(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
Personally I am not complaining about anyone's behaviour. I am not sure - in view of my own publications and qualifications - whether I should be talking here at all. In my opinion a tremendous amount of progress has already been made towards mutual understanding. [[User:Gill110951|Richard Gill]] ([[User talk:Gill110951|talk]]) 15:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
Personally I am not complaining about anyone's behaviour. I am not sure - in view of my own publications and qualifications - whether I should be talking here at all. In my opinion a tremendous amount of progress has already been made towards mutual understanding. [[User:Gill110951|Richard Gill]] ([[User talk:Gill110951|talk]]) 15:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
==Evidence presented by Outside Observer Woonpton== |
|||
I was surprised when the committee voted to accept the case so quickly and decisively, since it looks like a content dispute to me, or rather several content disputes, between different groups of editors. One thing that's not disputed that I think should be: the arbitrary separation of solutions into "simple" vs "conditional." If that arbitrary and unnecessary division were undone, it would solve |
|||
many of the present content disputes, IMO. Since content issues aren't of interest to ArbCom, that's the last I'll say about content. |
|||
===Original Research: A Case Study=== |
|||
The ultimate cause of the breakdown of collaborative editing on the article, IMO, is that the reliance on reliable sources seems to have been largely abandoned in favor of original research and everyone arguing the merits of their favorite explanation or solution rather than summarizing secondary sources. This problem isn't limited to one editor, but Richard Gill's original research has been especially disruptive to the article. |
|||
Richard Gill is a professor of mathematics who while editing MHP has developed an original synthesis related to the topic; two papers elucidating this synthesis have been published. I am a statistician, and I don't find Dr. Gill's formulation compelling, necessary, or useful for the description and explanation of the Monty Hall problem for the Wikipedia audience; it seems to me an awkward solution to a nonexistent problem. Were I to write a synthesis of the same material, my synthesis would look very different. That's why we use existing secondary independent sources rather than publishing original research. |
|||
===Richard Gill belittles other editors=== |
|||
Gill considers himself a better judge of the topic literature than other editors who didn't have the same training [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=401245735&oldid=401245151][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=400710939&oldid=400710689][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=400636807&oldid=400575349][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARick_Block&action=historysubmit&diff=379394051&oldid=379227647] especially when there were differing interpretations of what a source means [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=400547846&oldid=400542511] even to the point of confidently revising an assertion in a source to match what he was sure the source meant [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonty_Hall_problem&action=historysubmit&diff=413860463&oldid=413859989][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonty_Hall_problem&action=historysubmit&diff=413475040&oldid=413474662][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=402146048&oldid=402144108]. |
|||
===Richard Gill engages in original research=== |
|||
Gill commented that "the majority of wiki-reliable sources are written by fools" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGlkanter&action=historysubmit&diff=379396182&oldid=379084718] and said that since sources don't say what he wanted to say, he would need to write his own sources [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARick_Block&action=historysubmit&diff=413074895&oldid=413070135] |
|||
*OK I have to find reliable sources for all this, and if I fail, I'll have to write one myself.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonty_Hall_problem&action=historysubmit&diff=386278175&oldid=386180018] |
|||
He defended his developing original synthesis and his idea of Truth: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=410209732&oldid=410198276][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonty_Hall_problem&action=historysubmit&diff=386056048&oldid=386043555] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARick_Block&action=historysubmit&diff=386506081&oldid=386478821]. |
|||
When other editors have tried to make him aware of the necessity for relying on reliable sources rather than original research [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=402572518&oldid=402539744][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWoonpton&action=historysubmit&diff=413914588&oldid=413844282] |
|||
* ...no matter how brilliantly insightful it may be we simply cannot present an argument that is fundamentally novel [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARick_Block&action=historysubmit&diff=379227647&oldid=379192122] |
|||
he has responded rudely, with disdain for Wikipedia policy, one example: |
|||
*I think that the legalistic approach to resolving disputes on wikipedia by invoking OR, NPOV, etc. is disgusting and/or chiildish.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=402176032&oldid=402172153]) |
|||
===Richard Gill promotes his own research on Wikipedia=== |
|||
He posted links and notices of his papers to users' talk pages and discussion pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWoonpton&action=historysubmit&diff=413823839&oldid=404053822][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARick_Block&action=historysubmit&diff=413271656&oldid=413074895][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonty_Hall_problem%2FArguments&action=historysubmit&diff=408072721&oldid=407272682]and boasts of the originality and importance of the publications: |
|||
* Those papers do contain the absolutely latest word in comprehensive and unprejudiced mathematical analysis of MHP, offering a sythesis which has never been seen before)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=406923060&oldid=406899225]. |
|||
* It's all written out in Gill (2011) I'm already getting fan-mail from colleagues all over the world for my fresh and refreshing take on MHP...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMartin_Hogbin&action=historysubmit&diff=405853386&oldid=405850492] |
|||
*All your problems are solved. As of about today, [[WP:RS]] Gill (2011 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGlkanter&action=historysubmit&diff=407519822&oldid=407516230] |
|||
*Still no conditionalist has taken the trouble to explain why you *ought* to condition. Only I did, in my recent papers. That is to say: I presented the argument which the conditionalists should have given straight away.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=401816929&oldid=401815717] |
|||
*I recall people complaining there was no reliable source doing it that way. Well, now there is. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMartin_Hogbin%2FMonty_Hall_discussion&action=historysubmit&diff=410384605&oldid=410356815] |
|||
*At least no stupid editor can now prevent a less stupid editor from using this "Truth" in the future, on the pretext that it is not written up explicitly in some "reliable source"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWoonpton&action=historysubmit&diff=414075468&oldid=414013720]. |
|||
These diffs seem to contradict the assertion above ''Obviously I am cautious about creating any suggestion that I might be promoting my own work here.'' |
|||
Also, he was the one who added his papers as sources to the Wikipedia article. |
|||
In addition he has hounded other editors about reading his papers:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMartin_Hogbin&action=historysubmit&diff=407304017&oldid=407303245][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMartin_Hogbin%2FMonty_Hall_discussion&action=historysubmit&diff=408432667&oldid=408424891][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGlkanter&action=historysubmit&diff=401037503&oldid=400804966][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGlkanter&action=historysubmit&diff=391519169&oldid=391273835][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGlkanter&action=historysubmit&diff=407629498&oldid=407530485] |
|||
*I take it you still haven't read my own work on MHP. There really is no point in talking to one another as long as that state of affairs persists. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=406923060&oldid=406899225] |
|||
===Richard Gill and COI=== |
|||
Gill has repeatedly asserted that as the author of a reliable source, he wouldn't be editing the article, and from December 31 on has pledged several times not to edit the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=406923060&oldid=406899225] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=408060257&oldid=408057565][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGill110951&action=historysubmit&diff=409853988&oldid=409575625] But he is still editing the article. Of all contributors, several of whom have been editing the article for five or six years, he has the second highest number of total edits, and as of the last edit made on the page as I write this (14:26 Feb 15) 45 of the last 50 edits are his. |
|||
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
Revision as of 03:55, 16 February 2011
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) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by Glkanter
Glkanter has not, as claimed by Rick Block, "essentially singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made".
This is Rick Block's assertion:
- "Although more than one of the involved editors have exhibited problematic behaviors, one editor in particular exhibits nearly all the classic signs of disruptive editing and has essentially singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made."
The truth is that Glkanter, and one other editor, are nothing more than the only editors, in a very long history of editors, who have decided to stand toe to toe with Rick Block. This user page, prepared by arbitration participant Martin Hogbin, summarizes a lengthy list of editors who have disagreed with Rick Block over the years.
Some of those editors were participants in the mediation cabal request, and some of them were, at one time, participants in the formal mediation. All of them are victims of 'attrition', that is, they had the good sense to move on to more important things in their lives, unlike myself. Please note the great difference in head count between the editors that support Rick Block's POV, and those that don't.
So, Rick Block's premise for this arbitration is flawed. Glkanter is *not* preventing any progress. It is an obvious part of the Gamesmanship, Wikilawyering, and Ownership issues I have identified (and been subjected to) by Rick Block and have tried to bring forward since I learned these terms.
The overriding POV of the current article, as promoted by Rick Block and Nijdam, is *not* representative of a 'significant minority viewpoint' of reliable sources.
If the formal mediation pages are made available, I will reference the table, that Rick Block prepared, of the approximately 50 reliable sources referenced in the article. I will demonstrate unambiguosly that Rick Block's and Nijdam's POV, which dominates the current article, is not representative of a 'significant minority viewpoint' of the reliable sources. Rather, there may be as few as zero reliable sources supporting their viewpoint, and in any case, no more than two. Glkanter (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
Cherry Picking Quotes Without Context
Rick Block cherry-picked the most 'out of bounds' quotes from me over a 2 year span in order to make his case. So when he posts the exact same diff as above as his 'evidence':
- Signs of disruptive editing (from wp:disruptive editing):
- is tendentious:
...in order to make me look bad, he's leaving out the stuff that preceded it and followed it:
- "I've been re-reading some past postings. According to Rick, this article has been reviewed on 2 occasions as a 'Featured Article', and that much of what I find inessential actually was a (by)-product of those reviews. Rick is proud of 'shepherding' this article through at least one of those reviews.
- "So, in some ways, I seem to be arguing against Conventional Wisdom. But I don't feel that way. I have a few college courses on this topic, over 30 years ago, and a lifetime of being a data analyst. My viewpoint is, 'There is no possible way I am wrong about this'. To me, this whole discussion has as much to contribute as a discussion of whether the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.
- "How does a single voice effectively confront the Conventional Wisdom? This is a question not just for Wikipedia, but any societal system. In the US, a swindler set up a Ponzi scheme on Wall Street. Individual investors went to the regulatory agency numerous times, but to no avail. The guy didn't actually get caught. He turned himself in! How does a minority, but important, voice get heard?..."
We had been exclusively arguing the math up to that point. In nearly 4 months, it had never been brought to this newby's attention that reliable sources were the vital requirement in Wikipedia.
Many of the other brief quotes from my diffs are similarly out of context. I actually think many of them are quite good. I remain, to this day, unable to understand the motivations of the editors who see things with such certainty so differently than I see them, and therefore try to make me out to be a bad guy who should be topic banned. Glkanter (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
More Gamesmanship From Rick Block, This Time During The Arbitration
I just noticed Rick Block misquoted me. He :
- "There is no possible way I am wrong about this"
When my actual full sentence is:
- "My viewpoint is, 'There is no possible way I am wrong about this'."
So, not only did he take my statement out of context, he abridged it in a manner clearly meant to discredit me and improperly (deceitfully) influence the arbitrators. That's the very 1st quote supporting his claim of 'disruptive editing'. This example of Rick Block's style of 'consensus building' is consistent with my 2+ years of discussions, receiving admonishments, him charging me with a a bogus RfC, edit warring, and mediation. Now it's in the Arbitration. Glkanter (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Do I Need To Make 'Counter Charges' against Rick Block?
I'd like to see Rick Block and Nijdam receive topic bans from the Monty Hall problem article and talk pages, based on their conduct over the last 2+ years, including their conduct in this Arbitration so far. Do I need to do something for this to be considered, or is this already a possible outcome of this Arbitration? Glkanter (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Rick Block
Some background
Monty Hall problem is an FA that has gone through two FARs. Following the first FAR the article looked like this, note in particular the "Solution" section which presents only a "simple solution" ("simple" meaning not using conditional probability). This solution, although unreferenced in this version of the article, is essentially vos Savant's solution as published in Parade. Shortly before the second FAR an anonymous user complained about this solution [1], eventually referring to a peer reviewed academic paper by Morgan et al. that characterizes this solution as a "false" solution saying it does not address the conditional probability of winning by switching given the player has picked door 1 and the host has opened door 3 but rather the unconditional probability (effectively the probability before the host has opened a door, but knowing the host will open one of door 2 or door 3). This user's objections to the "simple" solution ultimately led to an RfC, see [2] which (after extensive discussion on the talk page) led to this change to the article. Subsequently, in response to the second FAR, numerous changes were made to the article in response to comments received, notably strengthening the referencing and numerous readability changes. Although not an original author of the article, I was the original FA nominator and the primary responder to both FARs, and in response to the second FAR did an extensive amount of referencing work (using both online and printed sources obtained primarily from university libraries).
The "Solution" section of the article following the second FAR [3] still started with what is essentially vos Savant's unconditional solution, followed by a paragraph intending to clarify what this solution says ("The reasoning above ..."), followed by a paragraph introducing a conditional solution ("A subtly different question is ..."). These two paragraphs (and other similar content in this version of the article) present as undisputed fact what some editors (primarily user:Glkanter and user:Martin Hogbin) consider to be simply "Morgan's POV", in violation of NPOV. These (and other) editors have argued on the talk page about this for several years now, progressing through the various dispute resolution escalations to formal mediation. Along the way (well before mediation), in an attempt to resolve the conflict user:Dicklyon split the Solution section into two sections, one presenting "simple" solutions and one presenting a solution based on conditional probability [4].
This split has not been satisfactory to a variety of editors, who have continued to argue that
- 1) (Martin) Morgan et al. is a deeply flawed source (see Martin's completely OR criticism of this paper at User:Martin Hogbin/Morgan Criticism) and any mention of conditional probability or solutions based on conditional probability should be deferred until after the simple solution and an extensive "Aids to understanding" section is presented
- 2) (Glkanter) any mention that the "simple" solutions don't quite address the conditional problem where the player has picked Door 1 and has seen the host open Door 3 should be either completely removed or moved to a "Criticism" section at the end of the article.
- 3) (user:Nijdam) the simple solutions are factually incorrect, essentially espousing the POV of Morgan et al. (I'll let Nijdam identify his real life identity if he cares to, but he is known by all involved to be a bona fide expert in the topic)
- 4) (user:Gill110951) the "criticism" that the simple solutions do not address the conditional probability is factually correct, but of little importance since by assuming symmetry the conditional and unconditional answers can be proven to be the same. This user is the subject of the Wikipedia article Richard D. Gill and has recently published two papers about the MHP in response to the arguments that have occurred on the article's talk page (and various other pages), and is a co-author of one of the articles that has been a reference in the article for quite some time.
- 5) (user:Rick Block) there are many sources presenting simple solutions, many sources presenting conditional solutions, and a not insignificant number of sources (like Morgan et al.) pointing out the difference between these kinds of solutions. Per NPOV, all of these POVs need to be in the article but without the article taking sides.
So, what we have here is fundamentally a POV dispute complicated by the fact that the topic is "a simple math problem", and several editors think their understanding or expertise outweighs what reliable sources say.
Glkanter is a disruptive editor and should be at least topic banned
Glkanter exhibits nearly all the classic signs of disruptive editing (see below) and has essentially singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made.
His pattern of disruptive editing was the subject of a previous RFC. All behaviors identified in this RFC have continued unabated. He
- still edits tendentiously (blocked three times for edit warring, see block log),
- is still not here to build an encyclopedia (self-admitted SPA [5], long term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of other intentions, treats editing as a battleground [6] [7], has a complete lack of interest in good editing conduct practices [8], little or no interest in working collaboratively [9], long-term history suggesting a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods),
- still disuptively edits (see below),
- and still treats editing as a personal wp:battle misusing his user and user talk pages to chronicle his fight and disparage other users [10] [11].
Signs of disruptive editing (from wp:disruptive editing):
- is tendentious:
- cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability:
- table "based" on Carlton's solution: Glkanter adds table [12], other editors simplify the table to better match the source [13] [14], Glkanter initiates discussion on talk page [15], Rick Block suggests making the table match the source [16], Glkanter responds with a personal attack [17] [18], Rick Block responds [19], Glkanter starts new thread [20], Rick Block explicitly refers to WP:V (quoting the source) [21], Glkanter responds [22] (and adds an off-topic personal attack [23]),
- Glkanter's "Carlton's decision tree": Glkanter suggests adding it [24], user:Coffee2theorems suggests it's OR [25], Rick Block suggests it's OR [26], Glkanter disagrees [27] and then changes the topic introducing two new threads [28] [29], Coffee2theorems continues the original discussion [30], Glkanter still resists and starts SHOUTING about it [31] [32], Rick Block and Coffee2theorems refer to what the source says [33] [34], despite all this discussion Glkanter adds it to the article anyway [35] (and then edit wars about it, but that's another issue)
- engages in "disruptive cite-tagging": - this is one thing Glkanter does not do, although he does the equivalent by repeatedly rejecting references that have been provided for content he objects to
- does not engage in consensus building:
- "No thanks. I prefer to use the existing article as my starting point." (in response to a request to comment on a proposed draft of a section of the article)
- "I think you're joking with me. Please, Rick, this is not a good time to be disruptive" (in response to another request to comment on the same proposed draft)
- "Rick, that proposal is the most foreign looking thing I've seen on these pages. I will not discuss it further, rather I will focus on the current article." (in response to yet another request to comment on the same proposed draft)
- "Until (my questions are answered), there's no point in further discussing, editing, or mediating"
- rejects or ignores community input:
- his responses to the RFC (I was mugged, it was filed incorrectly, it was filed to harass me)
- his response [36] to a mediator's suggestion [37] to delete a personal attack from his talk page
- "Rick Block, I will not be bullied by your bellicose manner, inexplicable interpretations and admonishments, or the disinformation you spread" (in response to advice about not edit warring)
- campaigns to drive away productive contributors: incivility, personal attacks
- "Your response is full of shit, Richard"
- rant attacking numerous editors
- "You have reached a new level of absurdity with the above paragraph. Kudos, Richard."
- "There's no point in looking for any logic in Rick's, or any sympathetic editor's postings. They use every method of gamesmanship imaginable. It's horrible. Intellectual dishonesty at it's worst."
- I give a dumbass's eye-view of Richard's accomplishments a grade of 'FAIL'"
- "It's quite clear to me who is doing the edit warring. And claiming ownership. And ignoring NPOV policies. And encouraging OR."
- refuses to "get the point"
Evidence presented by Richard Gill
My position again misrepresented (misinterpreted)
Rick Block summarizes above my position as follows: the "criticism" that the simple solutions do not address the conditional probability is factually correct, but of little importance since by assuming symmetry the conditional and unconditional answers can be proven to be the same. This user is the subject of the Wikipedia article Richard D. Gill and has recently published two papers about the MHP in response to the arguments that have occurred on the article's talk page (and various other pages), and is a co-author of one of the articles that has been a reference in the article for quite some time.
He doesn't mention that the two peer reviewed articles I have written on MHP since participating in the discussions on wikipedia thank all wikipedia editors for what the author had learnt from the discussions -- and that was a great deal. They summarize a few basic and indisputable mathematical truths which other editors refused to be allowed to be mentioned on the page: they constituted "own research" since they did not have "reliable sources" behind them. As far as I am concerned, these were truths at the level of "6 is not a prime number because it equals 2 times 3". Now, after peer review and publication, these simple facts are available for any editor here who wants to use them.
Obviously I am cautious about creating any suggestion that I might be promoting my own work here. Naturally, especially after investing so much work on the subject, I'd like to see a splendid (and again, FA) article on MHP again. (My papers BTW also expound an alternative way to look at MHP, which is different from that of any of the parties here, of minor interest to the article, and not an issue in mediation or arbitration, as far as I know).
My opinion concerning the opposition between "simple" and "conditional" solutions is that there is not much opposition. But there is an opposition between the way mathematics students are conventionally taught how to solve MHP in Statistics 101, in order to illustrate the formal tools they have just be learning about, and the way ordinary people can understand it. And that is the origin of the quarrels here.
The wikipedia article has to cater for both kinds of readers. It is written by both kinds of writers. It is not difficult at all to find ways to solve MHP which satisfy the highest demands for precision and completeness and formalizability of a university mathematics course for professional mathematicians in spe, and which at the same time correspond to verbal arguments using ordinary logic which your grandmother (sorry if this sounds sexist or ageist) can also understand completely. Thus it seems to me that the opposition between simple and conditional has been blown all out of proportion. The cries of "OR" and "reliable sources" are being made in order to keep the discussion polarized, to prevent a harmonious synthesis from ever being reached. No wonder some editors get emotional and use language which they'll later regret.
Personally I am not complaining about anyone's behaviour. I am not sure - in view of my own publications and qualifications - whether I should be talking here at all. In my opinion a tremendous amount of progress has already been made towards mutual understanding. Richard Gill (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Outside Observer Woonpton
I was surprised when the committee voted to accept the case so quickly and decisively, since it looks like a content dispute to me, or rather several content disputes, between different groups of editors. One thing that's not disputed that I think should be: the arbitrary separation of solutions into "simple" vs "conditional." If that arbitrary and unnecessary division were undone, it would solve many of the present content disputes, IMO. Since content issues aren't of interest to ArbCom, that's the last I'll say about content.
Original Research: A Case Study
The ultimate cause of the breakdown of collaborative editing on the article, IMO, is that the reliance on reliable sources seems to have been largely abandoned in favor of original research and everyone arguing the merits of their favorite explanation or solution rather than summarizing secondary sources. This problem isn't limited to one editor, but Richard Gill's original research has been especially disruptive to the article.
Richard Gill is a professor of mathematics who while editing MHP has developed an original synthesis related to the topic; two papers elucidating this synthesis have been published. I am a statistician, and I don't find Dr. Gill's formulation compelling, necessary, or useful for the description and explanation of the Monty Hall problem for the Wikipedia audience; it seems to me an awkward solution to a nonexistent problem. Were I to write a synthesis of the same material, my synthesis would look very different. That's why we use existing secondary independent sources rather than publishing original research.
Richard Gill belittles other editors
Gill considers himself a better judge of the topic literature than other editors who didn't have the same training [46][47][48][49] especially when there were differing interpretations of what a source means [50] even to the point of confidently revising an assertion in a source to match what he was sure the source meant [51][52][53].
Richard Gill engages in original research
Gill commented that "the majority of wiki-reliable sources are written by fools" [54] and said that since sources don't say what he wanted to say, he would need to write his own sources [55]
- OK I have to find reliable sources for all this, and if I fail, I'll have to write one myself.[56]
He defended his developing original synthesis and his idea of Truth: [57][58] [59].
When other editors have tried to make him aware of the necessity for relying on reliable sources rather than original research [60][61]
- ...no matter how brilliantly insightful it may be we simply cannot present an argument that is fundamentally novel [62]
he has responded rudely, with disdain for Wikipedia policy, one example:
- I think that the legalistic approach to resolving disputes on wikipedia by invoking OR, NPOV, etc. is disgusting and/or chiildish.[63])
Richard Gill promotes his own research on Wikipedia
He posted links and notices of his papers to users' talk pages and discussion pages [64][65][66]and boasts of the originality and importance of the publications:
- Those papers do contain the absolutely latest word in comprehensive and unprejudiced mathematical analysis of MHP, offering a sythesis which has never been seen before)[67].
- It's all written out in Gill (2011) I'm already getting fan-mail from colleagues all over the world for my fresh and refreshing take on MHP...[68]
- All your problems are solved. As of about today, WP:RS Gill (2011 [69]
- Still no conditionalist has taken the trouble to explain why you *ought* to condition. Only I did, in my recent papers. That is to say: I presented the argument which the conditionalists should have given straight away.[70]
- I recall people complaining there was no reliable source doing it that way. Well, now there is. [71]
- At least no stupid editor can now prevent a less stupid editor from using this "Truth" in the future, on the pretext that it is not written up explicitly in some "reliable source"[72].
These diffs seem to contradict the assertion above Obviously I am cautious about creating any suggestion that I might be promoting my own work here.
Also, he was the one who added his papers as sources to the Wikipedia article.
In addition he has hounded other editors about reading his papers:[73][74][75][76][77]
- I take it you still haven't read my own work on MHP. There really is no point in talking to one another as long as that state of affairs persists. [78]
Richard Gill and COI
Gill has repeatedly asserted that as the author of a reliable source, he wouldn't be editing the article, and from December 31 on has pledged several times not to edit the article [79] [80][81] But he is still editing the article. Of all contributors, several of whom have been editing the article for five or six years, he has the second highest number of total edits, and as of the last edit made on the page as I write this (14:26 Feb 15) 45 of the last 50 edits are his.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.