

Conditional formulation (F0)
A player is standing on stage in front of three doors, numbered 1, 2 and 3. A car has been placed behind one of these doors, and the player may have what is behind the door of her choice. She points to door 1 as her first choice and before she opens it, door 3 is opened by the host, showing a goat. Then the host offers the player to change her choice. It is common to assume that the car is placed randomly, the choice of the player is independent of the position of the car, the host always shows a goat and when the host has a choice he chooses randomly.

Unconditional formulation (F1)
A player is standing on stage in front of three doors, numbered 1, 2 and 3. A car has been placed behind one of these doors, and the player may have what is behind the door of her choice. The rules of the game are explained to her, i.e. She may choose a door and have what is behind it, and before she will open it, the host will open one of the two remaining doors, showing a goat and offering her to change her decision It is common to assume that the car is placed randomly. Before the player makes her first choice, the audience, unaware of the position of the car, is asked whether the player will have to stick to her first choice or must switch.

Conditional solution (S0)
The player calculates the conditional probability that the car is behind door 1, the door of her first choice. It turns out to be 1/3. Alternatively she may calculate the conditional probability that the car is behind door 2. It turns out to be 2/3. (As the conditional probability for door 3 is 0, the conditional probabilities for door 1 and door 2 are of course complementary.)

Unconditional solution (S1)
As the car is placed randomly the car is with probability 1/3 behind the door the player will choose. Hence on the average by switching a player will get the car 2/3 of the times. This solution is also referred to as the simple solution.

Simple conditional solution (S2)
Due to the obvious symmetry in the problem (NB we have to explain the standard assumptions before), the probability for the chosen door 1 to hide the car has the same value 1/3 before the player makes her choice and after the host has opened door 3. Hence at the moment of decision the remaining door 2 has probability 1-1/3=2/3 to hide the car. Nijdam (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fact is that F0 is solved by S0, and F1 is solved by S1. And what is important: F0 is not solved by S1, and it is a serious logical error to consider S1 to be a solution to F0. Yet several sources, although mostly the non-academic, more popular ones, and also some participants in the discussion, want the article to at least start stating S1 as a simple but sound solution to F0, and not allow other editors to immediately mention the criticism on it.

I suggested a kind of compromise (User_talk:Martin Hogbin, subsection Acceptable formulatio, what seemingly has been moved by Hogbin to User_talk:Martin Hogbin,), in introducing solution S2, which may be called "simple conditional solution". It is a correct solution (explanation) of F0. It shows in a more intuitive manner, why the required conditional probability is 2/3. But id didn't lead to the desired consensus. Nijdam (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed section from Martin Hogbin's evidence
You are 700+ words over your word count. I have removed this extended discussion of what the article should look like to here.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it seems that the main purpose of this arbitration is to encourage us to make attacks on other editors rather than find ways to work together, I have removed most of the material aimed at finding a way forward to here. I will concentrate on the page ownership issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What this argument is really about
This argument is really about a difference in opinion regarding the strict validity of the simple solutions, as given in the article.

One side believes that the simple solutions are incomplete or do not answer the question asked. The other side believes that they are perfectly satisfactory. Everything else is maneuvering, wikilawyering, and posturing to promote one view or another.

The point of contention is really quite a minor one. For about ten years after vos Savant published her correct answer, nobody noticed the claimed error in her answer until Morgan et al published their paper on the subject. One has to ask whether the average reader is likely to spot this minor objection to the simple solutions. given that no one spotted it for ten years [Rick's correction accepted. I always thought there was a ten year gap I should have checked].

What this argument should be about
The only reason that we have an article on the Monty Hall problem and not 'Question 12b in Joe Soap's Book of Statistics' is that the MHP is notable because vos Savant, who got the correct answer of 2/3, got thousands of letters telling her that she was wrong and that the answer is really 1/2. As the lead to the article says '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', and as Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini says '... no other statistical puzzle comes so close to fooling all the people all the time" and "that even Nobel physicists systematically give the wrong answer, and that they insist on it, and they are ready to berate in print those who propose the right answer'. This is why we have an article at all, and it is principally what the article should address.

I accept that variations, extensions, and mathematical niceties do have a place in this article but that they should be secondary to giving clear and convincing explanations of the main problem. We should not do anything that reduces the clarity of the article to the non-expert reader. There are two things that people find hard to accept and understand.

1) That the answer (the probability that the player will win the car by switching) is 2/3 and not 1/2 2) That it matters that the host knows where the car is (and that he is therefore able to always open a door to reveal a goat).

Above all else we should be trying to find the best ways to explain these facts to our readers.

This is how the article is structured now
Shortly before the mediation I moved the 'Aids to understanding' section to immediately follow the 'Simple solutions' section because it only actually refers to simple solutions. Rick and Nijdam reverted my change and I reverted their reversions [corrected as per Rick's reply, I wrote from memory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)] as I considered that it represented a clear majority of editors at the time, only Rick and Nijdam objected. The article was then locked and has remained in that format ever since. Rick has since complained that this is a 'structural bias'

I believe that all editors except Rick and Nijdam still agree with the simple-first format. Even Kmhkmh who generally supported the conditional solutions said he would be happy with this.

Why NPOV and No OR is not the solution
Just like having God on your side in a war, both sides claim that standard WP policy supports them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The way forward The way forwards is to remember that we are writing an encyclopedia article for a wide range of readers not a literature review or a discussion document. The majority of readers will have no interest whatever in the detail that we have been arguing about, they will just want to know the right answer and understand why this answer is correct and why it matters that the host knows where the car is.

A few readers may be interested in rigourous solutions, variations, and alternative ways of tackling the problem. The article should cater for them also.

Do what they do in most good text books and encyclopedia articles Most good text books, especially those intended for a range of readers, follow a simple rule - first have a simple exposition of the subject explaining the basics in as clear a way as possible, if necessary glossing over minor technical issues, then follow that with a more detailed discussion.

Here we should do just the same. First we should have a number of clear, simple, and convincing solutions to the problem, without let or hindrance, health warnings or suggestions that they are incomplete or do not answer the question. Nobody wants to work their way through one of the world's hardest simple brain teasers only to be told that the solution is wrong. Although not everybody agrees, the simple solutions are arguably correct.

Following that we should have further explanation of the simple solutions to help the readers who still may not be convinced. Remember, '... no other statistical puzzle comes so close to fooling all the people all the time'.

After that we should have a scholarly and balanced discussion of the role of conditional probability including Morgan's paper and its criticism and alternative approaches, such as that of game theory, as proposed by Richard.

Why simple-first? The last paragraph of this diff neatly summarises what I propose Here is more support for this idea
 * It is what most good text books and encyclopedia articles do.
 * It does not support one view over the other.
 * It makes the article accessible to a wide range of readers.
 * It promotes cooperative editing. The disagreement no longer exists.

Rick
Rick has made many contributions to this article and has shepherded it through a number of FARs. He has, along with myself and others, reverted regular vandalism and misplaced good-faith edits by those who clearly do not understand the problem properly.

I do believe, however that he has exerted a degree of page ownership that has prevented progress. If he would just allow the simple solutions to be presented completely and fully, with an explanatory section, we would not have that much to fight about. There is an issue regarding host choice and the correct application of conditional probability but first we need to explain the solution in a way that most people can understand (even if this does not meed the highest standards of mathematical rigour).

Nijdam
Nijdam is an academic with specialism in this subject and I fully understand his position. Were the simple solutions to be given by one of his students in a statistics examination, he would not give them full marks because they neglected to address the effect that host bias might have on the outcome. My point is simply this, This is not a statistics exam. If Nijdam were to allow just a little licence in the first part of the article we could all work together in explaining exactly what the weakness is in the simple solutions and maybe discuss just how important this is.

I'd Rather That The "Sources" Table Was *Not* Collapsed
I'm sure you have your reasons, but the section loses any impact it would otherwise have. I could certainly be wrong, but my guess is that it has effectively been deleted. Not to my preference, obviously. Glkanter (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please adhere to the instructions and the word limits. If you wish to include tables and diagrams, please place them on a page in your userspace and link to them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on the conversation we had been having, I did *not * expect that bulk deletion from a 3rd party. I guess I misunderstood what 'responses' included. Maybe all those opposing MHP editors *are* right, I'm just a dumbass that can't understand English. Glkanter (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You were warned three days ago that this might happen. Everyone else has managed to adjust their evidence to fit within the space allowed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you suggested I re-edit in order to make clear the 'responses to other editors' from the original evidence. Which I did. I received no feedback saying they were miscatagorized and would be immediately deleted. Glkanter (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I gotta be honest with you. With the mediation stuff not being available, the visual aid being collapsed, and that bulk deletion, I'm not sure you guys really want my input to this arbitration. If you guys want to gather information on the causes of the interminable stalemate and it's solutions, it would seem that restricting me to 1,000 words is pretty limiting when trying to describe 2+ years, and the allegations I've made.

Rather than being a continual thorn to these proceedings, perhaps I should consider other options. If Rick Block & Nijdam have been right all along as per you guys, I'll accept that. But I will not knowingly or willfully be a party to some charade. Glkanter (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not add the tables, do not add the diagrams (put them in userspace and link to them). Do not ramble. Be specific. If Rick reverts all edits, or Richard always adds tons of math notation, or Martin resolutely moves the text about, or Nidjam regularly calls you one of those with knobs on - post diffs showing them doing it. At the moment, you've shown us a lot of stuff about how to solve this maths problem, and a lot of un-evidenced rants about various editors. You've done some of it above, under that bizarre heading about Rick and ownership. Write it up in the evidence section. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the encouragement. I have communicated as clearly and thoroughly in the arbitration and to you on this page as I am capable of doing. I have completed my evidence, and I have completed my complaining. Please take whatever actions are necessary to move the arbitration forward as per policy. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (Aside: Richard wants to *remove* tons of math notation. He argued that a huge passage was superfluous since it duplicates what is on another page (MHP as an illustration of Bayes theorem) and does not add any insight whatsover on MHP: it could be considered useful for those struggling to learn formal probability calculus and the proof of Bayes' theorem. Many editors agreed. He removed it. A small group of long time editors on the page screamed blue murder. It was put back. He later noticed that it was actually full of gobbeldygook. Presumably no one had actually ever read it carefully, for years. He corrected the notation and again the self-appointed proprietors screamed blue murder. This was one of the few occasions where Nijdam and he agreed: *if* you are going to fill the MHP page with formal mathematics you had better at least do it right. Richard Gill (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC) )
 * There's some basic principle in here about audience, and not being a university textbook, and not deriving things from first principles on the page.....maybe if we can find one that everyone would sign up to, it would answer the question as to whether all that maths should be there. And just to reassure you - I didn't pick richard adding math notation (or indeed any of them) as an accusation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Trouble is there are two audiences: statistics students who are learning Bayes' theorem, and average folk who got into a discussion at a bar. There are similarly two literatures, two groups of wikipedia editors. There are also several different ways to think about probability. I'm on the point of going on vacation but keep trying to come up with some constructive principles. I think 2/3 of the article should be popular and 1/3 academic. I think the first 2/3 should be popular. Richard Gill (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anyone ever suggested creating Advanced probability theory and the Monty Hall problem or some such? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A fork was attempted once, in the other direction, but it failed at Articles for deletion/Introduction to the Monty Hall Problem. Perhaps it could have been done better by explicitly recognizing that "The" Monty Hall problem is really two problems, a combinatorial problem in which probabilities are symmetrical with respect to distinctions introduced by "say" in vos Savant's statement of the problem, and a game-theoretic problem in which the distribution of Monty's choices is an independent variable. This really ought to be doable in a single article if contributors could only get a grip on NPOV. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ningauble, yes, that has been an attempt down in the other direction. Imho the MHP should be favoring plausibility, with examples of conditional probability in odds-form, whereas the variants could clearly be represented and expounded in an own section, with a link to Bayes' Theorem:MHP, where that is worked out in detail. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ningauble and Gerhardvalentin - very helpful answers. Looks like the bayes theorem article contains an explanation in maths notation for the basic problem (pick door at random, host opens unspecified door always showing goat, colour of Monty's trousers not included in conditions), which would mean it isn't necessary to repeat it in the MHP article - if someone thought it was better without.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly the point. Not the whole lemma just to be a teaching lesson copied from textbooks that preferably are using the MHP as an able example to train conditional probability theory. Many attempts have been made to just present conditional probability in clear odds-form, not more than necessary, showing the ability of conditional probability for the lemma, and, for readers interested in, to link to the MHP presentation of Bayes' Theorem. Repeatedly and repeatedly. Without even having been noticed by all those who try to lock the famous paradox to be a mere lesson in conditional probability theory. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ningauble, I agree that a single article covering both aspects of the problem is doable, easy bit first, hard bit second, everybody wins. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A fork for "advanced" stuff will only work if all editors who are keen on "advanced" presentations will agree to confine their "advanced" MHP editing activities to the fork. But I see little reason to believe all might be inclined to do so: in the point of view of at least some of them, the "simple" (vos Savant) problem is not "the real problem", and any simple solution (such as the vos Savant one) is essentially flawed, and they apparently see it as their duty not only to make sure the larger part of the article is devoted to that point of view, but – not content with giving an "advanced" treatment after a simple one has been presented – also to foist their insight about the inadequacy of any simple treatment on the reader as soon as possible. In particular the latter constitutes a substantial part of what the simmering edit wars have been about. --Lambiam 23:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that the 'advanced' editors would be able to regard the simple solution section as lies to children. In other words, there is no assertion that the simple solutions are totally correct just that the simple solutions are a stage that we need to go through in order to introduce the 'full' solution.  As I have pointed out several times, it is quite common for text books and encyclopedia articles to gloss over technical details in the introductory sections in the interests of clarity and then explain the details later. Of course other editors may choose to believe that the simple solutions are completely correct, but who cares?  Both sides can be happy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Martin, and yes Lambiam. It's not a "bad joke question", and both sides "could" be happy. With regard to the colour of Monty's trousers not being intrinsic element of the famous question, nor the colour of those two still closed glass doors. There is room enough for such deflections, that could be shown in a "variants" section, room enough for all the subtleness (assumed repetitions and so forth, the drunk host and so forth). Given that (besides textbooks) most reliable sources not even pay regard to those "just academic" aspects, that can eke out a cumbersome living with whole a lot of additional assumptions only, as per the recent sources. That can not be deducted from but have to be added to the famous question. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Moreover, this is the way the modern secondary sources do it, e.g., Rosenhouse, Rosenthal. And you needn't even call it *lies* to children. Just mention of the word "symmetry" is enough for the mathematician to make a bridge from simple to conditional, and moreover the man in the street can grasp the message intuitively too (Glkanter calls it the player's "indifference" to the door numbers, which is implied by Vos Savant's wording). Students of probability calculus would find it a useful exercise to expand the one-word hint "symmetry" into one line of formal mathematics. Numerous reliable sources have stated that the symmetry is so obvious that it is a matter of taste whether or not one explicitly pays attention to this aspect of the problem. Richard Gill (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Moreover, if we simply relied on the reliable sources who offer these solutions, and who make no such distinctions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Glkanter (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the lemma is strongly biased, with the main emphasis on additional presuppositions and assumed additional information on the actual location of the car that could be revealed by means of those addintional presuppositions, but without saying that explicitly and frankly in the article. And although such additional info could be assumed to be expected from multiple directions, from any variant of the host's behavior, e.g. some significant wording when he offers to switch, or other signals, they confine on the sloppy narrow door number the host has opened, like Morgan, who just gave that single one example in expecting and anticipating additional information. Without such additional information to be expected, the effort is useless from the start. But they don't frankly say so, and the owners are teaching mathematical conditional probability calculus, instead. Without saying why, just for the mathematical correctness. Without saying why this is indispensable. No prospect? Yes, anything beneficial to the reader should be shown. But in a well structured and clear way, at least saying what is talked about, and not assiduously hiding the real object behind indispensable mathematics to "solve" the problem. That the answer has to be "switch", because nothing can ever be better. There is no appropriate weight of the relevant sources. The lemma should not be biased any longer, as it has been for the last years. No prospect? The battle will go on. No prospect. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I appears to me that the above discussion is about the content of the page, not evidence for use in the current arbitration request. In my opinion, this is a symptom of the ongoing problem that I described in the proposed solution section at the bottom of this page. The above conversation, even if you held it where it belongs, would still be about whether the article contains truth and not about whether the article reflects what is found in citations to reliable sources. Rather than repeat what I said below here, I encourage you to read and possibly comment on my proposed solution to the problems that brought us here. Guy Macon 17:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if, in responding to Elen's inquiry about prior deliberations, my brief digression about the subject of those deliberations has promoted off-topic discussion. I knew it was out of scope here, but I thought it might help lend clarity. In hindsight, I see that it really was not germane. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Upon further review: Really guys? This part of my 1st evidence item is *not* collapsed:
 * "Accordingly, the article should not have the "Simple solutions are wrong" POV it has now, and it would be a contrivance and a disservice to bifurcate the article as if the sources were answering different problem statements. Because they are not."

'''Come on, guys. Pay attention, will you?''' It's not bad enough all us MHP editors have had to put up with the Gamesmanship for all these years, but now you guys gotta, innocently but ignorantly I hope, jump in with your 2 cents? Yes, I'm upset. You've given me good reason to be upset. I try to do my part thoughtfully as per the rules in good faith, I think it's reasonable to expect the same from every other particpant in this arbitration. Glkanter (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To add insult to injury, the suggestion to divide the article, and the suggestion that followed, are offered *right here* in a section I started. In this section, I am questioning the treatment of my evidence in an evidence page section about the 'duality' being OR and Gamesmanship not supported by reliable sources. And the words I quoted just above, immediately precede the collapsed table I am asking about.

In case the irony is lost on anybody, this is how this section begins:
 * Section title: I'd Rather That The "Sources" Table Was *Not* Collapsed
 * "I'm sure you have your reasons, but the section loses any impact it would otherwise have. I could certainly be wrong, but my guess is that it has effectively been deleted. Not to my preference, obviously. Glkanter (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)"

And now you all have validated my concern. Posted by Glkanter (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

MHP is a featured article, so what's the problem
Here's what I don't get. has acquired featured article status and looks like a polished, soundly-sourced piece of prose. So something has obviously went right. Yet on the talk page, we have a vociferous dispute over the mathematics of the problem. My question is: if there is so much disagreement over how to best cover the MHP, how did this article ever get to FA?

I think the answer is: that it got to FA because it's fine as it is. This is a problem over which there is much real-life disagreement: many sources conflict. So long as the major viewpoints over what the maths of the MHP is are covered, all this bickering is largely unnecessary. AGK [&bull; ] 13:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am disheartened by your asessment and conclusion above, and find it inconsistant with your previous comment regarding the abscence of good faith discussions. I could not disagree more. My reasons are well known to you and the other participants. Glkanter (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I *really* hate to bring this up, AGK, but now I gotta wonder if your comments above, which are strictly about content, are appropriate for this arbitration? Glkanter (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the version as of the last FAR . Here's the current version .  Better, or worse?  As far as what the bickering is about, see . -- Rick Block (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a good question and imho after arbitration is completed the featured aricle status should be reviewed again, making sure that the latest version (potentially significantly different from the old featured version) is reviewed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with kmhkmh except that in my observation, reviews for featured article tend to focus almost entirely on issues of style rather than substance; whether sources were cited appropriately and accurately or whether the material is appropriate for the audience tend not to be addressed in a featured article review, as I understand it.  So I'm not sure a review would answer the question which version of the article is "better" from a content-sourcing point of view. Woonpton (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say I'm not really familar with details of the FA process in en.wp, but if you're impression were to be correct and the FAR indeed bothered mainly with style and formal issues, then I'd be rather dismayed and imho the FAR process would be in need of an urgent overhaul (though that's off topic here).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't claim a deep familiarity with FA either; my impression is gathered from tangential observations, such as a few incidents in which a featured article featured on the Wikipedia's main page has been found to be largely plagiarized, or to contain factual errors or mischaracterizations of sources, and when the FA regulars have been pressed for an explanation of how this could happen, have objected that it's not fair to blame them because checking how accurately the material represents sources isn't in their job description. Also, in my personal observation, being an FA doesn't carry any assurance that the article will be a good representation of the literature, in topic areas where I have considerable familiarity with the literature.  And I've noticed, in watching conversations on the talk pages of editors I respect, that others share my concern about the FA process and the quality of its products. However, I didn't mean to derail this discussion with my comment. Woonpton (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All of these would be fair game for FAR. The FA criteria 1c (well-researched) covers the issue of appropriate and accurate citation of sources, and 1a (well-written) covers the "appropriate for the audience" issue.  My point about the current version compared to the version following the last FAR is not that we'd revert to this version, but rather to highlight how much of a mess the article has become (some smart sage said something somewhere similar to it's lost its soul).  I fully expect someone will open a FAR at some point, and that it will take a considerable amount of effort to get it to pass, and that if the current conflict is not resolved it will not pass.  My understanding is this is what happened to the article at de: (was defeatured, essentially because of the same issue, with some of the same players involved). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the German article was finally defeatured after similar constant conflicts between editors. In addition the German article somewhat contrary to the English one had an OR problem, as editors there had defined themselves what "the" MHP is rather than following literature. The German math portal more or less dumped the article as nobody there was interested to get involved in the edit warring. However as of lately the article has seen a new considerable overhaul without much conflict since most of the old edit warriors seem to have retired (for the time being at least).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was @Woonpton said the article had lost its soul, and I agree entirely! It was surely well written and well researched. But I think it was biased and hence the text constantly irritated quite a few readers who made piecemeal corrections in attempts to restore balance. As the struggles continue it suffers from more piecemeal "improvement" in both directions. Richard Gill (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline for Evidence, Proposed Decision
Hi Folks, just to keep folks aware of the timeline and deadlines in this case:

I've just had a preliminary discussion with Elen on this, and we've decided to set a deadline of Tuesday, March 1 for evidence submissions. That gives us the better part of a week to write up our proposed decision, to hopefully be posted over that weekend. We'd like to have all evidence posted by then.. also, please make sure your evidence is focused on ConDUCT, not ConTENT. As Elen and I have both stated in the past, we are not going to be ruling on content, so evidence focusing on content is not useful to us in making our proposed decision.

If parties feel there are important underlying Wikipedia principles/policies, or have suggestions about how the editing atmosphere could be improved, or how people could behave differently to encourage reaching a consensus ON WHAT GOES IN THE ARTICLE (not on what's the solution to the MHP - we are not going to make any comment on that), then please use the workshop section to make these. SirFozzie (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? You're going to make us all suffer through another week of:
 * One editor's repeated proclamations of "The Truth"
 * Rick Block's [the admin/editor who filed the request for this arbitration against Glkanter], ironic, amazingly poorly-veiled "Gamesmanship?
 * Glkanter (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I Understand The Arbitration Committee's Frustrations With Glkanter
So, if anybody wants to educate me on how I should have handled things better in October, 2008 when I first encountered what has now been described as something that "stopped being a good-faith content dispute a long time ago" by a member of the arbitration committee, I would appreciate it.

In the meantime, please recognize that I would have rather fixed the article 2+ years ago, gotten on with life, and never bothered all you good people. But that's not how it happened. And that does *not* make me a bad guy. Glkanter (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note, back in the day I sent up a few trial balloons to see if I could get a 2nd editor for an RfC. No such editor was ever forthcoming. Glkanter (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The frustration is entirely to do with the manner of your presentation of evidence, and is not a reflection of your behaviour elsewhere (or any allegations thereof).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that I know my contributions here are problematic. My question is, how could we have avoided all this? Glkanter (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How's about you 'Not about content' guys not discuss content?
There's only 1 MHP. You're believing the gamesmanship. Glkanter (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The above comment might be more comprehensible were it posted in the thread it's responding to, but setting aside the specific comment, I find myself in agreement with the general sentiment expressed in the section header. Suggestions by arbitrators intended to help resolve the content dispute can give the appearance of  (inadvertently) taking sides in the content dispute, which I'm sure arbitrators would wish to avoid.  Woonpton (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That 'There is only one MHP paradox in the literature' is made abundantly clear by the table I present in my evidence. Well, it *would* be abundantly clear if the table hadn't been collapsed against my wishes. No link, as I'm on my phone. Glkanter (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Glkanter: I assume your remark above is in response to my post in a different thread, correct me if I am wrong. Your point about raising content issues in arbitration is well taken; and I will refrain from further analyzing the synthesis of the many restatements and interpretations of "the" problem found in the cited literature. However, your statement about my beliefs is unfounded, and is exactly the type of defamatory argument against the person that lands people in arbitration. Your subsequent post in that thread above, saying "Pay attention, will you?" and "innocently but ignorantly I hope, jump in with your 2 cents" is not just tendentious, it is downright insulting. Insisting on civil discourse is not gamming the rules, it is a prerequisite for playing the game. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As I do not participate in false collegiality, my remarks to you will be brief. I do not understand how anyone contributing to this arbitration would fail to understand that my comment about Gamesmanship, etc. refers to the bedrock of my defense against Rick Block's allegations, and is not a criticism of you or your actions. That criticism is limited to your decision to discuss content and further that you supported a POV that is in dispute. Glkanter (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A statement ascribing beliefs to me, and specifically about the basis thereof, most certainly is a statement about me. Your statement is mistaken because, not having followed the discussion of MHP in any detail for almost three years, I am neither familiar with nor influenced by any games that may have been played there since before you registered your account. I do not believe you are aware of my POV regarding most of the content issues in dispute, and you would probably be surprised by the extent to which our views overlap. I have acknowledged that, in responding to Elen's inquiry with a point of information about a prior attempt to split the article, my digression, which was intended to give some clarity to a possible basis for implementing Elen's implicit suggestion, actually did overstep into content issues, and I further acknowledge that it did so with an unsupported point of view. I may research the matter at a later time, but that is a matter of content. The arbitration is about conduct; and your conduct toward me has been presumptuous and insulting. No one is asking you to participate in false collegiality, if you can't accept the requirement for civility you should just recuse yourself from participating. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I deny many of the accusations included in your above statement, but do not feel it necessary to defend myself against Straw Man/Aunt Sally accusations.
 * My comment about 'ignorance' was in fact, giving you the benefit of the doubt of 'innocence' aka 'good faith', instead of some evil intent.
 * Your statement of "...not having followed the discussion of MHP in any detail for almost three years..." followed by your offending edit is consistent with my assumption of [paraphrasing] 'ignorant but not malevolent'.
 * What you did was *inappropriate* in an arbitration. I brought that to your attention in a prompt and certain manner, so that it would not be inadvertently repeated.
 * You may consider my manner of communication 'uncivil'. That is your *opinion*. It is not a *fact*.
 * I'm uncertain as to your role in this arbitration, but it seems to me you should either become a participant in support of Rick Block's accusations, or you should recuse yourself from any further arbitration committee responsibilities regarding this matter. Glkanter (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am already drafting a statement to place in evidence, but I will be taking a break before I post it because I do not want to act in haste. In the meantime, please clarify: in what respect was the specific abovementioned offending edit an offense? I am cognizant that incivility is, in fact, in the eye of the beholder, and if I have offended I would like to make it right. You may also wish to consider that your own presumptive and dismissive remarks might, in fact, be received as uncivil. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My use of the words 'offending edit' above, where I wrote in full:
 * [Glkanter quoting Ningauble]
 * "Your statement of ""...not having followed the discussion of MHP in any detail for almost three years..." followed by your offending edit is consistent with my assumption of [paraphrasing] 'ignorant but not malevolent'."
 * Was intended to convey that your edit to this arbitration was inappropriate, out of policy, or as you put it:
 * "...my digression, which was intended to give some clarity to a possible basis for implementing Elen's implicit suggestion, actually did overstep into content issues, and I further acknowledge that it did so with an unsupported point of view."
 * Posted by Glkanter (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying that you were not referring to what followed the quoted statement at all, but to prior remarks that I had already retracted. I had interpreted your statement about what "followed" to refer to something subsequent and new. I am now under the impression that your purpose was merely to carp about something I had already committed to refrain from doing, have subsequently refrained from doing, and considered a closed issue. If that was your meaning, it does not seem very constructive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see the confusion I caused. I said 'followed', meaning 'combined with'. And of course you're right, your original edit *preceded* your comment about 'the last three years'. I really don't need to cultivate (more) enemies here, I'm more than happy to let bygones be bygones, if you are. Glkanter (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarity is a good thing, but quoting (or paraphrasing) yourself out of context does not lend clarity. Your remark about ignorance, as is clearly seen in the above linked diff, was originally made in the context of representing your point of view on a content issue (with screaming giant boldface), not, as you later say, in noting that content issues are inappropriate here. Whether this inconsistency is due to having difficulty expressing yourself, or is a deliberate attempt at misdirection, if this is representative of your manner of discourse then I can see how some of your colleagues might find it unconstructive or specious. As for bygones, I appreciate that you are under the gun here, and may not be feeling very collegial. However, the only thing in this entire conversation that does seem clear to me is your repudiation of civility as "false collegiality." This acknowledgement of rude and insulting conduct is quite the opposite from acknowledging that it was inappropriate. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what 'normal' is for an arbitration. Am I the only one who perceives that discussions of content are still taking place today? Do I misunderstand what is, and what is not, 'supposed to be' going on in these pages? Any clarifications would be welcome. The clerks have been bold about deleting my evidence, maybe they should be equally bold deleting improper discussions regarding content and addressing other editor misbehaviours? Glkanter (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Request To The Arbitration Committee
May I restore my evidence and responses to the state they were in prior to the editing by the arbitration clerks and/or committee members?

Thank you for your consideration. Glkanter (talk)


 * No. You were informed of the guidelines for evidence and asked to resolve the problems yourself more than once. Failing this, we have resolved the issues for you. Shell   babelfish 23:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. Could you clarify for me the following:
 * Whether the rebuttal subsection is to be included in the 1,000 words and 100 diffs limit?
 * "Responses to another editor's evidence should be placed in a subsection in your own section for rebuttal, or on the talk page."
 * Where is it indicated in the Arbitration policies, guidelines, etc. that a table in an evidence section requires 'collapsing'?
 * Confirm my (admittedly primitive) count of nearly 1,900 words and 125 diffs in Rick Block's evidence section.
 * In my readings about the Arbitration evidence page, I found an explanation for an "Evidence" section, and a "Rebuttles" sub-section.
 * Which of these 2 categories do Rick Block's "Some background" and Comment on Woonpton's evidence" sections ("I wholeheartedly agree with Woonpton's major point...") each fall under?
 * Might the filing admin/editor's introductory evidence section being named "Some background" indicate a non-existent impartiality in that section?
 * Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Would it be easier if I just made my total evidence section no larger than Rick Block's total evidence section including the background and woonpton comment sections? Glkanter (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I to conclude that no response to my above questions will be forthcoming from any arbitration committee members or arbitration clerks? Glkanter (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: "Confirm my (admittedly primitive) count of nearly 1,900 words ... in Rick Block's evidence section.:


 * Word count for "Evidence presented by Rick Block" = 2325 words


 * Word count for "Evidence presented by Rick Block" minus "Response to" and "comment on" sections = 1047 words (but see below).


 * Please note that the word counting program I used (UltraEdit) counts each asterisk, each numbered reference and each Wikipedia-added [edit] as a word. Remove those and the second count above is 976 actual words. Guymacon (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In order to compare apples to apples, I downloaded UltraEdit. The word count I performed on Glkanter's Evidence section, as it was prior to it being truncated, not including the rebuttals sub-section was 1,048. This compares favorably to the word count of 1,047 you reported for Rick Block's corresponding Evidence section. I do not understand the necessity to truncate 45 words from my Evidence section.
 * Glkanter's rebuttle subsection was removed entirely, for a word count of 0. This is compared to Rick Block's Rebuttle and "comment on" section word count of (2,325 - 1,047) = 1,278 words. This seems, to me, to be an inconsistent interpretation of the policies.
 * Frankly, I remain confused and very concerned, bordering on 'upset', regarding what I perceive as unequal treatment by representatives of the arbitration committee relative to the Evidence sections of Glkanter and Rick Block.
 * I would still welcome responses to the other relevant and important questions I asked on February 23, 2011. I can only conclude that my valid questions and concerns have been dismissed, for reasons unknown to me. Glkanter (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Would someone, anyone, from either the Arbitration Committee or the Arbitration Clerks please explain to me why my request and questions have not been responded to for 19 days? Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Could it be because we have really no idea what you are asking. You have been told by everybody, including a passing stranger (Guy Macon) to conform to the instructions, to be clear and brief, to avoid at all costs offering solutions (simple or complex) to the Monty Hall problem, and where you accuse another editor of doing something, to provide diffs showing them doing it.  Instead you have persisted in posting incomprehensible outpourings of text, personal attacks, allegations without any evidence, and detailed instructions on the solution of the problem. Other people have managed to present their evidence in an orderly fashion - why can't you? Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Prior to your response, it was my understanding that my evidence was truncated due to a word count violation. Are you now explaining that my evidence was in fact truncated as an editorial decision? Glkanter (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your evidence was chopped due to a massive word count violation. Other users were asked to shorten their evidence and did, or took the hint and did it without being asked. You didn't even seem to understand what was being asked of you.  We tried just taking out the 'evidence' that was explanations of the problem, but you just kept pouring more stuff in. To be honest, you don't seem to understand what people are saying to you quite a lot of the time. I don't know why. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Immediately prior to the truncation, as per your instructions, I had clarified which sections were 'rebuttals', and which were evidence. My overall evidence section was more in compliance with the policies at that point than Rick Block's overall evidence section, which includes a 'background' section and a 'comment' section of 'agreement', is today.
 * It's quite evident that the Arbitration Committee has little interest in addressing my 'fair play' concerns. Accordingly, I will no longer willingly participate in this Kangaroo_court, but will, of course, abide by all sanctions. I will also investigate any remaining methods available to me for ending the ownership issues, and its causes, that are preventing the long needed improvements to the MHP. Glkanter (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Will Nijdam's Disruptive Editing In This Arbitration Be Allowed To Continue Unabated?
This is all consistent with his editing 'contributions' to the MHP for the last 2 years.


 * "In the following I do not account for Glkanter, whom I do not take seriously." - Nijdam (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC) [Diff not available from original Arbitration Request page]


 * "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 sincerely hope yuo do not mean by popular literature, the incorrect literature, deceiving the readers. Nijdam (talk) 20:42, 22 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)"

Posted by Glkanter (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Glkanter's *Only* Wikipedia Offense: As Per The Reliable Sources, I Have Disagreed With Rick Block For Over 2 Years. And Told Him So.
Nothing else.

I have been harassed by admin/editor Rick Block:
 * Reverting my edits to the MHP for over a year
 * On the article talk pages
 * On my own talk page
 * On bulletin board talk pages
 * Via an RfC filed on me
 * In formal mediation
 * Been reported for edit warring
 * And now this arbitration has been filed against me

Only because, as per the reliable sources, I have disagreed with Rick Block. And told him so. Just like countless editors before me and subsequent to me. Nothing else.

The MHP is the first Wikipedia article I ever got involved with. Only because I read it and it was horrible. In less than 2 days of discussions with Rick Block I knew something wasn't right.

Rick Block, an admin, is a person in a position of 'Wikipedia authority'. He uses his Wikipedia authority and his Wikipedia experience with the structure and policies to deceive me, and to deceive others as to my deeds and intentions. And he continues to do so as we speak.

I have personally been subjected to harassment, insult, and threats, only because, as per the reliable sources, I disagreed with Rick Block. Just like countless editors before me and subsequent to me. And told him so. He has practiced gamesmanship, Wikilawyering and ownership, all violations of Wikipedia acceptable conduct to do these things to me.

I asked for help from:
 * Fellow Editors
 * Uninvolved recommended respected editors
 * The Math bulletin board people
 * Every admin who ever warned me
 * Every admin who blocked me
 * Every admin who rejected my unblock requests
 * All 6 (?) mediators
 * Each of you on the arbitration committee, via this arbitration
 * Each of the arbitration clerks, via this arbitration

So far, I have not been helped one bit by any of those I reached out to. Instead, I have nearly always rejected and told that by complaining I'm proving that I am the troublemaker. And I have no assurance whatsoever that the arbitration committee members will act any differently, or restore my good name. In fact, most communication I have received in this arbitration has been in the form of an admonishment and/or instructions due to my not formatting my evidence properly or concisely enough. We're talking 2+ years of daily violations by Rick Block, and all anyone seems to care about is that my evidence not exceed 1,000 words and 100 diffs. And that the critical table in my evidence section must be collapsed. No one seems to take the same interest in Rick Block's evidence, which far exceeds those word and diff thresholds. This, despite my request for some attention to that matter over 24 hours ago.

Which is the more abhorrent offense: The way admin Rick Block has treated editor Glkanter for 2+ years, or Glkanter responding in a human and restrained fashion when subjected to Rick Block's extended odious treatment? Glkanter (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough. You have been told repeatedly that the place to post this would have been the evidence section, together with diffs supporting your allegations.  Instead you chose to fill that up with discussions about the MHP itself, until the clerks cut you off at the knees.   Rick Block has done what you proved incapable of, he has clearly separated his original evidence statement from the responses he has made when others have posted their evidence.  You just posted a mess, and after you were asked to shorten it, you posted in that table, diagram and a whole load of other stuff. Well, you may not post rants of this nature in the talk - I will have it collapsed or removed if you persist. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am going to back up what Elen says above. You have been persistently disruptive in this ArbCase, Glkanter. I have instructed the clerks to again remind people what this page is and isn't for, and to remove anything which does not directly pertain to conduct regarding this ArbCase. If it continues, we will need to take the regrettable step of barring further submissions from disruptive parties. SirFozzie (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I will freely admit I am perplexed by how to defend myself against Rick Block's allegations. Other than what I have already done, I have no idea how to present my defense that is 100% based on the allegation that the requester has perpetrated Gamesmanship and Wikilawyering against me. Is there a template or recent similar arbitration that I could use as a reference? I'd hate to be sanctioned, and have Rick Block and Nijdam avoid sanctions, only because I failed to properly document what I believe is so blatantly obvious to everyone involved. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "We're talking 2+ years of daily violations by Rick Block, and all anyone seems to care about is that my evidence not exceed 1,000 words and 100 diffs", pick a subset of the alleged violations that fits withing the limit. There is no good reason to include more than 10 diffs and 100 words if the facts are as you describe. If you can't make your case with the 10 worst violations and a simple explanation of same, adding hundreds of diffs and thousands of words won't improve your argument. Guymacon (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. Before I reply, may I ask are you a representative of the arbitration committee, or speaking as an interested observer, or from some other vantage point? Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am a completely uninvolved editor. I normally work on the topics you see on User:Guymacon, and stumbled across this when it was discussed on Reddit. Guymacon (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Solution
The history of this dispute is largely a history of editors who are experts in the field pushing original research - they honestly believe that they know the truth with mathematical certainty. Some give lip service to reliable sources by providing sources agreeing with what they already know to be true and rejecting sources that say things they know to be false, while others are more blatant. For example, in [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Woonpton&diff=prev&oldid=413844282 ] one editor (doesn't matter who - many editors have shown variations on the basic attitude) says "I am no longer disputing, I am writing reliable sources (that's my job), since the existing ones are poor quality." Mixed in with this are some editors who have done nothing wrong, and others who have mostly done nothing wrong but have at times responded poorly when provoked.

All involved editors (including the ones who have done nothing wrong - they should have no objection) should be required to state that the have read and will abide by WP:RELIABLE WP:ORIGINAL and WP:CONS, or if they cannot agree to that, to voluntarily withdraw from editing this topic. All involved editors should then be encouraged to make a fresh start, ignoring all previous slights, and required to not discuss what the truth is and not discuss other editors but rather to narrowly focus on making the article reflect what has been published in reliable sources. This requirement should be enforced by "no tolerance, you have been warned" topic bans going forward. Guymacon (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC) (uninvolved)


 * My expectation would be that absent any findings of unacceptable behavior, and absent any sanctions, none of the involved MHP editors will believe that *their* behaviour needs to be brought within Wikipedia's standards. Accordingly, there would be no change in the long term stalemate, and no end to the ownership of the article by Rick Block and Nijdam. Glkanter (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then they would be topic blocked. As would you if you wrote the above after agreeing to not discuss other editors (it's fine here, of course). You can't have a stalemate or claim ownership if you aren't allowed to talk about other editors or to discuss or edit based on truth.  The essays at Truth and The Truth may help explain what I am getting at. Guymacon (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, your comment is consistent with the endless MHP talk pages, and even the mediation, where my charges of Gamesmanship, Wikilawering, Ownership, harassment, etc. were forbidden. But I strongly disagree. I believe forbidding the mention, let alone the discussion, of these policy violating tactics obviously allows them to flourish. How could it not? The MHP is an example of this, of course. There's no logical explanation for the deadlock. And, other than charges of Ownership by an editor prior to me, Rick Block's tactics have been argued with, but never recognized for what they really are. Most previous editors have walked away. Martin Hogbin has excellent references to these previous editors and their frustrations in his evidence section.
 * Rick Block's an admin, but he's never said a word to Nijdam about his absence of, or dismissal of reliable sources and substituting his own dogma. Who would 'block' anybody? How would that be initiated? Unlike this arbitration, an RfC requires 2 editors that have addressed the same problem with the same editor. Kinda funny, isn't it, that the requirement for an RfC request is greater than for an arbitration request? Most editors, in my experience would rather not get involved. [See J'excuse/J'accuse below.]
 * My experience is that admins can recognize the 3RR when it's brought to their attention, but don't take the time to look at other types of edit warring (or in my case, consider that there may be mitigating circumstances, such as Ownership). And, as codified in the various dispute resolution guidelines or policies or whatever, editors are forewarned *not* to level charges at other editors. J'excuse/J'accuse. The mere act of complaining about another editor is just about prima facie evidence of one's own guilt.
 * All I know is the MHP for 2 years. Maybe you've never encountered what I just described in your Wikipedia experience. Well, it's the only thing I've ever had to deal with. And it doesn't announce itself. It took a long time for a newby like myself to realize the depth of the deceptions that had been going on for some time, and continues with Rick Block filing this arbitration against me claiming that I, Glkanter, "...has essentially singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made." Ridiculous. Glkanter (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "...but he's never said a word to Nijdam about...", nobody is required to say a word about anything. Stop complaining about silence. Silence is always allowed.
 * Re: "...[username]'s an admin...", admins are required to act as ordinary editors in areas where they are involved in content. Stop pointing out that a particular user who is involved with content is an admin. It's irrelevant.
 * Re: "Who would 'block' anybody?", please note that I wrote "topic block," not "block." Any uninvolved admin can block or topic block any user. Should my proposed solution or some variation of same be adopted by the admins who are arbitrating this case, they would be the ones who would topic block violators  See below for a fuller explanation of what I think you should do here. Guymacon (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have plenty of experience with the sort of thing you describe (note that I am not agreeing or disagreeing that the description is accurate in this case). I am an expert in my field (microcontrollers, not statistics) and have dealt with the same issues - other experts and pseudo-experts who disagree with me - but, unlike you, I have found a solution to the problem, which I will describe in a moment. My solution is based upon this basic fact; Wikipedia works. Many other places where people have online discussions (USENET, IRC) don't work at all. Some (Slashdot, Reddit) are pleasant enough places but no actual work gets done. Wikipedia has figured out how to do something that I would have said was impossible - build an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and which is usually more accurate than Britannica.

My solution - a solution that worked for me and will work for you if you try it - lies in wholly embracing all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Figure out every place where you are ignorant of or disagree with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and change your attitude and behavior. Don't do as you did above, saying "endless MHP talk pages, and even the mediation, where my charges of Gamesmanship, Wikilawering, Ownership, harassment, etc. were forbidden. But I strongly disagree." Stop disagreeing. Just stop. Don't just decide to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Embrace them. Make them your guiding principles while editing Wikipedia. There are other online forums where what you are doing now would be welcome, but this isn't one of them. Go start your own subreddit on Reddit.com where you will automatically be the moderator and administrator.

When I say that my solution - embracing all Wikipedia policies and guidelines - works, I mean it. After I figured this out and saw how well it works on the engineering pages, I tried working on a small area in the Climate Change pages that needed improving. Guess what? what you refer to as "Gamesmanship, Wikilawering, Ownership, harassment, etc." wasn't a problem! It was a problem for others, but not for me, because I simply ignored anything like that and focused upon making sure the page was supported by citations to reliable sources. In particular I avoided any discussion that was not about specific improvements to the page. When I run into what you describe as a "deadlock" I treat it exactly the way the Wikipedia policies and guidelines say to treat areas where there is no consensus. When I run into bad behavior by other editors, I deal with it exactly the way the Wikipedia policies and guidelines say to deal with conflict resolution. And it works! I still have a way to go, of course, but at this point any problems I have are clearly caused by my not following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. and the solution is to follow them better.

You tried it your way. How has that been working out for you? Not so good? Why not try it my way for a change? Guymacon (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing your experience, and I congratulate you for all your successes. I've not criticized a single Wikipedia policy. [Well, maybe the 'he who complains is the problem' advice throughout the dispute resolution pages.] To the best of my ability I learn them as needed and try to follow them. It's pretty clear to me, and some others, that we're faced with editors, including an admin, who have no such interest. Have you resolved any edit and discussion issues involving editor Gamesmanship, Wikilawyering, and Ownership, along with the harassment and deceit practiced by those editors? That's the issue of interest to me. I was never able to get a 2nd editor to join in on an RfC, but there have been plenty willing to weigh in on the ownership issue for this arbitration. Glkanter (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup. Dealt with all of those. Trust me, comparing the Climate Change pages to MHP is like comparing WWII with a snowball fight. I don't know whether you have actively criticized Wikipedia policy (there is that "I disagree" I quoted above...) but I do know that you have not embraced them. The beauty of embracing all of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines is that everything you are concerned about becomes totally irrelevant. You simply don't care about "Gamesmanship, Wikilawering, Ownership, harassment, etc."  It rolls off you like water off a duck's back as you concentrate on content and citations. I don't know what the arb committee will decide, but if they decide against you DO NOT walk away thinking they are wrong too.  If that happens, it's you.  And even if they decide you are 100% right in all respects, you will still be a lot happier trying it my way. Drink the Kool-AID! (big smile) Guy Macon 23:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Splendid advice. Yes, I was the one who said "I am no longer disputing, I am writing reliable sources (that's my job), since the existing ones are poor quality." Other expert editors don't say this but just leave the page and do the same thing. Surely that cannot be a problem? Richard Gill (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are a reliable source and that you embrace all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the manner I described. How would a person who matches that description act?

IMO, you would start by writing about MHP and publish those writings in a non-Wikipedia forum - ideally a peer-reviewed academic journal, but even the personal blog of a recognized authority can be considered to be a reliable source. Next, you would fully take on the Wikipedia role of a reliable source on MHP on and wholly abandon even the slightest hint of taking the role of a Wikipedia editor on MHP. As such you would as a general rule confine yourself to making talk page suggestions pointing to your publications.

If you saw a problem that is clear-cut and not in any way a content dispute (obvious vandalism, spelling errors) you might decide edit the page yourself, but even that should be avoided. In other words, you would pretty much act like all the other reliable sources that do not edit Wikipedia, with the added advantage of being there to answer questions or make suggestions on the talk page.

A good place to study how to deal with that sort of situation is WP:BLP, WP:AB and WP:PROUD. By definition, for each biography of a living person there exists an expert on the subject - the living person himself. Pay attention to how Wikipedia deals with that person as a source and as an editor.

They key point here is that you don't get to write content, edit content, or even add sources, any more than the subject of a BLP gets to edit the content of his own page. On this particular Wikipedia page, you are taking the role of a reliable source, not a Wikipedia editor, and you are trusting the people who are editors to write the content and to evaluate and possibly link to your publications.

That, in my opinion, is how someone who believes himself to be a reliable source would embrace all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

(BTW, I have no opinion about whether you actually are or are not a reliable source. I only note that you self-identify as one. I also have no opinion about whether the above does or does not describe your behavior.) Guy Macon 19:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I have just recently published in peer-reviewed academic journals on Monty Hall Problem -- about what I learnt from wikipedia editors in the talk pages, especially rom those who were discouraged by the conservatism and bias of the present article, and left the scene. As a mathematician and statistician in acadaemia I have been talking about, learning about, teaching about Monty Hall problem for more than two decades. Your picture of how I should behave corresponds exactly to my own plans for the future. (I am also subject of a BLP and already try to deal with that situation in the same way). Richard Gill (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * One important guideline is missing from this analysis, WP:COI, which states "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged." One might argue that there has has been "excessive self-citation," although I only see 3 citations within the article (as of yesterday) to Richard Gill's papers.  But pointing to and using those papers as reliable sources (which seems appropriate given that they were published by reputable publishers) is appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. I see zero evidence of excessive self-citation by Richard Gill. There is a problem with MHP - a problem that has resulted in multiple arbitrators resigning  and now has resulted in arbitration - but it isn't a problem of excessive self-citation.  Tthe problem is that multiple editors are pushing for content based upon what they know in their hearts to be truth rather than embracing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about citations to reliable sources.  This basic underlying problem has resulted in some bad behavior which the arbitrators running this case will address, but I am hoping that the underlying problem can be solved.


 * On a somewhat related note, the second and third paragraphs you posted under "Evidence presented by Rlendog (uninvlolved up to now)" appear to be about the content of the MHP page, not evidence of editor behavior for use in this Arbitration Request. You might wish to consider deleting them, leaving your first paragraph, which was IMO excellent. (I also note the the entirety of the entries "Evidence presented by Joel Michael" and "Evidence presented by officialuser" have the same problem.) Those paragraphs are also good examples of an editor in good faith pushing for content based upon what they know in their hearts to be truth rather than embracing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about citations to reliable sources.  In other words, I am seeing "the page should be like this" rather than "the page does not properly reflect what is published in reliable source X."  That's what got us where we are today. Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Glkanter Response To Ningauble
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem/Evidence&diff=415724167&oldid=415705460 This accusation on the Evidence page by Ningauble has never been written by or implied by Glkanter on Wikipedia's pages. Anywhere. Ever.]
 * "Glkanter has repeatedly and expressly renounced civility as "false collegiality,"..."

The diffs he includes do not support his accusation in any way, shape or form. His accusation deserves to be deleted, as it is so untrue and hurtful, it is nothing more than a personal attack. Glkanter (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a personal attack. It should be observed that different communities have different norms of conduct, and there is nothing wrong with disliking the norms of any community as a matter of philosophy or preference. However, refusing on that basis to comport oneself in accordance with the community's norms, as expressed in the fourth pillar of Wikipedia and its policy on civility, is disruptive of the community. "Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive." ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no online communities where it is acceptable to put words in somebody else's mouth that they never said. Further determining my view of the rules based on nothing but your own thinking is of no merit. Your accusation is baseless, and your defense of your reprehensible posting furthers the offense. Glkanter (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The arbitrators can assess for themselves whether the diffs I posted in evidence support my characterization of what they signify, and whether this is germane to interpreting evidence submitted by others alleging specific incidents of incivility. I will only remark that the diff where you began a direct response to me by saying "As I do not participate in false collegiality..." is not without a certain charm, as it manages to belittle me as unworthy of being treated as a colleague, and simultaneously rationalize doing so as a matter of eschewing falsity. I would congratulate you for a well crafted insult, were it not such a tired cliché. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just what we needed. Another Wikipedia editor who knows, and wants to share, what a source (or editor) *really* meant, in spite of the words actually selected and posted. Glkanter (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

UNDUE WEIGHT and "The Sun Will Rise In The West"
Can the arbitration committee make a determination regarding "UNDUE WEIGHT"?

The article has a predominance (see the Conditional solution section) towards describing problems with premises different than the 2/3 & 1/3 MHP. These are used to support the editors' criticisms of the simple solutions. (Whether this POV represent the sources accurately is a separate question).

But in logic/philosophy, that technique is not a method of disproving the validity of a solution. It's apples and oranges.

So, yes, Morgan clearly at one time was critical of the simple solutions (and at the same time equally critical of the solutions favored in the current article), and used new premises to make their point, they have walked back their criticisms in print. And other (academic) sources offer changed premises (the meaning of which is in dispute).

In any case, the 'changed premise' argument that the 'simple solutions are flawed' which dominates the current article is contrary to the science. How then, is this accepted as the dominant POV of the article? Yes, it may (debatably) appear in some (none?) sources, but it's no more valid than 'the sun will rise in the west' or 'the Earth is flat'. Those minority POVs may be included in some relevant article, but would never be the dominant POV. But that's exactly what we have with the MHP. And all efforts to change that are summarily rejected. Glkanter (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Morgan's Criticism Of The Simple Conditional Solutions
Here's further proof that there is no significant minority of reliable sources critical of the simple conditional solutions. The criticism belongs only to certain Wikipedia editors. From Morgan's 1991 paper:
 * "Solution F5. The probability that a player is shown a goat is 1. So conditioning on this event cannot change the probability of 1/3 that door 1 is a winner before a goat is shown; that is, the probability of winning by not switching is 1/3, and by switching is 2/3."
 * "Solution F5, like F1, is a true statement that answers a different problem. F5 is incorrect because it does not use the information in the number of the door shown."

There are no other reliable sources that criticize simple conditional solutions saying "... it does not use the information in the number of the door shown."

Now that Morgan has acknowledged the host chooses between the other doors equally, there can be no "information in the number of the door shown" available to the contestant. And no other reliable sources make such a claim. Glkanter (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to "Evidence presented by Tijfo098 (uninvolved up to now)"
Note: this is on the talk page because it does not involve any evidence concerning MHP editors.

Re: "The social acceptance of math proofs" This, like many of the comments on these pages, is about content. Arbitration is not about content. It is about conduct. I remind everyone once again that discussing content on Arbitration pages just wastes everyone's time.

Re: "The bottom line is that if proofs have been previously published in reasonable venues, they are acceptable in Wikipedia." True, but not evidence. What is needed is evidence, with diffs, showing examples of editors not following this rule. The arbitration committee is all about considering editors behavior, and their remedies do not extend to deciding who is right on content disputes - for good reasons. You make a good point, though, and writing up something here on the talk page encouraging the acceptance of proofs have been previously published in reasonable venues would be well worth doing.

Re: "The consensus achieved at WPM was to 'put the more difficult material later in the article'." Again, content not conduct. Did someone not follow that consensus? Who? Where?

Finally, I take great exception to your assertion that "In the realistic case, the ArbCom will [topic] ban a random subset of the people involved depending on their wikilawyering skills." You are implying that the arbitration committee is a bunch of idiots who are easily fooled by Wikilawyering, with the further implication that you, on the other hand, can see past such things. I have read (but not commented on) quite a few ArbCom cases (The Reality TV of Wikipedia!) and while I don't always agree with the final decision, I see zero evidence that decisions are based upon wikilawyering skills. Quite the opposite, actually; good-faith newbies who inadvertently break the rules are treated gently but firmly, but editors who work against the overall goals of Wikipedia while hiding behind the rules tend to get stomped. Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * About the consensus issue: editors Martin Hogbin, Richard Gill, Glkanter, GerhardValentin want to have the initial part of the article accessible to everyone, and not disfigured by "small print" saying that what is written there is not actually the Truth (Nijdam), or not what really reliable sources say in the Truth (Rick Block, Glopk, possibly Kmhkmh). And over the last two years, as Martin has very well documented, other editors have again and again come to the page, been disappointed by what they saw, and attempted to edit it in the direction which Martin Hogbin, Richard Gill, Glkanter and GerhardValentin wanted, and got chased away (so it comes across to me, at least) by the True Believers. Martin Hogbin and Gerhard Valentin were able to keep their cool and keep civil. Gill and Glkanter found this increasingly more difficult. Interestingly I think, Gill is a professional mathematical statistician, and Glkanter is a layman, while Hogbin I believe has a physics background. Gerhardvalentin has a maths or physics background but is not a specialist in statistics or probability. Thus "my side" comprises a big spectrum, representing I think a big proportion of both amateur and profesional potential readers of the article. On the other side, Kmhkmh and Nijdam are mathematicians (Nijdam works in probability). I don't know about Rick Block.


 * Boris Tsirelson, another mathematics and probability professional and for a while very active on the MHP page, was also, by the way, completely happy with the easy first (without health warnings), the mathematical later, approach to the article.


 * So I would say that the consensus is pretty clear. A small group of editors have been resisting a move to the consensus for a couple of years.


 * Moreover editors like Martin Hogbin and myself do appreciate the issues raised by the "conditionalists" in the specialist statistics 101 literature, and have consistently shown willingness to accomodate the concerns of those sources. We just don't want to go so far as to slap health warnings all over the initial part of the article, saying that what is written there could be harmful for your mental health and is only meant to be taken seriously by morons. Richard Gill (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it ironic that some of the more offensive "health warnings" were added by Richard Gill (multi-version diffs, but only Richard's edits) .  I have repeatedly drafted content intended to be utterly devoid of any "health warnings" (with more difficult material later) and have explicitly asked for others to comment      .  These (fully fleshed out) suggestions have been fiercely opposed by Glkanter , and consistently (although not as fiercely) opposed by Martin     .  I would agree there's a small group of editors resisting changes to the article - but it's not the group you're thinking of. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Touché, Rick! Richard Gill (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What part of "I remind everyone once again that discussing content on Arbitration pages just wastes everyone's time" are you people having trouble understanding? Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's like when everyone involved in a pub brawl is brought to the police station, and then continue the fight there. --Lambiam 10:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, and the guy who got slugged in the face (that's me), is just about the only one who's going to serve any time. Glkanter (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick note
This is to inform all interested parties that the proposed decision regarding this case is now up and can be found here. Thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)