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

Moved section from Glkanter's evidence
I have moved this out from the evidence page as suggestions for sanctions should be included within the Workshop proposals and Glkanter's evidence section was too long anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

'''Do I Need To Make 'Counter Charges' against Rick Block? ''' I'd like to see Rick Block and Nijdam receive topic bans from the Monty Hall problem article and talk pages, based on their conduct over the last 2+ years, including their conduct in this Arbitration so far. Do I need to do something for this to be considered, or is this already a possible outcome of this Arbitration? Glkanter (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC) And please, strip him of his 'Admin' position and responsibilities. Glkanter (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Aside from any possible merits of the above proposal, WP:DESYSOP says "The Arbitration Committee can ask for an administrator's permissions to be removed. However, they will generally not accept a case unless other methods of dispute resolution have been attempted." Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved from motions and requests
After thinking about it, I do not believe that the section below is either a motion or a request and, while it makes an interesting subject for discussion, it is nothing that the Arbitration Committee can rule on.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I find your action most unkind. I proposed a motion in good faith. It was a motion and a request to the arbitrators.  If it is one that you cannot rule on that is fine.  You could at least do me the courtesy of leaving my motion in place and providing a formal response to decline it rather than summarily moving it and treating it is it it never existed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if you think it unkind, and I am not doubting your good faith for one moment. I also think your further elaboration is most informative, and has helped me in understanding the nature of the content dispute.  However, that space is reserved for motions and requests which need to be dealt with before the workshop can progress (eg a motion that x is out of scope, or a request to remove evidence submitted by an outed sock - your other request, that part of the evidence be struck, fell into this category), and we have had the structure rather overrun in previous cases, so I am being rather strict. You could perhaps rephrase it and include it as a proposal in the proposals section. I would recommend a rephrase as Arbcom are very unlikely to support anything that looks like ruling on a content dispute, but you could certainly try for something about producing material suitable for the majority of the project's target audience, as that seems to be what you are aiming at. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that we are all expected to turn on one another, dredging up diffs from the last two years to prove that our intellectual adversaries are uncivil, tendentious, make personal attacks, and disobey a whole host of other WP policies in order to get them banned so that we go back and edit the article to suit our POV. That is not something that I wish to do. I believe the discussion has generally been well mannered and have commented on that in the past.  If this is just a conduct matter I have nothing else to say other than to reiterate my first motion that there is nothing here serious enough to warrant Arbcom's attention. Martin Hogbin (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps just getting everyone admonished to put their personal opinion a notch lower, and work harder to produce an encyclopaedia article? That's a possible outcome to an arbitration case as well. There appear to be a bunch of experts editing this article that I wouldn't like to chase off, but the nature of Wikipedia is that it has to represent published mainstream views with due weight, and editors have to abide by that. Arbcom cannot make a recommendation that any article should be laid out thus or thus, but it can recommend that editors to a disputed article must comply with all wikipedia policies with respect to sources, and that sanctions will be applied against editors who go against this.  Might have the same results. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. One of the mediators remarked that we were behaving like an old couple whose members have made quarreling with one another into a way of life. If you want to ban anyone, please do ban me. I shall be proud to put that on my academic CV. And honestly, with no hard feelings to anyone (or to wikipedia). I want to defend common sense and good taste in editing this article. Wikipedia rules are a guideline and a recourse in case of conflict. They should (IMHO) be first of all taken in their intended spirit. The wikilawyering starts when we apply the letter. The rules can be in conflict with one another. One has to find a balance between comprehensiveness and accessibility. The target is a moving target. When a topic clearly belongs in several different subcultures or disciplines, who's to balance the one against the other? So there are distincttly different communities who'll come to the article, with clearly different needs. Glkanter and Martin Hogbin and Gerhardvalentin, in my opinion, bring common sense and good taste to the page. Rick Block brings expertise and knowledge and a lot of important work done in the past, but seems committed to an outdated confrontational view of MHP. Glopk too. Nijdam wants an article which first and foremost satisfies his demands on his classroom students. The conflict is really about content. It is complicated by the fact that there are at least two big different interpretations of probability out there (see the Wikipedia article on the topic). Each source can only be well understood if one understands which interpretation they are using.  Rosenhouse's recent and authoritative book on has a whole chapter on this. Richard Gill (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Elen, that puts my mind at rest; I had just posted in another thread that I wasn't entirely sure if ArbCom can do that, although it seems to me the best way forward, and I'm most relieved to hear that this is possible. Woonpton (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's my suggestion: Temporarily ban the polarizers: the dogmatists, the fundamentalists, the extremists, the specialists, the revolutionaries, the wikilawyers, the conservatives, the reactionaries from editing the page. Let the constructive, sensitive, and imaginative-compromise-willing middle-of-the-road ordinary folk get to work together with any new editors who turn up. Therefore, temporarily topic-ban *everyone* (including me) of those editors currently involved in the mediation and arbitration, except for three sensible, calm, flexible, middle-of-the-road folks, say: Kmhkmh, Martin Hogbin and Gerhard Valentin. A mix of old and new talent. Give them three months to get the article out of its deadlocked state and up and alive again. Carte blanche to cut what they like, rewrite and reorganise what they like. Then let the other guys come back again, if they feel so inclined. Richard Gill (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In the interest of civility, I will only say I do not support this suggestion. Not even 1%. Glkanter (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What about another triple or pair of editors then, Glkanter? Or a pair? For instance: you and Kmhkmh. Richard Gill (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Any reduction of editors discussing the topic, imho, should be by sanction only. And there are plenty of editors who I think should be sanctioned. It's obviously a different group than Rick Block has suggested. Once again, I am disappointed in the false equivalency you implied with your first proposal. Yesterday you gave me praise (I thought) for 'hammering away' at some simple points that you now agree are, and always have been, supported by logic, then, with the above, you equate me to the editors who insist they alone know 'The Truth'. I resent that to my core. And you've done it before, and I've told you I resent it before. Glkanter (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I do praise you, @Glkanter, for insisting that MHP standard version (Marilyn's plain words plus clarification that the host will always open a door; plain citizen's understanding of probability) can be entirely solved with ordinary logic: The door numbers are irrelevant by symmetry / by indifference / by independence. With probability 2/3 you first choose a goat. Therefore you should switch. Those two sentences can be converted into mathematical formalism with ease and become an insightful rigorous mathematical derivation that the probability is 2/3 and probabilistic conditioning is superfluous. A useful exercise for mathematicians Nijdam and Kmhkmh (but they seem reluctant). I don't equate you to editors who insist they alone know 'The Truth'. I'm bothered you seem to deny the existence and needs of another class of readers of the article, alongside of the plain citizens who heard about it at a bar or at a party. May I say that that is similar to Nijdam's lack of concern for ordinary folks? (The Great Unwashed, as you called them). It's very worrying that you insist on using the word "conditional" in a different meaning to every single other editor. It would be so good if the High Priests and the Great Unwashed could learn to talk to one another. Both sides will have to invest some effort in that. That's what collaborative editing is about. Richard Gill (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe someday you will stop Strawman/Aunt Sallying me with the same horsecrap. I look for the removal of the criticisms of the simple solutions and all the discussion of variants from the article's Solution sections & the Causes of confusion section. And limiting the criticisms to a section on controversies. Period. Full stop. Anything beyond that is your faulty esp, again. How many times have I written these exact words in response to you Richard? Please, can you stop this? Glkanter (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% on I look for the removal of the criticisms of the simple solutions and all the discussion of variants from the article's Solution sections & the Causes of confusion section. And limiting the criticisms to a section on controversies. Well, your horsecrap is my bread and butter. Richard Gill (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Richard, please answer each question with either 'yes' or 'no' only:
 * 1, Is a 100% likely condition a 'condition'?
 * Yes (spoken by the HP)
 * 2. Is a simple solution like Carlton's, or Morgan's F5, a conditional solution or not? Glkanter (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not in the sense of probabilistically conditioning on the event "and the host opened specifically Door 3" (HP).
 * 3. If so, does omitting the word 'conditional' enable the critics to continue to confuse the "it must be solved with a conditional solution" argument?
 * Not applicable (HP).
 * 4. Would it appear contradictory to say "the simple conditional solution is wrong because it's not conditional"?
 * It would appear contradictory, but it isn't. Those who say such words mean by a conditional solution, one of the kind I just mentioned; and moreover they think that such solutions are the only right solutions. (I disagree with them) (HP).
 * Come on, man. Is it 'yes' or is it 'no'? We're (finally) in arbitration. You did a good thing with your direct response to Nijdam today, please continue adding value like that here. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This interrogation is completely and totally irrelevant for this arbitration, and could not be more out of place than it is here on this page. --Lambiam 19:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 5. Does the decision tree derived from Carlton and Morgan's F5 give a pictorial representation of a conditional solution?
 * No, not in the sense that everyone (except you) is using the phrase "conditional solution) (HP).
 * Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, brother. (HP) = Richard Gill (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your answers to questions 2 - 5 are contradictory to your answer to question 1. Instead of answering those questions as per your understanding of what Wikipedia editors think, perhaps you could answer them as per the prevailing mathematics at this time in history? And please do not include 'door 3' as a requirement for 'conditionality', as it's not a math requirement (and it's kinda the whole point of these extended arguments, isn't it?). Thanks, Brother. Glkanter (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "condition" (conditions, conditional, etc.) in the sense of the list of assumptions in a math problem, means something different to "condition" (conditional, conditioning) in probability theory. Would you accept a bet at odds 2:1 that the car is not behind the door you first chose? Would you accept a bet at odds 2:1 that the car is not behind the door you first chose (door 1), after you saw the host open door 3? I know that the sensible answer to both these questions is YES, but the *reasoning* why it is YES in the second case is just a tiny bit longer (add the words "by symmetry, it doesn't make a difference which door the host opens, so I would still bet at the same odds"). Richard Gill (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, greatest of the High Priests, please forgive this ignorant one for using the word 'math' when he didn't know to use the word 'probability'. Perhaps his greatness could indulge this undeserving one, and address the question as I *should* have asked it. On 2nd thought, I tire of your semantics BS. You've known all along exactly what I'm asking for, and why I'm asking for it. That you choose to play Nijdam-like cat and mouse games repulses me. Once again, thanks for NOTHING, Richard. Glkanter (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To all contributors in this thread, if you want to make suggestions in the proposals sections, please feel free to do so. This is very much the part where, having set out what has gone wrong in the Evidence section, you get to suggest what might put it right. You don't need to fill out all the sections if you only have one or two suggestions. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but for example 'be aware of your audience' would go under Principles, 'editors have disagreed about how to represent the various solutions to the various iterations of the problem' 'editor X/Y/Z has (whatever helpful or unhelpful thing they might have done) would go under Findings of Fact, and 'Editor X/Y/Z should be (whatever action you feel is appropriate)' would go in Remedies.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin - The article should be in two distinct parts
As stated elsewhere I propose that the article should be in two distinct parts. In the first part we should have only the simple solutions, without disclaimers, and the focus should be on simplicity, clarity, and convincing people. The second part should be a scholarly exposition of all the other issues relating to the MHP.

I am happy to give further explanation of exactly what I mean, reasons why I think this is the only way to resolve this dispute, and evidence of past support for this proposal if requested. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * As that stands, it is likely outside scope. However, there is a questions as to whether this topic is primarily notable as a striking example of where intuition and mathematics don't mix - in which case the focus should be on the number and quality of people making tits of themselves over it, and on the explanation of why changing is better - this explanation being as simple as possible (given that it's possible to demonstrate in two minutes with a pen and paper that the non-intuitive outcome is correct). I particularly like the 'infinite number of goats' explanation myself, as it's intelligible to a lay audience. If however it is primarily a topic in higher conditional probability, then mathematical expositions as comprehensible to Andrew Wiles may be appropriate, and one would not expect to find elegant lay explanations in the sources.  WP:UNDUE refers to prominence, and would appear to have some relevance here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Martin Hogbin's comments below, if it is made up of four parts, then according to WP:WEIGHT these should be given prominence in accordance with the weight of sources, which would at first sight suggest a method for parties editing the article to use when deciding on content.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Although I think this suggestion is likely outside the scope of arbcom, my response is that this proposal creates a structural POV, per WP:STRUCTURE, and that it would be not just more NPOV but better in other ways as well to present both "simple" and conditional solutions in a single (scrupulously NPOV) solution section. -- Rick Block (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to Elen of the Roads (is this the right place?), the problem is that even the notability of the topic is debatable. It is notable primarily for being a simple puzzle that most people get wrong, it is notable in certain statistics literature for being a problem where conditional probability is important, it is notable in psychology literature for being a failure of human intuition that is hard to explain, it is a well known problem in game theory.  There is no clear answer, some argue that the article gives undue prominence to a narrow mathematical interpretation of the subject at the expense of the most notable aspect but other disagree strongly.  Just waving WP policies around is not going to resolve this.


 * I really hope that this arbitration will not turn into a conduct dispute as proxy for a content dispute or a battle of who can remain ostensibly civil for the longest in the face of an impasse. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Glkanter
All parties should note that allegations of this kind in the workshop are likely to be removed. Evidence of previous bad behaviour should be detailed with diffs in the evidence section, as previously requested. Without diffs, it is significantly less likely that the Arbitrators will be in a position to give full weight to the allegations. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your contributions to this arbitration, Elen of the Roads. The solutions to the stalemates seem so simple don't they? Well, with this group of editors, *nothing* is simple. Absent any forced changes to any editors' behaviour, any items left unresolved by the arbitration committee will always be unresolved, and argued about endlessly, still. Let's see, according to a certain editor in this arbitration, 1 professional statistics source that he agrees with outweighs all popular (read: ignorant) sources. Trust me, to this point, nothing new has been proposed, and nobody's opinions or behaviours have been changed. Glkanter (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not calling anybody out for bad behaviour with the above comment. I'm just trying to make you all aware of the likely outcome from this arbitration. My comment was intended to follow your suggestion that [paraphrasing] 'giving proper weight to the 4 types of sources as described by Martin (above) should be a successful approach to ending the stalemate.' I don't know what 'bad behaviour' actually looks like on Wikipedia. I've never seen first hand anyone disciplined for anything, except for edit warring and the 3RR rule. Except sometimes that's the 1RR rule, so I don't understand that one either, really. And if memory serves, despite edit warring being at least a two way street, I'm the only MHP editor who's been blocked. The unnamed editor made his comments right here in the arbitration. As far as I can tell, while I find his comments loathsome, he's never been told to stop. Hence, I don't know if he's exhibiting 'bad behaviour' at all. I won't know until the arbitrators make their rulings. Glkanter (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And while you continue not to provide diffs, I'm afraid the Arbs won't have a clue what you are on about. You've been advised by several people now to provide clear statements and diffs showing behaviour which is against policy in the evidence section. If you point out the edit which is concerning you, the clerks will look at it. And since I note you have again referred to the loss of your MEDCAB pages, you might perhaps care to peruse Mediation_Committee/Policy for an explanation of why this has happened. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the diff. That policy makes no sense to me, but I'm sure it makes sense to y'all. Like I say elsewhere, that should be made clear to mediation participants along with the ground rules. Then there's no ex post fact griping, like you're getting here. Glkanter (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The link to the policy was put on your talkpage before mediation started. User_talk:Glkanter.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see. You know, I could read that section 1,000 times. And since I "know" that diffs never get deleted, it would *never*, not once in that 1,000 readings, occur to me that the best, most important stuff I would ever post on Wikipedia, and *everybody* else's best, most important stuff, will all get deleted. I said the other day, I think it was to you, that I can't coerce people to see things as I see them, so I won't belabor all this any further. I think I'm making an important point here, which hopefully, will never affect me again. My suggestion regarding 'ground rules time' makes a ton of sense, and don't cost nothin'. Glkanter (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An Arbitration is fundamentally different from a mediation - which is like one of those late night sessions that David Cameron and Nick Clegg must have had, to hammer out the coalition agreement. Arbitration is more like a tribunal hearing (although without any legal basis, of course), at which all of you are asked to explain why you can't stop arguing and edit warring over this article, who is being intransigent, not respecting sources, browbeating, persistently reverting or whatever. Not to expound on 'why my viewpoint is right' or 'what I think the article should look like' (although some of that will inevitably come in), but focus on 'what/who is stopping us from reaching a consensus on the content of this article.'  Note that 'consensus' does not mean you only cover one view - in a disputed area like this, the consensus should be how you will represent all aspects of the matter in a comprehensible way, and in line with Wikipedia policies, and in a way that all can at least agree not to revert the moment it is put up, even if it's not their preferred version.  I believe that when the Arbitration is over, the MEDCOM pages can be restored if it is the wish of the parties. At the very least, I can arrange for you to get your own submissions back. You are just not able to use them in evidence here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Woonpton (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Elen of the Roads, I think the belief that there are great conflicts in the source material regarding the MHP is an overblown contrivance perpetuated by certain Wikipedia editors for reasons I do not know. That's why I created that table earlier today that summarizes the sources. Many different solutions. A single problem statement. Next to nil criticisms between sources. Certain editors would have you believe a very different story. It's hogwash. Glkanter (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

MHP Solution Jargon
There are 3 forms of solutions to the single MHP problem statement in the literature. In general, the discussions have referred to only 2 types (unconditional and conditional), imprecisely lumping #1 & #2 together. This has helped to promote confusion and the POV that Rick Block and Nijdam prefer.


 * (Simple) Unconditional solution: Selvin, the originator of the MHP, and vos Savant, who popularized the MHP both gave tables showing all possible player door choice, car placement, and host door opening possibilities.
 * Simple (Conditional) solutions: Conditioned on the 100% likelihood that the host will open a door revealing a goat, and offer the switch. The contestant is looking at 2 (un-numbered) closed doors at the end of this solution.
 * Formal (Complicated) conditional solution: Conditioned on the 50/50 likelihood that the host will open either door 2 or door 3, and the host has specifically opened door 3. The contestant is looking at closed doors #1 and #2 at the end of this solution.

Posted by Glkanter (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you and everyone else PLEASE stop posting solutions to the MHP. Solutions to the problem are matters of content.  The Arbs understand very well that a substantial part of the dispute centres on the perceived veracity and appropriateness of some of the solutions, and allegations that certain parties are either promoting or seeking to remove certain solutions according to their viewpoint. But honestly, we don't need it explaining multiple times, and we are not going to rule on what goes in the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Which was not the reason I included this, at all. Forgive me if I thought the arbitrators (and ultimately Glkanter) might benefit from understanding the difference between the regularly repeated bogus argument, 'Glkanter is disruptive because he refuses to understand, no matter how many times I tell him', and [written out clearly, for the first time, anywhere in Wikipedia] the actual literature, that Glkanter understands very clearly. It's just that the literature doesn't support the POV and UNDUE WEIGHT violations of the article that Rick Block and Nijdam refuse to allow to be removed. Glkanter (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You might reflect on the fact that at no point did I indicate that I did not understand the mathematics behind the solutions, or indeed not understand the positions taken by the various parties. You might also reflect on the fact that disruptive behaviour may be evidenced without a reason for it being known - for instance I would have no way of knowing why someone might keep replacing the introduction to the article on the battle of Bannockburn with a rant about the guy who owns the chip shop, but I would know his behaviour is disruptive).Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My response was in consideration that there are 16 committee members that may be deceived by Rick Block's subtle linguistic gamesmanship.

Could you please respond to my concerns elsewhere regarding evidence?

It's evident my postings are having the opposite result that I intended. I will curtail my postings accordingly. Glkanter (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed from workshop proposals section
The following has been removed from the workshop proposal discussion on core policies, as it has nothing to do with a discussion on core policies. Glkanter, I am on the verge of blocking you for your continued personal attacks, so knock it off now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While you guys may have me for being 'rude' or 'curt', I resent being lumped in with editors who have ceased to exhibit good faith, and editors who either ignore or distort the sources. Once I learned about the reliable source requirement, *and* began rejecting all the arguing about the maths, I have been discussing *nothing but* what the sources actually say, and how other editors are distorting those sources. The very items I've included in my evidence of this (the table highlighting the so-called critical sources and the simple conditional decision tree), are reliable source generated, and I've been criticized for including them, rather than diffs from other editors. Glkanter (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop it. Your name hadn't even appeared in this section until you brought it here, and I wasn't talking about you (or anyone) in particular, simply observing that the dispute in general has not been overly characterized by appeals to WP policy.  As has been explained to you many times, (1) while article edits are based on sources, arbitration evidence is based on diffs not sources, so discussing sources is not helpful in an arbitration though it's useful in article editing; and (2)  your approach to this arbitration has been unhelpful. Woonpton (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware my contributions have not been accepted well. I understand that this arbitration is not about the article's 'content'. I do not understand that to mean it's not about 'sources' or what constitutes a 'significant minority viewpoint' of reliable sources. And I may be very ignorant, despite having read the policies about arbitration. I've asked half a dozen questions about how I should best proceed, given the absence of good faith by the accusing admin/editor of this arbitration, but no committee member or clerk so far feels that my questions deserve a response. Maybe you guys could try seeing this from my vantage point? Or not. But I don't self censor. If that causes the committee to block me from further participation in this arbitration, or to rule in favor of Rick Block's requested sanctions, well, that's out of my control.Glkanter (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And while your comment above does not name me, it certainly does not exclude me:
 * "But just as a point of clarification: In all my reading of the interminable circular arguments in this dispute, I've seen very few instances where editors were claiming WP policy or sources in support for their positions; the overwhelming majority of the arguments have been argued  not on WP policy or interpretation thereof, but on the basis of the editors' self-perceived "rightness" of their logical argument or their mathematical formulation, the necessity and utility of their original-research solutions, or even their superior credentials."
 * I find that imprecision unacceptable, and felt compelled to reply. Which I do not think is a violation of any policies. Glkanter (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to take every general observation about the dispute as a personal accusation, you're going to make yourself very unhappy during the workshop, where general proposals and observations will be discussed.   I referred to the "overwhelming majority" of arguments.  Let's give that a number just for argument's sake; let's say I'd estimate that 87% of the arguments have been as I described.  If it makes you feel less personally accused, please feel free to consider your own arguments as included in the 13% of arguments I wouldn't describe that way.   This proposal isn't a finding of fact about specific editors; it's a general principle that applies to all editors.  This page is for discussing proposals for an arbitration decision and involves thoughtful discussion of what principles are salient and how they can best be applied to resolve the conflict. It's not helpful to personalize these more general discussions. Woonpton (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response, and thank you for the clarification as to the nature of my contributions to the discussions. Of course, it makes me wonder if this statement from the arbitration request from my accuser, who I see as my harasser, has any possible merit whatsoever:
 * "Although more than one of the involved editors have exhibited problematic behaviors, one editor in particular (Glkanter) exhibits nearly all the classic signs of disruptive editing and has essentially singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made."

This is what this arbitration is deciding, right? Except that accusation and conclusion from Rick Block are just a bad joke really, aren't they? Glkanter (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You missed my point entirely; the point was that you shouldn't personalize general statements that aren't meant personally. I would have said exactly the same ("If it makes you feel better, feel free to consider yourself included in the 13%") to any participant in the dispute who had taken that general observation personally; the comment wasn't intended to "clarify the nature of your contributions" but to try to get across to you that it's not helpful to personalize general comments.  I will not respond further; this conversation has not added anything to the discussion of the proposal, and should probably be removed to the talk page, except for my comment at the top in response to the proposal. Woonpton (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is (at least) the 2nd time I have badly misunderstood your intent. This was the first time. While it wasn't the part of your diff that I misunderstood, I wonder would you still describe this arbitration this way:
 * "...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."
 * Posted by Glkanter (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of where Glkanter is characterized in your 87%/13% split, if would seem contradictory to post:
 * "But just as a point of clarification: In all my reading of the interminable circular arguments in this dispute, I've seen very few instances where editors were claiming WP policy or sources in support for their positions; the overwhelming majority of the arguments have been argued  not on WP policy or interpretation thereof, but on the basis of the editors' self-perceived "rightness" of their logical argument or their mathematical formulation, the necessity and utility of their original-research solutions, or even their superior credentials."
 * and to find merit in Rick Block's accusation:
 * "Although more than one of the involved editors have exhibited problematic behaviors, one editor in particular (Glkanter) exhibits nearly all the classic signs of disruptive editing and has essentially singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made ."
 * And Rick's accusation *is* what this is all about, right? But no 6 year Wikipedia experienced admin that had taken part in *all* of those conversations, as Rick Block has, could really believe that accusation, could he? How long did it take you, as you agreed with AGK, to recognize the abscence of good faith in these discussions? You don't think Rick Block saw the same things? Glkanter (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Small world, when you agreed with AGK about the absence of good faith in the content dispute, you guys were responding to Rick Block's "Role of The Arbitration Committee" in his "Proposed Final Decision". Which is the same section this discussion is taking part in. Rick Block had proposed:
 * "4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors."
 * After 6 years, Rick could not recognize the absence of good faith. Not even his own. Curious that you guys saw it in about a week. Glkanter (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I said I wouldn't respond further, but my position has been so diametrically misrepresented here that it seems only fair to correct the inaccuracy. As for the rest, I honestly don't know what glkanter is on about with most of this, but in general I'm left wondering what part of 'This isn't about you' was not perfectly understood. The inaccurate representation:  I have not "found merit" in statements about glkanter as he claims above; I have not commented on any workshop proposals about Glkanter, nor have I submitted evidence about glkanter's conduct, nor have I expressed agreement with others' evidence about Glkanter. I have made only one comment that referred specifically to glkanter, and that only indirectly:  I commented in response  to a motion by Martin Hogbin that to this observer's eye, the assertion that one person is singlehandedly responsible for the lack of progress on the article seems absurd, which contradicts absolutely the assertion above that I "find merit" in the statement, bolded above.


 * It is, however, increasingly becoming my experience that one person is singlehandedly responsible for making this arbitration very unpleasant to participate in.   There is no rational reason to take out after me; I'm not a party to the arbitration, nor am I a participant in the dispute, nor have I singled out glkanter as an example in the evidence I have presented.  I have no opinion about glkanter's content position in the dispute; I'm not here to argue with him, or with anyone, only to comment as an interested observer on what I see as the main problem in the dispute (failure to observe core content policies, by many parties) and what I think should be done about it (a remedy that calls for enforcing adherence to core content policies, by all parties).  That's all.   I'm baffled by all the verbiage directed at me in this thread.  (And this whole thread, except for my comment about the proposal at the top, really needs to be moved to the talk page or deleted altogether, as it has nothing whatever to do with the proposal that's being discussed.) Woonpton (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I obviously don't know when to stop. I think you've posted 3 or 4 things that were either 'easy to misunderstand', simply wrong, reacting to something I *didn't* say, or contradictory in nature. Since it's me being accused by Rick Block of '...singlehandedly...', I'm taking the arbitration seriously. And this arbitration, like everything else Wikipedia, is nothing more than words presented in a text nature. So, I find your postings as problematic as you find mine. And I find you have no greater claim to these talk pages than I do. So far, anyways. Basically, for the last few days, I've done nothing but *respond* to postings from various editors that I find inaccurate, improper, or otherwise flawed. Not all editors have improperly posted on the MHP talk pages as you implied/described. I responded in a polite fashion. You didn't like it. Believe me, I'm used to that in the corrupt little corner of Wikipedia I've been in, voluntarily, for 2+ years. Good day, madam! Glkanter (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've not made a single 'personal attack'. Glkanter (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment/question for Sir Fozzie and Elen
Am I reading too much into the fact that the proposals so far from the drafting arbitrators focus solely on conduct, civility, AGF and the like, and contain no language whatever about the importance of core content policies and especially about adhering to reliable sources and about discussing improvements to the article based on reliable sources, rather than individual editors' ideas about the MHP? If this omission is unintentional and such proposals are yet to come, then I'm premature in my concern and I will happily stand corrected. However, if it is intentional, if the proposals offered to show the arbitrators' framing of the case were intended to send a message to participating editors: this is the scope of the case as we see it; we don't intend to go beyond this narrow focus-- then I will feel I've done what I can here and go on my way, because I don't think that narrow focus on collegial behavior addresses but a fraction of the problems underlying this dispute.

My thought was to add examples from other decisions to the workshop page that show how these issues have been addressed in other cases, even though there are several proposals from non-arbitrators along these lines already. But it appears that Sir Fozzie used the last template and I was unsure how to copy a used template and substitute my proposals into it and figure out where to put it on the page without breaking something. So I'll put a few tentative proposals here for the moment, unless/until a clerk would be so good as to provide a clean template so I can add these to the workshop page. Here are a couple of examples of principles that I think apply to this case and would be helpful if included in the decision:


 * The neutrality policy requires that articles (i) accurately reflect all significant claims or viewpoints published in reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to each only in proportion to the weight of the source. The verifiability policy requires the use of the best and most reputable sources available, with the claim or viewpoint's prevalence in these sources determining the proper weight to be placed upon it. Apparently significant claims or viewpoints which have not received proportionally significant attention in the topic's literature should be treated with caution and reported only to the extent that they are supported by reliable sources. In deciding the appropriate weight to place upon a claim or viewpoint, it is its prevalence within reliable published sources that is important, not the prominence given to it by Wikipedians or the general public. (from TM final decision)


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

Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree that these are important principles to highlight.


 * Woonpton - you can edit a historical version of the workshop page that has a template (like, say, this one), copy the template, and then edit the current version and paste the copied template into it. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, good idea, thanks... Woonpton (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do feel free to add your own suggestions, they are all sound. As for Sir Fozzie and me, we've been kind of distracted by something else on the 'pedia, I'm sorry to say, but hope to get back to it today or tomorrow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the neutrality principle is very important, but it may be wise to tailor language about "prominence to each only in proportion to the weight of the source" and "the best and most reputable sources available" for this case in light of the following conundrum:
 * Vos Savant's column is arguably the most notable source, being the one most cited by other sources, but is also arguably one of the least "reputable sources", being from a newspaper-insert magazine with a "weight", compared to peer-reviewed academic journals, approaching that of a perfect vacuum.
 * One of the principal content disputes concerns relative weight and neutral treatment in simultaneously covering MHP from two points of view: as a riddle for the general public, and as a subject of academic inquiry. The statement of principle may need to be a little more nuanced if it is to avoid exacerbating the dispute. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general point, but the issue here, as I see it, isn't the relative weight of "popular" vs "academic" sources so much as the overemphasis of original research or of minor academic primary sources and the underemphasis of secondary academic sources. I was trying to stick with the language of previous decisions that have dealt with similar problems so as not to inadvertently raise new difficulties, but maybe a new formulation would be best.Woonpton (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that original research and overemphasis on minor sources are major problems that need to be addressed here. < Full stop. > I have in mind a particular aspect of long running dispute that concerns presenting different points of view from a neutral point of view. In a continual series of compromises for giving due weight to sources representing different perspectives, the presentation of each perspective keeps becoming belabored and interlaced with caveats, qualifications, and disclaimers until the article directly reflects the disputatious editorial process, rather than clearly and coherently presenting each perspective from a neutral point of view. (This cuts both ways: muddying the presentation of the basic paradox by comingling it with other considerations, and  muddying the so-called "conditional" solutions with epistemological digressions.) The resulting muddle is a crying shame! I don't want to put words in Rick's mouth but, from previous discussion (me & Rick), I suspect this is a significant part of what he had in mind in lamenting recently that the article has "lost its soul." Is there a guideline or principle that can be quoted about presenting views in a neutral manner apart from (subordinate to) the question of whether and to what extent the view should be presented? ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * One other point of order for your further consideration, Ningauble, old chap, methinks perhaps the irony of Rick Block's lamentation over the 'lost soul' of the MHP article may not be readily apparent to you. You see, my dear Ningauble, one of the byproducts of reverting each and every edit to the article made by one's loyal opposition, as Rick Block, Nijdam, and Glopk have done for approximately one revolution of the Earth around the Sun, is that one becomes solely responsible for any changes in the article's content. With all recognition accruing to one's self, whether 'tis in the goodst, or, mayhaps in the badst. Thusly, the discomforting writings you experienced upon reading such MHP article is without exception due to the hands of those aforementioned ownership-claiming editors, and simply cannot be foisted towards the well-meaning editors whose best efforts have been improperly and notoriously stifled. Quite the irony then, that Mr. Rick Block posits himself on his highest of horses to bemoan the loss of the articles 'soul', don't you think, my good man, Mr. Ningauble? Glkanter (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I keep seeing this accusation, from more than one editor, that Rick Block, Nijdam and Glopk have effectively kept the article biased in a particular way and that other editors are prevented from changing the article by the concerted efforts of these three editors in maintaining a particular POV. I had read all the discussions (mediations, article talk pages and user talk pages) over more than a year and had not noticed any such resistance, but I also found all the arguments very tedious and trivial and  thought perhaps I just hadn't noticed this "ownership" in the hubbub of bickering.  After reading Gilkanter's charge above that for approximately a year, these three editors have reverted "each and every edit to the article" made by their opponents, I decided I needed to judge for myself how accurate this charge is.  Since I don't know which editors are considered the "ownership" block's "opponents" I have chosen to look at "each and every edit" by Rick Block, Nijdam and Glopk for the last year,  at who the edit reverts, if the edit is a reversion, and what is being reverted.  I am only halfway through the year so don't have complete data yet, but so far I'm seeing almost no evidence to support this charge; so far most of the activity of these three editors is Rick Block doing cleanup like reverting IPs who come to the article and post their own ideas about why it's really 1/2, etc, and Nijdam and Glopk engaged in a bitter and enduring edit war between themselves over notation in the "mathematical formulations" section.  When I have finished my tabulation, I will post it in the "Analysis of Evidence" section on the Workshop page. Woonpton (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll want to take note of the article blocks placed on me as well as the page protections placed on the article. The analysis would probably look skewed without this info. My first block occurred in June, 2010. Glkanter (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A point of order is a claim that the rules have been broken. In order for an arbitrator or clerk to rule on your claim, please specify what rule you allege that I have violated this time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The comparison of the Parade Magazine columns to The American Statistician paper makes 4 as yet unsupported assumptions:
 * That the MHP puzzle requires or is better understood through the eyes of Math PhDs
 * That Morgan, et al themselves are more reliable than vos Savant
 * That the peer review process has added value to Morgan's paper (There is the obvious misquoting of vos Savant, plus the 2 errors acknowledged already by Morgan, et al)
 * That vos Savant's column is problematic
 * From my vantage point, none of these is true. Thus, I do not agree with the relative weighting of 'reliable' assigned by Ningauble. [And I'm willing to drop #4 if it comes too close to discussing The Truth.] Glkanter (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You completely mischaracterize my point. These are not weights I am assigning or attaching any validity to. I am pointing out that these are arguable assessments reflecting points of view that are not easily reconciled by reference to "weight" or "reputation," a point I emphasized by placing terms expressing ambiguous value judgments in quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I know, I get accused of that a lot. I guess I read this, and got confused:
 * "Vos Savant's column is arguably the most notable source, being the one most cited by other sources, but is also arguably one of the least "reputable sources", being from a newspaper-insert magazine with a "weight", compared to peer-reviewed academic journals, approaching that of a perfect vacuum."
 * So, what exactly was your point, then? How does 'perfect vacuum' support that point? Glkanter (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of that hyperbole, my dear Glkanter, was to emphasize that some people in academia view the popular press with considerable disdain, not to espouse that view as my own. As for my general point, which seems to have been clear enough to Woonpton, I suggest you review my previous post, beginning at "I am pointing out...." ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't 'get it'. Which is why I posted. Twice. I didn't know 'conundrums' were 'hyperbole'. I still don't. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Compromise?
It is just a matter of opinion whether we, Nijdam Block glopk, are the ones refusing to reach consensus. or the group of editors like Glkanter, Hogbin Gerhardvalentin and Gill. As it was up to us, the so called simple solution would not be mentioned at all, or only somewhere in the article as an erroneous way of reasoning. Clearly the other group likes to solve the MHP by the simple solution, not accepting it to be criticized. What would be a compromise? I have suggested, the article starts with the simple solution, but immediately followed by the criticism, in order that every reader may judge for himself its validity. We never insisted the simple solution to be banned. Now who is holding up the editing process? Nijdam (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The comments and logic above are the result of Nijdam's POV being 'untethered' to the reliable sources in any way. This should not be a surprise, as he has discussed and edited the article without regard for reliable sources for approximately 2 years. Only the editors who disagree with his approach and actions that disregard fundamental Wikipedia policies have attempted to correct this behaviour, and they have been ignored and/or insulted in return. As Rick Block, an admin, and the other editors who share his POV, never felt it necessary to counsel Nijdam on the need to base his contributions on the reliable sources, Nijdam continues to disrupt this arbitration by his policy violating sections like this one. Glkanter (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Too bad that Nijdam et al., in deliberately misinterpreting old and new reliable sources, and for years sticking on a sheer ancient secondary mediocre unimportance, in a myopic and obviously slanted way try to retard a clear and outright presentation of the world famous paradox. Missing the point. Preventing, fighting and controverting progress to a clearly laid out and well-arranged interpretation of the vital question of, not at least, our psychological restraint to apprehend that world famous "paradox". Of course, those (negligible) later on augmented assumptions, irrelevant to find the only correct answer to the question, can and should be shown likewise, but such sideshow certainly never is the "core of the paradox" as they steadily and constantly like to say. The heart of the paradox is our psychological restraint to apprehend that world famous "paradox". Reliable sources focus on the matter. But they are proud to show just blunt maths instead, for the sake of maths, deriding reliable sources. Steadily forcing disaccord. Time that such lopsidedness should have an end, as all reliable sources are to be respected, and should not be ignored any longer. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another note to anyone reading this: the claims that Nijdam's POV is not supported by reliable sources and that no one has ever pointed out to Nijdam article content must be based on reliable sources are simply not true (I've already posted diffs about the latter, see ). Diffs of Nijdam citing sources:     .  Additional diffs about referring to reliable sources:         . -- Rick Block (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing those diffs which you claim contradict my accusation that Nijdam ignores the reliable source requirements of Wikipedia. I have summarized your diffs 2 - 6 as follows:
 * 2	4/3/2009	Morgan,	no quotes, no links
 * 3	4/4/2009	Morgan,	1 quote, no links
 * 4	4/7/2009	Unnamed, no quotes, no links
 * 5	4/24/2009	Morgan,	no quotes, no links
 * 6	6/11/2009	Devlin,	no quotes, no links
 * "Well Devlin may be a source, as a source on the MHP he is not reputable. That is a problem for Wikipedia, not every source is reliable. And as we have to mention this type of so called solution as Devlin's, which BTW is definitely false and illogic, we may do it in confrontation with Morgan's, telling that in his paper such a solution is called false.Nijdam (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)"
 * Devlin earned a B.Sc. (Special) in Mathematics at Kings College London (1965–68) and a Ph.D. in Mathematics at the University of Bristol (1968–71). He is co-founder and Executive Director of Stanford University's Human-Sciences and Technologies Advanced Research Institute (H-STAR), a co-founder of Stanford Media X university-industry research partnership program, and a Senior Researcher in the Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI). He is a commentator on National Public Radio's Weekend Edition Saturday, where he is known as "The Math Guy."[1] As of 2008, he is the author of 28 books. Several of his books are aimed at an audience of the general public, as opposed to much academic work. His recent research work has focused on the development of new tools and protocols to assist intelligence analysis and the development and use of videogames in mathematics education. Devlin is also creator of the concept "soft mathematics", introduced in the final chapter of his book "Goodbye, Descartes". His website at Stanford provides extensive up-to-date information.
 * Rather than support your denial, these diffs support my claim very clearly. Glkanter (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rick Block has clearly shown that my repeated comment that [paraphrasing] "Rick Block has never, not a single time, counseled Nijdam on the reliable sources requirement" is erroneous. I stand corrected and apologize to Rick Block and every editor who read my false statements. Rick Block includes 11 diffs above that show he has indeed done such counseling:
 * 1a	6/15/2009
 * 1b	2/7/2010
 * 7	2/4/2009
 * 8	2/10/2009
 * 9	2/11/2009
 * 10	2/12/2009
 * 11	2/10/2009
 * 12	4/9/2009
 * 13	4/24/2009
 * 14	6/15/2009
 * 15	6/20/2009


 * Nijdam made his first edit to the MHP talk page on 2/3/2009.
 * Nijdam also made his first edits to the article on 2/3/2009:
 * "The following "solution" is often stated, but is not the correct solution to the problem, because in the above precise stated problem not only did the player picks Door 1, but is it also known that Door 3 is opened and shows a goat. Let us yet follow the reasoning and see what goes wrong."
 * "For the attentive reader it will be clear that the player in this solution is also confronted with the possibility to find Door 2 opened showing a goat and offered to switch to Door 3. This is not allowed in the statement of the problem. However there is a way to work around it. Looking at the pictures we see this is the case in the first and the last picture in the last row. If we restrict the analysis to the other cases (for the probabilistic skilled reader this means conditioning on these events), the (conditonal) probability of winning the car by switching is 1/3 against 1/3+1/6, which is also 2/3."
 * It does not appear that Rick Block made any impression on Nijdam in this regard, despite bringing it to Nijdam's attention 6 times in 9 days in February, 2009.
 * I wonder when Rick Block's last comment to Nijdam regarding relaible sources was?
 * I'm not aware that Rick Block ever posted on Nijdam's user page that he was violating Wikipedia policies, such as being disruptive, as Rick Block has done numerous times on my talk page.
 * Posted by Glkanter (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you care to comment on the substance of Nijdam's posting above? Or how well it is supported by reliable sources, Rick? Glkanter (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll say two things. 1) This is not the place for a content discussion.  2) What I want is for the article to represent all significant views published by reliable sources—fairly, proportionately and without bias (i.e. to be NPOV), and as far as I can tell Nijdam and glopk are good with that. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And as far as I can see, Nijdam and Glopk are very bad with that. And I'm an expert in the field. So which expert do you go with, Rick? And what about Boris Tsirelson, and the editors at citizendium.org, and the editors at statprob.com? Peer reviewed encyclopaedia articles on MHP. Maybe the communic opinio of the relevant scientific community is moving... MHP is a moving target. Richard Gill (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nice that you say that (#2, above) about Nijdam, Rick Block. Is there any way you might support such a statement via diffs? I've been editing for over 2 years, and I have come to the exact opposite conclusion. Nijdam's own words in this arbitration (like the one's above) contradict your statement, don't you think? Glkanter (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there anything problematic with Nijdam's comment above? If I had written something like that, would you call it disruptive? Glkanter (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you insist. I'd say that tendentiously repeating claims you know to be false and making personal attacks (like you do in your original response in this thread), and that continuing to pester me about this are clearly disruptive.  Nijdam's original post, not so much. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nijdam. You say, 'Clearly the other group likes to solve the MHP by the simple solution, not accepting it to be criticized', but you know this to be untrue.  The simple solutions have been criticised, in particular by a group of academics having a bit of fun with an infamous problem.  The article should reflect that fact in an appropriate way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nijdam says above under "Compromise?":
 * As it was up to us [Nijdam et al.], the so called simple solution would not be mentioned at all, or only somewhere in the article as an erroneous way of reasoning.
 * But he failed and shipwrecked and was rebuked as he tried to push such ridiculous scrooges POV also in the "academic encyclopedia", where the simple solution is shown to be absolutely correct:
 * This last fact could have predicted in advance, by the symmetry of the problem. The contestant may simply ignore the door numbers: they do not change his chances of winning by staying or by switching.
 * But here, in en.WP, for years Nijdam et al. have succeeded in presenting not the paradox, but only a negligible negligibility of never to be given additional information, if you just knew more, and in seeking the maths, and in copying textbooks. But the door numbers are irrelevant. The aspect of "additional information", based just on poor never to be given presuppositions, should be shown, yes. But where it belongs to. Surely there will be readers just interested in that side show: <1%, maybe. So it should be shown.


 * And Rick Block said above in [15] that there were no sources that say that any simple solution was correct, asking *:Can anyone provide a source for this specific interpretation?, but he secrets the answer he got, in 2009. So, for anyone here with serious efforts, there's nothing left but to knock the dust off one's shoes and to take to one's heels. As many have already done. Ridiculous conflict eternalized. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is about content. BUT: Devlin himself recognised that his argument was incorrect. Please let's distinguish between 1) arguments to find the solution to a problem, 2) deciding what is the problem, and 3) the solution. At least: please realise that mathematicians make these distinctions, and that for mathematicians these distinctions are really important! That is what mathematics is about - making these distinctions. Scientists (and everybody else) use (and abuse) mathematics. Fine. That's what it is for. Richard Gill (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors who aren't able to (temporarily) see these distinctions will for ever be fighting with those who do. But it is not difficult, I think, if you have some intelligence, to be able to distinguish between 1), 2) and 3). Or is that behaving like an arrogant High Priest? I think not. Richard Gill (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I can only apologise for repeating myself but we can easily circumvent this issue by dealing with the simple solutions first and the complications later. This does not, as Rick and Nijdam suggest, support the POV that the simple solutions are entirely and utterly correct in any possible interpretation and formulation of the problem it just does what all good text books do, it gives a simple exposition first, then explains in more detail later. No one has given any clear argument for not doing this. Would it help if we were to call the first section something like 'Simple probability puzzle'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I might add that the refusal of Rick and Nijdam to accept this obviously neutral proposal, by inventing absurd objections like 'structural bias', that show that they the ones exerting an undue influence over the page. The have consistently refused to even discuss the issue even though I have given clear examples of how this structure is used throughout the technical and mathematical world without it be considered support for a 'simplist' view of the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we just resume our discussions and editting on the MHP article?
I can't tell if this arbitration is still active. Should we just return to our old, familiar roles? Glkanter (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it's still active. The deadline for the drafters publishing the draft full decision for voting is the end of the week. After that, the committee will vote on it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Do 'the drafters' work privately? Did I overlook a schedule of dates relating to this arbitration? Thank you in advance. Glkanter (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. Part of the draft is often worked up onwiki, as is the case here (Sir Fozzie and I have a section in the workshop where we are discussing the principles behind any decision) but the sections concerning sanctions are usually worked up offwiki. A schedule is always agreed with the clerks, and the parties should be made aware by the clerks of the timetable for submissions etc.  Hopefully one of the clerks can confirm how this is done. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, again. I just looked at all the MHP arbitration pages, and did not find a schedule or calendar. Maybe you experienced folks know right where to look, but I'm having, and have had, no luck. I did find some questions regarding evidence and 'fairness' that I had asked that were never responded to. It would have been nice if those had been addressed. Glkanter (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The clerks ought to have some convenient page-header templates for keeping everyone abreast of arbitration status. E.g. "evidence phase is closed", "workshop phase scheduled to close", etc.... This is the first arbitration that I have followed and, though I am finding it very interesting and even illuminating, I am a little surprised by the paucity of process information and, to a lesser extent, the level of moderation. I understand the clerks were busy with other things when this case got started, so perhaps this case is not typical. Of course, no case is typical for the people who find themselves called in as parties so, to the extent possible, a little "smoothing of the way" would be a good thing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent idea. The evidence and workshop phases do overlap, but there should be at least a notional cutoff date, and a date when one can expect a draft for the outcome proposal. I'll see that this is discussed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:47, 8 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! 17:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)