Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Evidence

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

Response to Martin

Martin's comment directed at me seems to merit a response, but it doesn't seem to belong in the evidence section, since it's not evidence or a specific comment/question about evidence. So I've put it here; if it's in the wrong place a clerk can move it, I'm sure.

@Martin: I'm equally puzzled why you think my evidence constitutes a "fierce attack." There is no attack. The diffs (which are his own words, after all) speak for themselves, I think; otherwise I wouldn't have taken the trouble to collect them. But ultimately the committee will decide how compelling the diffs are to them and will vote accordingly. My only "agenda" here is violations of WP:RS, which seems to me an important component in the problem. Unfortunately, ArbCom approaches content issues only indirectly, through specific editor conduct, so my general concern about rampant OR needed to be framed in terms of specific editor conduct in order to have a chance of being heard, and Richard Gill offers the most salient current example of OR. But if arbitration were set up in such a way that a person could register a request to "Do Something About OR!" without singling out anyone individually, I'd do that. This isn't personal; I'd be happy with any remedy that put some teeth into NOR and RS for all editors working in the area, that would be reliably enforced against violators going forward.

Obviously everyone sees this dispute a bit differently, but it's not helpful to disparage those who see it differently than you do.

The fact that I chose not to become involved in the ongoing dispute is immaterial to my presenting evidence. I have watched the dispute over several months, and there is no rule that a person has to be actively involved in a dispute in order to present evidence in a case; in fact I often prefer outside views to party's views when reading cases, myself, because they often have a fresher, more objective perspective than those who are closer to the dispute. Woonpton (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Woonnpton, I was genuinely surprised to see your comments about Richard Gill, out of the blue so to speak. It is hard to see how a commentary with sections entitled, 'Richard Gill belittles other editors', 'Richard Gill engages in original research','Richard Gill promotes his own research on Wikipedia', and 'Richard Gill and COI' would not be construed as an attack. If this was not your intention then perhaps you should make this clear.

I do not believe that WP policy needs to be reliably enforced, in my opinion this is contrary to the spirit of WP. I think Richard adhered to the principles of avoiding a COI if not the letter. He was openly adding and discussing his own material in full view of the editors of a very active article. I consider this more akin to offering his views up for approval rather than promoting his own work. It is very different from adding your own work to a relatively quiet article in the hope that nobody will notice until it become established.

I was not complaining that you had commented, outside views are always welcome, more noting that you had decided not to join in the discussion despite appearing to have strong views on the subject. In the end it appears that we agree on many things, especially the benefit of having experts present. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Never before on an arbitration have I had to spend so much time (or any time for that matter) explaining that presenting evidence is not a personal attack. I've already tried to explain it three or four times, one directly above in this very thread, and I am getting tired of it. Presenting evidence about a particular editor does not constitute a personal attack; this is how arbitration works. If someone has concerns about the editing behavior of a party to an arbitration, this is how they are supposed to be framed: x does y, followed by diffs to support the assertion. I am tired of accusations along the lines of "You're attacking me" or "You're attacking my friend!" No, I'm simply presenting evidence in an arbitration case. The arbitrators will consider the evidence and use it or not use it in the final decision; it's fine with me either way. But this is how evidence is formatted (see top of the evidence page). Woonpton (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess not everyone is that experienced in arbitration cases. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In light of such inexperience, mayhaps you should re-read the arbitration guide. Your evidence section is heavy on content and low on evidence. Content is used to frame the dispute and should be background at best. I highly suggest following the templates. Its hard to find a better way to give the arb's evidence than the way they explicitly ask for it (and woopton's evidence IS following that method). 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Where are the Clerks?

This arbitration is already spinning out of control, with the content dispute that has been raging for three years moving to the "evidence" page in the form of dueling content positions back and forth. There are now seven "evidence" sections, but only two of them actually contain evidence; the rest are just statements of opinions, opinions that have been expressed hundreds of times on the article and talk pages (and one of these op-ed pieces is already going on 2000 words). One finds oneself having to respond to opinions instead of evidence, just as on the talk pages of the dispute where people's own opinions are argued instead of sources. The evidence page should be a place where evidence is presented and discussed, not a replay of the content war that has been going on forever. I think part of the problem is that parties are unfamiliar with the arbitration format/process, but that could be remedied with a little advice from the clerks. Where are the clerks? Send in the clerks.... Woonpton (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I half agree with you. This, I suspect, is a very unusual arbitration and maybe a slightly unusual approach is required. On the other hand I do think that the arbitrators in general should maybe propose a halt to addition of more opinion on the evidence page by editors who have already commented, or at least give some guidance. Maybe they plan to simply ignore opinion and look only at diffs but this would leave very little to arbitrate on and that is the problem, if this is just a conduct issue then it is far too trivial, in my opinion for arbcom.

I think the arbitrators will need to arbitrate on the editing process. Civility, no OR, and NPOV will not resolve this dispute. As the evidence draws to a close, I will propose my simple-first concept as a way to resolve it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take my chances with topic bans for every MHP editor that is shown to practice Gamesmanship, Wikilawyering, Ownership, Insist that only their OR POV is correct or that fail to AGF of other editors (even 'laymen'). The discussions and editing would be pretty straightforward then, as Wikipedia provided for, all along. Glkanter (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree about the uniqueness of this arbitration. Since I've edited mostly in fringe science areas I've seen a fair number of arbitrations (never been a party, but have sat through several as an observer and commenter) and I would say that rather than being unique, this is a fairly typical arbitration case: a situation where there is an intractable, longstanding content dispute, with incidentally one editor who is sometimes uncivil or rude in interacting with other editors. The case will be filed to deal with that one editor's conduct, and in most cases that I've seen, the case will end with that one editor being sanctioned and the underlying content dispute left to rage on unresolved, indeed unaddressed and unacknowledged. The Wikipedia dispute resolution system just simply isn't set up to deal with deeply entrenched content disputes; the assumption seems to be that once you eliminate the troublemaker, then the rest of the editors will be able to work out the content dispute easily and peacefully. This of course fails to recognize the nature of most content disputes. But ArbCom's remit does not permit them to address content disputes directly, so there we are. Woonpton (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Woonpton, I hope you are wrong and that the arbitrators find a way of resolving this dispute. I do not expect them to get involved in arguments about probability but there is a way that I believe this dispute can be resolved and which might be a useful principle in future disputes. How do you think this dispute would best be resolved? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Lemme get a little philosophical here. So the only likely outcome of all this is that I get sanctioned? And we pretty much knew that once the arbitration was accepted? In that case, I'm glad I didn't go for the 'here are my diffs' defense, and rather have tried to present my viewpoint using logic, common sense, the other involved editors' behaviour in the arbitration, and aggregated comments from other editors, all peppered with some meaningful diffs. Glkanter (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me; I was describing some prior experience from observing arbitration cases, but while this arbitration isn't unique in type, it's also not exactly like any other arbitrations in specifics; my careless comment above shouldn't be taken as a reliable prediction of how this arbitration will turn out, nor do I think the committee has decided on remedies before the evidence is in. In the other arbitrations I've watched where an uncivil editor was sanctioned, there wasn't much question about the incivility, the evidence was irrefutable. I personally think that an editor's content contributions should be considered during "sentencing" for such violations of civility, but I suspect I'm in the minority among Wikipedia editors on that issue. Anyway, my point is, please don't let that offhand comment keep you from presenting evidence if you have evidence to present, because the decision will be based on whatever evidence the arbitrators have in front of them to consider. Woonpton (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

response to Glkanter

Since there seem to be no arbitration clerks or arbitrators monitoring the case to respond to arbitration-related questions, I'll field this one:

Glkanter asks whether the arbitrators will consider the conduct of Rick Block as part of the arbitration, or whether Glkanter needs to "make countercharges against Rick Block." If Glkanter wants the conduct of Rick Block to be considered in the arbitration, he needs to present evidence, in the form of diffs, to support any assertions of misconduct. However, I will say, having just recently combed through all the interminable discussion pages, that in all that stuff I didn't see evidence of misconduct on Rick Block's part. However, maybe I just wasn't looking hard enough. But counter-charges aren't enough, you really have to back up those charges with diffs. The committee won't (or shouldn't, anyway) consider unsubstantiated charges; they need diffs. Woonpton (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response. I guess 'evidence' has a very strict definition in the world of Wikipedia. It seems you're suggesting, as you did previously on my talk page, that 'diffs' are the only acceptable form of evidence.

And you're probably right. But how do I show show the *absence* of diffs? Each time Nijdam (or Richard) over the course of 2+ years monopolized a talk page, including the mediation and this arbitration, with OR, and Rick Block, the admin, failed to respond? Or when Dicklyon mugged me on the MHP talk page, and only Martin would address Dicklyon's gross, unprovoked transgressions? Then Rick Block had the gall to turn that single incident into an RfC on me? I've provided the diffs for that.

Nijdam himself provided the proof that he ignores the AGF of other editors right in this arbitration, and I believe you provided a diff to a talk page example of the same. Never a peep out of admin Rick Block. But when Glkanter is perceived by Rick Block to have violated a policy, well, those diffs are everywhere. In fact, that's apparently the only issue of this arbitration. Kinda weird, no?

So far, 3 or 4 other editors have mentioned either directly, or described, Rick Block's ownership of the MHP. Doesn't that count for something? There's been much more posted on this arbitration indicating that the barrier to progress on the MHP article is Rick Block, and not Glkanter.

And I provided some diffs for the perverse ways Rick's favored POV have been used in the article to subvert the will of the other editors.

And, of course, when Rick Block attacked me personally in the mediation, well, for reasons still unclear to me, all those diffs have been deleted.

But, in the unexplained absence of official Wikipedia representatives in this arbitration, thank you very much for your thoughtful response. Glkanter (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment: I would urge you to be less angry at Rick Block for not taking action against people in the incidents you relate; the fact is that administrators are not allowed to use their administrative tools in content areas and/or disputes in which they have been involved as an editor or a disputant, and if he had done so, he could have been desysopped by the arbitration committee. It's too bad that there weren't other administrators watching, if administrative action needed to be taken, but it's unfair to blame RB for not acting, since as an involved administrator he really couldn't. It's unfortunate that no one has explained that to you before. Woonpton (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

[written before edit conflict]

In addition, Martin Hogbin's evidence shows, I believe at least 6 diffs where named editors have been directly foiled by Rick Block in their attempts to make edits to the article that Rick Block just couldn't support. Because all of those otherwise highly regarded, long time Wikipedia editors were suddenly struck dumb in regards to NPOV. At least as Rick Block sees it, anyways. Honestly, and this is *not* directed at you woonpton, isn't enough, enough? I mentioned this stuff in the now-disappeared mediation, and I was told to stop, my edits were reverted, and I was threatened with removal from the mediation unless I could follow the ground rules I had agreed to. It was more important, apparently, to have good ground rules following in the mediation than good faith editing. And people can't understand why the MHP mediation, just like the MHP talk pages, couldn't accomplish anything? Oh, brother. Glkanter (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

[written after edit conflict]

I'm only pointing out that Rick Block took many, many measures against me, countless warnings on my talk page, filing an RfC, filing this arbitration, whining to mediators about my posts, that he *never* once, not a single time did with Nijdam. Probably not Richard, either. Not because I was violating rules, but because no matter how many times he repeated his baseless arguments, I would respond in a manner that did not support his NPOV violating arguments and edits to *his* article.

I don't think I've displayed anger. Righteous indignation, perhaps. It's about time Rick Block was held accountable for his actions, and inactions. Glkanter (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Filing an RfC, filing an arbitration, having an opinion in mediation, warning other editors about infractions of policy, are not administrative actions; any editor can do the same. I feel your sense of injustice, but in order to demonstrate the injustice, you'd have to show that the behavior on the part of other editors in each case was as "bad" as the things you were warned for, and while that may be the case, it's a harder case to make. Everyone has their own opinions about whose behavior is disruptive and whose is not, and people aren't required to agree about this. And of course anything that happened in mediation cannot be an issue here. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Woonpton (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the beauty of Gamesmanship & Wikilawyering isn't it? At first, you don't realize it's happening to you. Then, to make other people recognize it, you have to say something about it. *But*, until you're proven 'right', you're prima facie guilty of personal attacks. Plus, everything in dispute resolution makes it clear that the complainer will *probably* be seen as the real offender. The ultimate Catch-22. Of course, why that rule of thumb (j'excuse/j'accuse) doesn't blatantly apply to Rick Block's filing of this frivolous arbitration against me escapes me. And why, unlike everything else on Wikipedia, are the mediation diffs unavailable? That makes zero sense to me.

But thank you for addressing these issues, and giving me the opportunity to express my concerns in a structured, (non-pontificating) manner. Glkanter (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note for anyone reading this: Glkanter's claim that I've never said anything about policy to Nijdam or Richard is not in the least accurate. Two examples that took all of 5 minutes to find: [1] [2] -- Rick Block (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

June, 2009 and an irrelevant diff? How about something just a *little* more current and relevant? Are you aware of a single instance of Nijdam referring to a reliable source without demeaning it? And how many times did you admonish him for this violation? How about the times when he wrote that he dismisses the views of certain other editors (woonpton provided that diff, and he says it right in this arbitration), clearly violating AGF? I know for a fact you mentioned that Nijdam refuses to respond to my comments, at least once, in an attempt to belittle me. I'll have to search for that diff. You never warned Nijdam [about the AGF expectation from all editors], as you so eagerly did me, anytime I challenged your dominion over all things MHP on Wikipedia. Glkanter (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm late to this conversation, but I would like to say that you will have a very hard time getting an admin sanctioned for not acting. Admins have the discretion to not use their tools and all their actions are still the actions of a volunteer. Its difficult to sanction someone for not volunteering. Its MISUSE of their tools which is what they can be sanctioned for. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrator

In response to some of the above, please note the following

1. Glkanter - your evidence is nearly 1500 words and needs to be reduced to 1000 or I'll have the clerks just chop it off at the 1000 word mark. Same goes for anyone else, so please check your word counts now and adjust accordingly.
2. Please post evidence. If you accuse someone of edit warring and post diffs it is evidence. If you just rant at them without diffs of specific breaches of policy, it is a personal attack and I will have the section collapsed or removed to the talkpage. Glkanter, I have done you the courtesy of asking about one section of your 'evidence' here, but it is up to all of you to make coherent statements. I'm not going to work it out for you.
3. Arbitration is not for content disputes, however the Arbitrators can examine whether what you put in an article is in keeping with the aims of the project. This means that it is possible that in some situations the question of whether the way the article is written is appropriate for the target audience of the project, may be relevant; particularly if it is linked to problematic behaviour to keep the article in an unsuitable format. The committee has not made a decision yet on whether this is the case here - I mention it because it has been raised by one of the parties.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification.

It seems if more than one editor can go up to 1,000 words to present the case that I'm problematic, like Rick Block and Dicklyon have the ability to do, then I might need more than 1,000 words to defend myself. But, you have your rules, which I abide by.

I have a strict policy of not self-censoring myself in terms of factual statements.

As far as the appropriateness of my 'defense', I understand your expectations, and have done my best to meet them.

Accordingly, I will not be reducing the size of, or otherwise revising, my Evidence section, and will (regretfully) accept the results of my decision. Glkanter (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick question: my understanding in the past has been that the evidence limit refers just to the evidence itself, and the responses can go beyond the limit, as long as they don't get out of hand. I don't see any rules about limits on responses, but since I've had to respond to some rather serious accusations about evidence, that weren't directly related to evidence but more to questioning my motives in presenting evidence at all, my responses have gone longer than I like. Last I checked, my evidence was well under 1000 words, but if that limit has to include responses, I'd be happy to move the responses to the talk page if that's acceptable. Thanks, Woonpton (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Another quick question - is the limit per major section ("Evidence presented by xxx")? I ask because with the combination of my two sections ("Some background" and the evidence I've presented concerning Glkanter) I'm over 1000 words. My question is does the "Some background" section count toward this limit? The background section is not exactly evidence, but I thought it would be useful. If someone could comment on this I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As the defendant in this arbitration, I'm curious why Rick Block thinks the rules of Wikipedia Arbitration should be applied differently to him than to anybody else. It doesn't surprise me, of course. That he would posit/suggest that his "Some background" section is *neutral*, and therefore 'exempt' from the rule is pretty funny. Well, it would be funny, except he's serious. This arbitration is probably (finally) the right venue for him to explain why he continues to expect such special treatment, and edits accordingly. Glkanter (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Followup from the other drafting Arbitrator

Keeping an eye on the evidence. I have to agree with Elen above that things have not gone quite the way we want so far, so in an effort to assist the parties, Here's three each do's and don'ts, that I've come up with. Call it "SirFozzie's rambling guide to being a party to an Arbitration Case".

DO's:

Brevity, wit. I must be still on the Shakespeare kick after the last case I worked on, but I feel compelled to bring up the Bard's famous quote from Hamlet: Brevity is the soul of wit. There's no need for rhetorical flourishes and long, meandering sentences filled with asides (trust me, it's something I struggle(d) with on both sides of the Arb fence). Be a word miser. There's no need for long paragraphs. Give us the facts. Keep it dry, factual and succinct. If you want to create an evidence subpage off your user page for background or additional thoughts, go right ahead and link it to your evidence statement, but keep actual evidence succinct. (Just note that more and more, we require folks to delete their evidence subpage or move it to the arb-page at the case's conclusion.)

ArbCom is ConDUCT, not ConTENT I said this about a year ago, and it only needs a minor tweak today. Here's why I don't think that ArbCom will ever willingly get dragged into deciding content. Usually in such heated disputes, there are experts on one or both sides. They have done the legwork, provided references that support their wording. They know just about everything there is to know about the area. And then you're asking 16 (note: now 18) men and women, to decide content that in some esoteric areas, they know NOTHING about. To mangle a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, we don't even know what we don't know! I'd much rather see if by identifying the bad actors in a topic area, the community can decide the content themselves Let's look at this another way: If ArbCom was going to willingly decide on Content, in the last ten months to a year, we'd have to collaboratively become near world-class experts (better than those who already post here) in the following categories: Transcendental Meditation, Climate Change, Race and Intelligence, World War II, Shakespeare, etcetera. Needless to say, that would be.. rather difficult. Save your words for things that ArbCom WILL consider(remember, you're on a 1,000 word budget here)

Maintain Composure. An Arbitration case can be viewed as a prism of the area in conflict. The drafting arbitrators look over this page constantly as we look toward writing our proposed decision, and our fellow arbitrators also keep an eye on ongoing cases, and review the whole area before voting on any proposed decision. If the Committee sees you at your worst during a time frame that requires your best behavior, how can they trust you to act to Wikipedia's norms and policies when the glare of the magnifying glass is NOT on you? I've been on the other side of the Arb-fence for several high-visibility cases, and I know how hard it can be (especially several weeks into a case). But it is necessary. See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Don't_moon_the_jury

DONT'S

No Did Not/Did Too's Again, you're limited to 1,000 words. Don't get caught up in using too much of it getting into arguments with other editors. Again: "Dry. Factual. Succinct.". If someone is making wild accusations, you don't need to counter that (unless asked to, of course). This generally falls under the Maintain Composure DO above and the old saw "Give a man enough rope, and he'll hang himself."

Do not wait till the last minute. Yes, all the evidence is reviewed before we write a decision. However, as we are monitoring the case frequently, you want to get your evidence in as quickly as possible. Why? Because it's quite possible that if an evidence page degenerates into further arguing, your evidence may be lost in the general chaos. We try our hardest to get the signal from the noise, or put another way, we try our hardest to separate the wheat from the chaff, but we're human. ((There's no truth to the rumor that Jimmy is looking to replace us with IBM's AI named Watson.)

Don't Make it Personal. This really details with Maintain Composure above, but.. sometimes parties need to be reminded that behind those words you see on the screen, is another human being. I've seen times where someone writes themselves INTO a ban (be it an interaction ban, a topic ban or even in extreme cases, a site ban) , just because they made it personal. Collaboration is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. We may sanction some people in a topic area, but I don't think we've ever banned EVERYONE in a topic area, (although the Climate Change case probably was the furthest the Committee has gone down that path). So, even if we apply sanctions in an area, you will still need to work with at least some of the editors in the topic area. This goes double for cases where the Committee enacts discretionary sanctions. So, don't make it personal, keep it cordial or at least collaborative.

Anyway, hope this helps the parties, and I'll stop here, before NYB comes after me for threatening his title as the "Longest-winded Arb" ;) SirFozzie (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the history of the MHP in and outside WP, the chances are good that this turns into (one of) the "longest winding arbitration" anyhow completely inpedent of your contribution :-)--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Formulation conducive to misunderstanding

In his evidence section, Nijdam wrote:

This whole dispute mainly concerns the refusal of in particular Martin Hogbin and Glkanter as active participants to understand or accept that what is called the simple solution, does not solve one important, not to say the most important, version of the MHP, what is called in this discussion "the conditional problem". Being a mathematical fact, Gill agrees, (User_talk:Gill110951#Why the unconditional solution is wrong), but for some reason wants to promote this simple solution by changing the description of the MHP.

This might give rise to the misunderstanding that it is claimed here that Gill agreed that "the conditional problem" may be considered to be "the most important version" of the MHP. From Gill's contributions (including the one referenced here), it is clear that that is not his point of view at all.

More in general, I feel that this statement misrepresents the issue. The disagreement is not whether the simple solution solves "the conditional problem" (unless also a symmetry argument is invoked, in which case it clearly does), but whether "the conditional problem" is such a particularly important version that the prominence Rick Block and Nijdam insist on giving it is appropriate.  --Lambiam 12:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no support for Nijdam's POV in the reliable sources literature. Certainly not from Selvin, who created the puzzle and first named it the 'Monty Hall problem', or from vos Savant. In fact, they each offer the simplest solutions of all, an unconditional table of all possible outcomes, to derive their 2/3 & 1/3 solutions. The editor/admin who requested this arbitration will disagree with me, and point to 5 specific 'critical' sources (he will also explain how I fail to properly understand Selvin's paper). During the formal mediation, using nothing more than the English language, I debunked 3 of those sources as 'critics' of the so-called simple solutions. I expect I would have debunked the other 2, but the mediation pages got disappeared. That same editor on many occasions has offered the unique interpretation that *every* source that gives a formal conditional solution was, by his definition, also a critic of the simple solutions. Even if they made no such criticism, or made no mention whatsoever of simple solutions in their paper. That's a doozy, no? Glkanter (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that your previous collection of diffs is gone (can't an admin undelete the page and copy the relevant bits to your user pages?), but instead of complaining about editor behaviour to me here, which is quite ineffectual, you should put relevant diffs of inappropriate behaviour (which can also be on talk pages) on the Evidence project page.  --Lambiam 23:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. There is something about 'the privileged nature of formal mediations' that required the deletion of the entire 14 month's worth of all the talk pages. I'm led to believe this is SOP. I've already exceeded my 1,000 characters on the evidence page. Thank you for your contributions to the arbitration. Glkanter (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

While We're All Here...

I am still reeling over the disappearing of all evidence of the MHP formal mediation.

As we went through mediator after mediator after mediator team after mediator team, we always started with The Ground Rules. One could only participate if one expressly agreed to abide by these Ground Rules. That would probably be the right point at which to inform the participants that unlike every other diff they ever post on Wikipedia, these most important diffs will be deleted without any notice or cause, save for the (probably unknown to the participant) 'privileged nature of formal mediation'. Glkanter (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard's Veiled Reference to Rosenthal's Paper & Glkanter's Interpretation In His 'OR Rampage' Section

Come on, Richard, that's not your style. Please provide the sentence(s) in question, a link, and anything else to put it in context (like his comment about how he 'callously ignored' some aspects of the traditional problem with his proprietary problem statement). What's the topic and purpose of his paper, anyways? Please, address these on this talk page, at least. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Glkanter, the arbitrators are interested in behaviour, not content. On the Evidence page I was defending, sorry, asking for some consideration of, my behaviour. I don't want to make complaints about any one else. We can all be arrogant bastards from time to time. "All's fair in love and war". I have some very annoying bad editing habits like constantly making small changes and then saving rather than previewing. (Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. Take the beam out of your own eye before the speck of dust in your brother's).

We have been through this particular issue on the talk pages endlessly, I don't care to bother the arbitrators with that here. Remember, Rosenthal confirmed the reading of his paper that he thinks the simple solution is wrong. Of course, in a particular context ... a particular context which will also be the context of many people coming to wikipedia - all those students in Nijdam's, Rosenthal's, Carlton's, Morgan and friends' Statistics 101 course!

If you do want to talk about that with me somewhere else, you know I'm always ready to jump into the fray. I wish you'ld understand my point of view that you weaken your own position when you use what are for many people evidently ludicrous arguments to support it, when that is not necessary at all: the good arguments are good enough. Richard Gill (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Experts on Wikipedia

@Woonpton [3]: I'm putting this here because I'm under the impression that the Evidence project page is not an appropriate discussion venue. I'll gladly concede a content dispute to someone who is so much more an expert in a particular field than I am, but that does not mean I give them a licence to ignore established Wikipedia policies, such as our verifiability policy. I would actually have thought that that would not need to be stated expressly. I was particularly thinking of several instances where said expert was in an unresolved dispute over the interpretation of statements in relevant articles that could serve as a reliable source. (Astronomer: Here, it says that the moon consists of minerals of silicon, aluminium, calcium, magnesium, and iron. Amateur: Aha, so it's made of mineral cheese.) However, concerning this particular expert editor, I also think the complaint of COI is overblown. And WP:COI is not a policy; it's a guideline that should be applied with common sense – something that is dearly lacking in this whole dispute.  --Lambiam 23:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough; it looks like a simple misunderstanding. You said you would concede to Gill on a content issue because of his expertise. Since the main focus of my evidence section is Gill's formulation of a novel synthesis and his efforts to use that synthesis to influence the content of the article, I assumed you meant you would support Gill's use of original research in writing the article. If you simply meant you would concede to Gill on his interpretation of a sources's meaning, I might agree with you, but if that is what you meant, maybe you should have said that. At any rate, that section of my evidence was about tone, not about whether he was right or not. Whether he was right or not is not the issue; even if he was right, it's not acceptable to belittle other editors, was my point. I hope we've cleared that up.

About COI, I'm not claiming or charging COI; I don't even have an opinion about COI here (other than that in my personal private opinion, his adding his paper to the article as a source was a problem, but I didn't include that in the COI section, in other words I'm not raising that or anything else as a COI issue in this case.) My COI section simply notes that Gill has claimed COI for himself (see diffs) for the last six weeks, saying that he shouldn't edit and would not be editing the article any more as a result of publishing this article. But he has continued to edit. I just find that discrepancy puzzling, is all. Woonpton (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It was indeed foolish of me. But I noticed that despite the mediation and arbitration other editors were also still hard at work on the paper. And on the talk pages we had discovered well sourced new solutions to the conditional problem which, in my opinion (shared by some other editors), go quite some way to de-fusing the conflict. Richard Gill (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My "new synthesis" was not new, by the way. It was well known to other experts and after some research could even be reliably sourced. It *was* new to the discussion here. Richard Gill (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As to my "papers", I filed them on arXiv.org under "mathematical recreation" and "mathematical humour", as well as under some serious key-words. If so many people think they shouldn't be referred to on the MHP page I don't see why they don't remove them. I will not put them back. So I assume someone else finds them useful references. Richard Gill (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the "new solutions to the conditional problem which, in my opinion (shared by some other editors), go quite some way to de-fusing the conflict," that assertion would carry a good deal more weight with me if I could see any evidence at all that the conflict has become defused during the months those "new solutions" have been hammered out on the talk pages (and it is original research, whatever spin is put on it; it was a previously unsourced synthesis). The conflict continues to be at impasse; at the time the request for arbitration was filed, the mediation had been stalled for some time; there has been no progress on the talk page for months or even years, and a glance at the talk page today shows no sudden leap toward a peaceful resolution. See this discussion from the last few days, and this one from today.

I assume good faith on Gill's part; I'm sure his intention was to provide a solution that would defuse the conflict, but I don't see any evidence that it has had this effect. And while removing one or more editors might remove one or more obstacles, it wouldn't solve the underlying conflict; to my mind the best hope for resolving the conflict would come from all editors abjuring original research and synthesis, and strictly sticking to sources. My goal in providing evidence was not to get any person banned or sanctioned, but for a sharp reminder to all editors, at least, or maybe an article probation enforcing the use of sources rather than original research both in editing the article itself and in talk page discussions. I'm not entirely sure it's within ArbCom's remit to do that, but I personally think that is the best direction to take in resolving the conflict. This isn't personal; I have had no encounters with Richard Gill before he posted a link to some of his work on my talk page just before the arbitration began (or with any other parties in the conflict, other than related to this arbitration) and have no animosity against anyone. I'm just trying to offer a solution to a conflict that otherwise seems utterly intractable. Woonpton (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Actually, quite a few editors did like the things I found (and sourced). It's only the editors with an inflexible point of view (e.g. only one kind of solution is right; or, there is a huge difference between the two kinds of solution) who don't like these. Every time I find a formal mathematical version of Glkanter's informal solution in the peer reviewed literature, Glkanter accuses me of O.R. And when I say that the sentence in a paper by a mathematical colleague which he clings onto to support his extreme point of view, actually means something else from what he thinks (and every single other editor agrees with me!) he accuses me again of O.R. and faulty E.S.P. and behaving like a High Priest of a bad religion. I actually fully support his aim to show (with sources) that MHP can be fully solved with logic, no need for formal probability calculus. And I show that it can be done and that it has been done (with sources). O.R.!!! Of course the conditional diehards don't like this either. But he too, like everyone I believe, is acting in good faith. Richard Gill (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not recognize the Glkanter you are describing above. I have *no* idea what 'formal mathematical version of Glkanter's informal solution' you're referring to. Glkanter doesn't have a simple solution. The sources have simple solutions. I've complained about min/max, game theory, opyimal solution, etc all being OR and not relevant to the front of the article. I asked you to fully document the Rosenthal conflict on these pages if you were going to bring it up, instead you do this 'drive by shooting' smear. My 'extreme point of view'? That there is no significant minority viewpoint in the literature criticizing the simple conditional solutions? And that this being the focal point of the current article is therefore inappropriate? I thought you agreed with that yesterday, starting here. Please, tell me who (Morgan? oh, brother), and what they say. You amaze me more and more each day with your fictions, Oh Greatest Of High Priests. How was your vacation? Glkanter (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. All that OR, arguing the math, creating special pages for arguing the math, and other inapplicable stuff just pollutes the airways, suffocating anything of value. fyi, I raised this exact issue regarding Richard and one of his endless (literally more than 1 screen in length) diffs about min/max or optimal solutions or game theory or who knows what with one of the mediator teams. The guy that responded said something like, 'well, I'm sure he could find sources'. And as I've mentioned before, my complaints of Gamesmanship, etc were rebuked with "against the ground rules, bring it up again and you're out of the mediation". You can still see that one on my talk page.

Outlaw the already inappropriate OR, eliminate the offenders as needed and deserved, make everybody stick to the actual English words in the sources rather than esp and non-logic, end the gamesmanship & stuff, allow some editors to clean up the blatant NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT and OR violations without fear of instant reverts, and maybe some previous interested editors will come back. In short, assure that Wikipedia's interests are being followed, rather than being co-opted, as they have been. Glkanter (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There Is One Measurement Where Rick Block Is The *Least* Ownership Wikipedian Of All

That would be in the number of other Wikipedia editors to whom he has 'emphatically denied' that he is *not* guilty of ownership. Over the span of nearly 6 years, Rick Block has explained many, many times that despite what the editor might believe, Rick Block is *not* acting like an owner.

On Feb 11, 2009, Rick Block wrote this on his own talk page after posting a help request from the subject matter experts:

"There's a current crowd (Glkanter is one of them) unhappy with the Morgan et al. approach who want it removed, commenting on the talk page to gain consensus for their desired change. I guess rather than convince them I could just let them know they will never gain consensus for this change. -- Rick Block (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)"

"...commenting on the talk page to gain consensus for their desired change." Can you believe the audacity of those other editors? But read the whole diff for yourself, there's some classic stuff there.

Still on Feb 11, 2009, here's where Rick Block explains his personal 'style' of controlling the discussions:

"I generally treat the talk page of the Monty Hall problem as a sort of "virtual office hours". My intent is to respond to any and all posts in a friendly and welcoming manner, in much the same way as you presumably respond to students who drop by during your office hours. From a Wikipedia perspective, I treat this page somewhat more like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics than a normal article's talk page."

Here's the link Rick Block just included in his evidence where I try to follow Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution on Feb 13, 2009.

Here's his 'emphatical denial' to me on Feb 13, 2009.

"I emphatically deny that there is an ownership issue. I have never claimed I own this article, have never edit warred over content, and, if you check the history you'll see numerous editors have contributed content. I have done my level best over many days now to help you understand why the change you seek won't happen."

Still on Feb 13, 2009, an anon joins in.

"Hold your horses. "I have done my level best over many days now to help you understand why the change you seek won't happen" This to me implies that "Rick block" acctually belived that he can determine what changes should be made !!!!"

I happened to come across this diff on Feb 14, 2009. Here's where he mentions that the sources, not the math are what count:

"Arguing that what these papers say is wrong in a mathematical sense has no bearing on whether the content should be included or not. If you would like to discuss the points they make, please post at /Arguments or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics."

Seems that message never got conveyed to his buddy, Nijdam. Glkanter (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

1000 words

Gentlemen, your primary statement of evidence must be no more than 1000 words. It must include specific diffs if you are making accusations of behaviour. Rebuttal responses are not normally included in the 1000 words, but must be short. Since the evidence section is not for threaded discussion, any to-ing and fro-ing will just be removed and dumped on the talk page.

You should note that the Arbitration committee will not consider which mathematical proofs are correct, or arguments about which source is reliable/not reliable. The focus of an RfAR is on the behaviour of the individuals concerned - personal attacks, edit warring etc, and whether their actions are posing a threat to the generation of good content.

You should note that our clerks have advised me that neither will be available over this weekend, therefore I will be in charge of the shop. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved section from Glkanter's evidence

This section appears not to be evidence but some sort of comment on the Arbitration process and you are over on word count.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

The 'This Arbitration Is Not About Content' Paradox I suppose that's the case. Please bear in mind that the article's content has been my *only* concern regarding the Wikipedia MHP article for over 2 years. So, when you read the diffs that Rick Block linked to, please bear in mind that I am trying to use reliable sources, Wikipedia policies, logic, and common sense in order to persuade other editors to agree with my editing goals. Since my second day on the MHP talk pages, I was pretty certain that Rick Block's intentions for the article, and later on, Nijdam's, were not consistent with Wikipedia's expectations. And like I wrote in my 'Conventional Wisdom' section, I had no idea how to make 'Wikipedia' aware of this bifurcation. Well, I guess that's how we ended up here now. Glkanter (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed section from Nijdam's evidence

Nijdam, you were right. It wasn't the right place to put it. I have left the section on sources.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

Versions Although I'm not sure whether this is the appropriate place, I take the opportunity to explain about the versions of the MHP and the solutions. Conditional formulation (F0) A player is standing on stage in front of three doors, numbered 1, 2 and 3. A car has been placed behind one of these doors, and the player may have what is behind the door of her choice. She points to door 1 as her first choice and before she opens it, door 3 is opened by the host, showing a goat. Then the host offers the player to change her choice. It is common to assume that the car is placed randomly, the choice of the player is independent of the position of the car, the host always shows a goat and when the host has a choice he chooses randomly. Unconditional formulation (F1) A player is standing on stage in front of three doors, numbered 1, 2 and 3. A car has been placed behind one of these doors, and the player may have what is behind the door of her choice. The rules of the game are explained to her, i.e. She may choose a door and have what is behind it, and before she will open it, the host will open one of the two remaining doors, showing a goat and offering her to change her decision It is common to assume that the car is placed randomly. Before the player makes her first choice, the audience, unaware of the position of the car, is asked whether the player will have to stick to her first choice or must switch. Conditional solution (S0) The player calculates the conditional probability that the car is behind door 1, the door of her first choice. It turns out to be 1/3. Alternatively she may calculate the conditional probability that the car is behind door 2. It turns out to be 2/3. (As the conditional probability for door 3 is 0, the conditional probabilities for door 1 and door 2 are of course complementary.) Unconditional solution (S1) As the car is placed randomly the car is with probability 1/3 behind the door the player will choose. Hence on the average by switching a player will get the car 2/3 of the times. This solution is also referred to as the simple solution. Simple conditional solution (S2) Due to the obvious symmetry in the problem (NB we have to explain the standard assumptions before), the probability for the chosen door 1 to hide the car has the same value 1/3 before the player makes her choice and after the host has opened door 3. Hence at the moment of decision the remaining door 2 has probability 1-1/3=2/3 to hide the car. Nijdam (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Fact is that F0 is solved by S0, and F1 is solved by S1. And what is important: F0 is not solved by S1, and it is a serious logical error to consider S1 to be a solution to F0. Yet several sources, although mostly the non-academic, more popular ones, and also some participants in the discussion, want the article to at least start stating S1 as a simple but sound solution to F0, and not allow other editors to immediately mention the criticism on it. I suggested a kind of compromise (User_talk:Martin Hogbin#New Example, subsection Acceptable formulatio, what seemingly has been moved by Hogbin to User_talk:Martin Hogbin#Monty Hall discussion,), in introducing solution S2, which may be called "simple conditional solution". It is a correct solution (explanation) of F0. It shows in a more intuitive manner, why the required conditional probability is 2/3. But id didn't lead to the desired consensus. Nijdam (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed section from Martin Hogbin's evidence

You are 700+ words over your word count. I have removed this extended discussion of what the article should look like to here.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Since it seems that the main purpose of this arbitration is to encourage us to make attacks on other editors rather than find ways to work together, I have removed most of the material aimed at finding a way forward to here. I will concentrate on the page ownership issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

What this argument is really about This argument is really about a difference in opinion regarding the strict validity of the simple solutions, as given in the article. One side believes that the simple solutions are incomplete or do not answer the question asked. The other side believes that they are perfectly satisfactory. Everything else is maneuvering, wikilawyering, and posturing to promote one view or another. The point of contention is really quite a minor one. For about ten years after vos Savant published her correct answer, nobody noticed the claimed error in her answer until Morgan et al published their paper on the subject. One has to ask whether the average reader is likely to spot this minor objection to the simple solutions. given that no one spotted it for ten years [Rick's correction accepted. I always thought there was a ten year gap I should have checked]. What this argument should be about The only reason that we have an article on the Monty Hall problem and not 'Question 12b in Joe Soap's Book of Statistics' is that the MHP is notable because vos Savant, who got the correct answer of 2/3, got thousands of letters telling her that she was wrong and that the answer is really 1/2. As the lead to the article says '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', and as Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini says '... no other statistical puzzle comes so close to fooling all the people all the time" and "that even Nobel physicists systematically give the wrong answer, and that they insist on it, and they are ready to berate in print those who propose the right answer'. This is why we have an article at all, and it is principally what the article should address. I accept that variations, extensions, and mathematical niceties do have a place in this article but that they should be secondary to giving clear and convincing explanations of the main problem. We should not do anything that reduces the clarity of the article to the non-expert reader. There are two things that people find hard to accept and understand. 1) That the answer (the probability that the player will win the car by switching) is 2/3 and not 1/2 2) That it matters that the host knows where the car is (and that he is therefore able to always open a door to reveal a goat). Above all else we should be trying to find the best ways to explain these facts to our readers. This is how the article is structured now Shortly before the mediation I moved the 'Aids to understanding' section to immediately follow the 'Simple solutions' section because it only actually refers to simple solutions. Rick and Nijdam reverted my change and I reverted their reversions [corrected as per Rick's reply, I wrote from memory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)] as I considered that it represented a clear majority of editors at the time, only Rick and Nijdam objected. The article was then locked and has remained in that format ever since. Rick has since complained that this is a 'structural bias' I believe that all editors except Rick and Nijdam still agree with the simple-first format. Even Kmhkmh who generally supported the conditional solutions said he would be happy with this. Why NPOV and No OR is not the solution Just like having God on your side in a war, both sides claim that standard WP policy supports them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC) The way forward The way forwards is to remember that we are writing an encyclopedia article for a wide range of readers not a literature review or a discussion document. The majority of readers will have no interest whatever in the detail that we have been arguing about, they will just want to know the right answer and understand why this answer is correct and why it matters that the host knows where the car is. A few readers may be interested in rigourous solutions, variations, and alternative ways of tackling the problem. The article should cater for them also. Do what they do in most good text books and encyclopedia articles Most good text books, especially those intended for a range of readers, follow a simple rule - first have a simple exposition of the subject explaining the basics in as clear a way as possible, if necessary glossing over minor technical issues, then follow that with a more detailed discussion. Here we should do just the same. First we should have a number of clear, simple, and convincing solutions to the problem, without let or hindrance, health warnings or suggestions that they are incomplete or do not answer the question. Nobody wants to work their way through one of the world's hardest simple brain teasers only to be told that the solution is wrong. Although not everybody agrees, the simple solutions are arguably correct. Following that we should have further explanation of the simple solutions to help the readers who still may not be convinced. Remember, '... no other statistical puzzle comes so close to fooling all the people all the time'. After that we should have a scholarly and balanced discussion of the role of conditional probability including Morgan's paper and its criticism and alternative approaches, such as that of game theory, as proposed by Richard. Why simple-first? It is what most good text books and encyclopedia articles do. It does not support one view over the other. It makes the article accessible to a wide range of readers. It promotes cooperative editing. The disagreement no longer exists. The last paragraph of this diff neatly summarises what I propose [4] Here is more support for this idea [5] Rick Rick has made many contributions to this article and has shepherded it through a number of FARs. He has, along with myself and others, reverted regular vandalism and misplaced good-faith edits by those who clearly do not understand the problem properly. I do believe, however that he has exerted a degree of page ownership that has prevented progress. If he would just allow the simple solutions to be presented completely and fully, with an explanatory section, we would not have that much to fight about. There is an issue regarding host choice and the correct application of conditional probability but first we need to explain the solution in a way that most people can understand (even if this does not meed the highest standards of mathematical rigour). Nijdam Nijdam is an academic with specialism in this subject and I fully understand his position. Were the simple solutions to be given by one of his students in a statistics examination, he would not give them full marks because they neglected to address the effect that host bias might have on the outcome. My point is simply this, This is not a statistics exam. If Nijdam were to allow just a little licence in the first part of the article we could all work together in explaining exactly what the weakness is in the simple solutions and maybe discuss just how important this is.

I'd Rather That The "Sources" Table Was *Not* Collapsed

I'm sure you have your reasons, but the section loses any impact it would otherwise have. I could certainly be wrong, but my guess is that it has effectively been deleted. Not to my preference, obviously. Glkanter (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Please adhere to the instructions and the word limits. If you wish to include tables and diagrams, please place them on a page in your userspace and link to them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on the conversation we had been having, I did *not * expect that bulk deletion from a 3rd party. I guess I misunderstood what 'responses' included. Maybe all those opposing MHP editors *are* right, I'm just a dumbass that can't understand English. Glkanter (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You were warned three days ago that this might happen. Everyone else has managed to adjust their evidence to fit within the space allowed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you suggested I re-edit in order to make clear the 'responses to other editors' from the original evidence. Which I did. I received no feedback saying they were miscatagorized and would be immediately deleted. Glkanter (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I gotta be honest with you. With the mediation stuff not being available, the visual aid being collapsed, and that bulk deletion, I'm not sure you guys really want my input to this arbitration. If you guys want to gather information on the causes of the interminable stalemate and it's solutions, it would seem that restricting me to 1,000 words is pretty limiting when trying to describe 2+ years, and the allegations I've made.

Rather than being a continual thorn to these proceedings, perhaps I should consider other options. If Rick Block & Nijdam have been right all along as per you guys, I'll accept that. But I will not knowingly or willfully be a party to some charade. Glkanter (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not add the tables, do not add the diagrams (put them in userspace and link to them). Do not ramble. Be specific. If Rick reverts all edits, or Richard always adds tons of math notation, or Martin resolutely moves the text about, or Nidjam regularly calls you one of those with knobs on - post diffs showing them doing it. At the moment, you've shown us a lot of stuff about how to solve this maths problem, and a lot of un-evidenced rants about various editors. You've done some of it above, under that bizarre heading about Rick and ownership. Write it up in the evidence section. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement. I have communicated as clearly and thoroughly in the arbitration and to you on this page as I am capable of doing. I have completed my evidence, and I have completed my complaining. Please take whatever actions are necessary to move the arbitration forward as per policy. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(Aside: Richard wants to *remove* tons of math notation. He argued that a huge passage was superfluous since it duplicates what is on another page (MHP as an illustration of Bayes theorem) and does not add any insight whatsover on MHP: it could be considered useful for those struggling to learn formal probability calculus and the proof of Bayes' theorem. Many editors agreed. He removed it. A small group of long time editors on the page screamed blue murder. It was put back. He later noticed that it was actually full of gobbeldygook. Presumably no one had actually ever read it carefully, for years. He corrected the notation and again the self-appointed proprietors screamed blue murder. This was one of the few occasions where Nijdam and he agreed: *if* you are going to fill the MHP page with formal mathematics you had better at least do it right. Richard Gill (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC) )

There's some basic principle in here about audience, and not being a university textbook, and not deriving things from first principles on the page.....maybe if we can find one that everyone would sign up to, it would answer the question as to whether all that maths should be there. And just to reassure you - I didn't pick richard adding math notation (or indeed any of them) as an accusation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Trouble is there are two audiences: statistics students who are learning Bayes' theorem, and average folk who got into a discussion at a bar. There are similarly two literatures, two groups of wikipedia editors. There are also several different ways to think about probability. I'm on the point of going on vacation but keep trying to come up with some constructive principles. I think 2/3 of the article should be popular and 1/3 academic. I think the first 2/3 should be popular. Richard Gill (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone ever suggested creating Advanced probability theory and the Monty Hall problem or some such? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A fork was attempted once, in the other direction, but it failed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to the Monty Hall Problem. Perhaps it could have been done better by explicitly recognizing that "The" Monty Hall problem is really two problems, a combinatorial problem in which probabilities are symmetrical with respect to distinctions introduced by "say" in vos Savant's statement of the problem, and a game-theoretic problem in which the distribution of Monty's choices is an independent variable. This really ought to be doable in a single article if contributors could only get a grip on NPOV. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

MHP is a featured article, so what's the problem

Here's what I don't get. Monty Hall problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has acquired featured article status and looks like a polished, soundly-sourced piece of prose. So something has obviously went right. Yet on the talk page, we have a vociferous dispute over the mathematics of the problem. My question is: if there is so much disagreement over how to best cover the MHP, how did this article ever get to FA?

I think the answer is: that it got to FA because it's fine as it is. This is a problem over which there is much real-life disagreement: many sources conflict. So long as the major viewpoints over what the maths of the MHP is are covered, all this bickering is largely unnecessary. AGK [•] 13:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am disheartened by your asessment and conclusion above, and find it inconsistant with your previous comment regarding the abscence of good faith discussions. I could not disagree more. My reasons are well known to you and the other participants. Glkanter (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the version as of the last FAR [6]. Here's the current version [7]. Better, or worse? As far as what the bickering is about, see [8]. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed a good question and imho after arbitration is completed the featured aricle status should be reviewed again, making sure that the latest version (potentially significantly different from the old featured version) is reviewed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Timeline for Evidence, Proposed Decision

Hi Folks, just to keep folks aware of the timeline and deadlines in this case:

I've just had a preliminary discussion with Elen on this, and we've decided to set a deadline of Tuesday, March 1 for evidence submissions. That gives us the better part of a week to write up our proposed decision, to hopefully be posted over that weekend. We'd like to have all evidence posted by then.. also, please make sure your evidence is focused on ConDUCT, not ConTENT. As Elen and I have both stated in the past, we are not going to be ruling on content, so evidence focusing on content is not useful to us in making our proposed decision.

If parties feel there are important underlying Wikipedia principles/policies, or have suggestions about how the editing atmosphere could be improved, or how people could behave differently to encourage reaching a consensus ON WHAT GOES IN THE ARTICLE (not on what's the solution to the MHP - we are not going to make any comment on that), then please use the workshop section to make these. SirFozzie (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? You're going to make us all suffer through another week of:

• One editor's repeated proclamations of "The Truth"
• Rick Block's [the admin/editor who filed the request for this arbitration against Glkanter], ironic, amazingly poorly-veiled "Gamesmanship?

<sigh> Glkanter (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I Understand The Arbitration Committee's Frustrations With Glkanter

So, if anybody wants to educate me on how I should have handled things better in October, 2008 when I first encountered what has now been described as something that "stopped being a good-faith content dispute a long time ago" by a member of the arbitration committee, I would appreciate it.

In the meantime, please recognize that I would have rather fixed the article 2+ years ago, gotten on with life, and never bothered all you good people. But that's not how it happened. And that does *not* make me a bad guy. Glkanter (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note, back in the day I sent up a few trial balloons to see if I could get a 2nd editor for an RfC. No such editor was ever forthcoming. Glkanter (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The frustration is entirely to do with the manner of your presentation of evidence, and is not a reflection of your behaviour elsewhere (or any allegations thereof).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that I know my contributions here are problematic. My question is, how could we have avoided all this? Glkanter (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How's about you 'Not about content' guys not discuss content?

There's only 1 MHP. You're believing the gamesmanship. Glkanter (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The above comment might be more comprehensible were it posted in the thread it's responding to, but I find myself in agreement with the general sentiment. Suggestions by arbitrators intended to help resolve the content dispute can give the appearance of (inadvertently) taking sides in the content dispute, which I'm sure arbitrators would wish to avoid. Woonpton (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That 'There is only one MHP paradox in the literature' is made abundantly clear my the table I present in my evidence. Well, it *would* be abundantly clear if the table hadn't been collapsed against my wishes. No link, as I'm on my phone. Glkanter (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)