Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli

Statement by uninvolved user v8rik

 * The Thomson unit is used in the literature so should be included as a Wikipedia article
 * The opponents do not refer to ordinary university level textbooks to make their case; my copy of organic spectroscopy William Kemp, only mentions m/z (dimensionless) and Silverstein/Bassler/Morrill also use m/z although a footnote mentions that m/e is proposed. My copies are old and I wonder what the current university textbooks have to offer on this matter. If it is m/z that is favored in these texts than any other notations should be confined to footnotes at the most. V8rik 22:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Brief response by Kehrli
--Kehrli 15:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with the first point.
 * 2) I made an extra article about m/z since it no longer is used as a mass-to-charge ratio .  Mass-to-charge ratio is m/Q, as this is required by ISO 31.

Brief response by Nick Y.
I agree on all points. Unit Th should be included. Modern text books also use m/z (unitless) (Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry (Hardcover)by Richard B. Cole (Editor), 1997; Mass Spectrometry: Principles and Applications (Paperback)by Edmond De Hoffmann, Vincent Stroobant 2002; The Expanding Role of Mass Spectrometry in Biotechnology (Paperback)by Gary Siuzdak 2003; The Encyclopedia of Mass Spectrometry : Hyphenated Methods (Encyclopedia of Mass Spectrometry) (Hardcover) by M. L. Gross 2006) I would however note that this arbitration is primarily about kehrli's behavior regarding thsi topic, not that the topic is not relevant.--Nick Y. 21:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Stifle
This appears to be a content dispute. Framing a content dispute as a behaviour dispute does not change the essential fact that it is a content dispute. You really don't want this before the ArbCom, as they're just liable to ban everyone from the article or similar blanket suppression. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Cacycle
I have now followed the behaviour of Kehrli since he registered in March, 2006. The case is clearly not about any technical question or dispute, it is only about the behaviour of Kehrli.

From his edits and the discussions on the talk pages including:


 * Talk:Mass spectrum
 * Talk:Mass chromatogram
 * Talk:Mass-to-charge ratio
 * Talk:Thomson (unit)

as well as from:


 * the discussions on a deletion request
 * his user page
 * his user talk page

from his user subpages:


 * User:Kehrli/mz_misconception
 * User:Kehrli/mz

and from his most recent edits on:


 * M/z (started two days ago when this arbitration request was already pending!)

as well as from the following citations:


 * "In some way this is really frustrating, but in another way this is a very exciting social experiment. Look at it this way: we try to fight a misconception that can very analytically be proven wrong. We try to explain this to smart people that should be experts in the field (the mass spectrometrists). If this is so hard, how can you ever hope to fight other misconceptions that can not analyticaly be proven (e.g. in politics) to common people that are not experts in the field?"


 * "Edsanville: some people claim that m/z is a dimensionless quantity. It unfortunately is also the official policy of the UIPAC, which you find here. Of course it nonsense. This is why I am currently fighting to replace the dimensionless m/z by the correct m/q on the m/z misconception page."

and from the following incidents:


 * he deleted the content from his userpage after this requests for arbitration was filed diff
 * he still keeps copies of the deleted article m/z misconception in his userspace in violation of the Wikipedia user page guideline

it is clear that Kehrli


 * knows that the current nomenclature (m/z) is officially accepted by the IUPAC for mass spectrometry


 * and that his proposals have explicitely been rejected by the IUPAC

battleground.".
 * knows the relevant guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, especially No original_research, What Wikipedia is not (no "propaganda or advocacy of any kind", "Wikipedia is not a free host for personal pages", "Wikipedia articles should not include ... advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, ...", "Wikipedia is not a

My personal opinion on Kehrli is he is kind of fanatic on this topic and that he misuses Wikipedia as his forum to push his personal opinion. He uses the tactics of perseverance in vandalizing the articles in question. He does not participate in rational discussions but instead repetitively presents his agenda. This detered and still deters people from discussions with him (including me). Nick Y. was the only user that took the time and effort to talk to Kehrli, unfortunately without any result. For me it is obvious that Kehrli has a mission and will not stop misusing and vandalizing Wikipedia on his own. The only solution to stop him would be to ban him from editing mass spectrometry related articles.

I really urge the arbitration committee to accept this case and to find a solution.

Cacycle 01:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I forget to add that Kehrli showed the same behaviour at the wiki of the IUPAC sponsored Mass Spectrometry Terms and Definitions Project Page under the username Ionworker (contribs). Cacycle 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Physchim62
I completely support the statement made by Cacycle above. has not merely been using Wikipedia as a soapbox for his personal PoV, as happens from time to time in chemistry articles, but he has been particularly disruptive in doing so. I request that he be banned from articles relating to mass spectrometry. Physchim62 (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by r b-j
i am a little loathe to get involved in this, but at this point, i must report the same (or very similar) regarding Kerhli's edits to Physical constant and Dimensionless quantity (although i agree with him that changing the article title from Dimensionless number was a good idea). Kehrli goes in there, rewrites the article significantly injecting his personal POV, and then declares what is common knowledge among physicists is a common "misconception". Kehrli must not understand that when ascribing "misconception" to what leaders in the discipline are saying and writing about the subject, that there is strong reason to believe that it is he that has the misconception, not the present accepted position of those that are recognized in the discipline. it's similar to the endless supply of crackpots who say that Einstein was wrong and then go on to edit the General relativity article to show exactly how Einstein is wrong. that will not fly with the virtual unanomous understanding of physicists who are convinced that Einstein was right. r b-j 05:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Kehrli
just a quick note that now that User:Kehrli is banned from editing m/z or presumedly articles about mass spectrometry, he is now moving on to export his cranky beliefs onto physical constant and to dimensionless number (although i agree with him that renaming it dimensionless quantity was a good idea). but he has some personal pet theory that dimensionful physical constants are essentially equivalent to dimensionless fundamental physical constants which is contrary to the present widely accepted state of physics. we (User:Army1987 and i) have reverted his factually incorrect changes to both articles and have tried to reason with him from multiple angles and his responses is to say without any content that our explanation supports his fallacious position, to misrepresent our positions and repeat the misconception as if nothing was ever written by any of us to explain what was wrong with it. he is basically repeating that the widely accepted wisdom is a misconception and then replacing it with his own misconception. i think he is trolling, but am not entirely sure. i am sure he's a crank. i have now tired of dealing with him, but if he tries to reinsert this junk, i'm afraid an edit war will ensue. i need help from admins who are real physicists to be able to examine Kehrli's claims (which he tries to make sound reasonable, but they are fundamentally misconceived). r b-j 19:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify he has been banned from all articles relating to m/z. It is my opinion that physical constant and dimensionless number are very directly related since m/z is both a physical constant and a dimensionless number. You may wan to address this at WP:RFAr.--Nick Y. 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Kehrli
Initiated by  Kkmurray (talk) at 23:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 1.1) Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z.


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Nick Y.
 * Kehrli

Amendment 1

 * Remedy 1.1) Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z and from articles related to Kendrick mass and mass units.

Statement by Kkmurray
There is a dispute regarding WP:OR and WP:NPOV at Kendrick mass and Kendrick (unit) that is a continuation of the dispute previously discussed in the resolved arbitration case Kehrli that involved the mass and unit articles Mass-to-charge ratio, Thomson (unit) and Mass spectrum. User:Kehrli has resumed aggressive POV editing related to mass and unit articles. The locus of discussion for this dispute isTalk:Kendrick_mass.

As in the resolved arbitration case, User:Kehrli has over several months pushed original research and POV in mass and unit articles. He has used the general guidelines documents such as ISO 31, the IUPAC green book and a minority view from a single primary source document  to justify POV pushing and original research in mass units. He rejects multiple secondary sources and is not abiding by WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE andWP:OR in article editing.

As in the past dispute leading to the resolved arbitration case, User:Kehrli has engaged in disruptive activity such as deleting talk page comments, inappropriately flagging other users talk page comments., merging without consensus., removing page flags during discussion, , WP:PERSONAL and lack of WP:AGF.

Dispute resolution steps so far
This dispute has been discussed extensively for several months (primarily at Talk:Kendrick mass) and has gone through a proposed merge, request for comment, and informal discussions with prior case administrators. The discussion has been useful in establishing the views of the editors and several new scientific references have been found that provide additional facts that shed light on the dispute. Informal discussions with administrators from the prior dispute process have led to further clarification of the situation, It appears that further discussion will not likely be useful as User:Kehrli does not seem willing to compromise.

Specific dispute resolution steps:

Kendrick unit article created December 18, 2009 by User:Kehrli 

PROD January 17, 2010 by User:Glenfarclas 

dePROD January 17, 2010 by User:Glenfarclas 

Move Kendrick unit to Kendrick mass January 25, 2010 by User:Kkmurray 

Reverse move and redirect Kendrick mass to Kendrick unit August 17, 2010 by User:Kehrli  

Restore Kendrick mass and propose merge from Kendrick unit to Kendrick mass August 17, 2010 by User:Kkmurray  

Request for comments from WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Mass spectrometry, September 24-27, 2010 by User:Kkmurray   

Open RfC October 17, 2010 by User:Kkmurray

Informal request for assistance from prior case administrators November 1, 2010 User:Nick Y.    

Examples of recent original research related to Kendrick mass

 * Kendrick mass
 * Kendrick (unit)
 * Atomic mass unit
 * Thomson (unit)
 * m/z
 * The "Kehrli Plot" and original methods:
 * Rationale for original research and rejecting published scientific literature:
 * Rejection of secondary sources

Additional comments
In both the 2006 and 2010 disputes, Kehrli has applied the broad principles of metrology to what he considers to be poor chemistry nomenclature.

In the 2006 case, he objected to mass-to-charge ratio being defined as dimensionless. Secondary sources defining it as dimensionless (e.g. IUPAC Gold Book ) were “minority opinion of a small group of scientists” A single source that is consistent with his argument (Cooks and Rockwood 1991) was given undue balance and used to justify POV editing.

In the 2010 dispute, he objects to Kendrick mass being defined with units of Da. Multiple secondary sources defining Kendrick mass with units of Da (e.g. ) are “outdated jargon of a part of a fringe group”. A single source (Junnien 2010) is given undue balance and used to justify POV editing.

The issue is sources and balance.

Whether this is dealt with as an amendment to the prior case or as a new case, this is the same behavior as before. --Kkmurray (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In the likelihood that this request for amendment is not granted, I will take Physchim62 up on the offer to help with informal mediation and return with a new case request should it become necessary. --Kkmurray (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Nick Y.
I am very busy right now and won't be able to spend much time explaining this situation. However, I will state here that the examples given by Kkmurray are original research. The OR is logical and helps to resolve some outstanding issues in the scientific literature. In other words it might make a good, as in thoughtful and compelling, opinion article in a scientific journal. There are multiple sources that conflict with one another. Rather than stating such Kehrli has chosen to resolve the issues here at wikipedia with his thoughtful suggestions as to how things should be done. His suggestions make sense and are logical and consistent with how units of measure should be defined by the strictest of rules. It simply isn't his role as an editor at wikipedia to define new units of measure, or even clarify the definitions of things that look like units of measure and are present in the scientific literature in some form. We are here to summarize and report accurately, even when what we are reporting on is a mess or conflicting with conventions. The new behavior is essentially the same as what happened last time. I wholeheartedly endorse Kkmurray's course of action here as it is clear that Kehrli is unwilling to understand or accept any feedback on the scope of his responsibilities as an editor. I also find no faults in Kkmurray's position on the substance of this issue. --Nick Y. (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * To Amend or Restart To my understanding the purpose of sanctions is not to punish but to incontrovertibly inform and allow for some time and reflection. It is not alright to return to the same behavior after sanctions expire. The sanctions should have informed you that you need to listen and understand appropriate editing and behavior. Amendments to previous finding should be primarily for completing this job. "Is the same behavior persisting?" "What is it that is not clear about what is or is not OR?" "How can we help this editor to understand how to contribute effectively?" "Do sanctions need to be extended since they persist after previous sanctions, clarifications and admonitions?" The expiration of sanctions doesn't mean that the findings have expired and that the offending editor is free to return to their previous behavior. It means that the editor now has another chance to contribute as a good wikipedian.--Nick Y. (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding Kehrli's Statement I don't have the time to have the protracted debate the Kehrli seeks, nor is it necessary for the arbitrators to understand the argument that Kehrli is making. The simple fact is that Kkmurray is advocating that the articles around this issue be based on the commonly used definitions and actual usage as found in the scientific literature. Kehrli can argue perpetually why this is wrong however Kkmurray's position is consistent with wikipedia policy. This is the same conflict with m/z in the past and note that inappropriate editing at m/z and mass-to-charge ratio nearly identical to the problems a few years ago are recent. Kehrli persists in trying disprove commonly accepted units and notations that are widely used within the scientific contexts that use them. He/she also persists in finding one-off suggestions in the literature that are not widely used nor supported by any authoritative body and weave them into wikipedia. Kkmurray's representation of how the Kendrick mass is used is dead on correct. Kehrli's arguments are for making it right. The question is do we represent actual common usage or do we make it right. --Nick Y. (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Policy on Units The relevant section is: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." I think that this is the single focus of the issues here. This is the only point that needs to be addressed. Do we use the most current, most widely used notation and units as most commonly defined and used within the area being covered? Or do we make up better definitions and better uses? These are the only questions that need to be answered. --Nick Y. (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be abundantly obvious to all that when wikipedia policy states: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." that it is referring to encyclopedic (wikipedia) articles about scientific subjects.--Nick Y. (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The current Kendrick case has nothing to do with the previous m/z case
In the previous case I wrote an article explaining why the m/z notation is wrong. I thereby referred to the general principles of metrology according to which the m/z notation is indeed wrong. However, I could not produce a source that specifically said that m/z is wrong. This lead the arbitrators, which were all not experts in the field of metrology, believe that my article was OR.

In this case here, which is about a mass scale and not a physical quantity of mass per charge, I was much more careful. I learned from the past experience. I only wrote things that had literal sources. This time I did not rely solely on sources that showed that I used the correct methods. Everything I wrote is sourced. There is absolutely no OR, as I will show later.

In addition I wrote a much more balanced article. It was not an article that showed that some terminology is wrong. It is an article that discusses a method in physical chemistry in the correct terminology as well as in the incorrect terminologies. I then listed passages from the VIM (vocabulary of international metrology) that will indicate to the expert that the terminology is not compliant to the VIM. I did not write down this conclusion because it could have been seen as OR.

Note that even my adversary Nick says that I have the facts right.

I am not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, but since this is an amendment of an old case which has nothing to do with the new Kendrick case, I should now probably continue defending the old case.

Why the old m/z case came to a wrong decision
This previous case was about the question whether mass spectrometers measure the physical quantity mass-to-charge ratio m/Q (with dimension mass/charge) or a ill defined, nameless and dimensionless quantity m/z which is often used by the analytical chemistry branch of the mass spec community. My arguments based mainly on a paper written by two outstanding scientists (Cooks and Rockwood) that tried to introduce a new terminology in mass spectrometry by replacing the dimensionless quantity m/z by a well defined quantity with dimension mass/charge and using the Thomson (unit) for this quantity. Unfortunately, in this paper they themselves used terminology that was not 100% decisive. They continued to use the symbols m/z for their quantity. My argument was that they considered m/z as a quantity of dimension mass/charge which correctly should have the symbols m/Q according to the international conventions. This mistake is made by many mass spectrometrists. Of all those that use m/z symbols, about 1/3 thinks of it as a mass-to-charge ratio (my guess how the authors meant it), 1/3 thinks it is a mass (and use Da as units), and 1/3 think it is dimensionless. Kkmurray then argued that it was not certain what the authors meant with their symbol m/z and that my "assumption" (which was based on the actual text in the paper) was not solid and therefore my article is OR.

In the mean time, one of the authors has visited Wikipedia. He has corrected the article Thomson (unit) in my sense and has stated that the the authors thought of m/z as a quantity of mass/charge and the unit Th as a unit Th = Da/e. He added this section in the article:


 * Unfortunately, the article proposing the unit of the thomson contains an ambiguity relating to the specification of charge. In one place the article refers to "charge number," as noted above, but in another place the article specifies charge in terms of actual units of charge: "Using standard rules for abbreviation, we have 1 Th = 1 u/ atomic charge." Or in other words the units of the thomson are units of mass (unified atomic mass units) divided by units of charge (atomic or elementary charge). This unfortunate ambiguity may have contributed to the controversey over the unit. The ambiguity about specification of charge does not affect the numerical value assigned to the mass-to-charge ratio of an ion, but instead relates to the dimensionality to be associated with the number. Clarification of the original intent of the authors has not appeared in the literature, although in private communications Rockwood states that the intended dimensionality was mass/charge with the specific units being unified atomic mass units per elementary charge.

He labeled this correction: Removed gratuitous comment and opinion refering to those who use the thomson as the "fringe" of the mass spec community. Which shows that Kkmurray edits were indeed non-neutral.

The author even engaged in a discussion with Kkmurray where he slapped his wrist for being non-neutral in theThomson (unit) article:

In other words: the author not only stated that my interpretation of the paper was correct, he also was angry about the non-neutral wording of Kkmurray.

In hindsight the appearance of one of the authors shows that my ban was incorrect. Since we are already engaged in an amendment, I therefore ask the arbitrators to reverse the ban that was given to me in 2006 so I get back a blank jacket. This would help me to better withstand the troll-like behavior of Kkmurray who engages in disruptive behavior in almost each of my edits, as I will show later.

I also ask the new arbitrators to spell a ban on Kkmurray for his disruptive behavior.

Why the new accusations of OR are wrong
Here is a list of alleged OR of mine. I will show for each one of them why it is not OR. This may get very technical. Please ask a specialist in metrology for an opinion,


 * Kendrick mass

It is not quite clear what exactly should be OR, the claim is not very specific. I assume the following citation needed lables are the problem:


 * The Kendrick mass is a mass obtained by scaling International System of Units(SI) masses such as atomic mass unit (u), or dalton (Da) to simplify the display of peak patterns in hydrocarbon mass spectra.

Here is the explanation of the citation needed tags, in order of their appearance:
 * 1) scaling an SI unit is a process that is not foreseen or described anywhere in the metrology literature. Metrology strongly prohibits fiddling around with units. It is actually against the law. For natural units one finds often the expression "scaling to 1", but not for SI units.
 * 2) the atomic mass unit is explicitly called a unit outside the SI by all relevant metrology institutions
 * 3) same for the Da


 * Kendrick (unit)

I added a unit infobox for the Kendrick unit. What should be wrong with this?


 * Atomic mass unit

Again, I added a standard unit infobox for the Dalton unit. What should be wrong with this?


 * Thomson (unit)

I supplemented the charge state of the ions with their actual charge. This is completely appropriate since, as we now have learned from its inventor, the Thomson unit is a unit of mass/charge, not mass/(charge state). In the context of this article it would even be appropriate to eliminate any reference to charge state completely.


 * m/z

I added a physical unit infobox, which is 100% appropriate since m/z is a physical quantity in the eyes of any metrologist.


 * The "Kehrli Plot" and original methods:

The Kehrli plot is not even in the article. It is on the talk page where I try to explain a broader view of the Kendrick analysis. The Kehrli Plot would be OR if it were in an article, but on a talk page it is perfectly ok to explain things. This is a typical example of the disruptive behavior of Kkmurray.


 * Rationale for original research and rejecting published scientific literature:

This again is not in an article. It is on a talk page where I try to explain the concepts of modern metrology toKkmurray.


 * Rejection of secondary sources

This again is not in an article. It is on a talk page where I try again to explain the concepts of modern metrology toKkmurray. These are all concepts that implement the consensus terminology of the IUPAP red book, AND theIUPAC green book, AND the ISO 31, AND the International vocabulary of metrology.


 * Conclusion: there is no OR on my side

Why Kkmurray should be banned for disruptive behavior

 * 1) Kkmurray moved/renamed my Kendrick unit article to Kendrick mass without any prior discussion. Wikipedia rules, however, state clearly: if you believe the move might be controversial (consider using the movenotice template to draw attention to the proposed move and new title, and start discussion on the talk page)
 * 2) Kkmurray reverts almost all of my edits, usually for no good reasons, just to stalk me.
 * 3) Kkmurray had even my Sandbox articles deleted during a period where I was not active on Wikipedia,|see here. These were articles where I was working on improvements and removing OR, for heaven's sake. It is not reasonable behavior to prevent improvements on Wikipedia.
 * 4) Kkmurray is violating the principle of good faith
 * 5) Kkmurray is continuously inserting gratuitous comments and opinion (not my words) into my articles in order to sabotage them.
 * 6) Kkmurray is pushing the outdated jargon of a fringe group (mass spectrometrists) over the international consensus terminology of the IUPAP red book, AND the IUPAC green book, AND the ISO 31, AND the International vocabulary of metrology in all his edits. He thereby renders the articles non-understandable to the wider public.
 * 7) He is stealing my time as well as the time of you, the arbitrators, with his stalking behavior

The Big Picture

 * Kkmurray is pushing the outdated jargon of a part of a fringe group (mass spectrometrists) into Wikipedia


 * I think Wikipedia should be understandable to the wider public and therefore think the international consensus terminology of the IUPAP red book, AND the IUPAC green book, AND the ISO 31, AND the International vocabulary of metrologywhich is also used by some researchers in the same fringe group (mass spectrometrists), is more appropriate.

That's all. Both views can produce sources. That is why it comes down to a really simple question:
 * Should Wikipedia give answers to the wider public or should it address ivory tower specialist in their own jargon

PS: I am currently very short on time and may not answer immediately. Kehrli (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Nick's Statement

 * Kkmurray's position is consistent with wikipedia policy. 
 * Not true. Wikipedia policy says here:

The use of units of measurement is guided by the following principles:
 * Avoid ambiguity: Aim to write so you cannot be misunderstood.
 * Familiarity: The less readers have to look up definitions, the easier it is to be understood.
 * International scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific; apart from some regional or historical topics, use the units in most widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question.

The facts are: Hence I conclude that wikkipedia policy strongly favors my approach.
 * 1) The international consensus terminology (of the IUPAP red book, AND the IUPAC green book, AND the ISO 31, AND theInternational vocabulary of metrology) is much less ambiguous than the jargon that is used in the field of mass spectrometry. For example, the definition of m/z has changed multiple times during the last 25 years. The use m/z is not consistent at all. 3 different researchers will have 3 different uses. This makes it completely ambiguous.
 * 2) The international consensus is also much more familiar to most people except for those from the field of mass spectrometry, which understand both ways since, as I said above, even within the field there is no consensus on m/z use. For example, there are about 3 different uses of m/z and it is not clear at all which is the most common.


 * Kehrli persists in trying disprove commonly accepted units and notations that are widely used within the scientific contexts that use them. 
 * They are widely used, but so are the ones that I promote. The later in addition comply with the international consensus on terminology.


 * He/she also persists in finding one-off suggestions in the literature that are not widely used nor supported by any authoritative body and weave them into wikipedia.
 * Not true either. For example, I found many different sources for the Kendrick mass units, among them a source from Marshall himself, which is the preferred source of Kkmurray. There is no "one-of" here.


 * Kkmurray's representation of how the Kendrick mass is used is dead on correct. 
 * Not true: as you wrote yourself, there is no consistent use at all. Therefore Kkmurray's representation cannot be dead on correct. Sometimes the Kendrick mass is unitles and sometimes it is in dalton. Both is obviously wrong. Both do not comply with the normal terminology established by metrology. Both are mathematically incorrect.


 * Kehrli's arguments are for making it right.
 * No, my argument is for the consensus terminology since it can be understood by more people than the scientific jargon of a fringe group that makes no sense in the bigger picture.


 * The question is do we represent actual common usage or do we make it right.
 * No, we can do both, use the consensus terminology that all people understand AND thereby make it right.


 * In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic.
 * In Wikipedia we do not write scientific articles. That would be OR. We explain science to the layman. Therefore we need to, I quote: Use familiar units rather than obscure units—do not write over the heads of the readership. Familiar is mainly the international consensus terminology.

Statement by Physchim62
ZOMG! The finer points of metrological opinion as the basis for an ArbCom case! Where should I start? Well, firstly, both “sides” have tried to seek mediation from relevant WikiProjects without success. I’ve seen their requests on both WP:CHEM andWP:MEASURE, but didn’t get involved because the dispute seemed to be about such small points of interpretation. I neither agree nor disagree with either “side” completely. To atone for my sins of Wikilaziness, I offer the parties the analysis below as a basis for moving forward: if there is agreement to look for mediation, we can always squat a page at WP:MEDCAB to sort out the details.

To avoid any arguments over terminology, I shall call ℚ the physical quantity that mass spectrometrists pretend to measure. This quantity is related to m/Q by the laws of electromagnetism and (more precisely) to m/z because of the quantization of electric charge at the molecular scale. Note that Q and z are not the same kind of physical quantity: Q is continuous and has the dimension IT, while z is discontinuous and has the dimension 1.

I say “pretend to measure”, because ℚ (whatever name you give it) cannot be measured directly without a knowledge of the magnetic field, a recurring problem in metrology. The only way to measure the magnetic field along the path of interest is to calibrate the output of the mass spectrometer for an ion whose mr/z is accurately known: let’s call this calibration output ℚ°. So the measurement result of a mass spectrometric measurement is actually ℚ/ℚ°, a quantity that is obviously of dimension one. The spectrometrist (or, more usually, the spectrometer) then multiplies by the known value ofmr/z for the standard to give ℚ. Yet both mr and z are also quantities of dimension one, so ℚ itself must also be of dimension one. Or, to be more precise, it is a quantity of dimension one related to the physical response of the mass spectrometer by a calibration constant.

So where do the thomson and the kendrick unit fit into all this? Well, they are units that are not coherent with the SI. Nothing wrong with that, the dalton isn’t coherent with the SI either! But the current definition of the thomson on Wikipedia is a classic example of harmlessly sloppy metrology by chemists: it has units on both sides of the equation, yet units from different, incoherent systems! The formal way to deal with this problem is to define a physical constant, which will have different values (and maybe even different dimensions) in the different systems. So we define the “Thomson constant”mTh such that mTh = mu/e = 1 Th. It is obvious that we can also define a “Kendrick constant” mKe =mu/(Ar(12C)+2Ar(1H))e = 1 Ke. The two units are of the same type, non-coherent with one another but both traceable to the SI through experimentally determined constants.

Secondly, this doesn’t seem to be a simple case of WP:OR on either side, although much of what has been argued over would have been better in a peer-reviewed article than on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the dispute is disruptive and appears to be spreading to more articles.

Finally, I’m sure I’m not the only one to question whether the reopening of a case from 2006 is really the best procedural way forward. If this case has to come before ArbCom, it should be as a new case: I would suggest that such a new case could probably be resolved by motion, given the limited scope of the dispute. Physchim62 (talk)18:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

 * Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements; will comment thereafter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have some mixed feelings here. On the one hand, Kirill's point is well-taken, and it's difficult for us to talk about renewing remedies from a 2006 case given the time that has elapsed and the fact that not a single current arbitrator was on the committee in 2006. On the other hand, if, as appears to be true, an editor is currently engaged in exactly the same behavior for which he was sanctioned in 2006, it doesn't seem that the entire panoply of a new case should be required. Or, if we do ask for a new case, we should do our best to expedite it, which in the context of a one-editor dispute should certainly should be doable. In any event, waiting a couple more days (but only that!) for any additional statements to come in.Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Further clarifying my thinking, and responding to the latest comment above, whether we act (if at all) through a motion or a new case might depend in part on what Kehrli has to say. At the moment, he hasn't said anything, but then again, he hasn't edited at all in the week since this request was posted (whether that's cause-and-effect or not is impossible to say). So, I think we need to wait a little while longer and see what happens next. My views might be very different depending on whether he offers a reasonable explanation of why the current circumstances differ from 2006, or whether he goes back to editing while ignoring the request, or whatever else he might do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Awaiting statements also - please note that as this is a case from 2006, I will only be reading the final decision as background. If more background reading is needed, please indicate this in statements. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the old case, the remedies there have expired, so if anything was done here we would be reinstating (and extending) them, rather than amending them. In essence, this should be treated as a request to reopen the case. My view is that given the period of time that has elapsed, and the complexity of the matter, the best thing to do is to reopen the case (or start a new one) rather than attempt to work out on the amendments page what is going on here. But I'm holding off on my final decision here until Kehrli has had a chance to make a statement. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with my colleagues. Even though this does appear to be the same conduct issues, a new case would be best. Either that, or mediation. I would advise the filer to either refile for a new case, or to take up Physchim62's offer of informal mediation. Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a general point, I'm opposed to the idea of dragging a four-year-old case from the grave to impose new sanctions; arbitration remedies are not meant to be a perpetual hammer hanging over editors' heads long after they've expired. If there's a dispute that needs our attention, it would be better framed as a new case. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My instincts are against resurrecting a four-year-old case, especially when the last sanction under it was in September 2006. I'd like to hear from Kehrli before finally deciding.  Roger  talk 08:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * After reading through the area, I'm going to have to decline this as an amendment, with the suggestion that it be re-filed as a full case (which would be reasonably be expedited) SirFozzie (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with SirFozzie and others; this appears to need a full case rather than an extension of something from four years ago.Shell  babelfish 22:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I too think that, should this proceed, a fresh case is required. Risker (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues that this needs to be filed as a full case request. There is enough difference in context after four years elapsed that simply reviving a sanction this old without an examination de novo would be profoundly unfair.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)