Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & NuclearWarfare (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: David Fuchs (Talk) & Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Talk)

Response to Evidence presented by Kehrli

Jargon - As Nick Y. indicates in his evidence, Kehrli's evidence section is an additional indication of his perceived conflict between chemistry and metrology and is another appeal to the authority of the metrology guidelines document VIM. IUPAC mass "nowhere properly defined" simply indicates that its meaning is not described in a manner consistent with Kehrli's interpretation of these guidelines documents.

Source - Proper sourcing is here again defined as "consistent with Kehrli's interpretation of general metrology documents." Seventeen primary and twelve secondary sources were described in informal mediation [1], but Kehrli does not consider these sources proper. This is not consistent with WP:PSTS and continued advocation of this position is disruptive.

Not understandable - This is another indication of Kehrli's perceived conflict between chemistry and metrology. WP:TECHNICAL does not advocate weighting sources based on their understandability. This goes back to the 2006 arbitration case [2]: "The scientific notation used by the bulk of contemporary experts in a field is the preferred usage." The article should be sourced with proper weight and understandable.

Biased writing - This is another appeal to the authority of metrology guidelines documents. WP:POV rests on WP:WEIGHT and WP:SOURCE. This was discussed at length in informal mediation.

Kmurray provokes Disputes - It is not true that "Kmurray has renamed the article under dispute without any prior discussion about this renaming." The article was not under dispute and it was not renamed without discussion. The chronology of the original article renaming was January 17, 2010, PROD and dePROD by User:Glenfarclas with the edit summary comment "Remove PROD, I guess the Kendrick mass scale exists, but it's not generally called the 'Kendrick unit'" [3] ; January 25, 2010, Kendrick unit moved to Kendrick mass by Kkmurray with the edit summary comment "moved Kendrick unit to Kendrick mass: There is no 'Kendrick unit' to be found in the literature - it appears to be WP:OR - Kendrick mass is used as defined in the article" [4] . Seven months later IP User:85.5.41.238 (possibly Kehrli) reverted the article with the comment "the Kendrik mass scale does imply a unit" [5]. Kkmurray reverted the IP editor with the comment "Discuss before deleting refs please" (several refs were lost in the edits) [6]. Kehrli then edited the redirect Kendrick (unit), initiating the content fork [[7]]. Kkmurray added merge tags to Kendrick mass [8] and OR [9] and merge tags [10] to Kendrick (unit). Kehrli removed the OR [11] and merge tags [12]. This was mid-October 2010. Concurrently (September 24-27, 2010) Kkmurray requested comments from WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Mass spectrometry [13] [14] [15] and October 17, 2010, opened RfC [16]

Unproven accusations - My evidence was presented with diffs and can be judged on its merits. I don't think that I have had any lapses of good faith during the dispute resolution process, but if Kehrli would provide diffs, I could address any that he sees.

Technical questions - This is largely rehashing content issues that were covered at length in informal mediation. The particular assumption that leads Kehrli to believe that chemists are "redefining a unit" (they aren't) was pointed out.

Other issues - I think that it is clear from the informal mediation discussion that Kehrli was not willing to build consensus through information mediation that ultimately failed due to "I didn't hear that" and "refusal to get the point" arguments.[17]

Organizations that support my terminology - Additional appeal to general metrology sources that do not Kendrick mass or Kendrick unit.

Scientific papers that support my terminology - This was discussed in informal mediation. Even with the most generous interpretation of the sources, the "Kendrick unit" view is in the minority.

Scientific papers that contradict Kmurray's terminology - This was discussed in informal mediation.

Problems with the terminology by Kmurray - Kehrli is using the no true Scotsman argument here. As in mediation, he has asked for definitions of Kendrick mass and IUPAC mass and when they are supplied, the definitions are not "proper" and the sources invalid. This is another example of tendentious editing.

The big picture - False dichotomy of chemistry vs. metrology again.

The case - It is true that Kehrli has not edited as aggressively in this case as in the 2006 case, but he has still been disruptive.

Conclusion - If Kehrli has any evidence to suggest improper behavior on my part, he should provide it.

--Kkmurray (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Improper behavior of Kmurray

Kmurray asks for evidence of improper behavior. I have given this evidence many times before. I can do it again:

No good faith

In WP:Discussion it says:

Disputes or grievances should always be reacted to in the first instance by approaching, in good faith, the editor or editors concerned and explaining what you find objectionable and why you think so.

Improper behavior: Kmurray has renamed the article under dispute without approaching the editor (me) and without any prior discussion about this renaming. There by he has started this case. Kehrli (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not defined, not sourced

The term "IUPAC mass" does not have a definition that is sourced from ANY literature. Kmurray tries to make you believe that it is only not sourced in the metrology literature. This is not true. He has no source at all. Kehrli (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Kehrli has ignored the findings of previous arbitration - recent edits

Adding to the evidence presented by Nick Y., Kehrli today restored POV content to Thomson (unit) [18] and mass-to-charge ratio [19]. These were the articles Kehrli was banned from editing in the 2006 arbitration [20]. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted edits that were added by the "inventor" of the Thomson unit and that he personally added to the article because Kmurray distorted his proposal. Kehrli (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)