Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Dougweller (Talk) & X! (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: SirFozzie (Talk) & Elen of the Roads (Talk)

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 14 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

None.

Proposed temporary injunctions

None

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Role of the Committee

1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to rule on content disputes among editors.

Support:

1. Por supuesto. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

3. Sorry, late to party - had to go make dinner. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. True, although occasionally we are asked to design some method of breaking a logjam when everything else has failed, and once in a blue moon we even do it. (As a matter purely of drafting style, for what if anything it is worth, I usually prefer to put the principles about what the Arbitration Committee does not do lower down, below the more useful and affirmative ones.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

   This could be reworded to focus more on "[Arbcom doesn't] rule on content." to avoid suggesting that Arbcom doesn't rule on disputes among editors, as the latter end up on Arbcom's plate when there are behavioural issues or protracted disputes that mediation can't solve. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

6. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This is actually worded more strongly than we usually do — and in this case much too strongly: we don't decide the contents of articles when faced with an purely editorial dispute where all participants are in good faith and following policy, but we do rule on appropriateness contents when necessary. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Coren is right - usually we have the "good faith" bit in it. Much of what we arbitrate has a content dispute at the heart of it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
3. There isn't any need to rush this case, so I'm opposing to ensure the alternatives are considered. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Per Coren. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Role of the Committee

1.1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to rule on content.

Support:

1. Well yes but probably a bit too simplistic; third choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
2. But prefer 1.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Same as 1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. unneeded and restrictive. Could be interpreted as untrue so not valid here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Role of the Committee

1.2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to rule on good-faith content disputes between editors.

Support:

1. This is the one we usually have. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
2. First choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Second choice Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
4. First choice John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
6. First choice, but see my comment on 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Mailer Diablo 04:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain

Purpose of Wikipedia

2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas—such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological, religious or political dispute – or to publish or promote original research or fringe theories that have not gained widespread acceptance is prohibited.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Although, as I also noted in voting on Kehrli 2 the other night, our including a general principle such as this in a decision does not mean that every one of the problematic behaviors listed is relevant to this particular case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
8. The purpose of what Wikipedia is, and sadly all too-often, falls short of. Also agreed with Brad. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
9. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Articles should be widely understandable

3) From WP:TECHNICAL: articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means understandable to a general audience. Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible.

Support:

1. This is from WP:TECHNICAL, but seemed very apposite. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Yes, although this does not negate the possibility that an article will have more complex sections as well as less complex ones, or that some topics are inherently complicated. (Einstein, chided because the theory of relativity was very complicated and hard to understand, supposedly once said that "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not more simple than that.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
9. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
11. As Newyorkbrad says, this doesn't mean that nothing complex should ever appear in an article, just that we should strive to have an overview that's accessible to a wide audience. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view

4) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view.

Support:

1. second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Second. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Second choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

4.1) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where the mainstream of sourcing provides multiple or opposing viewpoints, the article must not focus on only one of these viewpoints.

Support:

1. technically true...third choice as others are better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. third choice. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Second choice (equal with 4). Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Third. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Third choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Third choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

4.2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Editors should ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. on the balance, best option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. This one is better Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. First choice. There are still other wordings available from recent cases, but enough choices is enough. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Best option. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
7. First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Best option, as it goes into needed detail. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
9. That's the best way of putting it by far. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
11. First choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
12. First choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editorial process

5) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through adversarial editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
9. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conduct and decorum

6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another, even during disputes. Unseemly or confrontational conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
7. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
8. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing

7) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained attacks on other editors or inflammatory comments may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
9. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Good faith and disruption

8) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Equal preference with 8.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Equal to 8.1 below. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Missed this one --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Equal preference to 8.1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Second choice SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
8. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Equal to 8.1 - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
10. First choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer 8.1, proposed below. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Good faith and disruption

8.1) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are predictably or repeatedly disruptive.

Support:

1. Proposed. Not all disruption is avoidable. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Equal preference with 8, at least for now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Equal to 8 above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Equal preference to 8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. First Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Equal to 8. - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This variants introduces unneeded vagueness. It invokes "repeatedly" without defining it, and I'm not sure what predictably is supposed to mean in this context. Predictable to whom, and under what circumstances?

   The version in 8 contains enough leeway in its wording ("may") that occasional or rare unavoidable disruption needs not be sanctioned without introducing wording that favors wikilawyering. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

2. per Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
3. as with Coren Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Per Coren. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Use of article talk pages

9) The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject, nor for proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, or so forth (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Although more general discussion may be permissible in some circumstances, it will not be tolerated when it becomes tendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwise disruptive.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. overwhelming the talk page in a way that meant no-one else could get a word in edgewise was a real problem in this case.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. "Will not be tolerated" is a bit strong--prefer "is disruptive" as a simpler formulation, but not sufficiently to propose an alternative. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Per Elen of the Roads. Although I wouldn't take it too far, there are some parallels to the Shakespeare case we decided last month. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
8. One of the key issues, and one of the things we saw happen (repeatedly) in this case. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
9. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
11. As others have said, this is an important issue in this case. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Expert editors and original research

10) Expert editors with published resources are welcome on Wikipedia, and are free to include references to their own published works, if they meet the standards of reliable sources. However, the guidelines concerning conflicts of interest must be observed, and where there is a dispute as to the use or interpretation of such sources, consensus must be gained for their inclusion.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC) too strong. We need to welcome experts. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

2. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. (Spelled out an acronym.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Equal preference with 10.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
5. First choice.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
7. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Equal to 10.1 - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I'm not sure that sources that would otherwise qualify need to be singled out as such because they were ultimately written by an editor— they deserve no more or less examination than any other source but this proposed principle seems to imply a different standard should be applied. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

   It's intended to say that the expert editor must ensure he has consensus to add them - it's from the cOI guideline. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

2. reworded as below. Comes across as somewhat preemptive of trouble in a way. sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Expert editors and original research

10.1) Expert editors with published resources are welcome to add references to their published material on Wikipedia, and comment on quality of material in their field. However, if asked they must be able to demonstrate that their material referenced meets the standards of reliable sources and due weight. As with all editing, the guidelines concerning conflicts of interest must be observed. Where there is a dispute as to the use or interpretation of such sources, consensus must be gained for inclusion.

Support

1. maybe reword it like this then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Prefer that version. — Coren ^(talk) 10:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Okay with either. This one seems a trifle wordy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Equal first choice. PhilKnight (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Equal to 10. - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
6. First choice. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Equal preference with 10 (I'll make a choice if the "equal preferencers" become the tiebreakers, here or anywhere else). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Second choice per Elen. I've copy-edited it a bit. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not convinced that the onus to demonstrate that sources are reliable needs to be narrowed to the editors who produced those sources, rather than—as usual—all the editors who support their inclusion. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Original research (mathematics)

11) Routine arithmetic calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are permitted within articles. However, deriving mathematical results from first principles, without reference to a published source, constitutes Original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC) need to think about this some more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

   First choice (it's what it says in WP:OR). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Now prefer 11.4

2. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. First choice at least for now; see my comment on 11.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Second choice now, prefer 11.4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Third choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. References to published sources are typically only required for contested facts. This principle would result in technical articles being littered with references that are superfluous to all but the reader who lacks the fundamentals. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Right general idea, but put better elsewhere. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Prefer 11.4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Original research (mathematics)

11.1) Routine arithmetic calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are permitted within articles. However, deriving mathematical results from first principles, where the derivation hasn't been published in a reliable source, is original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Equal second choice. Rephrased following a note on my talk page from Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs). PhilKnight (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   Second choice - I would prefer editors to give a reference for the derivation. This is the opposite of the outcome desired by Kiefer Wolfowitz BTW --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Moving to oppose.

2. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Second choice I think. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Lesser choice, prefer 11.4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC) See discussion on talkpage. This stricter version would appear to prohibit the use of substitute figures in examples of derivation, and does not match the wording in WP:OR. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Too rigid. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Um.. I think this is a step too far. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Too restrictive. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Prefer 11.4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Need to think about this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Casliber; I also want to think about whether this is a policy decision of a type the committee generally does not make. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Changed to support, but prefer 11.4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Original research (mathematics)

11.2) From Wikipedia:OR#Routine calculations Routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are permitted within articles. However, the derivation of mathematical results from first principles, where the conclusion has not been published in a reliable source, constitutes Original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia.

Support:

Equal with 11, but I wonder if this will make the maths contingent feel any better. Also addresses John's concern - 11 was not meant to imply that one had to add the reference, just have it to hand if challenged, but this may be clearer. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This could be misinterpreted as allowing novel derivations which reach accepted conclusions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Also too restrictive. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
3. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Prefer 11.4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Need to think this over, probably will leave as abstain. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Prefer 11.4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Original research (mathematics)

11.3) Routine arithmetic calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are permitted within articles. However, deriving mathematical results from first principles, which cannot be supported by a published source if challenged, constitutes Original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Now first choice - makes it clear that a reference is required if contested. If all the editors agree the derivation is correct, then a reference is superfluous. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Now second choice --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Equal second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
3. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This is the least worst of the proposed wordings, and yet still falls short of acceptability for me. Any derivation that can be formally proven correct cannot be, by any reasonable stretch of meaning, qualified of "original research". Certainly, derivation that is so complex as to be essentially impossible to verify would be best supported by external sources to protect against error or misunderstanding, but a ruling that would forbid simple high-school level algebra in articles is completely nonsensical to me.

   It's as if we ruled that statements written in English cannot be used unless the exact wording can be found in some other source because since nobody used those words in that order then it's original research. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Getting closer, but still too restrictive. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
3. But prefer 11.4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
4. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Prefer 11.4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Mathematics (use of sources)

11.4) If editors disagree on how to express a problem and/or solution in mathematics, citations to reliable published sources that both are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material as presented must be supplied by the editor(s) who wishes to include the material. Novel derivations, applications or conclusions that cannot be supported by sources are likely to constitute original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Turning this round so it focuses directly on the MHP problem - the editors frequently just spoke maths at each other, rather than returning to the sources. If all the mathematicians agree that a variant expression or derivation is correct, there's no problem, but if there is disagreement on the material, it has to go back to the sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
2. yeah, I think this works. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Hammer. Nail. Bang. - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
4. When there's a disagreement, hit the sources (e.g. we wouldn't expect scientists to quote their own experiment results back and forth at each other). Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
5. New first. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
6. First choice. PhilKnight (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Reasonable, if imperfect. The keyword, here, is novel. — Coren ^(talk) 01:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
8. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I'm not seeing the relevance to this case. No evidence of mathematical original research has been provided on /Evidence (no diffs to mainspace) and the PD talk is full of complaints about the FoF further down. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Article probation

12) Articles may be placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee or the community. When an article is under probation, editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of probation.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Subject only to a query about nomenclature. A couple of years ago the committee moved away from using terminology such as "probation," "parole," etc. in its decisions, I believe to avoid what were perceived as excessively legalistic overtones. The current term "discretionary sanctions" was coined (I believe by Kirill) at that time. At this point, I'm honestly not sure whether we (or the community on the noticeboards) still "put articles on probation," or whether discretionary sanctions is the way to go. But I'm open to the possibility that I'm just being finicky. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
9. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Probation / discretionary sanctions - same thing. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Per Brad; we have generally tried to move away from this terminology. This is probably more a matter for procedural correction after the fact, however. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Statement of the dispute (coverage and presentation)

1) The Monty Hall problem started life as an example of probability theory, intended for the wider public as well as students, and expressed in terms of a popular game show. Since then, it has become a staple of probability theorists. This dispute centres on how to present the various forms of both the question and the answer, so as to provide complete coverage of all the facets of the problem, without overwhelming the general reader.

Support:

1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Exactly so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
6. The key here. There's a quick answer, and one that is more involved, there's really two questions, depending on how it's framed. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. merging 1-3 into a new FoF simplifies the proposed decision. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1.1) This case involves a protracted debate over the featured article Monty Hall problem, a paradoxical probability problem inspired by the popular game show Let's Make a Deal. Since the problem was first published in 1975, there have been various problem statements published by people from different disciplines with different target audiences in mind, varying numbers of assumptions and consequently different correct solutions. These varied problem statements and solutions have had their share of criticisms. No party wishes to exclude information about the various problem statements and solution, although there is dispute as to how much weight each aspect should be given in the article, and how it should be structured so as to provide complete coverage of all the facets of the problem, without overwhelming the general reader.

Support:

1. As discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem/Workshop#Locus_of_dispute. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not convinced a consolidated version is any more comprehensible here. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
2. This is probably more elegant than separate 1-3 in theory, but I think substantively they say approximately the same thing, and I don't think it's not worth holding up closing the case at this stage for the sake of arguable drafting elegance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute (external factors)

2) The Monty Hall problem is unusual in that while there are many scholarly sources, the key source containing the best known and most often quoted formulation of the problem is a popular one. The solution used by this source and sources derived from it uses a simple approach to demonstrate the outcome. In the literature, some proponents of the more complex Bayesian formulations of the advanced probability version argue that the simple solution is 'wrong'.

Support:

1. Rewritten at request of Martin Hogbin and others (see talkpage) prior to other votes being cast. The desire is to elucidate why a maths problem has a war going on over the solution, since you have to get extremely far advanced to come across math problems that don't have just one right answer.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Good summary. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. there are a few 'key' sources, depending on the discourse community. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Statement of dispute (two camps)

3) Editors have largely fallen into two camps - those who wish to give equal or higher weight to the 'simple' solutions contained within the popular literature, and those who wish to minimise those solutions on the grounds that they are 'wrong'. No party wishes to exclude information about the problem and solutions as presented in higher probability theory, although there is dispute as to how much of this information should be included in the article, and how it should be presented.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. I wonder if the real answer here is that there is not a Monty Hall problem, but two or more problems of a very similar nature that are being conflated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
9. As Brad mentions, there are really two problems here that are both called MH by one source or another; how to sort that out is an editorial concern. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. It is not as simple as two camps. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   The problem and its discussion aren't as simple as falling into two camps, but I think the disruptive editing on the article largely does. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Article has attracted expert editors

4) The article has attracted a high number of expert editors, some of whom have published material of their own on the problem.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
6. And generally, we are glad to have expert editors in areas such as this. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
9. This isn't a bad thing. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Per SirFozzie and Shell. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
11. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Article has been target of original research

5) The talkpage, and at times the article, has contained a considerable amount of derivation from first principles, in an effort to explain the higher aspects of probability theory ([1]—incorrect derivation from first principles; OR by Rich Farmbrough, who is not listed as a party).

Support:

1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC) - 'subject' changed to 'target' in header as suggested --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Such is clear. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
4. I'd say target, more then subject, but that's a good summation. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Agree that 'target' instead of 'subject' would be a slight improvement. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
9. The discussions on talk have gone a bit astray into proving points that someone believes should be included in the article rather than providing sources which support the material someone believes should be included. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
10. The finding is correct; not sure these are the best examples, but there are enough of them that this isn't really subject to dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Until I see solid evidence of this, I have to oppose. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Glkanter

Tendentious editing and Conduct during the case

6) Glkanter (talk · contribs) has engaged in tendentious editing, albeit that this may have been with good faith intentions, and has engaged in poor conduct during this case.([2],[3][4];statement repeated four times in different places;[5])

Support:

1. I do not believe his intention is malicious, but the effect is such that it made discussion towards a consensus impossible. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Agreed that it's a good-faith intent taken to poor ends. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Good faith efforts that do not fall within our policies are still disruptive. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
6. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Sometimes it's necessary to just let things go and not let our frustration over differences of opinion get to us. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Support both this and 6.1. As I said in my comment when we voted to accept the case, it is remarkable how this particular ill-defined probability puzzle seems to bring out violent disagreement wherever it is discussed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
11. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal attacks

Also (not alternate, but not sure if this needs to be said as well)

6.1) Glkanter has engaged in personal attacks against other editors [6] [7]describes another editor as garbage[8] describes Rick Block as Jello [9]

Support:

1. I'd suggest that having this here makes the remedies down below more explainable. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
5. This has been a repetitive problem. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Support both this and 6. Despite the passions this problem generates, this is unacceptable behavior. I wouldn't vote a finding for any one or even a handful of isolated comments like this, but I fear that this crosses the line into a pattern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. In regard to the first diff, note this is a quote of another editor. The other diffs don't appear especially serious. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

   I've removed the offending one and added a few others. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Per Phil, I'm aware of plenty of other long-running content disputes where this level of cantankerousness is handled without incident, and am aware how frustrating it can be to be arguing passionately in a losing minority. I fear if we start calling these as actionable NPAs, we'd be moving down a road of being substantially more harsh on personal attacks than the community as a whole has been to date. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nijdam

7) Nijdam (talk · contribs) has engaged in tendentious editing, particularly with regard to how the article represents the popular, simple explanations for the outcome of the problem ([10],[11],[12],[13]). His conduct during the case has been poor.

Support:

1. One can see him doing this, even in the case--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. While I winced about being as blunt as the last sentence is, unfortunately, it's true. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Poor indeed. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Support, but the third link above is not from Nijdam. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

   It's an entire discussion thread. It gives a flavour of his somewhat obsessive approach. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

9. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Weakly. I'm not keen on the last sentence. ArbCom typically ignores this unless it is extreme, especially from parties who are new to arbitration. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
12. But per last sentence of John Vandenberg's comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Rick Block

8) Rick Block (talk · contribs) has displayed ownership of the article, and has been excessively controlling of both content and presentation ([14][15], pick any archive of the talkpage).

Support:

1. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I need to think about this. There have been discussions in the past about how presumed article Ownership intersects with editors working an article through the Featured Article and Featured Article Removal processes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
3. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
4. There have been issues, but I'm not fully persuaded they are as serious as suggested, per Casliber. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Gill110951

9) Gill110951 (talk · contribs) has used his experience of editing and discussing this article to provide material for published research,[16] which he has then introduced into the article.[17][18][19]

Support:

1. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Factual. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. per my abstain below; pls see PD talk section Gill110951 finding of fact (reliable sources etc.) and my talk. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

I am a bit uncomfortable for ArbCom to declare that the Gill's papers used on this article are 'research', and it is unnecessary to do so as we care about whether or not it was a reliable source, and that it was added to the article. Also, "to provide material for" is quite vague in this context. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm not convinced this requires a finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Gill110951

9.1) Gill110951 (talk · contribs) has published academic papers to address some of the perceived gaps in this Wikipedia article,[20] which he has then introduced into the article.[21][22][23][24]

Support:

1. Simpler. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Equal first choice. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Either one is fine - seems like a minor wording quibble. Shell ^babelfish 07:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. While I get the point of this, it is not ArbCom's place to decide by finding of fact which sources are reliable and which are not. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   I don't think we are on dangerous ground by saying that (Springer) International Encyclopaedia of Statistical Science and Statistica Neerlandica are reliable sources. The community has left these sources on the article, a featured article, for over a year[25] without contest.
   OTOH, we are in new territory declaring those publications to be 'research', a term without any policy grounding on Wikipedia, and this committee is not suitable for making a qualitative assessment on whether this publications are research or not. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   John, Merriam-Webster defines 'research' as: careful or diligent search; studious inquiry or examination;the collecting of information about a particular subject. Richard says himself that his starting point was a close observation of the talk page, and his material was all based on identifying what tripped people up, and coming up with something that would get over it. Sounds pretty standard research to me - what the heck are you defining research as? Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   Gill110951 is an academic. These publications are academic output. In this context, and an international setting, the appropriate definitions of research are found in the Frascati Manual. Most nations use that for their own definitions of research. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   John, Frascati is internationally recognized methodology for collecting and using R&D statistics. It doesn't pre-empt the natural language use of the word 'research' as used in relation to gathering information to - say - write Wikipedia articles. The word has a wider meaning that R&D. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   The FoF 9 doesn't use the word 'research' in the context of writing Wikipedia article; it uses it in the context of published research, by an academic, and the professional discipline of qualitative and quantitative assessment of research doesn't use Merriam-Webster. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   As there is no need for ArbCom to declare these academic outputs to 'reliable sources', I have replaced 'reliable sources' with 'academic papers'[26] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

2. As above. It is for the community to decide if the sources meet the standard of reliable sources. It was a concern raised at the evidence stage that he introduced them as reliable sources without seeking that confirmation first. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I'm not convinced this requires a finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Glkanter topic banned

1) Glkanter is topic banned from the article or talkpage for a period of one year. He may take part in discussions about the Monty Hall problem on the talkpages of other editors.

Support:

1. Weak second third choice. see my support on 1.1 (and proposed 1.2 sanction) below. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2. second third choice, per SirFozzie. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Third choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't think he's capable of discussing it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2. If we're going to allow discussion, it probably should be on the article talk. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
3. per Elen. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Prefer 1.1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Glkanter topic banned

1.1) Glkanter is topic banned from the subject of the Monty Hall problem for a period of one year. This includes not just the article and talkpage, but anywhere within the project where the Monty Hall problem is being discussed.

Support:

1. Moving to second choice as I've just indeff'd him for his continued campaign of personal attacks against the other parties to this case, which went well beyond 'venting' --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. We saw it during his behavior during this case. While his actions are good faith, I find it unlikely that he is able to currently discuss the MHP in a non-disruptive fashion. Second choice as his further behavior may warrant a site ban. SirFozzie (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC) SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
4. editing style suggests burnout. Needs a break from it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
5. — Coren ^(talk) 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

10. First choice, coupled with a civility/NPA warning/restriction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer 1.2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Prefer 1.2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Glkanter banned

1.2) Glkanter is banned from Wikipedia for one year, and is further subject to an indefinite topic ban on subjects related to the Monty Hall Problem.

Support:

1. After seeing his latest edits to his user page and elsewhere as a result to this Proposed Decision, I just don't think that Glkanter is able to work productively within Wikipedia's norms and procedures. If this passes, we'll obviously have to change the header, but I think this is necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2. First choice - I've just indeff'd him after another run of attacks on Rick Block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 11:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Second choice Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
5. First choice, though I would really prefer a shorter ban and some language about appealing the topic ban after some time has passed. I'm not convinced by Glkanter's evidence that everyone but himself has been wrong here; in fact I see little that is actionable in most of what he presented. Regardless of your level of frustration when other editors disagree with you, attacking them and making the dispute personal isn't a productive way to deal with things. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Mailer Diablo 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
8. First choice. He admits being here for one purpose.[27] 3272 edits, and I count less than 15 edits unrelated to MHP. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Second choice, prefer 1.1, and see my comment there. But I acknowledge that for this editor, there may be little difference between a topic-ban and a full ban, so the point may not be worth overmuch worrying. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer 1.1. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
2. I'd prefer to give 1.1 a chance to work as well. While initial reaction has been poor, I don't see the need to foreclose the option of a sincere unblock request and productive work in other areas. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Nijdam topic banned

2) Nijdam is topic banned from the article or talkpage for a period of one year. He may take part in discussions about the Monty Hall problem on the talkpages of other editors.

Support:

1. Preferred sanction. He needs to stop editing the article and talkpage, but could still contribute to discussion in other places. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Very weak second choice. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
3. First choice. If he abused the privilege of discussing on talkpages, a request for an enhanced sanctions could be made on AAE under the discretionary sanctions remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not sure I'm a fan of the idea of discussing article issues on user's talk pages. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
2. per Shell. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Per Shell. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Prefer 2.1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Prefer 2.1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Nijdam topic banned

2.1) Nijdam is topic banned from the subject of the Monty Hall problem for a period of one year. This includes not just the article and talkpage, but anywhere within the project where the Monty Hall problem is being discussed.

Support:

1. Preferred, while not as bad as Glkanter, I think it would be best for him to move away from the MHP. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Second choice, if others prefer the more severe sanction Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
5. First choice; time to let it go for a while. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Mailer Diablo 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
10. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Rick Block restricted

3) Rick Block is restricted to 1RR (one revert per day, unless reverting vandalism) on the Monty Hall article for a period of one year

Support:

1. First choice --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
3. see comment for 3.1 Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Iff 3.1 does not pass. — Coren ^(talk) 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Second choice. - Mailer Diablo 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
8. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
10. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer 3.1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
2. I'm not at all sure this will be necessary with some of the most problematic editors out of the article and a discretionary-sanctions regime in place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Rick Block topic banned

3.1) Rick Block is topic banned from the article or talkpage for a period of one year. He may take part in discussions about the Monty Hall problem on the talkpages of other editors.

Support:

1. Based on this comment. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2. First choice. — Coren ^(talk) 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Second choice (now I realise it's him made the meow meow comment - most unsuitable) Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
4. While the meow comment wasn't appropriate, I think it's more the overall approach to handling the dispute that warrants a bit of a break here. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
5. First choice. - Mailer Diablo 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Second choice.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I guess I'm just not a fan of any of these semi-topic bans. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
2. per Cas. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Excessive. Note that the comment that several of the supporters have pointed to above as particularly problematic is 16 months old. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Can see why, but prefer 3. SirFozzie (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2. . Can see signs of frustration, but not enough for topic ban. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Gill110951 (remedies)

Restricted

4) Gill110951 is restricted to 1RR (one revert per day, unless reverting vandalism) on the Monty Hall article for a period of one year

Support:

1. Prefer this as a sanction. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2. — Coren ^(talk) 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
3. 2nd choice --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I can't support a sanction in the absence of a finding. If self-imposed, should be worded differently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Per Casliber. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Don't really see a reason for this absent a finding of edit warring. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Not needed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
5. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Topic banned

4.1) Gill110951 is topic banned from the article or talkpage for a period of one year. He may take part in discussions about the Monty Hall problem on the talkpages of other editors.

Support:

1. First choice and his own suggestion. He must have put everything into the article from his publications by now - give other editors a chance to integrate it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't like leaving the Loophole of allowing user talk discussion instead of article talk. The article talk page should be the main discussion area for it. Since I'd rather restrict him from the area rather than remove him, prefer option 4 above. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2. I find this odd in the absence of findings of problematic conduct. Also, minor stuff crops up all the time that he might be helpful with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Per Casliber. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
4. — Coren ^(talk) 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Again with preferring to leave article discussion on article talk. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Not needed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Cautioned

Instead of, or in addition to, whichever of the above is preferred.

4.2) Gill110951 is admonished for failing to follow good practice in respect of conflict of interest by inserting two sources of his own authoring into the article as references, without seeking consensus among other editors first.

Support:

Oppose:

1. I don't think he has; certainly not to the level of an admonishment. — Coren ^(talk) 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2. too strong. no sanctionable finding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
4. I don't think anything rises to this level. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Mailer Diablo 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Not needed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Would prefer something along the lines of 'advised to be more cautious in citing his own work'. PhilKnight (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Agree with Phil's suggestion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Gill110951 reminded

4.3) Gill110951 is reminded to follow good practice in respect of conflict of interest, when referencing or inserting his own sources of his own authoring into the article as references, namely to avoid undue weight, use reliable sourcing, be able to demonstrate such if asked and to seek consensus first if editing in a contentious segment of mainspace.

Support:

1. . Note rewording for Coren and Elen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Obviously, if this passes, we should adjust the subtitle. PhilKnight (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Support,in addition to any or no sanction. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
4. A reminder is reasonable. — Coren ^(talk) 11:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Just a reminder because using your own work can be problematic, it's important to be careful and work within consensus. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Fair enough. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I would prefer a generalized reminder directed at all editors of the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. This suggests that his insertion of his own publications has been problematic. I'm not seeing that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

5) Any uninvolved administrator may place standard discretionary sanctions on accounts editing in this area, after a first warning.

Support:

1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC) (NB, I have changed the wikilink to the up to date one)
2. after 22 pages of archives...indeed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
5. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
6. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Mailer Diablo 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This area is unlikely to need ongoing sanctions nor does it have a large number of participants. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I was going to support this as a matter of routine, but Shell makes a good point. Considering. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions (original research)

6) More specifically, since a particular issue in this case has been the desire of many editors to put forward their own original explanation of the outcome, discretionary sanctions may be applied to any editor who attempts to insert explanations derived from first principles (rather than from secondary sources) into the article, or who persists in inserting lengthy first principles expositions into the article talkpage.

Support:

1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Ngggh. I do definitely sympathize with John's point below, but this is a key area (that people were putting in first principles/OR into articles as the simple answer was "mathmatically wrong), so I come down on the side of it being a needed reminder. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
3. I recognise difficulty, and hope that discussion will tkae place, but No OR is a key policy that should be adhered to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I think that level of specificity is a poor precedent. The previous remedy should suffice. — Coren ^(talk) 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Per Coren. If we'd already settled the AE sanctions handling case by rebuking Sandstein for overreaching, I might feel comfortable with this. Applying the arguments put forward in that case to here, any administrator could ban any editor for talking about "the odds of X happening" at ANI. Hyperbole? A bit, but my opposition stands. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Too complex. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Mailer Diablo 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
5. piling on to my original abstain vote. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Per Coren. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
7. I could support folding this into a generalized "editors reminded to use better practices" remedy, along with the point about COI. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

My first impression is that this is too complicated for enforcement. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any sanctioned editor violate any sanction placed on him by this decision, he/she may be blocked for an appropriate time by any uninvolved administrator.

Support:

1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
3. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
4. a given. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Boilerplate. — Coren ^(talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Shell ^babelfish 20:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Standard. - Mailer Diablo 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Should really be a part of the standard enforcement procedure. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
11. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Old
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposals which pass Passing principles: 1, 2, 3, 4.2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.4, 12 Passing findings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Passing remedies: 1.1, 2.1, 3, 4.3, 5 Passing enforcement provisions: 1 Proposals which do not pass Failing principles: 1.1, 1.2, 4, 4.1, 8.1, 10.1, 11, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3 Failing findings: 1.1, 6.1, 9.1 Failing remedies: 1, 1.2, 2, 3.1, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 6 Failing enforcement provisions: None Last updated: NW (Talk) 02:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC) By my count F6.1 is now passing. Paul August ☎ 02:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC) By my counts: P1.2 is now passing in lieu of P1. R1.2 is now passing in lieu of R1.1. Paul August ☎ 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposals which pass

Passing principles: 1.2, 2, 3, 4.2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.4, 12

Passing findings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6.1, 7, 8, 9

Passing remedies: 1.1 or 1.2*, 2.1, 3, 4.3, 5

Passing enforcement provisions: 1

Proposals which do not pass

Failing principles: 1, 1.1, 4, 4.1, 8.1, 10.1, 11, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3

Failing findings: 1.1, 9.1

Failing remedies: 1, 2, 3.1, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 6

Failing enforcement provisions: None

Last updated: NW (Talk) 01:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(*)Paul, could you clarify on why you think 1.2 is passing? NW (Talk) 01:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(Clarification asked for by NW above) By my reading of the vote comments, R1.2 is favored by four arbs (Elen of the Roads, SirFozzie, Shell Kinney, and John Vandenberg), while R1.1 is favored by only three (PhilKnight, Casliber, and Jclemens), with four arbs not having expressed a preference (Coren, Mailer Diablo, David Fuchs, and Kirill Lokshin) Paul August ☎ 01:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Net support isn't taken into account after it's passing then? NW (Talk) 02:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Paul August ☎ 02:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: with the recent vote by Newyorkbrad, R1.1 and R1.2 are both preferred by four arbs, so neither is preferred over the other. Paul August ☎ 03:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If need be, I'll change my "support as second choice" to an "oppose" if that will break the tie. The problem is that this might induce some of my colleagues to do the same thing. (As I've discussed extensively with our former clerk David.Mestel (see his thoughts here) and as Paul August and the editors on Monty Hall are surely aware, the arbitration pages sometimes produce instances of intriguing vote-counting paradoxes. (Recommended reading: Gaming the Vote, by William Poundstone.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

By my understanding of how the preferred alternative has been and ought to be determined, changing your vote on R1.2 from support (with the comment "second choice") to oppose, would not change your preference, and so would not "break the tie" (some notion of strength of preference has never to my knowledge been a consideration). Other arbs — in particular the four arbs who currently have not expressed a preference — changing their comments or votes to better indicate which of the two alternatives is preferred would be a good thing. Paul August ☎ 12:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: with Kirill Lokshin's vote change, R1.2 is now preferred 5 to 4 over R1.1. Paul August ☎ 02:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: David Fuchs has now expressed a preference for R1.2 [28], so it is now favored 6 to 4. Paul August ☎ 00:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. I believe we have now reached the point where everyone has voted, and one option in each set is now clearly passing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Now that the 1.1/1.2 deadlock has been broken. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Per SirFozzie - I gather the 1.1 or 1.2 situation has been resolved. PhilKnight (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. ArbCom referring to secondary sources and letters as 'research' is something I think we should address. I would like to see more votes on FoF 9.1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

   John, while I utterly fail to understand your concern as to whether Dr Gill's paper meets a standard used for classifying Science & Technology R&D for statistical purposes, I am sure no-one would mind if the word 'research' was replaced with 'material' or 'work' or something. I see no point in holding up the entire proceeding over this issue. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

   Changing the wording is between you and the other nine arbitrators. Or, four more arbitrators can vote to close and my oppose vote is overruled. Neither of those options involves me. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

1. I'm not sure if the remedy 1.1 or 1.2 situation has been sorted out. PhilKnight (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

   My understanding is that if the remedies are considered contradictory, then 1.1 will pass as it has more overall supports. If the remedies are not considered contradictory, then both will pass, and run concurrently. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)