Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-10 mass-to-charge ratio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-04-10 mass-to-charge ratio

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Nick Y. 18:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
mass-to-charge ratio, the former m/z misconception which was recently deleted (thank you) I also think that it is spilling out onto the mass spectrometry page.
Who's involved?
195.186.150.165 & Me
What's going on?
195.186.150.165 is pushing a non-standard notation for mass-to-charge ratio, both to the disproporionate exclusion and derision of the standard mass spectrometry notation and to the exclusion of the physics defintion. I don't mind having a casual discussion about his ideas but he is continually squewing the article. At first he was absolutely blatant (note a complete article esposing his ideas taht has been deleted) but I have worked on getting him to be more NPOV, but he still works subtly and patiently towards his POV. Recently his straegy has been to reorganise to make the standard notation look confused and confusing readers in the process. Primarily he is an advocate of the use of the unit thomson, which is a proposed unit not accepted by any governing body and only used by a few people in mass spectrometry community (mostly those that made it up). He is also confused as to the meaning of this proposed unit, claiming that it is a mass-to-charge ratio while m/z is not. To be honest it is a confusing unit in that it is a hybrid of units and a constant. They only differ in notation not numerically or any other way. m/z notation no matter how flawed is the standard accepted by IUPAC and required by most peer reviewed journals in the field.
What would you like to change about that?
I would like for him to recognize that wikipedia is not his soap box and that my POV is irrelevant too. Only the facts should be presented even if the facts are not somehow contraversial or inconsistent or could be made better by doing something that we advocate. This is not a place for advocacy. I think there is a place for addressing the proposed Th definition and for the criticism of m/z, just proportionally, without confusing and disorganising everything else. I would like for an impartial mediator to observe and come to some conclusive facts about the situation. Maybe some proportions and organization could be dictated. There may in the end still be an issue if he chooses to misrepresent the unit Th.
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
Just head over to mass-to-charge ratio discussion page and anounce yourself. I have no need to be discreet.
Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Yes

This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.
...

[edit] Mediator response

The Wikipedia guidlines about NPOV and No Original Research are all that's important here. The article should not be mostly about how m/z is a silly unit (something which I actually agree with), but rather explain the history of where the unit comes from, what the accepted standard is, IE the IUPAC definition, and then briefly a short summary of other units that are also acceptable, their relation to m/z, and their pros and cons. It should not be a platform for one user to soapbox on how the Physical Chemistry community need to change their definitions. I would ask that user:195.186.150.165 please refrain from trying to convince people that he is right on the talk page, because this is simply not the issue. This is an encyclopaedia, and should reflect the accepted standard, especially when there is an entire body that exists that sets such standards (IUPAC). The fact that these standards may not be completely justified is should not be the point of the article. If you want to change the unit, write an article, have it published in a respectable journal, and then add it to external links section. Ryan4 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

Please report evidence in this section with {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

"In mass spectrometry, when presenting data, it is common to use the symbol m/z. Unfortunately the m/z is not clearly defined and it is even controversal wether it denotes a mass-to-charge ratio."

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


[edit] Comments by others

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.


Ryan4,

Thanks for the clarity. Could you please convey this to what's his name. I have decided that mediation may not work but having another voice trying to set him right as to the purpose of wikipedia may convince him to change his ways. I think you nailed the point very well. His opinion, as well as my opinion and yours are irrelevant. I am fairly convinced that he will not get it and I will have to proceed to requesting him being banned. I would much rather have him get it and contribute towards the goal or accurately representing fact. He could be an asset if he were not an advocate. Let me know how best to proceed in your opinion.

On your last point there is a reputable peer reviewed article advocating the unit Th (by the reputable scientist that proposed it) and I have no problem linking to it as a relatively minor part of the article as suggested. (I know pointing this out seems to be a defense of 158.... but I am only interested in facts not sides) Its use is rare and it is not an accepted unit. (also a fact) But I still agree with the point you were making: this is not the place for advocacy. He should and could still advocate somewhere else.

I have referred to this page from the talk page for his convenience.

--Nick Y. 20:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Here is my opinion to the mediation claim from Nick:

195.186.150.165 is pushing a non-standard notation for mass-to-charge ratio,

  • no, I am pushing for the standard notation for mass-to-charge ratio whereas Nick pushes for an notation which is exclusively used by a portion (not all) of the mass spec community.

... both to the disproporionate exclusion and derision of the standard mass spectrometry notation and to the exclusion of the physics defintion.

  • what Nick calls the standard mass spectrometry notation is actually only endorsed by a sub-group of chemists (IUPAC) and is not binding for all the other scientists that use mass spectrometry.

I don't mind having a casual discussion about his ideas but he is continually squewing the article.

  • I have not made any chages to the article for a very long time, giving Nick the possibility to reflect what we found in the discussion. Unfortunately he did not work on the article, instead he continued to present his personal POV in the discussion. ("m/z is almost exclusively used...")

At first he was absolutely blatant (note a complete article esposing his ideas taht has been deleted) but I have worked on getting him to be more NPOV, but he still works subtly and patiently towards his POV. Recently his straegy has been to reorganise to make the standard notation look confused and confusing readers in the process.

  • the "standard notation" m/z is not a solid standard. You prove this point in that your definition is not compatible with the IUPAC definition, and you don't even realyze.

Primarily he is an advocate of the use of the unit thomson,

  • no, that is POV. I am for a solid and consistent definition of mass-to-charge ratio. That's all.

which is a proposed unit not accepted by any governing body and only used by a few people in mass spectrometry community (mostly those that made it up).

  • this is personal POV

He is also confused as to the meaning of this proposed unit, claiming that it is a mass-to-charge ratio while m/z is not.

  • that is his POV. I only said that m/z can only be a mass-to-charge quantity (NOT A UNIT, please) if it has the correct dimension. Every reasonable person agrees with that.

To be honest it is a confusing unit in that it is a hybrid of units and a constant.

  • This is his POV. In fact, the Th is not confusing but well defined by a reviewed paper.

They only differ in notation not numerically or any other way.

  • This is just wrong. They do differ in dimension and therefore are completely different entities like apples and oranges.

m/z notation no matter how flawed is the standard accepted by IUPAC

  • The IUPAC has other standards that contradict the m/z defined in the IUPAC orange book

and required by most peer reviewed journals in the field.

  • that is his POV. In fact, many journals accept m/q, m/e, and m/z, as is obvious from my references.

Conclusion: Nick quite obviously does not understand the concept of physical quantity. Therefore he is not qualified to understand the issue and he should stop

m/z is not a unit. We all agree.

The references to m/q, m/e that ???? provides are to physical problems in MS. We all agree that the use of m/q in this particular way is standard and fully acceptable to everyone.

Units aside it is clear that both m/z and m/q (in units of Th) are the mass in daltons divided by the number of elementary charges. The only issue that ????? has is with units and since m/z is not a unit we should be able to call them both "mass-to-charge ratio" since that does not address units only what it is a ratio of.

IUPAC is not a small group of chemists. It represents all chemists and is the definitive governing body of all chemical nomenclature. I have no problem with IUPAP either, they just cover different areas.

Most importantly you should listen to the mediator.

--Nick Y. 19:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point I will be happy if kehrli et al will stop using the unit thomson in the article all together. If the article is totally useless at least it won't be misleading. Please put your foot down on inclusion of this non-standard unaccepted unit used by a few people within the field of mass spectrometry. Personally I would like to include it. I think it is a good idea and a worthy suggestion from a respected analytical chemist; however I object strongly to its misrepresentation. If Kehrli et al can not work with me to include it appropriately then it should go all together being not accepted and obscure.

--Nick Y. Nick Y. 10:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Nick, the thomson is widely used even by people that use m/z. Look here for examples:

Removing widely used units from Wikipedia is vandalism. People that are not familliar with the thomson should be able to look it up on wikipedia, even if it is not recomended by IUPAC. Please accept the fact that the thomson is used by a lot of chemists because it makes sense and because it complies to the procedures of ISO, even though it is not recommendet bu IUPAC. For some people complying with ISO is more important than complying with IUPAC. Accept this, please. If you once more delete the thomson I will start a mediation against you. I know that you urgently want to defend the m/z, but this is advocacy. Fact is: many different symbols and different units are used in the MS community. Your push towards the dimensionless m/z is advocacy. Stop it. We need a balanced view on Wikipedia, not your POV.

-- Kehrli 17:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My comments here: Talk:Mass-to-charge_ratio#Recommend_Merging_this_Entry_with_.22Mass_Spectrum.22

-- Kermit Murray -- Kmurray 15:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)