Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Brief response by Kehrli

  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 [1]. Mass-to-charge ratio is m/Q, as this is required by ISO 31.

--Kehrli 15:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

as well as from:

from his user subpages:

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?" [2]
  • "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." [3]

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 [4]
  • knows the relevant guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, especially Wikipedia:No original_research, Wikipedia: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

battleground.".


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)

[edit] Statement by Physchim62

I completely support the statement made by Cacycle above. Kehrli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wikipedia: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#Requests_for_clarification.--Nick Y. 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)