Wikipedia: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)

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 Kkmurray

Kehrli has engaged in POV editing

Kehrli has engaged in extensive and aggressive POV editing of Kendrick mass, Kendrick (unit). Kehrli holds a minority view regarding Kendrick mass, which is a straightforward analytical chemistry concept that has been described in more than 50 scientific publications including secondary sources such as review articles and books. It is not difficult to identify appropriate sources for the majority and minority views and their description of the Kendrick mass procedure.

The Kendrick mass procedure itself is a method for modifying and plotting mass data in chemical analysis experiments so that it is easy to find patterns that identify similar chemical compounds. In the informal mediation, Kkmurray, Nick Y. and Kehrli agreed that there are multiple primary and secondary sources including multiple review articles and books that define Kendrick mass as "Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass x (14/14.01565)" and report Kendrick mass in units of Daltons (Da).[1] It is not a particularly elegant formula; it uses words instead of symbols, but it is a useful shorthand to indicate the procedure that the authors describe and it is quite verifiable. It is explicitly clear from the sources that by "IUPAC mass" the authors mean the mass that is measured in Dalton units. Since (14/14.01565) is a number, the product - Kendrick mass - is also reported in Dalton units and the authors of the multiple sources make this explicitly clear as well. These facts were identified and discussed at length in informal mediation.

Kkmurray, Nick Y. and Kehrli agreed that there is a primary source ([2]) that reports Kendrick mass in Kendrick units and uses the symbol Ke, suggesting a Kendrick unit. In the Kendrick unit procedure, one simply bypasses the equation above and measures masses using this new Kendrick unit. This is arguably a much more elegant approach from a metrology standpoint, but only this source appears to use this approach (one or two other sources use wording that is suggestive of this approach, but only this one is explicit). Based on the agreed upon reliable sources, the Kendrick unit approach is the minority view.

All agreed in mediation that general metrology sources such as the VIM, IUPAC Green Book, IUPAP Red Book, ISO-31, etc. are useful guidelines documents but are not good sources for Kendrick mass since none of them mention Kendrick mass or a Kendrick unit. They do discuss units in general and proper symbols and their use in equations. Even after it was agreed in mediation that these general metrology sources are not sources for Kendrick mass, Kehrli returned repeatedly to this point. It was pointed out repeatedly that from the standpoint of these documents, both the majority Dalton unit approach and the minority Kendrick unit approach are equally valid.

Kehrli has turned due balance upside down in the Kendrick mass and Kendrick (unit) articles. First, the Kendrick (unit) name advocated by Kehrli implies that Kendrick unit procedure is the mainstream view, which it is not. In the Kendrick (unit) article, the minority view is given prominence; the majority view is listed as "other terminology" with notes explaining how the majority view Dalton unit approach is wrong according to the IUPAC green book, the IUPAP red book and the ISO 31 standards.[3] In the Kendrick mass article, the Dalton unit definition is given, again with notes explaining how it contradicts VIM/IUPAC/IUPAP/ISO 31 and the minority view Kendrick unit approach is the "proper definition." [4]

POV editing related to Kendrick mass has spilled over into the related atomic mass unit article.[5]

Other examples of original research:

• Original research and synthesis Kendrick (unit) [6]
• Original research and synthesis at Kendrick mass [7] [8][9]

Kehrli is a SPA

Kehrli is a SPA editor with a tendency to advocate, focusing on the concept "chemists are doing metrology wrong." The corollary to this argument is that sources inconsistent with Kehrli's interpretation of metrology are invalid and to be given no weight in Wikipedia articles. Almost all of Kehrli's edits are in unit or mass measurement articles, including mass-to-charge ratio (49), Kendrick (unit) (19), Kendrick mass (16), dimensionless quantity (14), atomic mass unit (11), mass spectrometry (11), m/z (10), and Thomson (unit) (10). All pages created by Kehrli are related to metrology and mass measurement. Kehrli has previously been sanctioned for advocacy in mass and mass unit articles (arbitration case Kehrli).

To demonstrate that chemists are wrong, Kehrli argues from the authority of general metrology guidelines documents such as the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM), the IUPAC Green Book and the IUPAP Red Book.[10] This position is similar to the one that Kehrli used to argue the 2006 arbitration in which the IUPAC Green Book and ISO 31 were taken as authoritative.[11] There are several problems with declaring sources "illegal" and therefore invalid based on VIM and other sources. First, VIM/Green Book/Red Book/ISO-31 are self-described as guidelines not "laws." Second, many of their recommendations are widely ignored (there are many examples of sourced "VIM illegal" notation throughout Wikipedia). Third, the Dalton unit approach to Kendrick mass is not inconsistent with VIM other than the fact that the use of symbols would make a better equation than words; the Kendrick mass procedure itself is fine.

Some additional examples of "metrology vs. chemistry" advocacy:

• Arguing authority of VIM, IUPAP red book, ISO 31, and IUPAC green book [12][13]
• Arguing for the supremacy of metrology over chemistry [14]
• Rejects all sources conflicting with minority view based on perceived conflict of majority view with VIM/Green Book/Red Book/ISO-31 [15]
• Metrology must be explained to chemists in "Metrology for Chemists 101" [16]
• Analytical chemistry subfield mass spectrometry is a "narrow field of science" and must defer to metrology [17]
• Request to "please help defend modern metrology" [18]
• Chemistry sources contain " ad-hoc terminology created by non-metrologists" and should be excluded [19]
• The author of the majority of Kendrick mass articles, a prominent chemist, "sucks at metrology" [20]
• Even though [a prominent chemist's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper] went through a review process. It is "absolute rubbish."[21]

Kehrli will not edit according to the principles of due weight

The examples given above in Kehrli is a SPA also demonstrate Kehrli's unwillingness to edit and build consensus in accordance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSTS.

--Kkmurray (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)]

Response to Kehrli

My response to Kehrli is here: [22]. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Kehrli has not been civil

Kehrli's lack of civility is lowers the level of discussion and makes consensus building difficult.

• Tagging Kkmurray and Nick Y.'s talk page comments with multiple {{citation needed}} [23][24]
• Kkmurray and Nick Y. are "two other clowns" [25]
• Accuses Kkmurray of lying.[26][27][28]
• Accuses PaoloNapolitano of being a sockpuppet [29]. --Kkmurray (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

--Kkmurray (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Nick Y.

Kehrli has ignored the findings of previous arbitration.

Despite previous arbitration findings in 2006 [30], in 2009 Kehrli edited back into Mass-to-charge ratio essentially the material he/she was banned for pushing: [31]

Once again Pushing the minority Th units over the ubiquitous m/z: [32]

Despite being explicitly told "The scientific notation used by the bulk of contemporary experts in a field is the preferred usage." is a guiding principle of Wikipedia during the previous arbitration, [33] He/she persists in current arguments around Kendrick Mass that the guidlines of VIM etc. trump this.

"there is a recent publication [1] which got the definition right. Their definition is consistent in itself. That is already a big achievement which I have not seen anywhere else so far. In addition it is consistent with the general principles of the IUPAP red book, AND the IUPAC green book, AND the ISO 31, AND the International vocabulary of metrology. In other words: this definition is by far superior and better sourced than anything else. This is why I think we should use it on Wikipedia. In order to be neutral we should also present the other definitions, and we should mention their shortcomings in an objective way." [34]

I present Kehrli's evidence section below as overwhelming evidence of failure to adhere to "The scientific notation used by the bulk of contemporary experts in a field is the preferred usage." His/her position is that the notation that most neatly fits his/her understanding/interpretation of VIM, IUPAP, etc. is the preferred usage. Kkmurray has during mediation presented an excellent literature survey of the usage of these terms that clearly shows what the bulk of contemporary experts use. [35]

Kehrli today restored POV content to Thomson (unit) [36] and mass-to-charge ratio [37].

{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.

Evidence presented by Kehrli

What is this about ?

This is about terminology. About terminology of quantities and units.

Modern terminology

According to the rules of ISO 80000, the IUPAP, the IUPAC, and the International vocabulary of metrology a quantity Q is expressed as:

Q = n * u

Written in words:

quantity = (numerical factor) * unit

This terminology is universal. Only a very small community of scientists do not use this terminology for some selected quantities.

Dimensionless terminology

Some chemists, for example, use a different terminology for indicating the quantity molecular weight. This group of people defines molecular weight (MW) as:

MW = m / m_u

where m is the mass of the molecule in quesion, m_u is the atomic mass constant:

m_u = m(¹²C)/12 = u = Da

This terminology (of the molecular weight) is anachronistic and does not comply with modern terminology. It is very confusing and it confuses most chemists that still use it. Kmurray is the victim of such a confusion.

What is the problem with MW?

The quantity molecular weight (MW) is dimensionless. It is used like a quantity of mass, but in fact it is dimensionless because it is a ratio of two masses, m and m_u. In modern terms, m is the actual quantity, and m_u is called the unit. Therefore, modern chemists would use modern terminology and therefore write:

m = n * Da

or

m = n * u

Since u = Da = m_u, it is evident that in modern terminology, the molecular weight corresponds to the numerical factor n:

MW = n = m/Da

Note that the MW has a unit "built in". In other words: the molecular weight implies the unit dalton. It does this without mentioning it. This is the big problem of the quantity MW and it is the source of all the problems.

What is the relation to this case?

Kmurray insists on the formula

Kenrdrick mass = IUPAC mass * (14/14.01565)

However, he never told us what "IUPAC mass" exactly is. I asked him a million times for a definition. He never supplied one. I will now supply this definition even though this would be the job of Kmurray.

Definition of IUPAC mass

"IUPAC mass" is the mass of a molecule in the old, dimensionless molecular weight like terminology:

IUPAC mass = m/m_u = m/u = m/Da = MW = n_D

Note that nowadays the dimensionless notation is reserved for molecular weights. Masses should always be indicated in the modern notation, e.g with the unit dalton. In other words: nowadays a more correct name for the quantity "IUPAC mass" would be "IUPAC molecular weight". Unfortunately most chemists do not care about correct terminology and therefore still continue to use the old and no longer appropriate term "IUPAC mass".

Definition of Kendrick mass

Kendrick write in his article that his method is based on a new scale of mass, which he called "CH₂ scale". He indicated the unit in this mass scale as m(CH₂)/14. This unit was later referred to in many papers as "Kendrick mass unit". Junninen wen a step further and called it Kendrick (Ke). The definition of the "Kendrick mass" is exactly analogous to the definition of the IUPAC mass, except that the new mass unit is used:

Kendrick mass = m/m(CH₂)/14 = m/Ke = n_K

Again, the "Kendrick mass" is dimensionless, since it is in the old MW notation. In modern terminology it is the numerical factor when indicating a mass in Kendrick mass units:

m = n_K * Ke = n_K * m(CH₂)/14

New notation of Kmurray's formula

Kmurrays formula:

Kenrdrick mass = IUPAC mass * (14/14.01565)

would be written in new notation as:

n_K = n_D * (14/14.01565)

This is exactly the formula I derived in my article Kendrick (unit).

It get's even worse

Kmurray does not understand correctly his formula:

Kenrdrick mass = IUPAC mass * (14/14.01565)

As we have seen above: "IUPAC mass" is the dimensionless MW with implied Dalton mass units. "Kendrick mass" is the dimensionless MW with implied Kendrick mass units. However, Kmurray does not know this. He thinks both, IUPAC mass and Kendrick mass are both indicated in daltons. To his defense: there are many other chemists who commit this fallacy. The dimensionless terminology is indeed very confusing. This is why it was abandoned by all fields of science except chemistry, where it is still occasionally in use. However, it is too difficult to handle for most chemists, also for Kmurray. Instead of learning terminology and metrology he keeps dragging me to arbitration.

Jargon

Kmurray uses WP:JARGON. In the MOS it says:

While some topics are intrinsically technical, editors should take every opportunity to make them accessible to an audience wider than the specialists in the field, and to a general audience where possible.

Kmurray insists on jargon that is only understandable to the specialists in the field of chemistry, where this jargon is quite common. All other fields of science as well as commerce, trade and law have decided on a consistent terminology that is explained in the International vocabulary of metrology (VIM). VIM represents an international consensus on terminology for quantities and units. I therefore try to make articles according to VIM. Kmurray routinely changes back these articles to a chemistry jargon that is not understandable for non-chemists. Also, he does not explain jargon.

Example: the term IUPAC mass is jargon, is nowhere properly defined and not explained.

Source

Kmurray does not properly source his jargon.

Example 1: the meaning of the jargon term IUPAC mass is nowhere sourced.

Example 2: the meaning of the jargon term Kendrick mass is based on unsourced terminology and therefore insufficiently sourced.

Not understandable

Kmurray writes articles that are not understandable. In WP:TECHNICAL it says:

Articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means understandable to a general audience. Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible. If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more understandable explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it.

Kmurray's article are not understandable to a wide audience because they use chemistry jargon instead of VIM terminology.

Biased writing

Kmurray does biased writing. As explaind in Wikipedia:POV#Biased_writing, he does not do it consciously.

A Wikipedian contributor might be unaware that his writing is biased, if he harbors (possibly unconscious) assumptions about the popular opinion of one's area, country, culture, language, ethnicity, etc.

Kmurray writes in good faith, but he writes terminology completely in the point of view of a chemist. He is not willing to accept an international consensus terminology.

Example: He redefines units to new values not supported by NIST.

Kmurray provokes Disputes

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.

Example: Kmurray has renamed the article under dispute without any prior discussion about this renaming. See here [38]. He claimed that "Kendrick units" cannot be found in literature. That is not true. Kendrick mass units can be easily found in literature. He could have asked and discussed before the move. (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Unproven accusations

Here is a list of accusations WP:ACCUSE by Kmurray which contradict with Wikipedia principles, among others the principle of "good faith":

Disruptive editing:There is no proof of disruptive editing on my side.

Weight: I wrote my article based on terminology that can be sourced and that is according to the rules of ISO 80000, the IUPAP, the IUPAC, and the International vocabulary of metrology. KMurray used jargon that is not understandable to the readers of Wikipedia and that is only used by some sloppy chemists that do not care about proper terminology. Therefore I argue that WEIGHT is in my favor. Still, Nick and Kmurray repeat this accusation.

SPA: Kmuray writes:

All pages created by Kehrli are related to metrology and mass measurement.

Not true: the article under arbitration was about the Kendrick analysis, which is about a method for chemical analysis. It is not about metrology and not about mass measurements. Only when Kmurray injected jargon terminology, metrology became an issue.

Technical questions

Aside from wrong accusations, this dispute is largely about technical questions. Unfortunately Kmurray misstated the facts grossly:

chemists are doing metrology wrong:

Not all chemists are doing metrology wrong. I repeatedly wrote that Junninen got it right and that Kendrick himself got it almost right.

Kendrick unit vs Kendrick mass approach:

Kmurray wants you to believe that this is a dispute between two methods. This wrong. We all agree on the method. We both use the same formula. All we disagree is the terminology. Kmurray uses a term Kendrick mass that he has still not defined because his definition would contradict VIM.

In the Kendrick unit procedure, one simply bypasses the equation above and measures masses using this new Kendrick unit.

That is a plain lie. You will find the same formula with correct terminology in my article. We both agree on the method. Whereas Kmurray cites the formula without deriving and without understanding it, I derived the formula in VIM terminology.

It was pointed out repeatedly that from the standpoint of these documents, both the majority Dalton unit approach and the minority Kendrick unit approach are equally valid.

No, redefining a unit is not valid. It is not legal to redefine the kg to the value of the lbs. However, this is exactly what Kmurray is promoting.

other issues

Compromise by Roem: The compromise by Roem was based on multiple misunderstandings on Roem:

1) he believed KMurray that his is a majority view (for which there is no proof, no source, no evidence).

2) Roem is not familiar with metrology and does not understand how outrageously wrong the terminology of KMurray is. (His terminology includes redefining an official unit whose value is set by NIST, which is against the law.)

Instead of letting me explain to Roem these issues, KMurray filed this case.

Majority view: in this case KMurray claims a majority view without sourcing this. I have sourced multiple times why my view is a majority view.

Harmonization committees: Kmurray and Nick claim that this case is not covered by harmonization. There are multiple harmonization committees. These are committees from IUPAP, from IUPAC, and most importantly the BIPM. My terminology is made according to their rules, whereas the terminology of KMurray is jargon that does not comply the the rules of any of these committees.

New notation: Nick claims that my notation is new. This is not true. This "notation" (terminology) is sourced, it is well known, it is according to the international consensus, it is the only notation that is therefore understandable by Wikipedia readers. Wikipedia readers will not be able to understand the jargon terminology suggested by KMurray.

Bias: "My article" Kendrick (unit) also presents the terminology proposed by KMurray. It is not as biased as the article from KMurray.

Article name: KMurray seems to especially not like the name of the article Kendrick (unit). This name is a compromise from a public discussion and vote and is not my choice. I cannot simply change it, since this would be disruptive editing.

Arbitration case:KMurray has already filed an arbitration case against me that was rejected. Now he does it again even though I have not done any edits in the mean time. This means we are going to have the same case again.

Organizations that support my terminology

• International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM)
• International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
• International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC)
• International Organization for Standardization (see ISO 80000)
• International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (see IUPAP red book [39])
• International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (see IUPAC green book)
• International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML)
• International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC)
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
• National Physical Laboratory (United Kingdom) (NPL [40])

My terminology is specifically drafted according to the rules established by these organizations. It is therefore a truly international consensus terminology. This consensus terminology is summarized in the:

• International vocabulary of metrology

The terminology of KMurray is in breach of the recommendations of ALL these organizations.

Scientific papers that support my terminology

I cite just a small subset of the papers that use the terminology I am using or at least a terminology that is closer to mine than to the jargon pushed by KMurray:

• Kendrick, Edward (1963). "A Mass Scale Based on CH₂ = 14.0000 for High Resolution Mass Spectrometry of Organic Compounds". Analytical Chemistry. 35 (13): 2146–2154. doi:10.1021/ac60206a048.

This is the original paper from Kendrick after whom the disputed method was named by the following scientists. He clearly does not use the terminology of KMurray, which becomes evident even from the Title (no Daltons there). In the text he makes some statements which are misinterpreted by KMurray because of his lack of knowledge in metrology even though the statements seem pretty clear and not so ambiguous to me. His terminology is much closer to mine since he does not redefine the dalton as KMurray does.

• Junninen, H. (2010). "A high-resolution mass spectrometer to measure atmospheric ion composition". Atmospheric Measurement Techniques. 3 (4): 1039–1053. Bibcode:2010AMT.....3.1039J. doi:10.5194/amt-3-1039-2010.

"Thus, it is possible to recognize patterns of compounds belonging to the same family by finding a series of peaks differing by 14.01565 Th. It simplifies the interpretation of a complex organic mass spectrum by expressing the mass of hydrocarbon molecules in Kendrick units (where m(¹²CH₂)=14 Ke) instead of Dalton (where m(¹²C)=12 Da) (Kendrick, 1963)."

This paper is very recent and has exactly the same terminology as my article. I actually drafted my article (I was the first author and creator) according to this paper's terminology in order to have a good, reviewed and recent source.

If you would like to find further papers that use the Kendrick mass units that Kmurray opposes so much, then use this google search: [[41]]

⇒ my terminology is sourced in the scientific literature, it is not POV as claimed by Kmurray and Nick

Scientific papers that contradict Kmurray's terminology

There are many papers out there that contradict the jargon terminology of Kmurray. Basically these are all the papers that do not redefine the dalton unit. It is my impression that the majority of the papers do not redefine the dalton unit. However, i cannot source this statement nor can I access and read all papers that are out there. I will just mention a few to make my point. I can deliver more samples if needed.

Marshall, Fuel Chemistry Division Preprints 2003, 48(1), 14:

Analysis was performed by convertion of IUPAC measured mass to the Kendrick mass scale (CH2 = 14.00000 instead of 14.01565 Da) to facilitate identification of homologous series. Kendrick mass is obtained by multiplying the IUPAC mass with 14/14.0156.

Here the so called Kendrick mass of CH2 is dimensionless. No redefinition of the dalton unit as Kmurray insists on.

Marshall (Can. J. Chem. 79: 546–551 (2001)):

In the Kendrick mass scale (18), each mass value is multiplied by (14.00000/14.01565), so that the Kendrick mass of CH2 becomes 14.00000.

No redefinition of the dalton unit here either. Just to make clear: Marshall also has papers out there that do redefine the dalton unit. This just indicates that chemists are sloppy and use lots of jargon and therefore should not be trusted when deciding about the right terminology on Wikipedia.

⇒ Kmurray's terminology in no way represents the view of the scientific community

Problems with the terminology by Kmurray

The real problem with the terminology of Kmurray is that it is poorly sourced.

1. I have repeatedly asked Kmurray for a formal definition of the term IUPAC mass and a source of this definition. He could not supply either. For example he never supplied a definition from which it became obvious whether IUPAC mass is meant to be a dimensionless mass quantity (as they are often used by sloppy chemists) or a quantity of dimension mass. It is my impression that the term IUPAC mass is nowhere properly defined. It is therefore a prime example of bad jargon of sloppy chemists. Serious chemists would either not use it (like Kendrick and Junninen above) or define it properly.
2. Same holds for the term Kendrick mass, whose only definition supplied by Kmurray depends on the undefined term IUPAC mass.
3. Unless Kmurray can produce a proper definition of these terms as well as a source for it, his terminology should not be on Wikipedia, even if they were used by some sloppy chemists. We should rather stick to the terminology of the serious chemists that properly defined their terminology, e.g. Kendrick and Junninen.
4. One could argue that Kendrick, as the inventor of the method, deserves special weight. And his terminology is in strong opposition to Kmurray's terminology since Kendrick does not redefine any units whereas Kmurray does.

The big picture

KMurray is pushing a jargon terminology that

1) does not comply to the international consensus terminology of metrology, and

2) is not understandable to the average Wikipedia reader.

I am pushing a terminology that is according to the big international conventions. That's what it all comes down to. I think my approach is better justified because the average Wikipedia reader will not understand the insider jargon of some sloppy chemists that do not care about terminology. I think many more people will understand the article if consensus terminology is used. This consensus terminology is also used by many not so sloppy scientists in this very field (see papers above).

The case

• Since I made no edits since the last arbitration, it will be difficult to blame me with wrong behavior on Wikipedia.
• In contrast, Kmurray made further problematic edits. For example he made edits where he intermixed physical quantities with units, which is a typical chemistry jargon thing not acceptable in the consensus terminology.
• Kmurray renamed the original article without any discussion
• Kmurray did not provide the definitions I required in the mediation Kendrick_mass#Why_the_terminology_of_Kmurray_contradicts_VIM which is the real reason the mediation got stuck.
• Kmurray and Nick constantly make false accusations, for example here: ... deeply held misconceptions and an unwillingness to negotiate and compromise coupled with aggressive POV editing .... There is no proof where I would have a misconception. I was willing to negotiate but did not receive an answer to my proposal nor answers to the requested definitions. I cannot possibly negotiate a term that is not defined. I did offer a compromise but did not hear any answer about it. There is no proof of aggressive POV editing on my side, whereas renaming a page without discussion can be regarded as such. All in all Kmurray lacks good faith.
• In contrast to the arbitration in 2006 this time I made sure not to do aggressive editing
• In the end this is scientific terminology discussion which has to be decided by terminology specialists (metrologists), not by chemists, and not by the arbcom.

Conclusion

• I hope that I have shown that the facts are on my side.
• I also hope that I have shown that my behavior on Wikipedia was actually better than the one of Kmurray. Therefore I hope this time Kmurray will be banned for editing on metrology issues for 12 months.

Kehrli (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by PaoloNapolitano

Kehrli has been canvassing and making wrongful accusations of sockpuppetry

Kehrli wrongfully accused PaoloNapolitano of sock puppetry and claimed that the account PaoloNapolitano was created by the plaintiffs to engage in POV pushing. [42] --PaoloNapolitano (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not associated with PaoloNapolitano in any way. An IP address check will verify this. I am in New Jersey USA, this account claims to be in Norway. --Nick Y. (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nick Y. is a SPA

The User account "Nick Y." is exclusively used to edit articles on mass, weight, biology and chemistry. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)