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

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)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion by Martin Hogbin

1) That the accusations of gross incivility, personal attacks, and edit warring against one editor in particular be dismissed.

This argument has lasted nearly three years now and has got a little heated at times with most editors losing their temper at times and making over-the-top remarks. That one or more editors might have briefly overstepped the mark in nearly three years of heated argument should not make an arbitration case.

The accusation of a SPA is a laughable case of wikilawyering and the RfC ended in no action of any kind. This is clearly an attempt by the filing party to discredit editors who disagree with him and should be recognised by the arbitrators as such and dismissed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think we're in a position to dismiss any of the case at this time. However, the parties can rest assured that we rarely base a finding or sanction on isolated remarks or losses of temper, but rather only on a consistent or serious pattern of misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Brad has it right. We will wait to see what evidence is provided to substantiate complaints before considering any claims. SirFozzie (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I support the motion (and agree with the supporting arguments), full heartedly. Richard Gill (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The evidence concerning Glkanter has been posted now. I trust the arbitrators can decide for themselves whether this is a laughable case of wikilawyering, or whether accusing me of wikilawyering is a laughable attempt to discredit me. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The arbitrators are of course correct that the motion is premature before the evidence is posted and examined. But from my position as an observer of the disputes, the assertion that one person is responsible for the lack of progress on the article seems absurd. I trust evidence will be presented to offset that claim and put it in perspective. Woonpton (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I largely concur with the analysis and sentiment expressed in this motion.  --Lambiam 11:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Motion by Martin Hogbin

That the editors who have shown a degree of long-term page ownership should be prevented from exerting undue control over the article.

Rick Block, Glopk, and later Nijdam have exerted a disproportionate level of control over the page content despite numerous objections from a total of 12 registered editors and 10 different IP addresses. Over the same time 5 registered editors (including those named above) and two IP addresses have shown support for Rick's position. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Although really a proposed remedy not a motion, it can stay here for now. If you want to create a section of proposals, you can move it yourself. This is the sort of thing that Arbcom will want to look at as one potential way forward - although naturally one always hopes it won't come to sanctioning editors who believe they are acting for the best, and who should be able to conform to Wikipedia norms for best practice.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As it comes to facts, there isn't such thing as proportion and disproportion. It is a pity that a lot of people, including Wikipedia editors do not understand the issue, and yet consider themselves as experts on the matter. At least Rick Block, Glopk and myself, we know what we're talking about. Nijdam (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Nijdam refers to what he considers Truths, not to verifable facts. I also had to learn the distinction, the hard way. Everybody believes they know what they're talking about. Not everybody sees it the same way. Most importantly, reliables sources don't see it the same way. See WP:Truth. Richard Gill (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• T'row da bums out! Glkanter (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comment Martin makes in support of his motion. This has been my experience and the experience of others. Voluntary restraint on the part of those editors would be a good solution. Richard Gill (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you a party??Nijdam (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean, should I voluntarily restrain myself? Yes, I should. Difficult, because I'm quite addicted to my daily shot of MHP. So someone should tie me down. Richard Gill (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the evidence on which this claim is based (diffs, please)? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Question to GLKanter

In section 1.4 of your evidence, you post a diff of you saying the same thing four times as proof that Rick Block is editing tendentiously. I cannot figure out why you have done this. Could you explain please.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, as I was not aware that 1.4 was ambiguous.

The objective of 1.4 is to show that Rick Block was choosing the worst parts of my diffs, and that only by taking them out of context, he makes me look like a bad guy. So the section begins with me copying Rick Block's exact posting. That's actually Rick Block saying that Glkanter edits tendentiously, using a small portion of my actual diff.

Then, I show the entire diff, which is meant to show that rather than editing tendentiously, I had made a very thoughtful post.

Later in a subsequent section, I realized Rick Block had actually abridged the quote he used, eliminating the first words from:

"My viewpoint is, 'There is no possible way I am wrong about this'."

and making it:

"There is no possible way I am wrong about this"

It's my considered opinion, from interacting with Rick Block for 2+ years, that he did that truncating in order to make me look bad, rather than to present the truth for the benefit of the arbitrators. It's consistent with the Gamesmanship and intellectual dishonesty I have accused Rick Block of perpetrating all along. He's been doing this since before I joined the MHP discussions, but unlike nearly every other editor who was stifled by Rick Block, I decided to stick it out, and state what I believe he is doing. Glkanter (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. So you did repost that thoughtful post verbatim in several places (which appears to be Rick Block's key point), but you feel that doing so was not tendentious. I'm not sure I see a difference between 'I'm right' and 'my viewpoint is that I'm right', but you obviously do. Could you perhaps explain. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the 4 postings of the same diff were over a period of 2 years, addressed to 4 different editors, and on 4 different pages. I'm trying to show to each new audience of editors that I am a thoughtful person, who is disagreeing with Rick Block, why I am still disagreeing after all this time, and that I am not some grandstanding gadfly, regardless of what Rick Block may have been posting about me that day on that page.

As far as the difference in the actual quote and the modified quote goes, I can't coerce you to see things as I see them. I see no reason other than 'deception' for Rick Block to alter the quote in the first place. Why do *you* think he did that? I don't think altering quotes is either a standard practice, or a good practice. In any case, it's not something I would do. Glkanter (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a very real expectation that Rick Block would indicate that a portion of a sentence from my direct quote is missing, via the inclusion of ellipses. He should have, at a minimum, made it:

"... 'There is no possible way I am wrong about this'."

Of course, he shouldn't have altered my actual quote at all. I can't explain why Rick Block didn't follow this convention. Other than as a means of deception. It's just more of the same intellectual dishonesty on Rick Block's part that I have been subjected to for over 2+ years.

You should have seen the wrath of God he brought down on me the *first* time I accused him of ownership, back in February, 2009, I believe. He got some buddies from the Wikipedia Mathematics group to explain how I simply didn't understand probability. Of course, I was just saying the same thing as countless reliable sources, but *I* was uniquely stupid. And wrong. And disruptive. Automatically. That was back when we had endless arguments about the math, and Rick Block, I believe created a talk page exclusively for arguing the math. Which is wrong in *so* many Wikipedia ways. But what did I know? I was the newby, and he's an admin. And everybody else was going along. He's quoting chapter and verse about Wikipedia policy every time I disagreed with him, but that little thing about reliable sources gets overlooked somehow. It's all still there on my user page. Glkanter (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Rick Block

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) talk:Monty Hall problem is not the place to argue about The Truth concerning the Monty Hall problem. The subpage Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments was created as a place for editors to discuss mathematical issues underlying the Monty Hall problem if they feel the need to do this. Discussions on the talk page itself should be restricted to proposed changes to the article based on what reliable sources say.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If there is a side that pushes for The Truth in this article it is that of Rick, Glopk, and Nijdam. I have long tried to argue that we can cover the subject in the most appropriate way for our readers without having to make a firm decision on 'The Truth'. We can do this by having a first part where the problem is explained simply and clearly and 'The Truth' is temporarily put on hold in the interest of clarity. After that the subject can be fully discussed in a detailed and scholarly way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I recall being told off by Rick Block for discussing issues of Mathematical Truth on user talk pages rather than on the article's own talk page. I am not a diff warrior so I'm not going to search for it. And when I propsoe a change on the talk page I have to support the proposal ... and that is where content comes in again.

And what if the editors disagree what the reliable sources say? Sometimes it could be necessary to take some content or context into account, to determine what they are saying. e.g. an article in a mathematics education journal, or an article in a mathematics research journal ... might require some professional background knowledge to read sensibly. Richard Gill (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Happily there are reliable sources that stand up for the truth. No need for a battle, let the sources speak And no leaving out a source because its message is not understood and hence not welcomed. Nijdam (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Problem imo: The lemma, as it is, does not present the point. To the detriment of the reader. Connections remain unclear, violating the logic. The point is that "better knowledge" –  than the pure average probability to win by switching of 2/3  –  just depends on additional underlying assumptions, and joining additional information, and not on the "numbers of the doors" only (see Nijdam's endless urn-problem-discussions). It depends on the "characteristics" of the doors (door selected, door opened by the host, door offered to switch on), and possible (additional) assumptions to be made. And this should be clearly accessible to the reader. Not "nothing but maths obviously can guarantee available additional accurateness and closeness". Actually everything is hidden behind the "mathematical truth". Nothing but question marks for the reader. Of course the article should show the ability of qualified conditional probability also. And, casus belli, foremost it is not meant to be just only a textbook. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't get what this attempts to achieve; apparently the proposer has a completely different understanding of the conflict than I have. Given the available sources, it is necessary, as part of the harmonious editing process, to discuss and achieve consensus on: (A) the meaning of what they are saying – which version(s) of MHP are presented, how they are modelled mathematically, the nature of the proofs (if any); (B) the weight that should be given to them, so as to maintain a neutral point of view while not giving undue weight to fringe aspects; (C) how best to present this. You can't skip (A) if you need to discuss (B) and (C). The conflict already arises in that stage, with some editors having a tendency to ascribe disagreement with other editors to a presumed lack of their capability to understand the issues, something that is not helpful. The lack of consensus on (A) percolates then to (B) and (C). Discussing (A) should not be considered "arguing about The Truth".  --Lambiam 12:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Core content policies

2) No original research, Verifiability, and Neutral point of view are fundamental content policies. Whether editors agree with what reliable sources say has no relevance to the editing process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There is no dispute that No original research, Verifiability, and Neutral point of view are fundamental content policies but, unfortunately, these policies do not help us resolve this dispute; everybody claims to have WP policy on their side. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This needs to be a key principle of the final decision, in my opinion, and I disagree with Martin about whether these policies can be useful in resolving the dispute. I think insisting that editors adhere to core content policies is the only reasonable way forward. But just as a point of clarification: In all my reading of the interminable circular arguments in this dispute, I've seen very few instances where editors were claiming WP policy or sources in support for their positions; the overwhelming majority of the arguments have been argued not on WP policy or interpretation thereof, but on the basis of the editors' self-perceived "rightness" of their logical argument or their mathematical formulation, the necessity and utility of their original-research solutions, or even their superior credentials. Woonpton (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of an article talk page

3) The purpose of an article talk page is to discuss changes to the article, not to advance one's own opinions about the topic of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It is not the role of the committee to rule on content disputes. Subtle difference, may or may not be significant. Also note AGK's comment below --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I do not doubt good-faith of Martin Hogbin, the pitiful point is, he doesn't fully understand the point of discussion. Nijdam (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It is very generous of you not to doubt my good faith. That is the way you have been making your points throughout this discussion, by attacking the speaker rather than what they say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• As a 'content dispute' itself doesn't *have* or *lack* 'good faith', I'd like to restate, in my own words, what AGK and woonpton posted below:

"One or more editors ceased editing and discussing the MHP in good faith a long time ago."

• And now I will add Glkanter's interpretation/expansion of the above:

"These editors obscured this fact in order to maintain improper ownership of the article, and did so by, among other violations of Wikipedia policies, harassing any editors who challenged their ownership. This harassment includes the request for this arbitration against Glkanter."

Posted by Glkanter (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think the issue here is that this stopped being a good-faith content dispute a long time ago. AGK [•] 12:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with AGK. Woonpton (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Glkanter has engaged in disruptive behavior

1) Glkanter has engaged in a wide range of disruptive behavior, including treating Wikipedia as a battleground, edit warring, and repeated incivility and personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Glkanter has promoted his opinion here just like all other editors. His views are broadly representative of a majority of editors. Martin Hogbin (talk)

This comment seems completely unresponsive to the proposed finding of fact. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoting the opinion of the majority of editors against a small but persistent minority is not disruptive behaviour. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Many editors have misused the MHP talk page

2) Rather than use the talk page to discuss proposed changes to the article, many editors have used talk:Monty Hall problem to argue about the mathematics of the problem or that what various sources say is wrong. Although this hasn't directly affected the content of the article, it has had the effect of disrupting discussions about changes to the article content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These discussions have led to hard-fought but positive changes regarding content and scope and style of the article. Those who wish the article frozen in its state of several years ago are very wiki-skilled in playing the rules to keep it that way. But sure, I'm as bad a guy as anyone else, have a biological need not just to be right but to convince others I'm right too. We need more women editors on the page. Richard Gill (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that they were probably once useful but have steadily became circular. Indeed, they became markedly disruptive toward the end: those discussion about the mathematics of the MHP helped affirm to every editor that the sources were wrong, and the result was that compromise became impossible. AGK [•] 12:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I hardly know of any "wrong" sources! The few authors who really made a mistake corrected it later. Quite a few disagree. And some present very different solutions alongside one another, without apparently seeing a need to compare them or choose between them. There is a minority of sources which are dogmatic, like some editors. If you read the literature, you'll find that many other writers from the same field are highly critical of the dogmatic guys. Lots of excellent mathematicians slammed Morgan et al. and defended Marilyn Vos Savant. The editors who can't compromise are those who have a fixed and extreme point of view: "my solution is RIGHT the other is WRONG". Of course the critical literature needs to be referred to. There are some valid points in it. But presently the paper is biased to their point of view right from the start. Note: mathematics can never tell you what you *must* do. It does not carry moral authority or legal authority. It can only advise you what it might be *wise* to do, and the wisdom can be explained. And one may choose to ignore it. Richard Gill (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The way you present the conflict gives the wrong impression. For instance I (who I suspect you to refer to) do not claim something like "my solution is right, etc." I'm claiming (sourced!), and you agreed with me, that the so called simple solution is not a correct solution to the common MHP. And the article should make this clear. Any other way of thinking about the MHP, be my guest, as long as it is sourced and correct. Nijdam (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you that what you call "the common MHP" is the common MHP. Sourced. The popular literature, the psychology literature, the economics literature is not inferior to the literature in which Bayes theorem is taught to poor mathematics students. Anyway, maths does not tell how you must make decisions, it only advises you what might be wise. Please source the reasoning for must if you can. Richard Gill (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is indubitably true and has been well-demonstrated. However, I might quibble with the assertion that the disputes haven't affected the content of the article. I think they have, and not in a good way; I would prefer not including that phrase. Woonpton (talk)

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 indefinitely prohibited from (i) editing Monty Hall problem and any related pages, broadly construed, and their talk pages; (ii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iii) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would be an outrageously disproportionate remedy even if any sanction against Glkanter were justified, which it is not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Martin. Just about everyone has been misbehaving themselves. Richard Gill (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal attacks on Glkanter's user and talk pages

2) Personal attacks archivedproudly displayed on Glkanter's user and talk pages will be deleted. Any similar use of these pages in the future to disparage other editors will result in a 3 month site ban for the first offense and a permanent site ban for any subsequent offense.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To avoid any confusion about this, I mean specifically the following sections (which are still on his talk page, i.e. not archived): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't even attacks. Read 'em, for goodness sakes. They're copies of unedited diffs, with the smallest bit of commentary preceding and concluding. These were not conversations, rather they were monologues. Nobody was threatened, nobody was invited to read them, or take part in them. Actually, they show what thugs C S and Dicklyon were acting like. I documented their horrid behaviour towards me on my own talk page. The other stuff is, once again, me not agreeing with Rick Block. Which Rick Block thinks is a crime. What else is new? Glkanter (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Even more explicitly:

[7]: "This guy is a POS" (the section title - this entire section is Glkanter calling user:C S a piece of shit)

[8]: "... I have just one question. Who the fuck does this guy think he is? ..." (another entire section dedicated to attacking another editor, this time Dicklyon)

[9]: "How you like me now, Bitch!?" (another section, referring to the "facts" presented in the previous section)

[10]: "The Undead" (referring to all his "opponents" here)

[11]: "Typical gamesmanship by Rick. Typical lack of good faith. No way was it not intentional." (his accusations of gamesmanship against me are tiresomely repetitive, and reached the point of personal attack a long time ago)

[12]: "Intellectually dishonest. Abhorrent behavior." (again, referring to all his "opponents" here, particularly Richard Gill and, of course, me)

-- Rick Block (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

That seems a little petty to me. If it's in the archives, it's gone: out of sight then out of mind. AGK [•] 12:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A bit late to the party but what part of "(which are still on his talk page, i.e. not archived):..." am I missing? If those posts are still on Glkanter's (not archived) talk page then perhaps it's not so "petty". hydnjo (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to make anything of these diffs as a whole, or even to follow some of them. The first doesn't appear to contain any personal attacks by Glkanter, or even any posts by Glkanter at all. The second and third contain several egregious personal attacks by Glkanter, and Glkanter should redact those at the very least; if he doesn't choose to remove them himself, they should be removed, in my opinion. The fourth is uninterpretable; one has to go to the history to discover that Glkanter wrote it, as it's unsigned, and it's impossible for this outside observer to guess what it refers to. The fifth is a discussion between Glkanter and a mediator about Glkanter's behavior on the mediation page, which contains no personal attacks that rise to the level of needing removal. The sixth appears to be a discussion between Glkanter and Richard Gill in which personal comments are made by both parties. On the whole, I wouldn't say that all of these diffs show personal attacks on the part of Glkanter that should be removed; some do and some don't. I do think that the actual personal attacks [13][14] [15] should be removed, but I don't agree that all the sections listed should be removed. Woonpton (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• @Rick Block: Okay, I said some of those diffs are hard to follow, and apparently required more parsing than I gave them, but given the further explanation, I can see how more of these qualify as personal attacks than I was counting. I have struck some of my characterizations, and won't comment further. Woonpton (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, Rick Block is providing his personal interpretations (of which at least 2 are incorrect) of the meaning and intent of my diffs, and has added profanity that is not present on my talk page. Glkanter (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In two of the diffs, all I do is quote the other guy verbatim, after the brief intro Rick Block quotes. Glkanter (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Or more simply, "How can there be a Personal Attack with no person and/or no attack?" Glkanter (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this a correct interpretation of your postings?: A half dozen or so profane words should be removed from Glkanter's talk page. Glkanter (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

[after woonpton specifies the remedy] Those aren't personal attacks. They certainly contain profanity, but for countless reasons cannot be defined as 'personal attacks'. The bigger picture, anyways, is once again, Rick Block makes a mountain out of a non-existent molehill with this specious 'Personal Attacks' where I 'disparage other editors' accusation in this arbitration. Only because I dare to state that I disagree with him. And I have been not cowered by the repetitions with which he defends his ownership of the article. Glkanter (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem article placed on article probation

3) Monty Hall problem and its talk page are subject to the following terms of article probation:

• Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and arguing about the math of the problem without reference to sources (after being warned that the talk page is not the place for such arguments).
  • Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Monty Hall problem page and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 week in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
• Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.
• Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.
• All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Monty Hall problem article probation/Log of sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Something that the committee is likely to look at in some form or another. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I admit this might be overkill. However, I really don't see a sensible alternative since the parties involved don't seem to be willing to stop arguing about the math. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

But you are one of the parties, Rick, and you have often argued about the maths. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried for nearly two years to keep the discussion focused on what sources say [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] etc etc, and even on the Arguments page [24] [25]-- Rick Block (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting comment, Rick Block.

• When I post things in support of the simple conditional solutions, you tell me I don't understand propability, that I haven't read enough sources, that I edit tendentiously, that I'm disruptive, etc. You've even filed an RfC and an arbitration against me. But I'm just repeating what countless reliable sources (Selvin & vos Savant among them) are saying. Don't those sources count, or do you agree with Nijdam that [paraphrasing], 'since they're wrong, they're not reliable'?
• Do you have any diffs where you instruct Nijdam to stick to the reliable sources?
• Are there more than the 5 so-called critics of the simple conditional solution that you've enumerated, of which I have already debunked your classification of 3 of them as 'critics' ?
• Do you still consider every source that gives a conditional solution a de facto critic of the simple conditional solutions?

Is that what you mean by 'what sources say'?

Posted by Glkanter (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to this unless an arbitrator or clerk suggests I should. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But why? I'm just asking you to help me understand what you mean by 'what sources say'. Which of those 5 questions do you feel is inappropriate in some way, and why? You made the above comment, "I have tried for nearly two years to keep the discussion focused on what sources say" of your own volition. Why demure now? Here's your chance to bring an end to what you've described as the way Glkanter has "essentially singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made". Glkanter (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think this is headed in the right direction, but I would prefer to see more emphasis on violations of content policy like reliable sources and original research, which I think is the key problem in this dispute. Here, that concern is almost lost behind the standard discretionary sanction boilerplate about civility and personal attacks etc, and is even more likely to be missed because all the others are blue. :-) I can't think of a better wording so far, but maybe it would help to reverse the order just to make the point that this isn't a minor issue in this case? Woonpton (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User: Richard Gill

Proposed principles

2/3 : 1/3 (popular: academic)

1) There are two literatures on MHP, two readerships on wikipedia. Roughly speaking: "popular" and "academic". The first 2/3 of the article should be written for and/or by the people (the Great Unwashed, in Glkanter's words), the last 1/3 should be written for and/or by the High Priests and novice-priests.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We're not talking about rocket science here. It's high school level probability. Between Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and WP:NPOV we have all the guidance we need. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice quote. That's what the judge said in the Sally Clark case. Refusing to have evidence presented in person by the president of the Royal Statistical Society. That together with the arrogance of Sir Roy Meadows (MD) killed her. Richard Gill (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rick shows an extraordinary arrogance here. Read the lead to the article, 'Even when given a completely unambiguous statement of the Monty Hall problem, explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still meet the correct answer with disbelief'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)

Martin - I'm not saying the topic is easily understood - I'm saying the explanation only requires high school level probability (no advanced math). -- Rick Block (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The explanation does *not* require high school level probability. The complete explanation is: Would it be a fair bet at odds 2:1 that the car is not behind the door you first chose? Would it be a fair bet at odds 2:1 that the car is not behind the door you first chose (door 1), after you saw the host open door 3? The sensible answer to both these questions is YES; the reasoning for the first is so obvious it is not worth writing out; the *reasoning* why it is YES in the second case is just a tiny bit longer (and according to many reliable sources in academic probability and statistics, whether it is worth writing out or not is a matter of taste): add the words "by symmetry, it doesn't make a difference which door the host opens, so I would still bet at the same odds". Richard Gill (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you do not mean by popular literature, the incorrect literature, deceiving the readers. Nijdam (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Nijdam, that you disqualify yourself from editing the MHP page: you want to promote a personal POV. Wikipedia can report criticism of some part of the literature which is contained in another part, in a neutral way. If editors collectively think it adds to the topic. But it seems you are so committed to one side of the argument, it will be hard for you to report it neutrally. Richard Gill (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately that's not up to you. And it's also not very constructive such remarks. As you well know it is not just my opinion, but several reliable sources say so, and indeed, I agree fully with them. Also, if you have followed the discussion well enough, I and others only want every reader to be aware of the criticism, not being hidden somewhere for I don't know what reasons. The main reason several editors do not like this, is IMO because they do not understand the criticism. Do you BTW? Nijdam (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nijdam, please allow for one question. You just said  The main reason several editors do not like this, is IMO because they do not understand the criticism. Do you BTW?  –  Do you mean that later on, after showing of one goat, you are considering the two still closed doors are made of glass or some similar material, and a little additional light could be thrown on the two hidden objects located behind them? Do you think of "that variant" that some (not all) sources report on?  Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to answer, if I only would understand the question.Nijdam (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably, that is worse than I had feared. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But I still remember your preferred variant where the host who, in opening of his unwanted and avoided door, that he never uses to open if any possible, but in 1/3 of cases will be forced to open, because the car will be behind his "preferred" door that he always uses to open if ever possible, and that by doing so your host shows that the car is very likely to be behind his preferred but unopened door, similar to open all three doors altogether, at once. For years now I have learned that this is your favored variant. Because this variant authorizes and entitles you to criticize every "false solution" that does not, just from the outset, pay regard to exactly your "known" bizarre host's behavior as per your favored variant.

And yes, the lemma really should show that conditional probability is able to come up also with the famous question "to switch or to stay". Preferable in odds-form, easy to get for the reader. And later, just in the "variants section", for those interested in, should be presented "given and known special host's behavior". With much expansions as to "the lazy host", or "the forgettable host" and the "toppled host". Conditional probability can be shown just in the beginning of the lemma, and should be shown, in odds-form. But the lemma should stop to be a textbook in conditional probability theory only, declaring that you "must" do it that way, but forever concealing "why this is the only right" method to get the answer "switch or stay". Concealing "why", but just stating that any other approach forever is "incorrect, just from the outset". Even given that there is sufficient evidence that other reliable sources don't say that. Please stop the battle. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This proposal deals with content and as such, is out of scope. In the best of Wikipedia worlds, editors working collaboratively would weigh the sources and determine whether/how/to what extent the material should be described at varying technical levels. Certainly it won't, and shouldn't, be decided by one editor stating his personal opinion that the allotment should be 2/3 popular and 1/3 technical. Coincidentally, I agree with Rick Block above about the level of statistical sophistication required for describing the problem to any audience. Woonpton (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Woonpton (as do Rick Block and Nijdam) has a biased point of view about the level of statistical sophistication needed to describe MHP. The reliably sourced general opinion on this, also among statisticians and probabilists, is that "high school probability" is not needed at all. In fact it is a hindrance rather than a help. See eg Bell's 1992 letter on the infamous Morgan et al 1991 paper (thanks to Rick for pointing out this reference to me). Richard Gill (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Contents out of scope.

The lemma is a masterpiece of one-sided presentation of the contents, and the battle steadily has been activated by one-sided and retarded presentation of the sources, featuring just only one minor bromide: That of course conditional probability theory can cope with any and all additional bizarre presuppositions, not even needing door numbers, contradictory to the lemma. Obscure presumptions about "additional info" on the contents of the two remaining closed diaphanous doors. Conditional probability has to be presented in a clear and sane way, not as a one-issue, dominating the lemma. The overwhelming majority of sources has a clear view on the paradox, and the lemma could be presented benefiting for the reader, not atomized on bizarre presuppositions only, for the overwhelming majority of sources not even worth mentioning. So all of that interdependency could be shown clearly, in an own section. Actually the lemma is a retarded, unbalanced and unstructured mix, not paying regard to the perception and the view of the relevant sources. Hideous for the reader. Retarding forces, forgetting about the reader, prevent progress. Contents out of scope, retarding forces out of scope, the fight will be eternalized. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

2/3 : 1/3 (refreshment of editors)

1) Roughly 2/3 of the editors are quarrelsome, proprietary, uncompromising. Roughly 1/3 are modest, sensible. Let Richard Gill, Rick Block, Glkanter, Glopk, Nijdam go and edit articles on other subjects for a few months; let Gerhard Valentin, Martin Hogbin and Kmhkmh do some unhindered editing according to Principle 1). Get some more editors involved. Preferably women.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

'Quarrelsome' and 'uncompromising' when standing up to Gamesmanship, Ownership, and Wikilawyering is no shame, and shouldn't be 'punished'. I have no idea what 'proprietary' is meant to convey in this instance. Glkanter (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Proprietary meant having ownership-issues (you know who I mean). BTW a "temporary page ban" is not meant by me as a punishment, see it as an honour. Your standing up against Gamesmanship, Ownership, and Wikilawyering deserves a medal (I can even give you one, as president of the Dutch statistical society). Richard Gill (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We have argued about language before. I believe a 'ban' is a 'ban'. And I believe I've done nothing to warrant a ban on discussing or editing the MHP (or anything on Wikipedia). Maybe you could explain how your 'medal of honour' would affect Glkanter differently than the 'behavioual sanctions' Rick Block proposed? "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck... maybe it *is* a duck." Glkanter (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Voluntary is of course better than enforced! Take a break. Do some work for wikipedia on some different topics. Make some friends and have fun, instead of making enemies and getting all stressed out. The proposal is that 2/3 of editors quit MHP for a while. Including the ones who you and I believe have ownership issues. Richard Gill (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is an interesting proposal, though unworkable. I do think clearing the article and talk space of all editors who have participated in turning a fascinating puzzle into a mind-numbingly dull argument over tedious, trivial, irrelevant detail, is a smashingly good idea. And if all editors who have participated in that transformation would volunteer to remove themselves from the article en masse and let fresh editors take over, that would be great. And since I'm a woman, and a statistician to boot, I'd be a perfect candidate for the new team, since Gill has specified women especially for this new team, and I wouldn't mind editing the article if the bickering would stop.

But there's a problem or two. First, the identification of the "problem" editors has to be accompanied by evidence, and the evidence against these six editors is wildly variable. For some, evidence has been presented to support assertions of policy violations (and it remains for the arbitrators to decide how convincing the evidence is); for others, little or none. For glopk, for example, only one diff appears in evidence; the assertion accuses him of "tag teaming" and it isn't very convincing (to me), since it shows him reverting an IP edit that changed a section header in an unhelpful way; this is hardly evidence for tag teaming to advance a POV, and even less so for his being "argumentative, proprietary, uncompromising." The only other place where glopk's name appears on the evidence page is an assertion from Richard Gill that glopk, in particular, resisted the inclusion of Gill's original synthesis in the article because the synthesis wasn't supported by sources. There are no diffs offered to support that assertion, and besides, even if he did argue against an unsourced synthesis being included in the article, it would hardly be evidence of a policy violation. Now it may be that glopk has been "argumentative, proprietary, uncompromising," although if so I haven't seen much evidence of it in the months I've been observing the dispute, but in order to make the case that glopk should be topic-banned, even voluntarily, you need to provide evidence of misconduct rising to the level that his absence from the article would improve the situation; there has to be more convincing evidence than "he disagreed with me." Woonpton (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You, and others, may laugh, but "he disagreed with me" is the only thing I think Rick Block has on me. Glkanter (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to think in terms of "problem editors" and in terms of "punishment". Let the editors themselves by some demcratic procedure choose a subgroup of editors who agree that they can work together. Give them the brief to recruit some "new blood". Give the others a well earned vacation. Ask each editor to nominate one other editor who they think will represent their POV and another who they believe doesn't. The final group must include someone who can be seen as a representative of each of the two main parties, and a third who can be seen as more or less neutral. Richard Gill (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This latest suggestion is so different from the proposal under discussion that it should probably be posted and discussed as a separate proposal. However, it's as unworkable as the first proposal. For starters, the idea that a group of people who can't even decide among themselves what the MHP is, is suddenly going to amicably choose among themselves who will edit the article and who not, seems overoptimistic, at best. Every editor in this dispute is going to have a different idea about who are the intransigent, uncompromising editors and who are the ones "I can work with."(And what if someone new comes along, who wasn't "elected" by this process or recruited by the elected editors, and upsets the balance? Then what?)

But more than that, Wikipedia doesn't settle content disputes by voting editors on and off articles based on their personal opinions about the content of the article; that's not how Wikipedia works. That's why we have the policies you have expressed so much disdain for disagreement with, to resolve content disagreements by using criteria that everyone agrees to to abide by when they join the editing community... NPOV, RS, NOR ... these are the things that make Wikipedia work. We work by summarizing sources, using these policies to guide us, not by voting editors on and off the island based on their personal POV. Woonpton (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

@Woonpton, I have no disdain for Wikipedia policies. They are wise, well motivated, and everyone who uses wikipedia has signed up for them. I have disdain for persons who abuse those policies in order to maintain the point of view which more than two years ago severely biased the article in question. I have disdain for persons who use the letter of the policies rather than their spirit to convert the policies into a travesty. Richard Gill (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that you have no disdain for Wikipedia policies, and I have struck my remark about "disdain" above, accordingly, as irrelevant to the discussion here. Whether the clarification clears up anything about your disdain or lack of it toward core content policy, it doesn't help me much in considering the present proposal (the idea that editors should elect representatives to edit the article). It's hard to see how a respect for Wikipedia policies is reflected in this proposal, which sets aside content policies altogether and proposes a novel process for resolving content disputes. Woonpton (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is a novel kind of problem, requiring a novel kind of problem resolution. The quarrel between the editors is merely a duplication of the same quarrel between reliable sources.

I'm glad @Woonpton no longer accuses me of disdain of Wikipedia policies. Now she only says I diagree with them. But I do not disagree with them. She earlier accused me of abusing my status as subject matter expert. She however appealed to her own status to say that my own "own research" stinks. Just as Rick Block appealed to Nijdam's status as subject matter expert to support his and Nijdam's minority POV. She also interpreted my camaraderie in asking her her own opinion about MHP, as a fellow subject matter expert, as another example of me aggressively promoting my own OR. This kind of behaviour already chased away a number of other expert editors away from the MHP page. Richard Gill (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:SirFozzie

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. SirFozzie (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'd prefer an expanded version that directly addresses the problem of original research, something like this: 1) 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 or to publish or promote original research is prohibited. I removed one phrase about ideological and religious agendas that seems to be more pertinent to that specific case than this one, but otherwise this is directly lifted from the TM arbitration final decision. Woonpton (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Or maybe better, a separate principle emphasizing the importance of core content policies.Woonpton (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Editorial process

2)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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

RexxS (talk · contribs) made an interesting suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question/Proposed_decision#PP_3. Thought I'd try it here to see if anyone preferred it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conduct and Decorum

3)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 conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This has been an issue with some if not all parties. SirFozzie (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3a)Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another, even during disputes. Confrontational conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This was RexxS's suggested wording. The flow seems better this way round, 3a more naturally arises from 2 Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Either would be ok, however I prefer describing the prohibited conduct as 'unseemly' as opposed to 'confrontational'. PhilKnight (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Content Disputes

4)It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Despite the urgings of the clerks and the arbs, most of the text in this case has focused on how the article should read, or the conditionals behind the MHP. As I said previously, we cannot judge those things. SirFozzie (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but prefer 'It is not the role of the committee to rule on content disputes' suggested by Elen. PhilKnight (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Talk pages - disruption

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Woonpton (talk · contribs) suggested adding the decision from Shakespeare. I think it's worth adding the one from speed of light as well Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Talkpages - original ideas

6)The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Talk pages are not for forum-like debates, 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Speed of Light. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Advocacy

7) Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Another one (or part of one) from Speed of Light. I think we've seen a great deal of deriding of views.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Last one from Speed of Light. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Discretionary Sanctions

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles related to the Monty Hall problem. The sanctions should be administered in such a fashion as to treat all contributors fairly while ensuring that future editing of these pages adheres to the high standards expected of Wikipedia's editors

Comment by Arbitrators:

This will be part of but not the whole of the solution I think. There could/should be focused remedies against individual parties, but we need to provide the framework to improve the conduct in this area. SirFozzie (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Martin Hogbin

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

WP is an encyclopedia and all articles should be written for the benefit of the expected readership. This readership is likely to cover a wide range of education, academic ability, experience and interests. Articles should be written to appeal to and be understood by as wide a range of reader as possible. This applies to both content and structure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There is no dispute about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The article should be structured is a way to make it accessible to the widest range or readership

The simple solutions should come first, complete with all necessary explanation and without disclaimers. This is the order of nearly all good text books and encyclopedia articles. This order suits all readers. The non-specialist reader will be able to follow the basic, and by far the most notable, aspects of the MHP. Experts will quickly see from the following academic section that the subject has been covered in a complete and scholarly manner and may regard the first section as lies to children. All editors may be satisfied that 'The truth' is on the page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Here ("complete with all necessary explanation and without disclaimers"), you're asking arbcom to decide a content issue. Arbcom has repeatedly said they are not going to do this. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see why anyone would want to do it any other way, except to make a point. Most people find it hard to see why the answer is 2/3 and we need to show them why, and why it matters that the host knows where the car is, before we confuse the issue with academic discussions about conditional probability. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We've discussed this repeatedly, but in addition to editorial reasons (which amount to a content dispute) the policy-based reason to not start with an extensive "simple" solution section is NPOV, specifically subsection WP:STRUCTURE - IMO doing this would make the article effectively promote the POV that these solutions are "true" and "undisputed" (which is clearly not the case). You keep arguing that we should, in effect, ignore NPOV (at least, at the beginning of the article) in the interests of making the article more accessible to the non-expert reader. My counter argument is that we MUST NOT ignore NPOV, and if we can't make the article both NPOV and accessible we're lousy editors. Again, we're not talking about rocket science here. I think any reasonably intelligent 12-year old should be capable of understanding the salient points. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ownership? I don't see any Rick Block ownership issues. Who said anything about ownership issues? None here. Nope. Not at all. Come on, who ever heard of a topic being presented 'simple to complex'? Absurd! Of *course* Martin's proposal 'ignores NPOV', just like Rick Block says above. Good thing Rick Block is here to keep Martin from befouling the article with his crackpot ideas and especially his NPOV violating suggestion of 'simple to complex'. But ownership? No. Not here. That's crazy talk. Glkanter (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As Glkanter says, Rick's reply shows exactly the problem this article has been having for the last two years or so. Nothing other than than Rick's POV in the order he wants will do for Rick and the other page owners.

The argument as to whether the simple solutions are "true" and "undisputed" simply does not exist outside this WP discussion and no one reading the article would ever suppose that my proposed order is a dastardly plot to promote my POV, any more than a reader of a book on relativity that starts with a chapter on Newtonian physics would suppose that the author is a secret critic of Einstein. It is the way things are done, it even has a name lies to children. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Rick says, 'we're not talking about rocket science here' but the truth is that Even when given a completely unambiguous statement of the Monty Hall problem, explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still meet the correct answer with disbelief, the last thing people need is an additional academic complication thrown at them before they understand the basic solution. After they have understood the basic problem, those that are interested can study the fine print. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Core content policies

No original research, Verifiability, and Neutral point of view are fundamental content policies. Whether editors agree with what reliable sources say has no relevance to the editing process.

I add this as a mantra recited by others. I fully agree with the above principles but they have proved of little value in settling this dispute. All editors claim to have these policies on their side. More than one editor has published work on this subject in what would generally be regarded as a very reliable source, thus it is hard to distinguish OR from published sources. I do not see any COI from any editor.

I also draw attention to WP:notable. The MHP is, by a considerable margin, most notable for being a simple mathematical puzzle that vos Savant got right and nearly everyone else got wrong. The article should reflect this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The first paragraph of this is a principle. The rest ("I add this ...") is NOT a principle, but your comment on this principle. Re WP:Notable, you again asking arbcom to decide a content issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I am asking arbcom to support the WP:notable policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

Although the arbitration committee do not rule on content disputes they might in this case consider ruling on an article structure that promotes cooperation, avoids conflict, and best addresses the needs of our readers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, mixing principle and commentary. The principle is arbcom does not settle content disputes (period). What you're suggesting is that arbcom violate this principle in this case, presumably to satisfy some more important principle (e.g. harmonious editing). -- Rick Block (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

A small group of editors has exerted disproportionate control over the page content and structure

Rick Block, with Nijdam and Glopk have acted over a long time and against a clear majority of editors to have the article represent their POV. There is no accusation of bad faith only that things have worked out such that the views of other editors other have not been given appropriate weight and consideration.

Since the start of the article a total of 5 registered editors and 2 IPs have supported the 'page owners' and 12 registered and 10 IPs disagreed with them.`

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If you're talking about WP:WEIGHT, the "appropriate" weight is none, whatsoever. Views of editors don't get "weight", views of sources do. Arguing WP:WEIGHT based on number of supporting editors is fundamentally missing the point. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How about number of sources then? How about number of academic sources then? The only count which supports your position is the that of only sources that agree with you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editor behaviour has generally, over a period of nearly three years, been good

There has been a degree of badness, including obvious and more subtle personal attacks, and incivility from all editors, mainly due to frustration and the failure make progress. Such cases have been adequately dealt with at the time and no further action is necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The MHP talk pages are fine

The main talk page is for improving the article but that necessarily involves some discussion on the subject itself. Further discussion of the subject matter has taken place on the 'Arguments' page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

The editors who have exerted disproportionate control over the article should be asked to allow consensus decisions

Decisions on WP should be made by consensus. Although this does not necessarily mean a majority, when discussion has failed to reach a unanimous conclusion, a majority of editors should be considered as a consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editors should be commended for their generally good behaviour

There is nothing here that warrants draconian action such as a permanent topic ban. Lesser action such as short term bans or even admonishments will do nothing except cause bad feeling.

For the most part, editors have behaved well and they should be encouraged to continue to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:PaoloNapolitano

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view

1) All Wikipedia content must be written from a neutral point of view. They must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject, in accordance with their prevalence as reflected in the best and most reputable sources, and without giving undue weight to minority views. Good faith content disputes should be resolved by consensus, and, if necessary, through dispute resolution procedures. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The difficulty with applying this principle to Monty Hall Problem is that there is no unanimity what are "the best and most reputable sources". IMHO, the present page has been slanted for several years towards a point of view put forward in Morgan et al. (1991), who at the time were widely criticized by equally reputable sources for rephrasing Vos Savant's question in order to argue that she gave the wrong argument for her answer! They are still criticized today by authors of new standard works, such as Jason Rosenhouse in his recent compehensive book. The Wikipedia page must therefore reflect the diversity of opinions in the best and most reputable sources, including the diversity of opinions concerning what sources are "best" and "reputable". Editors Rick Block, Nijdam, and Glopk have, in the experience of the other editors in this dispute, been maintaining a minority POV hold on the article, through fair means or foul, but undoubtedly with the best of faith, for more than two years. Morgan et al were certainly influential and their point of view, including the rewriting of Vos Savant's question, found its way into introductory statistics texts, where MHP is used to illustrate the workings of Bayes Theorem and get students familiar with formal probability calculus. These sources regularly duplicate Morgan et al's rewriting of Vos Savant's question, and often also duplicate their snide words about her intelligence. The dogmatic tone of such authors "you *must* solve MHP in this or that way" rightly offends common sense and the role of MHP as a popular brain-teaser for young and old. Especially since rarely, if ever, do those authors explain why they think the problem *must* be solved in a particular way.

Ordinary logic is equally able to give a full analysis of MHP. In fact, there are several routes to do so. They are documented in reliable sources, and they each give insight into the paradox. For students of probability calculus it is a useful exercise to translate each correct verbal argument into the formal language which they are busy learning (but many are busy hating). But solving MHP by going back to formal definitions followed by either lengthy formula manipulation or arithmetic does not give insight into MHP; it just shows that formal mathematics is not always the best tool for solving a conundrum, though of course it is always available, perhaps as a last resort. Richard Gill (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Non-workshop question moved to case talk page. (X! · talk)  · @262  ·  05:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others: