User talk:Glkanter

I answer your message on my talk page. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

From my talk

[Mv here because it will be easier to follow, I think William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)]

As I describe on the Monty Hall Problem discussion page, under the heading Conventional Wisdom, I do not know the intricacies for Conflict Resolution on Wikipedia. This does not diminish the need for intervention. Glkanter (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at Monty Hall problem. It's not obvious what is wrong with it. I've looked at the talk page. It's interminable. I can assure you that no-one is going to read it. So if you want me to care, please post a concise summary of the first (or most interesting) thing that is wrong with the current page, or a link to a self-contained diff that does the same William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I came upon the puzzle on Wikipedia looking to better understand it. What I found was what I consider to be way too much editorial content on the puzzle. I found it confusing, mis-guided, and, I believe, erroneous. I came to these conclusion because I belive this proof satisfies the Monty Hall Problem:

Every time I choose a goat, Monty reveals the other goat, leaving the car

2/3 of the time I will choose a goat

Therefore, I increase the liklihood of winning the car by switching doors

My contention is, if this proof is valid, then my initial reaction is correct.

The Solution section offers up some overly wordy explanation, and a chart, then this paragraph:

Although the reasoning above is correct it doesn't answer the precise question posed by the problem, which is whether a player should switch after being shown a particular open door (Morgan et al. 1991). Answering this question requires determining the conditional probability of winning by switching, given which door the host opens. The difference is whether the analysis, as above, considers all possible scenarios or only the scenarios where the host opens a specific door. The conditional probability may differ from the overall probability depending on the exact formulation of the problem (see Sources of confusion, below)...

So, my first problem is that the Article offers an explanation, then immediately discredits that explanation. Then the rest of the article essentially addresses other 'more rigorous' solutions, since the first one has been discreditted.

This matter came to your attention because since 2005, various editors have attempted to improve the article in much the same way, and for the same reasons as I propose. I am at loggerheads with Rick because when I ask him to either dis-prove my proof or accept my reasons for changing the article, he answers that I am not solving the required conditional probability problem.

Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Glkanter (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have some sympathy with that. I'll have another look, now I know what you mean. Without having re-looed, two things spring to mind: when it comes to a dispute, WP content is dictated by verifiability, not truth. This applies to maths articles too. Just being right is not good enough, alas. Which brings in the second: how authoritative are the ext sources? If Morgan is extensively quoted, then that is one thing. If it's just a pet ref from one editor, that's another. This is a question you might usefully ask of any professional mathmos you might have access to William M. Connolley (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the Marilyn Vos Savant era of the problem, the entire debate was waged using the unconditional probability problem. And it was a huge debate. She wrote that she heard from 1,000 PHDs, who overwhelmingly told her she was wrong. Parade magazine, where Marilyn published, was not going to subject it's readers to a discussion that could only be understood by people who 'got' 'the random goat constraint'. And that certainly wasn't why Marilyn wrote about it in the first place. Nor is that why its a famous paradox. Then a group of 4 professors, known as 'Morgan et al' or 'MCDD', made their disagreement with the unconditional probaility problem known.

But, ultimately, they had this to say:

"In fairness, MCDD do moderate their tone later on, writing, "None of this diminishes the fact that vos Savant has shown excellent probabilistic judgment in arriving at the answer 2/3, where, to judge from the letters in her column, even member of our own profession failed.""

http://www.math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/ChapOne.pdf page 48

I just posted this on the talk page:

So, if the unconditional probability proof was good enough for Marilyn, Monty, 1,000 PHDs, and 10s of millions of Parade magazine's general interest readership, why is it not good enough for the Wikipedia readers of today?

Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As to who is extensively quoted, as you ask above, I offer this from the MHP Talk page:

Carl - having lived with this for several years, the least contentious approach has seemed to be to use quoted versions of the problem description (and a fully explicit version constraining the host to pick randomly between two goat doors is necessary to justify the Bayes treatment). The "vos Savant" version is far and away the best known, but it's not only conditional (sic) but under-specified. The conditional/unconditional thing is mentioned in the Solution section, and again under Sources of confusion. If we're to expand it (which I suspect Glkanter and others will argue against), I think the natural spot would be the "Sources of confusion" section. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Glkanter (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, as I understand it your proof is:

1. Every time I choose a goat, Monty reveals the other goat, leaving the car
2. 2/3 of the time I will choose a goat
3. Therefore, I increase the liklihood of winning the car by switching doors

Reading Morgan et al. ([1], only the first page, alas) your proof looks very much like their F1, or first false solution (put it another way: do you think F1 is a valid solution?). Since we're all agreed (are we?) that M et al. is a WP:RS then the wiki article is obliged to follow M et al.. It doesn't matter if you think you are right, or even if I agree that you are right, we have no choice but to follow what the refs say (this has some exceptions but you'll have to be very convincing to get one in this case) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued interest in the MHP. In the big picture, Wikipedia not withstanding, I just don't understand how my proof is not 'proof'. Maybe you could help me understand when an unconditional proof is sufficient. Honestly, I don't understand where a condition exists in this puzzle.

As for Morgan et al, yes, they are published and they are professors. Now, relative to the MHP article, are they the majority opinion of the experts? Or, when speaking of the MHP, is it understood that Marilyn vos Savant 'won' her arguement with the 1000 PHDs? But, really, I'm just repeating my point above, "If it was good enough for Marilyn, Monty, 1000 PHDs..."

Specifically, I was trying to settle an argument over the MHP the first time I read it on Wikipedia. Got to the Solution section, found a simple proof, it's a little wordy, so far so good. Then the 'but really, the proof we just showed you is insufficient' hit me in the face. So, I don't have a reference to settle my arguement, after all. It seems to me that the article, and it's Owner, claim that in order to solve the MHP, one must understand 'the random goat constraint'. I can't swallow that. That's not why it's a famous paradox.

I'm no longer trying to convince Rick that I may edit the page based on the unconditional proof being 'right'. At long last for me, and 4 years for some people, I understand that the published sources are what matter. I can't tell if you read my entire edit above, but I posit (and document) that Morgan et al are the minority (or at least late to the party), that they backed off on their criticism, and that MHP and Marilyn vos Savant are forever tied together in the public's mind. That's not how the article is set up.

Any comment on my Ownership complaint?

Glkanter (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't find the ownership issue very interesting. I believe that the article is about the actual MHP, *not* about what the public thinks about it - though that comes in. If you now understand that published sources are what matter, then we are making progress. I think we now need to clarify what your objection is. Is it (a) your simple proof (equivalent to M et al's F1) is *correct*, and therefore the wiki page should say so? (b) M et al are wrong to say that F1 is wrong? (c) you don't know whether F1 is wrong or not?

You say: But, ultimately, they [M et al] had this to say: "In fairness, MCDD do moderate their tone later on, writing, "None of this diminishes the fact that vos Savant has shown excellent probabilistic judgment in arriving at the answer 2/3, where, to judge from the letters in her column, even member of our own profession failed."" I think you misunderstand M et al: they retract nothing, but merely say that von S got the right answer for the wrong reasons.

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely do not understand the failing of the 3 line proof, or any like it that are published. I would welcome your assistance. It's no longer germain to my Wikipedia quest, it's just that I thought I knew how to properly calculate the probability of events, using the appropriate tools.

The article should reflect 'something'. I'm repeating myself, but it's not a famous paradox because of 'the random goat constraint', so I disagree with that being the core of the article. I 've read that 'pet' sources are not to be favored, but that's all I've found regarding this topic.

Glkanter (talk)

I just re-read the Morgan link page. I don't know why F1 is wrong. And I don't know why they say in the preceding paragraph that Monty's actions make this a conditional problem.

Glkanter (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, in that case I think we've reduced your original problem to a different one. You were attempting to edit the page, on the basis that F1 was right. Since (what we assume to be) the best available professional literature says F1 is wrong, that caused problems.

So now the question is, why is F1 wrong? At the moment, I don't know: I'll have to go off and read up. Do you have access to the full M et al paper? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen beyond page 1. But, I think I read that Rick purchased the article. Glkanter (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

All your problems are solved. As of about today, WP:RS Gill (2011) fully approves the solution:

Every time I choose a goat, Monty reveals the other goat, leaving the car

2/3 of the time I will choose a goat

Therefore, I increase the likelihood of winning the car by switching doors

Clearly, the rather new WP:RS paper Gill (2011) has not yet been cited as often as the now ancient WP:RS MCDD, but a glance at citation statistics on MathSciNet or Google Scholar will show that it is reasonable to expect it will eventually be cited a great many more times. Richard Gill (talk)

That's great news! Thanks, Richard. Can you re-write your paper to my even shorter solution, rather than Williams?:

2/3 of the time I will select a goat.

Therefore I should switch.

Thanks! Glkanter (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Belated welcome

Your questions about how the social process works perhaps begin to cover ground too far from the Monty Hall problem, so I'll take it over here instead.

First of all, it appears that nobody has ever thought to issue you a copy of the Big Friendly Standard Welcome Greeting Card With a Somewhat Scary Abundance of Interesting Links, so I attach one below. Don't try to follow all of the links in one sitting if you mind suddenly discovering that it's 5 AM. Do sample them one at a time when you feel like a break -- and do take breaks when you feel disagreement is getting to you. Remember that we're all volunteers, and it's supposed to be fun!

As for "super editors": We have admins, who have powers to block misbehaving users from editing for a time or indefinitely, as well as a few other generally janitorial tasks. They are bound by a few core rules and a lot of common sense, and we condition them strongly against using their powers to promote an opinion about how the article should be written. What they are concerned with is how constructively and civilly the common folk behave while agreeing on a text.

Upwards from admins are a variety of mainly clerical and bureaucratic fleeflah concerned with keeping the Wikimedia Foundation running, overseeing admin appointments and so forth. And near the very top, the Arbitration Committee, a supreme court of sorts. Even more than the admins, they find it extremely distasteful to decide anything about actual article content, and focus exclusively on behavior, civility, collaboration. Bothering the ArbCom is a risky business; in a significant fraction of their cases they find that the plaintiff is the jerkass and sanction him instead of the defendant.

In general I think you'll find many questions answered at WP:Dispute Resolution and links from there.

After that, I can recommend starting out at WP:Simplified Ruleset. And then, without further ado:

Hello, Glkanter! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! –Henning Makholm 08:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I Willingly Play By the Rules

Thank you, Henning Makholm, for posting the above with your insights.

I consider myself a pretty good rule-follower, both in the letter and spirit.

I've made one edit to the article in 4 months. What I deleted was so bad, that Rick enthusiastically agreed with the deletion. He even offered to do it himself!

For almost 4 months, I was arguing about the 'rightness' of my solution. And Rick was right there, telling me I'm wrong. Turns out, finally, that the real discussion is about verifiable sources. But the resolution process talks about 3rd party input from subject matter experts, etc, so maybe being 'right' does have some import.

Like I lay it out at the beginning of the Conventional Wisdom section of the MHP, it's never easy, or comfortable, challenging the powers that be. Which, simply, is Rick. Maybe he is the MHP representative appointed by the Math Guru clique. I did not expect his compadres to be so protective. I should have expected it, I guess. I was just taken aback by their knee-jerk reaction and incivility. I expected some un-biased investigation. Like I said, fool me once... Glkanter (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This guy is a POS

This user has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in mathematics.

Glkanter has taken a look at the responses and decided they verify his accusations of ownership (he wrote "All these other Wikipedia Math gurus already knew about Rick's MHP article Ownership issues!") If you are interested in your response not being misused, I suggest leaving a comment on the MHP talk page. I left a comment in the most recent section created by Glkanter, "WP:Ownership Allegation Update." --C S (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Above you claimed that the project members have verified Rick's supposed ownership issue ("All these other Wikipedia Math gurus already knew about Rick's MHP article Ownership issues!"). That is false. We are all familiar with Rick and this article. What we are familiar with is that occasionally people unable to understand simple probability come to this article, argue for ages on the talk page, and accuse Rick of a bunch of stuff. Then he argues and discusses in good faith with the person, very patiently and correctly, while enduring a verbal assault. --C S (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? Your presumptions are arrogant. I am familiar with all past discussion on this page and related discussions on the WikiProject Mathematics talk page. I see nothing new in what is going on in this current discussion. It's the same thing again. I have noticed no disagreement of my assessment versus others in the WikiProject. --C S (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? Your presumptions are arrogant. I am familiar with all past discussion on this page and related discussions on the WikiProject Mathematics talk page. I saw nothing new in what is going on in this current discussion, and yes, I did read through this whole page before making my comment. It's the same thing again. I have noticed no disagreement of my assessment versus others in the WikiProject. --C S (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you like to misrepresent Boris' quotes, perhaps we could press him on whether the turbulence is caused by your refusal/inability to understand basic probability. --C S (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What documentation is relevant to your lack of mathematical understanding? --C S (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this situation needs to be hammered down more precisely. In the Morgan et al article, the situation considered is when door 1 is picked; host will always open a door, and always one without a car behind it; avoiding contradicting previous assumption, he opens door 2 with probability p and door 3 with probability 1-p. Then they arrive at your formulae.

I think this situation needs to be hammered down more precisely. In the Morgan et al article, the situation considered is when door 1 is picked; host will always open a door, and always one without a car behind it; avoiding contradicting previous assumption, he opens door 2 with probability p and door 3 with probability 1-p. Then they arrive at your formulae.--C S (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Wife-beater comment was in response to your own wife-beater style question. I'm not here to help you push your ignorant points or false accusations either. Misrepresentation of quotes? Maybe I see it that way because I'm more familiar with his style of comment, whereas you want to read any nuanced, non-committal response as being in your favor. Like I said, if you believe your repeated quoting of him is justified, we can always ask him to clarify.

As for Rick's supposedly damning words, he's merely stating the obvious. Ignorant people come by Wikipedia articles all the time, trying to change article to crap. Usually they don't try that on a Featured Article. In any event, doing so is just going to fail. Rick is correct. You are so wrong you don't even know why you aren't going to garner any consensus. A less patient editor than Rick wouldn't have even bothered wasting all this time on you. --C S (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As for Rick's supposedly damning words, he's merely stating the obvious. Ignorant people come by Wikipedia articles all the time, trying to change article to crap. Usually they don't try that on a Featured Article. In any event, doing so is just going to fail. Rick is correct. You are so wrong you don't even know why you aren't going to garner any consensus. A less patient editor than Rick wouldn't have even bothered wasting all this time on you. --C S (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to be dense about my reference to a standard loaded question, there's nothing I can do to help you. Learn what a loaded question is and not to use them, like you did before. --C S (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

None of these people are saying what you think they're saying. And yes, I read their comments. They're certainly not backing your proposed revisions to the article either. If you truly believe they are supporting your changes, ask them to come here and support your proposed removal of the "wrong" explanations. --C S (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to [2] where Connelly does in fact tell Block there is no reason to continue discussion. So how am I interpreting other editors' postings to fit my POV? You've been doing that, so you seem to feel it's a good tactic to accuse me of kind, but I'd like to see a single example. By the way, you like to accuse people of breaking WP:CIV (apparently partly based on your inability to understand English idiom), but you know, stopping a comment short like "Hostile mother" doesn't fool anyone. Consider this an NPA warning and tone down your language in the future.

As I said, I already read that. And nobody disagrees with what you and Boris wrote in that section anyway. Everyone here (including Rick) agrees that is the solution to the "unconditional" MHP. So you see here how you don't even understand what is going on here. --C S (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't want to get into this, but since you keep thinking Boris is somehow in perfect agreement with what you're saying, let me make a comment here. First, you'll note that Boris didn't regard your "proof" as a proof, only as a solution, and indeed he comments it is even "too concise". This is not a pedantic distinction because it actually is relevant to your queries. A solution is just an answer. If you say the probability is such and such, and it's correct, then you gave the correct solution. Your reasoning might be bogus, or only partly bogus, or somewhat confused, or even correct. Correct reasoning, and enough spelled out to be an explanation to someone else, that is what makes a proof.

If you truly understood the problem well, you would have no problem understanding Rick Block's comments above. The crux of the matter is that there are different ways to interpret a problem like Monty Hall; one distinction is what's been called conditional vs unconditional in the above discussions. If you interpret the problem in a conditional manner, i.e. assume particular choices of doors, the host's behavior on how he chooses between two goat doors becomes important (assuming he always opens a door and always shows a goat). This choice is not actually important when you consider what you've been calling the "unconditional" problem. If you don't understand this, then I don't think you can say you really understand the problem.

The point about the unconditional solution not addressing the problem: it's a common mistake to read the problem as conditional, but then give the unconditional solution. That's just wrong. It happens that numerically the answers are the same if you assume the host chooses between two goat doors with equal probability, but that's hardly correct mathematical reasoning. Now, as alluded to before on Boris' talk page, a mathematician worth his salt would be able to use the symmetry of the host's choosing to realize that the conditional probability should work out to be the same as the unconditional probability. But there is something going on here, some reasoning based on the symmetry of the situation. --C S (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I gotta get going soon (but if you respond, I'll try to respond later too). Looking over some of my responses above, I see I've been short-tempered, for which I apologize. But it was partly due to having read the whole page (I know you keep thinking I haven't read the above, but I did), and being peeved at, I think, rather unfair treatment of Rick Block.

Actually, I don't believe this material is over any reasonably intelligent adult's head. So let's give it a go. Let's address why people might think Marilyn's statement is conditional. By the way, I hope I haven't given the impression that I think the problem must be understood as conditional. As for Marilyn's exact statement, I think it's ambiguous enough on several fronts, and there's no reason to state with absolute confidence it should be conditional.

Marilyn's wording:

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

Note there is a lot of stuff being left out here. Let's just be naive here, taking nothing for granted. First, we have no idea what the host is up to. Why did he even offer a switch? Is it because you picked the car? Or does he always offer a switch? Now, since we can't expect to really ever understand the mind of Monty, most people assume something like, Monty is fair and always offers the switch. And he always shows a goat, not a car, as that would make the game silly. These might be considered pretty reasonable assumptions, none of which were explained by Marilyn. But how does he decide which door to open if he can choose between two goat doors?

At this point, you might decide, why should it matter how he chooses? And here's where the conditionality assumption starts coming in. The question, as stated, seems to be asking what you would do in this situation that you picked door 1, Monty showed door 3 had a goat, and you are offered to switch to door 2. As stated above, you can assume he always shows a goat and offers the switch, but that in this instance he opened that particular door instead of door 2. So if Marilyn was asking what would you do in this situation, you really need to know how he is choosing doors. Let's say that he always likes to open door 2 when there isn't a car behind it. You would be sure to win if you switch: probability of getting a car is 1.

Now the way Marilyn stated the problem, she said, "...say No. 1..." So a reasonable interpretation would be that these door numbers don't matter, since people often say "...say" to mean "for instance" and not to specify an exact instance. On the other hand, she didn't have to mention the door numbers, so a straightforward reading would be to assume that any information given in the problem is actually necessary. The funny thing is that in most types of problems it wouldn't be necessary to make this distinction. But in probability problems, it's really important. Did Marilyn intend these door numbers to be useful, or were they just extraneous bits she didn't think to edit out? Of course, to further confuse the situation, remember Marilyn never specified the host's choosing between two goat doors. If you assume the unconditional problem, this information is not necessary, since as you pointed out, you only had a 1/3 chance to begin with of getting the car, so if you can switch, you should. On the other hand, a reasonable person might assume that Monty picks either door with equal probability. And with that, you can indeed solve the conditional problem. Amusingly, you end up with the same answer either way. But that only further confuses things for people. --C S (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Completely and totally out of line

Regarding your comments on talk:Monty Hall problem#In conclusion: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your behavior here seems to be becoming increasingly unacceptable. You haven't apparently listened to anything I've said before, but please listen to this. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone just edited my edit.

I was making a point on the MHP, and some guy, I think you know who I mean, deleted a couple of lines out of the middle of my edit. Not an 'undo', but an editorial style edit.

Is that within the rules? Who do I go to if he continues? Should I do something pre-emptive?

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. What I did is acceptable under Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Removal of text. Perhaps you've missed this point, but I am an admin here. This is another area where I know what I'm talking about. What you should do is not make any further personal attacks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not post comments on my page. I often find you an un-reliable source of information, to wit:

"Removal of text Policy shortcut: WP:RPA

There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project even if they are directed at you. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate."

Thank you in advance for your co-operation. Glkanter (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You continue to amaze me. Wikipedia's policies are nuanced. Note "typically" in what you've quoted above. Also, please read the section a little further down the page at Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Consequences of personal attacks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Yeah. I've Edited Articles.

I have made a single edit to Wikipedia articles.

I removed this from the MHP article:

The overall probability of winning by switching is determined by the location of the car.

It was the first sentence of the Solution section. I believe that edit had a positive affect on the quality of the article. Glkanter (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

If you're unwilling or unable to understand the solution, it's probably best if you simple leave the article and the talk page alone. It's not really within the scope of the work we do here to convince you. Many editors have spent way too much time on this already. If you really want to understand this, my suggestion would be to seek out a very patient mathematician who will work with you. We're not really geared for that kind of work here. Also note that posts like this one make it sound like you're here to debate and try to score points, rather than being here to improve the article. If you keep going down that path, it may not take long before people start considering you a disruptive editor. Friday (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

If you edit a section, rather than a whole page, your edit summary will include the section name. If you don't see "edit" links next to section headers you can change your preferences to enable "section editing". See Special:Preferences. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed your recent posts have been more civil (well, not so much this one), and I very much appreciate it. Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit of backsliding in this one. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You have defamed me on at least 3 occasions now. I don't know you, I don't want to know you, and don't care to discuss your gross transgressions any further. Is there something you want or need of me? I have no idea whatsoever it may be. Freak. Glkanter (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just one question. Who the fuck does this guy think he is?

Is this roughly how we got here, today? Glkanter (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Glkanter (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Roughly. But if you try to keep it more accurate, you will do better making your point. Dicklyon (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're way out of line with those edits. But if you support the proposed changes, I won't mention it again. Glkanter (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? No unconditional papers by reliably sources were published between Selvin and Morgan? I find that unlikely. Glkanter (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Dick Lyon discusses his numerous edit wars on his user page. I cannot compete with that. What is my best approach to take to return my interpretation of how events happened, which I want to share on this talk page, to it's original form? Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at this edit summary from Dicklyon:

(cur) (prev) 11:34, 7 December 2009 Dicklyon (talk | contribs) (792,974 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Glkanter; Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism. (TW)) (undo)

I don't deserve that. What, I vandalized a section I just created? Why would someone write that? Glkanter (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I don't want any trouble. I just want my interpretation of the chronology to be on this talk page. Unedited, but certainly commented on below. So, do you want this section, and I'll start a new one? You want to start a new one, for your interpretation, and I'll fix this one back to my vision? Just let me know. Thanks. Glkanter (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You can just write a sensible summary instead of interspersing repeated stuff as a roundabout way to make a point. And my user pages doesn't discuss most of my edit wars, just the "dramatic" ones. Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dick, deleting material from a talk page is rarely justified and not so in this case. Maybe glkanter could have formatted his contribution better but that is no reason to delete it. It certainly was not vandalism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I removed any actual material, just interspersed repetitions of a statement that made the chronology hard to follow. If he or someone wants to put it back I won't bother with it. Dicklyon (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Despite very strong opinions this discussion has remained completely civil, let us keep it that way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course; I hope I didn't do anything that hinted otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's quite a Wikipedia education I was administered today. And I want to give thanks to the man who taught me this lesson, Dicklyon.

Thank you Dicklyon for:

Vandalizing my edit

Then, accusing me of being the vandal (That was outstanding. Really. Not many can pull this one off successfully! Kudos!)

Calling my personal opinion on a talk page 'obviously incorrect'

Lecturing me on the proper 'tone' to use on Wikipedia talk pages

Denying in carefully chosen words that you did any of the above

Making it necessary for another Wikipedian to defend me. That does wonders for my self esteem.

Teaching me who the baddest edit warrior on Wikipedia is.

Giving me permission to return the section I created to it's original status.

Assuring me that you won't further violate Wikipedia rules regarding my edits in talk pages

I'm sure there is much more I'm overlooking. I'm only human.

But anyways, an apology is in order to all you Wikipedia editors who were forced to sit through this.

In the spirit of the guy who got shot in the face by VP Dick Cheney, I apologize to Dicklyon for being the recipient of your unprovoked savage violations of my good faith edits to a Wikipedia talk page. Glkanter (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You really are a piece of work! Your current rant is no less disruptive than this edit that I reverted thinking it looked like vandalism. If it was not intended as disruptive, I misinterpreted your intention; is that my fault? Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it your fault? No, of course not. I read your edit warring exploits. It's never your fault. This time, it's my fault, like I said above. You just out of the blue decide to edit some guy's stuff on a talk page? How could you be to blame? I see you as the victim in this situation. In fact, I would speak on your behalf about how, despite your benevolence, Glkanter has wronged you. Glkanter (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good, then we agree: my misinterpretation of your intentions was your fault. Case closed. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To avoid further drama, I'll take this article off my watch list again, as I had the good sense to do last April when it was clear that progress would not be possible. I hope nobody invites me to comment again, as I might repeat my failing and come back for more. Dicklyon (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen. We do not need this. Despite strong feelings on both sides the discussion has remained civil. As I said above, I think Dick went a bit too far when he deleted text from the talk page, but he has said the he will not object if it is restored. Glkanter, why not just restore the text and leave it at that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And, there you have it. This unknown Wikipedia editor vandalizes my Monty Hall problem talk page edit, and calls me a vandal while doing it. And it's all my fault.

"Good, then we agree: my misinterpretation of your intentions was your fault. Case closed. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monty_Hall_problem#Is_This_Chronology_Correct.3F Glkanter (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And then here's how Rick, who said not a single word while I was being violated, explained the above to someone he was seeking guidance from: "...But one of the editors on the "other side" views me as the "enemy" and has been become increasingly disruptive (on the talk page), to the point of even driving away another editor (one he basically agrees with!)..." Rick Block (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC) (my bolding) Glkanter (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and who the fuck do I think I am? I am an honest man, motherfucker! That's who the fuck I am! Glkanter (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I also like this variant (big fan of the variant, see the Monty Hall problem discussions):

Oh, and who the fuck do I think I am? Fuck You! That's who the fuck I am! Glkanter (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC) (actually posted a few hours earlier)

Old Garbage to take care of

How you like me now, Bitch!?

To Whom It May Concern:

Yes, we went through this in February, also when I was advocating loudly for changes to the MHP article.

This time, it's different. I'm part of a consensus. Please, shed as much light on this situation as you possibly can.

Thank you,

Glkanter (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rick Block just informed me that his request for Informal Mediation has been closed, and we've been advised to file for Formal Mediation. It seems likely either I, or someone else from the consensus will be filing this request promptly. Glkanter (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's Rick's 1st draft of his RfC on me. Rick and I see the nearly all aspects of the world 180 degrees differently. All you need to look at is the detail of the Dicklyon vandalism as shown on my page above, vs what Rick selectively linked to, in order to build his specious case against me. It's comical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rick_Block/DraftRFC

Glkanter (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have signed my endorsement on the RfC. This is one area where Rick and I are in agreement. If you feel he misrepresented the situation, I recommend you post a link to my so-called vandalism and explain. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep me out of this until it's filed. You and Rick agree? Funny thing. Only Martin commented on it at the time. Rick said nothing. How can you agree with someone who made no comment? I recommend you not file it. Glkanter (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that what I put my endorsement on was his draft. It's now done correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear about this, are you saying above that you have no intention of deleting the objectionable material from your user and talk pages and that you will not stop treating the content issue at MHP as a personal battle? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Rick, to your text that you typed above, I say this: mu. Glkanter (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Glkanter)

Hello, Glkanter. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Glkanter, where you may want to participate. Rick Block (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Watchwords

Integrity
Honesty
The Emperor Has No Clothes
No Enabling
Wikipedia 'Civility' = passive-aggressive false collegiality

I get it that personal attacks are unacceptable. I follow that in letter and spirit to the best of my abilities. What about discussing other editor's motivations or biases? Why should every editor *have* to figure each other out for himself? What if you perceive an editor as being less than straightforward? Or worse? Is there any way to bring it up? Not formally, just in conversation. Nothing's secret, why not be allowed to summarize where you think someone else is coming from? It can, and maybe does, work the other way. People get commended, I imagine. So everybody is either commendable or neutral? Sounds sorta like the children of Lake Woebegone. Glkanter (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

the FAQ

It looked like you and Rick were starting to carry the battle into the "FAQ" page, so I attempted to make a more neutral presentation there. I hope you agree this is better. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary for you to continue to try to polarize the discussion to the extreme there? Dicklyon (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you not leave messages on my talk page. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-06/Monty Hall problem

You are listed as an involved/interested party in a request for mediation. This message is an invitation for you to participate in the discussion here. Please join us in the conversation at your earliest convenience.
--K10wnsta (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Monty Hall problem has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Rick Block (talk)

re snide

To clarify, what I'm referring to as snide is "Strange that you can't see that, Rick". I've made my point. If I now went on to say "Strange that you can't see that, Glkanter" that would be snide. Of course, you already knew that. So then for you to go on to say "Yes, Rick. Quoting people in context is 'snide'" is ALSO snide. I imagine a mediator would at this point tell us both to shut up. Or delete your original snide comment. Or talk to you privately about it. I'm trying that here, but based on our past experience I don't have high hopes that you'll listen. What I am hoping is if a mediator says something to you, you'll listen. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For those keeping score at home, here's what I wrote:

"Martin made an edit and explained his non-POV reasons why. Nijdam reversed it giving ONLY his Morgan-POV reason shy. Seems clear to me where NPOV is being violated. Strange that you can't see that, Rick. Glkanter (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)". I guess 'Strange' could have been 'Typical', or perhaps 'Inconceivable'. Glkanter (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Undead

They just never stop! Glkanter (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I just realized...

I have posted my disputes with 2 editors above.

One of them is on a one year wiki sabbatical. The other is semi-retired. Glkanter (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop harassing me

I've asked you before to stop harassing me. I've really had quite enough. Seriously, stop it. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As usual, you and I interpret things in exactly the opposite manner. With my recent posts, I've simply cataloged a very small (4 brief items) sampling of your most note-worthy unsupportable comments which have for over 5 years, and for me personally, over 18 months, impeded making necessary corrections and other improvements to The Monty Hall Problem Wikipedia article. Glkanter (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Rick Block (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Do what you gotta do, Rick. I'm at peace with my actions to date. Glkanter (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Eventus stultorum magister. Glkanter (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reported your actions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you end up blocked, it won't be by me (I'm involved, so can't block you). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reported you again. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI - if you keep edit warring after a block, your next block will be longer. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Monty Hall problem. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. B (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Victim Of Long Term Gamesmanship

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.  Sandstein  19:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. I added a 2-row table following the only reliably sourced solution that did not have one. The results of this solution/table are very detrimental to the POV/Bias that Rick Block maintains over the article and it's editing. After first claiming to not understand it, then claiming it was flawed, Rick has personally offered 5 different substitutes of inferior quality. this shows the changes made by Rick. These changes are made by Rick solely for reasons of his personal semantics. Certainly not because these changes benefit the reader. And not because they are improperly sourced. It's all part of his long-standing Gamesmanship that I have been subject to. While a strong step, I am hopeful that this dispute between myself plus other editors, and Rick plus other editors will receive some attention./

Decline reason:

None of this addresses the reason you were blocked: edit warring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Umm, you have reverted seven times in the last two days and four times in the last day. Revert warring is considered inherently disruptive. Attacking the motives of those who disagree with you doesn't make it acceptable to revert repeatedly. --B (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the proper venue to address the complex violations of POV and Gamesmanship, among others? Glkanter (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is one (it looks like there have been several?) WP:3O provides an outside or "third opinion". WP:DR details the various options for dispute resolution. Please note that "I don't agree with them" is not the same as "they are trying to force a POV". You aren't going to get anywhere if you assume bad faith regarding those whom you disagree. --B (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

[The following was written prior to your response.]

Please note that I previously included this diff in my unblock request. In it I wrote:

"Additionally, column 5, Probability (unchanged), was removed entirely. This column held the same values as the 'Original Probability' column. A pretty important column, as we'll discuss later."

Well that reason is that Nijdam claims '1/3 <> 1'3' and mandates certain editing of the article because of this.

Here's how he proposes to deal with the situation just minutes ago:

"I suggest we remove the table in the article. It is no more than OWN RESEARCH, and adds nothing. Nijdam (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)"

I'm not attacking motives. I'm describing disruptive editing via Gamesmanship by Rick Block and Nijdam.

All I can say is: WP:NOTTHEM. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. It would mean a lot if you'd take a brief look over the talk page. Maybe put some 'faces' with all this dry talk. Thanks. Glkanter (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, That Table 'Modification' By Nijdam Was Vandalism

He didn't really want that crappy table he replaced mine with to be in the article. Here's what he suggested later:

"I suggest we remove the table in the article. It is no more than OWN RESEARCH, and adds nothing. Nijdam (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)"

[3]

Glkanter (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Nijdam's comment, it is not just own research, but it is unsourced too; so no wonder the table you added is going to be challenged and removed. Minimac (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Minimac, if you're still watching this page, you may want to take a look at this comment this morning fron Nijdam. Glkanter (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I created this section on the MHP talk page on Friday:

Is The Table That Supports Carlton's Solution OR?

I agree that he didn't include the table, but the 2 row 'choice-centric' design of the table is certainly consistent with his solution.

The column headings and the values in each cell come directly from:

Whitaker's letter (which doors serve which purposes)

Carlton's paper (the before-a-goat-is-revealed probabilities of 1/3 and 2/3),

Simple math (the after-the-goat-is-revealed probabilities) as shown:

(Probability of being a car * Probability of host revealing a goat (aka, a 100% condition) = Probability of being a car after revealing a goat)

1/3 * 100% = 1/3

2/3 * 100% = 2/3

I spent some time looking, and didn't find any WP policy prohibiting editor-created tables, as long as they are reliably sourced, NPOV, and verifiable. I think the table in it's current form meets these requirements. Glkanter (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Morgan Walks Back Own Paper

Morgan now says the same thing as the simple solutions. Maybe they weren't ever 'false' or 'incomplete' after all?

© 2010 American Statistical Association DOI: 10.1198/tast.2010.09227 The American Statistician, May 2010, Vol. 64, No. 2 193

Morgan, J. P., Chaganty, N. R., Dahiya, R. C., and Doviak, M. J. (1991),

“Let’s Make a Deal: The Player’s Dilemma,” The American Statistician,

45 (4), 284–287: Comment by Hogbin and Nijdam and Response

Response

[Begin Quote]"Our kind thanks to Mr. Hogbin and Dr. Nijdam for correcting our mistake. We will add that should the player have observed any previous plays of the game, those data, too, will modify the prior, and can produce posterior calculations other than 2/3 even with a symmetric prior. This, of course, is something else that we should have pursued. In any case, it should not distract from the essential fact that 1/(1+q) ≥ 1/2 regardless of q. Simply put, if the host must show a goat, the player should switch."

...

"We take this opportunity to address another issue related to our article, one that arose in vos Savant’s (1991) reply and in Bell’s (1992) letter, and has come up many times since. To wit, had we adopted conditions implicit in the problem, the answer is 2/3, period.[End Quote]

Carlton's solution is extremely similar. The contested table shows why Morgan's new conclusions work. Glkanter (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Soi, that's 3 acknowledged mistakes. Makes you wonder about their other points. Makes me especially wonder about their conclusions and accusations against vos Savant and the various simple solutions. I wonder if they plan to re-write their original column for clarity? Glkanter (talk)

Blocked again

You have been blocked for a period of seventy-two hours for edit-warring on Monty Hall problem... again. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 02:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request an unblock as the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. I am in good faith trying to discuss the validity and value to the article of the table [4]. There was an often-critical editor who modified the table in the article today, rather than delete it, with this Edit summary: "If, then complete" [5]. Rick Block reverted the table without responding to my new section or otherwise discussing the table [6]. And I am proposing for a 2nd time a NPOV article design [7].

Decline reason:

You've just come off a block for edit warring and immediately returned to the same article and repeated the same behavior. It seems that the block is indeed necessary to prevent disruption. When your block expires, please consider completing discussions on the article's talk page before reverting. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I explained in my earlier requests for unblocking that one of the reverts I made was due to Vandalism by editor Nijdam. Minimac disagreed with my evaluation. I also defended my actions based on NPOV violations and Gamesmanship. All to no avail. Today, Nijdam posted [8]. I summarized his posts and my response here [9], which is the very next section of my talk page. I think Nijdam's posting, and many others that preceded it, support my contentions of innocence. Thank you.

Decline reason:

When you find yourself in an editing dispute, there are many useful things you can do about it. Edit-warring is against the rules because it is always disruptive and never useful- others can revert just as often as you can, but that doesn't establish consensus or make a long-term change in the article. In fact, edit-warring, just makes everyone tense and angry with one another, and makes it more difficult to peacefully establish consensus. Instead of edit-warring, establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes you've all agreed on together. Please don't use the word 'vandalism' as a synonym for 'disagreeing with me.' Vandalism is a word with a specific meaning that doesn't apply to anyone involved in this disagreement- using it, like edit-warring, just makes everyone tense and angry without helping to resolve the disagreement. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Glkanter#Nijdam.27s_New_Ultimatum

Thanks. We are in meditation, although it's on hold, awaiting a replacement mediator. I don't know what else to do when faced with, as demonstrated by Nijdam's links, an editor who has no regard or respect for Wikipedia's policies on Reliable Sources and NPOV. How does one build a census, when there is no good faith give and take (as has been demonstrated by Nijdam's recent posting)? The 'delaying' game satisfies his goals very well. Glkanter (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request an unblock as the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. Editor Nijdam is intentionally completely disregarding the Pillars and Policies of Wikipedia. He has introducing highly debated POV into the article as 'fact:'

"Several authors point to the fact that this and some other simple solutions, are not complete, because they do not distinguish properly between the probabilities before and after the opening of a door by the host. (See the probability section for more details.)" [10].

The placement of the offending comment is very near the beginning of the 'Popular Solutions' section. This is a deliberate, bad faith, maneuver on his part to lead the reader into favoring his POV [11].

And this NPOV-violating, reliable-source-contradicting commentary is his 'justification' [12]

Decline reason:

None of this addresses your continued edit warring or suggests you intend to stop. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nijdam's New Ultimatum

"==Rose?=="

I really do not like the way Gill is intervening, acting like the elephant in the porcelain shop. I'm also very disappointed by him still defending the simple problem. A door (I do not care which one) has been opened before the player is given the offer to switch! Just the "simple" reader of the article will and should have this picture in mind. There is nothing to compromise. So, from now on, I suggest we start with the correct problem and the correct solution, be it in simple wording. Further on in the article we may mention some authors consider simplified versions of the problem! I'm through. Nijdam (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

May be someone can explain to me where from the problem formulation it may be deduced the player is given the offer to switch BEFORE the door with a goat is opened?Nijdam (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, giving the right numerical answer on basis of wrong reasoning, is as bad as giving the 50-50 answer.Nijdam (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

[13] [14]

Now, would someone, anyone, tell me how Carlton's solution and the new table fail to meet his requirements?

"An even simpler solution is to reason that switching loses if and only if the player initially picks the car, which happens with probability 1/3, so switching must win with probability 2/3 (Carlton 2005)."

Contestant's Door Choice: "say No. 1"	Initial probability	Host Reveals Goat Behind a Door: "say No. 3"	Remaining: Door 2	Probability After Revealing a Goat
Car	1/3	Goat	Goat	1/3
Goat	2/3	Goat	Car	2/3

Maybe a decision tree would be more acceptable. This shows the 100% condition that a goat will be revealed. It's starting to resemble a decision tree, with the exception that the Initial Probabilities of 1/3 and 2/3 each need to be shown 'straddling' two rows.

Contestant's Door Choice: "say No. 1"	Initial Probability	Host Reveals Goat Behind a Door: "say No. 3"	Frequency	Remaining: Door 2	Probability After Revealing a Goat
Car	1/3	Goat	100%	Goat	1/3
Car		n/a	0%
Goat	2/3	Goat	100%	Car	2/3
Goat		Car	0%

Glkanter (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Rick Block, the long time admin, has never said anything to Nijdam regarding NPOV, and I don't expect him to this time. Glkanter (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nijdam's POV-Laden Edit To The MHP Popular Solution section - So contrary to the published literature

"Several authors point to the fact that this and some other simple solutions, are not complete, because they do not distinguish properly between the probabilities before and after the opening of a door by the host. (See the probability section for more details.)"

(cur | prev) 03:56, 19 June 2010 Nijdam (talk | contribs) (59,359 bytes) (restored older version, but without the controversial table. Gill's changes are premature) (undo) [15]

Not only is it POV, by calling it a 'fact' it is intentionally incomplete, inaccurate, misleading and unreferenced.

Really shows bad faith as an editor. We argue about this ALL THE TIME. There are plenty of editors who are against this type of editorializing/commentary in the article. It's false, and violates every founding Wikipedia principal. Glkanter (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't understand the math well enough to take a side in this dispute. But there are plenty of editors at Wikipedia who do understand the math, so I'm certain that you'll be able to use the helpful suggestions at WP:DISPUTE to get consensus on a version that is best for the encyclopedia, and you won't have to edit-war to do it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. We are in Mediation. It's currently on 'hold' as they seek a new mediator.

I'm not asking anyone to take a side. Please read his 'justification' [16]. He boldly announces that Wikipedia's rules, which he is knowledgeable of, won't be applying to him. Nijdam's edit, as well as at least one of his edits that I reverted are counter-productive to the goals and methods of Wikipedia. He is clearly making the article represent his POV. That's one of the hallmarks of the MHP, the existing literature is inconsistent with regards to the math. That's one of the things we constantly argue about. Well, in my absence as an editor, Nijdam just edited in his POV. Ask Rick Block. He won't volunteer this information, but if asked, he will concur.

So, I have this 2nd ban because I violated the letter of the 3rr/edit warring rules. But I didn't harm the article. In fact, it will be shown that I was making it better. Nijdam is violating the letter and spirit of the rules with his POV/Bias and Gamesmanship, but nobody wants to step up, acknowledge this, and take appropriate actions. Thanks for reading all this. Glkanter (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That comment, which you've linked to several times, doesn't really reflect badly on User:Nijdam. He's simply saying that he is certain that you are wrong, that he thinks you are behaving badly, and that the article should start with a simply stated problem and solution. I don't know whether or not you are wrong, but you are behaving badly with your continued edit-warring (and it sounds like you still don't understand what a very serious problem that is), and starting the article with the problem and its solution isn't an unreasonable suggestion. Note that the 'letter of the 3rr/edit-warring rules' don't actually entitle you to three reverts every 24 hours, and that if, when your block expires, you go back and undo edits in that article again, you're quite likely to be blocked again on even your first revert. It's a very disruptive way to behave, and it seriously interferes with the important work of actually reaching consensus. What harm is there, in the long run, if the article is "wrong" for a few days or a week while the discussion happens? None at all. I suggest that you don't make any edits to the article at all until consensus on the talk page is very clear. If you are right, others will see how right you are, and you'll get your desired edit ultimately. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand very well your point that there is no 'entitlement' to make reverts, especially for an offender like me. After nearly 20 months, about the last 6 - 8 in various stages of informal and formal Mediation, I felt that table that kept getting reverted was the final straw. I simply don't know how else to deal with 2 editors who are not participating in good faith.

Nijdam's comment wasn't directed to me, at all. As a rule, Nijdam does not acknowledge my edits on the various talk pages. It was directed to Gill, who, like Nijdam, is a mathematics PhD. And has been reliably published on the MHP. And to Martin, who I believe is a PhD physicist. It was immediately after that comment that Nijdam reverted all of Gill's edits, and added the false text in the Popular Solution section.

I think Nijdam is actually saying the opposite of 2 points you made. He says it's WRONG to give a simple solution first. Unless you point out how 'phony' it is at the same time. And he's been arguing for a very long time that reader's who 'think' they understand the puzzle via a simple solution they read in Wikipedia are being irreparably harmed. Really. He argues these, despite countless reliable sources providing simple solutions. This reliably published sources includes Selvin, the PhD Mathematician who first devised the problem and named it the Monty Hall Problem in The American Statistician, a peer-reviewed professional journal, and vos Savant, who made the problem HUGELY popular by writing about it in her weekly column in Parade magazine. They both offer, and defend, their simple solutions.

Again, thank you for your time and interest. Glkanter (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The following is "Sarcasm". Humor used to make a serious point.

Nijdam has included this very prominently in the Popular Solution section of the MHP article:

"Several authors point to the fact that this and some other simple solutions, are not complete, because they do not distinguish properly between the probabilities before and after the opening of a door by the host. (See the probability section for more details.)"

I don't suppose anyone would mind if I added this prominently to the Probabilistic Solution section:

Several prominent authors, including Morgan, et al, who originated the 'simple solutions are false' school of thought (see below for their revised POV), point to the fact that this and other conditional solutions, are not necessary, because the simple solutions properly solve the problem, and that Whitaker did not mean exclusively doors 1 & 3. Solving the problem using the simple solutions correctly solves the problem for all door pairings, including Doors 1 & 3. (See the Sources of Confusion section for more details.)

On the other hand, if Nijdam's edit is still in the article after 48 more hours... Glkanter (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Morgan now says the same thing as the simple solutions. Maybe they weren't ever 'false' or 'incomplete' after all?

© 2010 American Statistical Association DOI: 10.1198/tast.2010.09227 The American Statistician, May 2010, Vol. 64, No. 2 193

Morgan, J. P., Chaganty, N. R., Dahiya, R. C., and Doviak, M. J. (1991),

“Let’s Make a Deal: The Player’s Dilemma,” The American Statistician,

45 (4), 284–287: Comment by Hogbin and Nijdam and Response

Response

[Begin Quote]"Our kind thanks to Mr. Hogbin and Dr. Nijdam for correcting our mistake. We will add that should the player have observed any previous plays of the game, those data, too, will modify the prior, and can produce posterior calculations other than 2/3 even with a symmetric prior. This, of course, is something else that we should have pursued. In any case, it should not distract from the essential fact that 1/(1+q) ≥ 1/2 regardless of q. Simply put, if the host must show a goat, the player should switch."

...

"We take this opportunity to address another issue related to our article, one that arose in vos Savant’s (1991) reply and in Bell’s (1992) letter, and has come up many times since. To wit, had we adopted conditions implicit in the problem, the answer is 2/3, period.[End Quote]

Reported you for edit warring again

Just FYI, I've reported you for edit warring again, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and refrain from any of the activities it describes. In addition to edit warring over your diagram, nearly all of your recent edits are simply nothing but disruption, e.g. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22].

Please stop. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You're a menace that needs to be stopped. Glkanter (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like, arbcom is thataway. They might reject a request out of hand since we're still in mediation, but since it's on hold they might open a case. If you pursue this, you'll want to read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration first. And, I'll caution you that you might get the exact opposite of what you want. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. GorillaWarfare ^talk 15:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote 'Get over yourselves'. That's not an attack. Glkanter (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether you consider it an attack or not, the point remains: please be more civil. GorillaWarfare ^talk 18:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You are suggesting I engage in 'false collegiality.' My reply was to a sarcastic paragraph which was a put down of another editor and by extension myself. Your comments, sir, appear to reflect a lack of awareness as to the above described situation. Please let me know if I can provide you with more infopmation on this topic. Cheers! Glkanter

I agree, I am not familiar with what the dispute was on that page. I did question whether or not the paragraph to which you were responding was also borderline. I'm sure you have gotten my point by now, however, and I will drop the point. Happy editing! GorillaWarfare ^talk 19:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, as I stated originally, I did not make a personal attack on any editor. Nor was my responce uncivil. I do not understand your reason for comments. I am happy to discontinue this non-productive discussion. Cheers! Glkanter

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of seventy-two hours for edit-warring on Monty Hall problem. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 08:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you now limit yourself to reverting the same material just once or twice a day doesn't make it any less disruptive. -- tariqabjotu 08:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked for the following reasons: I am staying within the policies of Wikipedia. The text I removed paraphrases one set of reliable sources plus editorializing OR that criticizes the solution to the MHP of another set of reliable sources, with the express purpose of casting doubt on the latter's solution. While there is a place in the article for inclusion of links, etc to both reliable sources, putting the criticisms and OR immediately preceding the solutions given by the reliable sources they criticize is a prima facie NPOV violation. There is of course, no accommodation in Wikipedia for the editorializing OR. I have discussed this NPOV violation in recent days at the following diffs:[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28]. I think you're banning the wrong guy. Glkanter (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

Decline reason:

I appreciate that you were involved in discussion on the matter, and that's precisely what is supposed to happen. However, while discussion was ongoing, you continued to revert the article, despite objections to your doing so. Your evaluation of the material is disputed by other editors, and that dispute needs to be resolved before the article can be reverted, ether to your version or a different one as consensus dictates. Your edits constitute edit warring, and thus you appear to have been properly blocked. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree with you 100%, as shown by my diffs, above. Unfortunately this article has very adamant editors on both sides. There seems to be no resolution to the dispute (for me, almost 2 years, others for maybe 6 or 7 years now), as the MHP article was accepted for Formal Mediation in December, 2009. Except for 2 brief attempts, there has been no mediator for nearly the entire period since then. My edits remove a POV from the article. This is a statement of fact. That there are editors who dispute this is beyond my explanation. If you haven't already done so, please read the text I've deleted. It's not very long at all. POV and OR violate Wikipedia's 'pillar' guidelines of NPOV and reliable sourcing. Disciplining me does not resolve these violations. In fact, it perpetuates them. Would it bolster my argument if I were to include diffs showing the 'thought process' behind the various editors I disagree with, and how their motives are not in concert with Wikipedia policies? Glkanter (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is no right and wrong in an edit war. The only exception to the edit warring policy is the reversion of blatant vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My editing method was unchanged from the previous time I was reported, but not blocked. It seems to me that the 'rules' or the 'interpretation of the rules' have been changed without my knowledge, as follows: "Seems as if the editor concerned has learned from previous blocks and is ensuring not to revert more than three times in 24 hours - to be blocked for breaking 3RR, learning your lesson and then get blocked, even though you have stayed within three reverts would be rather harsh. If he is guilty of edit warring, then I would suggest the same applies to all the editors who are reverting the article more than once. Perhaps an admin could protect the article, while discussion continues. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 1:59 am, 5 July 2010, Monday (1 month, 1 day ago) (UTC+10)" [29] Accordingly, I request the return of my editing privileges. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block has expired. Happy editing. Closedmouth (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MHP

Is the Monty Hall problem, the solution to which I make no comment about, such an important article thast it is worth edit-warring about to the point of block?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have received similar counsel before. I guess all I can say is, 'Yes, to me, it is'. But I don't consider myself an edit-warring outlaw who deserves being blocked. And, without the being blocked part, there are a few more editors who devote as much time and effort to this article, maybe more. The whole thing defies rational explanation, but here we are. And the article continues to be riddled with NPOV and OR editorializing violations, to the readers' detriment. You should read the version from October 27-ish, 2008. It was even worse, then. So to some extent, all this has produced a benefit. Thanks for asking. Glkanter (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in any of this have you admitted that you were edit warring, or agreed not to do it in the future. In the future if you don't want to get blocked again try requesting page protection. If the forms of dispute resolution used so far are not working out, move on to some other type. Just don't edit war, it doesn't accomplish anything except to get you blocked. If you can understand and abide by our policy on edit warring you can be unblocked. If you can't even admit that you were edit warring then your chances of having this block lifted are very slim and your chances of being blocked again in the near future are very high. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me begin my response by saying I understand that by engaging me in this discussion, you are going beyond the call of duty. I appreciate that you are doing this in an effort to make me a better editor and contributor to Wikipedia.

I am certainly willing to use all methods of dispute resolution available. As far as I can tell, none of the editors on the MHP are aware of what those may be, as we have already tried the Mediation Cabal, and are still waiting for a Formal Mediator to be assigned. If you know of other avenues towards resolution, please share them with me (us).

I am familiar with the 3RR. I am also aware that about one month ago, one admin wrote that blocking me for my editing pattern didn't seem right to him, and a second admin agreed. Instead, the second admin scolded all the reverting editors, and protected the article for 30 days. Yesterday/today, that same second admin decided that my same pattern of editing, after a single day, was, indeed, edit-warring. With no warning to me, he blocked me for 72 hours. Then you confirmed his actions, and explained that only as a response to vandalism could I justify my editing pattern. If I look at that statement closely enough, you are describing a 0RR or 'zero revert rule'. But that's different than what 2 admins wrote a month ago. And that's where I have a hard time admitting I did something wrong. Perhaps you could provide a link to this 'vandalism only' policy?

Thanks for your interest in the MHP article. Glkanter (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I had not read about Edit Warring until I followed your link just a few minutes ago. I see that I am on target as I describe 0RR. I also see that reverts are allowed in cases other than vandalism, like when a major policy is being violated. I think POV and OR meet this criteria. Otherwise, my reading is that the admin's judgment is an important component in the block decision. Glkanter (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

POV and OR are clearly not a reason to break 3RR. You're also only allowed 1 unblock request at a time - right now you have 2, and neither will get you unblocked because they do not address the reason you're blocked properly so you might want to remove one (or both). You are validly blocked for edit-warring because you reverted when you officially could not. Read WP:EW and WP:3RR - and most especially WP:BRD.

Thank you for the info. I will remove one of the requests. I did not violate 3RR, wasn't even close. I was blocked for some other reason. Glkanter (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter, you can't have it both ways. You complain about the protection, but then you complain about your block. Obviously, the protection was necessary as we see you resumed edit warring less than an hour after the protection was lifted. So, what do you want to do? Protect it again, having finished more than three weeks of protection? There's a limit to how much blanket protection should be used in lieu of going after individual editors. When there's one editor, in this case you, who consistently revert wars over the article, feeling whatever fight he's fighting is -- as you admit -- worth edit-warring to a point of block, that person needs to be stopped. In the past month and a half, as your block log suggests, you have continuously edit-warred on this particular article, with the only respite coming because of the protection I placed on the article. As I said, it's disruptive, and I will not allow you to wikilawyer your way out of this. If you interpret this as a suggestion for 0RR, fine, all the better. -- tariqabjotu 13:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do not recall complaining about the protection. I think a warning that the previous reasoning for not blocking me was no longer in affect would have been more appropriate than the block. As for 'Wikilawyering', I do not appreciate personal attacks, regardless of who they come from. Glkanter (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I interpreted this --

I am also aware that about one month ago, one admin wrote that blocking me for my editing pattern didn't seem right to him, and a second admin agreed. Instead, the second admin scolded all the reverting editors, and protected the article for 30 days.

-- as a suggestion that the protection was without good reason.

In any event, let me remind you about what happened just before the protection. First, I'm not sure what 'first admin' you're talking about; I'm the only one who responded to the request. Second, I said "Yes, Glkanter was a -- and maybe the -- major instigator..." I did not say blocking you didn't seem right; I was simply saying there was a long-term problem on the article that wasn't all about you. This brings me back to what I said just now; I can't keep protecting the article forever when you're the major instigator. -- tariqabjotu 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as per my open unblock request, I included this diff [30], where the following was posted:

"Seems as if the editor concerned has learned from previous blocks and is ensuring not to revert more than three times in 24 hours - to be blocked for breaking 3RR, learning your lesson and then get blocked, even though you have stayed within three reverts would be rather harsh. If he is guilty of edit warring, then I would suggest the same applies to all the editors who are reverting the article more than once. Perhaps an admin could protect the article, while discussion continues. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)"

I only mentioned the article protection in order to show that the admin response in 2 nearly identical situations was different, without warning or explanation. You, and others, suggest I should consider what I will call 'self-blocking', rather than removing the POV and OR stuff. That has the exact same affect as being blocked, except it is self-inflicted. I respectfully decline the suggestion. Glkanter (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What's your point? Sennen is demonstrably wrong. The purpose of the three-revert rule and the edit-warring policy isn't to stop people from reverting more than three times in a day (or any greater or lesser times per day). It is not intended to create a bright line, which defines what's blockable. The point of the policy is to encourage people to resolve disputes by actually talking to people on the talk page, instead of reverting until they get what they want. You, as demonstrated by your reversion less than an hour after the end of protection (followed by subsequent reversions), along with your poor track record here, have suggested to me that, regardless of what is happening on the talk page, you feel it worthwhile to continue to revert to your version. You are unwilling to wait for a mutual resolution, and I'm not even sure you'll accept a resolution unless it is yours. As I said at the point of the block, this is blatant disruption. -- tariqabjotu 15:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your thoughtful responses. I disagree with your conclusions, but I abide (what choice do I have?) by Wikipedia's policies. If you haven't already done so, please respond to my open unblock request. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-starting Mediation on The Monty Hall Problem Paradox

I like our chances. Besides being 'right' in the Wikipedia sense, we have this Historical List Of MHP Editors.

Nicely done, Martin.

Glkanter (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this a long, long, long time ago...

I wrote this after 4 tedious months of discussing the MHP on Wikipedia. None of the people I was arguing with had mentioned to me that the only thing that mattered was the reliably published sources. Armed with this knowledge, I have revised my estimate. Maybe 10% of the current argument fits within Wikipedia policy, not the 5% I originally estimated. Not a single other word requires change.

Conventional Wisdom

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?

Yes, I look at this entire article, excepting maybe 5% of it, as an elaborate hoax. I think everyone went along because they did not want to admit to limited knowledge of the subject matter. Everybody drank the kool-aid. And the emperor is wearing no clothes.

2/3 of the time I will select a goat. Therefore I should switch. Glkanter (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

original diff

posted on my talk page Glkanter (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of material from case page and archiving of talk page

I've responded to your request by removing it and archiving the talk page. So there is now a clean slate. There will be a period of adjustment as the article talk page ceases to be "that page on my watchlist where I get a regular emotional charge." The mediation will not replace it and will move ahead slowly. Here's hoping the adjustment phase will not be too "bumpy." Sunray (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just searching for the Truth. That's all. Glkanter (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple solutions must be accompanied by 'criticisms'

Thanks for your quick and enthusiastic reply to this request. However, I hope speed won't be a big factor in this mediation. Given time to reflect, could you find ways of describing the other view in a more sympathetic manner?

Abraham Lincoln, before his election to President, would challenge his children to argue one side of an issue and then the other, and they couldn't tell which side he supported because he could speak for either side so well.

Anyway, feel free to improve your entry in keeping with the spirit of the exercise.   Will Beback  talk 

Thank you for your inquiry.

No, I cannot accommodate your request. And I do not say this 'regretfully'. To do so would be untrue to the facts, and a disservice to your readers and myself. I can provide links to postings from Nijdam in the last 2 weeks that support the facts and the tone of my writings. Plus, many more earlier such postings. And comments on reverts to my edits. I'm sure I could find similar items from Rick Block, though they would be couched in a more collegial, but no less, imho, NPOV violating, manner.

As for Lincoln, I *could* argue their side (or rather, their view of the opposition's side), but Rick Block and Glopk have both made it's solitary point for me.

Take your time. Do this thing the right way. We had 2 others try doing this the wrong way already. We're well on our way to bringing this to closure. Glkanter (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Other than removing the quotation marks from 'criticisms' in the title of my response, I don't see anything that is unnecessary or not within the spirit of the ground rules you've laid out. I focused solely on the argument, not the editors. If you want me to remove their names, and substitute 'the opposition', or 'the opposing viewpoint' I could do that. But I will not leave that paragraph written with my name associated to it without attribution. Glkanter (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to describe the attitude of "the other side" in explaining the "opposing views"

Hello Glkanter, you said "Martin calls out the insistence that only conditional solutions are true", but that is not his view: Every member had been asked by the mediators to try to "explain the opposing views", as a first step of the mediation, just to show that the opposing arguments have been understood. Each participant is to show that he has understood the opposing arguments, in reproducing them in his own words, and Martin tried to formulate the "opposing view". He is right, the opposing view really insists that only "conditional" solutions were "correct solutions". That's the attitude of our opponents, not Martins. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course. 'Call out' is an idiom, which in this case means 'show the fallacy of' their argument. Glkanter

To decrease verbosity, sub-crap moved to own talk page, please read and comment

Hi Glkanter. I have spent all day "doing my stuff" on the mediation page. In an effort to decrease my verbosity I put up some footnotes to mediation page contributions by me on my talk page. Still struggling with how to do links in wikipedia and how to get notifications when important things are changed. I hope you have time to take a look and do please comment, in whichever way you like. Gill110951 (talk)

Reading this message could be to your advantage

Please take a look at [[31]]

There you will find out why the answer is "2/3", "switch", and the method is unconditional, but the assumptions are NOT the standard assumptions, the result is much much better, just as easy. Hellpimp showed us the way but no-one noticed. Gill110951 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this earlier today. It doesn't impact me quite the way it does to you. My rush came with Carlton's conditional decision tree showing that the 'host bias' of 50/50 isn't a requirement to solve the puzzle. Even though on a game show it is required behaviour. Morgan basing their entire paper on this 'missing premise' (mising from vos Savant, but not Selvin) shows how their paper is a waste of ink. But, I stress at this point, in Wikipedia it's the reliable sources, not who is the cleverest at math, or the cleverest at denying ones errors. Glkanter (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you don't realise the big difference it means in the real world to thinking that you think that all doors are equally likely, so initially you'll go for 1, and to realising that you don't know a thing, but you can finesse this by choosing your initial door randomly.

Personally I am committed to the truth not to wikipedia. On wikipedia I try to be a good boy, though. I can take it if the majority of wiki-reliable sources were evidently written by fools. I will try however on the talk pages to get this to cause some embarassment. Gill110951 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess we see a couple of things differently. I'm playing on Wikipedia's ball field, with their ball. Therefore, each reliable source's POV deserves some amount of attention in the article. With their 2010 letter, I have doubts about Morgan being a reliable source, but there are other reliable sources who agree with portions of Morgan's paper. And I have no interest whatsoever in arguing math or 'rightness', as I think Wikipedia's policy is that those concepts are not foremost when editing an article. They take a back seat, as I interpret the policies, to reliable sources and NPOV. Accordingly, I would be happy to discuss the contestant's door decision and it's affect on the outcomes, in some other venue. Glkanter (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. Let's do that. You will notice that the "contestant chooses door randomly and then switches" is both a different answer to your answer, and a different question to your question, making different assumptions. I don't want to debate which one is a better question, better assumptions, and better result. But this is an approach which is reliably sourced and which both has an informal version which is good to know and a more sophisticated version which all the smart guys (financial engineers, business school, economists) know about. Take fate into your own hands by throwing your own dice. Finesses all possible complications. You can't think when you're under the lights in the last round of the game show, that's why no-one ever switched, except for the occasional pigeon. You must think this through in advance. You must think out of the box and realize that you have TWO not one decision moments and the first is just as important as the second. Gill110951 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Secondly of course we are playing on wikipedias ball park when editing wikipedia articles but right now we are in mediation and we have two wize patient competent smart active mediators who have laid out some ground rules, which we have all signed up to. So you don't have to start getting upset when someone else breaks those rules. Wait a moment till the mediators tell them off, and make them lose face. Moreover, when you don't follow the mediator's guidance, you lose credibility with them and you lose face too. Gill110951 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way how I see things at the moment there are kind of two levels. You can convince everyone that switching is better than not-switching because 2/3 is better than 1/3. I am talking about an unconditional probability here. For whatever reasons I am ignoring the door numbers. Some people think this result is not complete. From the mathematical point of view they are right, because though we've proven "switch, whatever" beats "stay, whatever" we haven't shown there is something else that is better still. But no-one in their right mind can possibly believe one can do strictly better (unconditionally) than 2/3. If so, vos Savant or some smart guy doing computer simulations would have found it long ago. So either we believe this or we prove it, but it sure is true. It follows from this both that all the conditional probalities are at least 1/2 and that the solution "2/3" is *optimal* solution from the game theory point of view. Gill110951 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In real life, Monty never offered the switch as described in the problem. I think he says that in Selvin's 2nd letter. Hopefully, the Mediators can differentiate between my methods of arguing (perhaps occasionally not meeting their standards of civility, per Wikipedia), and the arguments themselves, calling for for the article to be based on reliable sources without a POV, per Wikipedia. And I don't understand your first sentence about 'different questions' and 'different answers'. I'm the guy who wrote in February, 2009 "2/3 of the time I will select a goat. Therefore I should switch.' I have no idea what this argument is about. Glkanter (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter a damn what Monty said in real life, it matters what is a reliable source on the MHP phenomenon. Secondly I do have an idea what this argument is about, and it's about understanding arguments. Let's examine a small piece. Why are you sure that 2/3 of the time you will select a goat? Do you mean, 2/3 of the time when you picked door 1, or 2/3 of the time you picked any door? How can you be sure of that? Because you have no idea or because you picked a door at random?Gill110951 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Gill. I only know what I've learned and what I can reasonable conclude. Glkanter (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can learn a bit more? Or conclude that you can't reasonably conclude quite so much? Please call me Richard. Gill110951 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, Richard, small bites at a time. 1 car, 2 goats, 3 indistinct doors. I don't know the producer's patterns, he doesn't know mine. Which doesn't exist. I say every time I walk on that stage, it's 2/3 I choose a goat. Regardless of which door I select, and why I selected it.

Your criticism "It doesn't matter a damn what Monty said in real life, it matters what is a reliable source on the MHP phenomenon." stings. Because I answered in response to your statement "...that's why no-one ever switched..." Not only did Monty say it, but he said it in a reliable source, Selvins's 2nd letter.

Maybe you can explain the ground rules for this discussion? Because I'm confused. Richard, I'm as 'coachable' as any other 'student' you have or have had. But I respond badly to being criticized for my legitimate response 'In real life, Monty never offered the switch." to your earlier statement, "...that's why no-one ever switched...". And I don't just buy counter-intuitive arguments at face value. For example, I don't believe in the 'Invisible Hand' guiding markets perfectly into a sweet spot. I have no axe to grind with you, but I will offer the layman's view when I think it is different than you're describing. Glkanter (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, never take counter-intuitive arguments at face-value! Trying to follow your layman's argument I translate it into an argument of a professional. Your conception of probability is frequentist, you are thinking of many repetitions. You are *assuming* that 2/3 of the time we will first pick a door which hides a goat.

Do you agree that the following three scenarios are different? Which one do you find most interesting or relevant? Which one should we pay most attention to on the Wikipedia page, following wikipedia standard policies?

Repeat many times always choosing door 1

Repeat many times always choosing a door at random

Repeat many times always choosing a door at random, but then only look at the smaller set of times where door 1 was selected

At random means here completely (or uniformly) at random, which means in this context with probabilities 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Gill110951 (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon for the intrusion (MHP): The characteristics of the three doors not being further described.
So, when I explicitly say: "You pick a door at random, say No. 1", – is the same evidence already strictly implied in the formulation:
"You pick a door, say No. 1", as well? – As for me, I would say yes.
As for me, the formulations: those three doors have numbers (1-3) .... you pick a door at random, say No. 1 and: the doors don't have numbers, .... you pick a door at random, let's call it "door No. 1" and: You pick a door, say the leftmost, so let's call it "door No. 1" all seem to be identical. Or aren't they? Can that lead to a controversy? Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Gerhard! You're right I was not clear enough. For my present purpose, which is to try to open an avenue of communication with my friend Garry, the doors are three distinguishable doors labelled, in advance, with the arabic numerals 1, 2, 3. (But we could also label them red, green, blue; or left, middle, right; or A, B, C; or I, II, III.) Gill110951 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my focus was the word "randomly" or "at random" in picking one of three doors. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard, Garry: Please can you help me on my talk page here? Thank you! Gerhardvalentin (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, as I understand things, I am not a frequentist. 3 doors, 2 goats. 2/3 chance I select a goat. Regardless of which door I select, and why I selected it. Glkanter (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Garry I don't care if you think you are a frequentist or not. *You* talked about many times so for you probabilities appeared to me to be relative frequencies in many repetitions. You are assuming that 2/3 of the time you'll first pick a goat, you said "2/3 of the time I first pick a goat".

Secondly please could you answer the questions! The preamble, which was me thinking out loud, is irrelevant for you. Gill110951 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I said 'every time I walk on that stage...' If that implies 'frequentism', then I regret using those words. What I *have* said all along is this: "2/3 of the time I will select a goat. Therefore I should switch'. If the conversation is going to continue in this berating fashion, I will choose not to participate, Richard. What is the question you want me to answer? Glkanter (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not mean to berate. OK, 2/3 of the time you walk on the stage, not 2/3 of the time you walk on the stage and select door 1. Let me ask 2 different questions then

(1) How do you know for sure it will be 2/3? (i.e. what is it that you know for sure about game shows which I don't know?)

(2) Are you also sure that it will be 2/3 of the time that you walk on the stage and choose door 1, and 2/3 of the time that you walk on the stage and choose door 2, and 2/3 of the time that you walk on the stage and choose door 3?

I'm just trying to understand your understanding. This is a fascinating job which I have much experience in (understanding the understanding of scientists in other fields) since I consult to all kinds of interesting people in interesting professions, from law to rocket science, one might say. I can only do useful work for them once we are able to communicate. Gill110951 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard, did I get it correct: No matter how the (secret) original distribution of the three objects may be, but if the guest makes her first choice uniformly at random, she will have a chance of 2/3 to pick a goat! Please have a look [here] also. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This Is What I'm Hearing...

1. Suppose you're on a game show...

2. "If the contestant chooses doors uniformly at random, the likelihood of initially selecting the car is 1/3, a goat 2/3."

Therefore:

3. "If the contestant does NOT choose uniformly at random, the likelihoods may be different values."

4. I reject the notion that the contestant's method of making that door choice affects the probabilities in the Monty Hall Problem Paradox. Glkanter (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are not hearing that, because it wouldn't be logical, and you can be sure I only use logically correct arguments. But you are sure you will hit a goat 2/3 of the time, however you choose a door. It's a mathematical theorem that this means that the car is being hidden by the organizers of the quiz show uniformly at random. Gill110951 (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Gill, I'm not formally trained. There's nothing more that I can tell you. Somewhere recently (maybe on one of Martin's talk pages) you wrote something like 'as long as the contestant chooses uniformly at random, he has a 2/3 chance of selecting a door with a goat behind it'. That is the statement I do not agree with. If those were not your words, then I apologize, and we can end this discussion.

Otherwise, please tell me which of the above statements is flawed. Thanks. Glkanter (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am formally trained, which can be both an advantage and a handicap. Let me rephrase my sentence. If you choose your door uniformly at random, you can be certain the chance is 2/3 that your choice hides goat. If you don't choose your door uniformly at random, you can't be certain the chance is 2/3 it hides a goat. (I don't say it isn't 2/3, I say you can't know if it is 2/3 or not). Interesting discussion! Probability is a tricky concept! If you say that the probability is 2/3 because you don't know anyting at all, then you are a subjectivist. Wouldn't it be to your advantage to learn a bit about this fundamental controversy about what it means when we make probability statements about the real world? Does probability reside in our heads, it is about the information we have in our heads about a situation, or does it reside in the situation, objectively. People who use probability have been fighting about this for 250 years, without making any progress. Gill110951 (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right, but I will go on happily in my ignorance, making the best decisions I know how.

(A)

Richard: How did you arrive at your selection of door #1?

Glkanter: I used a random number generator.

Richard: Then the probability is 2/3 that you picked a goat.

or

(B)

Richard: How did you arrive at your selection of door #1?

Glkanter: It's my lucky number.

Richard: Well then, you can't be certain the chance is 2/3 it hides a goat. I'm not saying it isn't 2/3, rather that you can't know if it is 2/3 or not.

I guess that is meaningful to you and those that care to argue about it. Sorry, that does not include me. Glkanter (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's meaningful to me because it brings me a step closer to understanding your meaning and hence the total rationality and correctness of your argument in its own terms. You're saying, I think, that for you a distinction between (A) random number generator and (B) lucky number is completely irrelevant. That means that in your world, as you walked onto the stage and was asked to choose a door, each door was equally likely to hide the car, and of course your choice method was irrelevant. For the same reason, Monty Hall's choice method when he has one is irrelevant. For the same reason, the door numbers (or colours, or positions) themselves are irrelevant. Since they're strictly irrelevant there is no implication whatsoever in naming them for convenience or concreteness as Selvin, vos Savant and so many before and after have done. Probability for you is about your rational beliefs. It's epistemological, not ontological; "subjectivist" not "frequentist". Like Laplace and a great many other very great and very rational thinkers, past, present, and future. I think that Martin Hogbin also holds instinctively to the position that probability describes rational belief. When one looks at the roots of the word one finds the same view. When one tries to look in the mind of the typical intelligent man in the street, you'll find the same view. According to many scientists in the field now, the "objectivist" position has been a brief aberation for a large part of the 20'th century (roughly: the 20's to the 90's). However, as such, it certainly has played a major role in making great advances in science and technology. Right moving to a new synthesis. Personally I am on the side of the synthesis, the debate had been polarized hence fruitless for too long already. The first step is for each side to realise the self-consistency of the other's view, and to realise that there are situations which call for either view. Gill110951 (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

False Collegiality

God, I hate this aspect of Wikipedia. Rick Block went crying to the mediator about a non-issue. He thinks some recent edits haven't been following the 'mediation groundrules'. The mediator said he didn't see any issue. Rick comes back, this time with a 'starting point' diff of where he thinks the trouble began.

Of course, the 'starting point' diff is one of mine. Rick, intentionally, of course, leaves out the very 1st diff in the thread, the one where his buddy Nijdam makes some specious claims about reliable sources. The one I *responded* to. Typical gamesmanship by Rick. Typical lack of good faith. No way was it not intentional. But, on the mediation page, I can only point out the facts of the omission, provide the link, and wish everyone a happy day. Glkanter (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is over the line, IMO. You are making personal comments about another editor. Elsewhere, you have accused that editor of not assuming good faith. How are you on that score? Since it is your own talk page, you might show some good faith yourself by removing this and getting on with the mediation. Just a suggestion. Sunray (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I post in good faith at all times. I may be sarcastic, and people may not like what I post. But I'm not deceitful. And I don't practice gamesmanship. I state my intentions, and edit in that fashion, as I understand the spirit of Wikipedia. Not all MHP editors do that. Yes, I make comments about other editors. You're still taking the position that the editor I complained about is innocent. Once you realize he's not, you'll understand why I write these things. I'm trying very hard to keep that aspect out of the mediation, but how else can you explain the diff he started with above? And it's a FACT that he started with my diff, not Nijdam's original post. Glkanter (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I was saying that you are making personal comments. I don't understand why you find that necessary. I am taking no position on the other editor. I'm not concerned with your past conflict at all, only what is going on right now. Sunray (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The diffs I'm referring to in this section occurred on the mediation page last week. The editor's complaint I mentioned was posted on one of the mediator's talk pages. This is not old news I'm just now bringing up. It's a very real part of the active mediation, and I posted it a week ago. Personal comments? I've taken plenty of good shots, from some of the best. Believe me. A lot of it originated or has been copied onto this page. A personal comment relating to how an editor's behaviour is affecting the editing of a Wikipedia article? Fair game in my book. Glkanter (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can maintain that in light of the policy and the groundrules you agreed to on the mediation page. Would you be able to uphold that agreement? Sunray (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I understand the ground rules, and have agreed to them. I thought my question about good faith and gamesmanship that I asked on the mediation page yesterday met that standard. Once you said you didn't see any infraction, I didn't try to convince you, I suggested we move on. I also felt that by posting my frustrations on my own page a week ago I was meeting that standard. I don't want to be a distraction from the purpose of the mediation. You know, I'm not initiating this stuff. I'm just responding to what I read. I'd rather I didn't read about certain letters written by Wikipedia editors having an ultimate claim to validity over all other sources, and certain editors having divine insight into sources' intent that mere mortal editors like myself will never have. But those things are being posted on the mediation page. I notice those things, and often times choose to point them out. What should an 'opposing' editor do when that type of stuff is being submitted as an argument by the other guys? Letting it slide is not an option. Glkanter (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. I agree that you handled the issue on the mediation talk page in accordance with the groundrules. Also, I want you to know that I am advising you both along the same lines. If you insist on talking about behaviour, there are ways of doing that (a thumbnail of which I gave in my response to the concerns you expressed on the med. talk page). However, I see all that as a sideshow. I've mediated cases where one or more individuals were masters of policy and gamesmanship and it made the mediation very difficult. I don't want to go there. I am not an adjudicator. If this mediation is to be successful it will be because editors dropped their animosities, rolled up their sleeves and began collaborating. Here endeth the lesson. Sunray (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Monty Hall name change

I can't seem to find the diff supporting your assertion Quite the delightful... Guess who changed the name of the article from Monty Hall Paradox to Monty Hall Problem? Here's a hint: it rhymes with 'tick tock'. Glkanter (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC) here. Could you please provide that diff for us? Thanks, hydnjo (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Here and here. Glkanter (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, Hydnjo, it was your comment about the previous FARs that caused me to look back that far. Good thing I did, too, or mediation readers might have gotten the false impression that the older FA versions were similar to the Morgan/Conditional version in dispute today, rather than the vos Savant/Simple version that they actually were. Looks like the drastic change may have actually prompted the most recent FAR. Glkanter (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Who wants to wager?

I'll be the 'contestant' in a card game simulation of the Monty Hall Problem.

I will select a 'door' card WITHOUT USING A RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR.

You, the 'host' will reveal a 'goat' card each play, using whatever strategies you care to devise. And that strategy(s) is none of my business.

We'll play for $30 a hand, lets agree in advance to play 10,000 hands. Or, I'll play 10,000 different 'hosts' 1 time each. No matter.

Who's in? Glkanter (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you allow me also to hide the car by any strategy I like? If I (the host) am able to succesfully predict your initial choice in more than 1/3 of the games then I'll be able to keep the car in more than 1/3 of the games. If I am not able to predict your initial choice more than 1/3 of the times, then for all practical purposes, your initial choice is made by an excellent random generator. Gill110951 (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect. Even Morgan assumes the random placement of the car. This is a card game simulation of the MHP, 'the host' cannot influence the cards dealt. Glkanter (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I don't recall you ever writing, 'If [the host is] not able to predict [the contestant's] initial choice more than 1/3 of the times, then for all practical purposes, [the contestant's] initial choice is made by an excellent random generator.' That seems to change the argument a great deal. To exactly what my contention, on this single point, has been all along. Glkanter (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone assumes random placement of the car. In particular, Monty Hall doesn't. He only assumes that the player's initial choice was random. Which is also what I have been saying all along: the simple unconditional argument *only* uses the assumption that your initial choice is correct with probability 1/3. And if you don't know if this is true or not you can make it true by your own action.

Nobody has the sole rights to define MHP. In particular, no particular assumptions are implicit in vos Savant's words. The whole point of MHP, IMHO, is to figure out what assumptions might make sense. If you are able to assume more, you will be able to conclude more. Mathematical analysis provides a spectrum, a menu, of solutions. The user can then choose what fits to their own situation.

Maybe you can provide a source that says the contestant has knowledge as to the location of the car or of the method of placement of the car? Glkanter (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two beautiful short elegant solutions, and they are different.

1) Simple: make sure your initial choice has 1/3 chance of being correct and then switch. You'll win 2/3 of the time.

2) Complex: suppose you can assume uniform random initial placement of the car and uniform random goat-door selection by Monty, when he has a choice. Pick any door, say Door 1. It has chance 1/3 to hide the car. Therefore, switching gives the car with probability 2/3, by the previous simple solution. By symmetry, the probability to get the car is also 2/3 in the two cases Host opens Door 2, Host opens Door 3, since by symmetry they are equal and their average is "unconditional" 2/3. Therefore not only is switching better than staying on average, it is also better than staying in each particular case. You cannot improve on the "always switch" strategy by sometimes switching, sometimes not-switching, according to the particular door numbers.

The simple solution assumes little and gets little; the complex solution assumes a whole lot more and gets the most out that is possible. The simple solution says always switching is better than always staying, under a very simple condition which you even have under your own control. The complex solution says that there is nothing better than always switching, provided at least car hiding and door opening is done completely at random.

Please note that there are no calculations, no drawing of decision trees. Gill110951 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you willing to play the card game simulation of the MHP, as per my initial offer, or not? Glkanter (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional assumptions, discourses, manifestos, explanations, dissemblances, etc don't seem to return 'more'. Scenario 1 above says switching wins 2/3 of the time. You've never described anything of more value to the contestant than that. Glkanter (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course I don't accept the wager because we don't disagree that the switcher wins 2/3 of the time. The conditional argument also tells us that he wins 2/3 of the time that he chose each particular initial door and that the host opened each particular other door, six cases in all, so six separate assertions. Winning 2/3 of the time in each of six possible alternative situations implies winning 2/3 of the time overall. But it also follows from the stronger assertion, that there is no strategy better than "always switching". No way to go above winning 2/3 of the time. You didn't know ths before. I suppose you just took it for granted. Here is the proof: if you would not switch under some circumstances, your overall succes rate would fall below 2/3. I just can't understand why you don't seem to see this point. But you are not the only one, so far none of our co-editors has whole-heartedly agreed with my statments. It's amazing, nobody is plain stupid, but no-one sees the essential plain maths and the essential plain logic of the matter. Universal truths, not "points of view". Sigh. Gill110951 (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's because we have no information about how the car is hidden and how the door is opened that the frequentist/objectivist chooses his own door at random and thereafter switches, thereby winning the car 2/3 of the time, while making no assumptions whatever about host behaviour. I think you don't realise that not everyone understands probability like you do. This is the root cause of most disagreements on this kind of puzzle. As Martin said, if you haven't thought about the meaning of probability you haven't really thought about MHP. Gill110951 (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not take the wager? I won't use a RNG, and you can reveal either 'goat' card. What don't I 'see'? That I don't need to choose randomly to assure 2/3? You've acknowledged that I can't do better than 2/3? How does the conditional solution ADD VALUE? The only symmetrical requirement is the placement of the car. (For all I know, that may not even be required.) I can't understand why you don't seem to see these points. What haven't I thought about regarding 'probability'? That's such a bs comment. This has nothing to do with editing the article, btw. It has everything to do with meaningless arguments, where one attempts through apparent authority, to belittle the opposition through bs. It's 2/3. And I don't have to use a RNG. And I don't care which goat you reveal. Glkanter (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to the latest edits you made above, is that your point? That the conditional solution 'proves' the switching strategy is optimal? No, I didn't need it. Nor does that provide any added value. You just keep repeating the same things, never responding to my points. I won't choose randomly, and I don't care which goat you reveal. And I'll still win 2/3 of the time. Which is the only point I've been trying to make outside of the article talk pages. It's amazing, nobody is plain stupid, but no-one sees the essential plain maths and the essential plain logic of the matter. Universal truths, not "points of view". Sigh. Glkanter (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's use 'logic', shall we? If I 'must' use an RNG to assure the 2/3 switching benefit, it would follow that NOT using an RNG would cause some detriment to my overall win success. But it doesn't. The same with knowing the 2 goat strategy. That there is no negative delta from either 'requirement' means they have no value. Do you see my point?

BTW, you never responded directly to this:

Funny, I don't recall you ever writing, 'If [the host is] not able to predict [the contestant's] initial choice more than 1/3 of the times, then for all practical purposes, [the contestant's] initial choice is made by an excellent random generator.' That seems to change the argument a great deal. To exactly what my contention, on this single point, has been all along. Glkanter (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What host would ever have that ability? How? Via ESP, perhaps, or collusion? Glkanter (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll probably win 2/3 of the time, but I don't know for sure. I know for sure I'll win 2/3 of the time if I use a good random generator to choose my door initially.

Do you stand by this statement, 'If [the host is] not able to predict [the contestant's] initial choice more than 1/3 of the times, then for all practical purposes, [the contestant's] initial choice is made by an excellent random generator.'? Glkanter (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to win more than 2/3 of the time? Please answer that question. Gill110951 (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The contestant wins by switching every time he has selected a goat. That's 2/3 of the time. To improve on that, he would have to know when he has selected the car, and decide not to switch. In the MHP, or this simulation, how would the contestant know when he has selected the car? Glkanter (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that to improve on 2/3 of the time, he would have to know when he has selected the car? Richard Gill (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If I could pick a goat more than 2/3 of the time, I would win by switching more than 2/3 of the time. In this simulation, or the MHP, is there a way I can select a goat more than 2/3 of the time? Do you know of any other ways to win more than 2/3 of the time? Glkanter (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I know there is no way to win more than 2/3 of the time, and I have given you the mathematical proof of this. Richard Gill (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In a single play of this simulation, or the MHP, is there any door selection the contestant can make that won't have a 2/3 probability of being a goat? Glkanter (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No. So what? How does this prove that you can't do better than "always switch"? Did you ever consider "sometimes switch, sometimes not, depending on the door numbers chosen and opened"? Richard Gill (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't know if I'll win this simulation or the MHP 2/3 of the time unless I use an RNG? If not, how often will I win? Will I select a goat more or less often than 2/3 if don't choose randomly? Are both of those outcomes equally likely?

By "the MHP" I take it you mean *your MHP*: the car is hidden uniformly at random (i.e., with a RNG), and the host chooses with an RNG when he has a choice. Then of course I know you'll win 2/3 of the time however you choose your door initially, as long as you always switch. I also know you cannot do better. I also know that all this remains true if the host uses an arbitrarily biased RNG or even a deterministic rule for opening a door when he has a choice (thanks to Morgan et al.) Richard Gill (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Suppose the non-random method I use in this simulation or the MHP is to choose the same card (door) every time. Will I win 2/3 of the time if I always switch? Glkanter (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. It depends on the car-hider and door-opener. Do they learn from their observations of your behaviour? What are their aims? If you always choose Door 1 and always switch then the quiz team can start hiding the car behind Door 1 preventing you from ever getting the car. Gill110951 (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Both this card simulation and the MHP specify the car and goats are placed uniformly at random. Glkanter (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The MHP does *not* specify that the car and the goats are placed uniformly at random. That's an opinion of some sources, but not all. Gill110951 (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

But as for me, I guess that none of the sources disagree about the assumption that the player makes/made her choice
"without having any knowledge of the actual location of the car". That's it. Random distribution of the objects: not necessary.
(Krauss+Wang won't hurt anymore: "Perhaps the car is more likely to be placed behind Door 1 because it is closest to the entrance of the stage").
So: "random selection" or just "lucky number": no difference. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That's how the simulations are played, and how the Wikipedia MHP article is written. I am certainly not attempting to engage you in a discussion of Game Theory. Just solving the the MHP using K & W's premises without the requirements that the contestant choose a door randomly or the 50/50 host. Glkanter (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I questioned this a few diffs ago, but I would venture that the car needn't be placed randomly. As long as the non-random placement of the car is not in response to the contestant's non-random selection of doors (such a Game Theory behavior by the producer is not the MHP), I don't think the contestant can alter his 2/3 probability of selecting a goat in each and every play. As long as the contestant hasn't determined a pattern in the non-random placement of the car (also not the MHP). Glkanter (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Glkanter, your point of view doesn't determine what is or is not the MHP. I know that you want the wikipedia MHP article to be written as if there is one and only one MHP, namely, yours, with one solution, namely yours, but plenty of reliable sources don't agree with you. Since vos Savant's Parade article, the MHP is defined, in my opinion, by the words vos Savant puts into Whitaker's mouth. Those words leave a lot of interpretation to the reader and that is why there is such a rich and still growing literature on MHP. And the article has to reflect that, like it or not. Otherwise every new reader who comes along with a different point of view from yours will add their point of view to the article, provided they can find a reliable source for it. Gill110951 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made it very clear in this discussion that this is not related to editing the article, but related to your claim that how the contestant arrives at the door choice affects the probabilities. You have misstated my intentions regarding the article, again. Do you care to respond to any of the questions I put forth? I am defining the Monty Hall *Problem* just as the article does. There's no way the contestant can alter the 2/3 probability of selecting a goat as per the Wikipedia MHP. Glkanter (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not claiming that how the contestant arrives at the door choice "affects the probabilities". I am saying that for certain interpretations of the word probability, "the probabilities" are not known, hence it is smart to inject known probabilities into the problem. Wikipedia MHP doesn't define MHP. It just says how some sources think it ought to be defined. Not all sources agree. Richard Gill (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The MHP is from the contestant's State of Knowledge. How can the contestant's method of selecting a door affect his SoK? Glkanter (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia page reports how various reliable sources have added assumptions to vos Savant's words but it doesn't say (as indeed it can't) that all these assumptions HAVE to be added to wikipedia MHP. Whether we are talking about MHP inside or outside of the wikipedia article, I do not define MHP as you do. I define it only by vos Savant's words. Secondly not everyone uses the word "probability" in the same way and you seem only aware of the Bayesian use of the word. So we disagree about what probability means (or could mean) and we disagree about what MHP is. I do not lay down the law on either question. You want to restrict to a pure Bayesian understanding of the word probability and you want to restrict MHP to the completely specified completely symmetric case. Then there is not much interesting that can be said. The literature on MHP does not make these restrictions. I talk to lots of people about MHP both amateurs and professionals and I listen to their opinions and solutions. I hear an interesting spectrum of solutions based on different interpretations.

Did you read the manuscript I sent you? Richard Gill (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I find your unwillingness to answer my simple questions above, your insistence on changing the subject (and the problem), and your repeated attempts to pigeon-hole/straw-man what I think, to be no longer worthy of continuing this discussion. I'm a 'Maslowian' when it comes to probability. I don't leave a level until its necessary. There's nothing the contestant can do to alter the 2/3 odds of selecting a goat. All that other shit is a goddam waste of my time. And this conversation has nothing to do with my views on editing the article as per Wikipedia policy. Glkanter (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I just tried to answer your questions, which is easier now I know that you have a restricted picture of MHP and a restricted picture of probability. No problem. I did not realise before that you had such a narrow picture of what MHP is all about, sorry. No wonder the fights on the MHP page go on and on for ever. Richard Gill (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Example of willful misunderstanding

You wrote

"I didn't realize there was consensus among all the editors to defer the criticisms to job #3 above. If I didn't know better, I would *swear* that just yesterday an editor once again made very clear his vehement, but unsupported, insistence that the simple solution section must reflect that 'the simple solutions are wrong'. Maybe that's what he posted, but he was thinking differently, Richard? I don't have that 'mind reading' skill, I'll have to rely on your demonstrated abilities in that area. Otherwise, your criticism above makes no sense. Of course, our responsibility for task #3 can be as simple as reporting what the sources say. Without any editorializing. I'm glad you 'achieved a lot of understanding and uncovered a lot of fascinating material on MHP'. That may explain my frustration with this mediation, as I'm just trying to reach a consensus with the other editors on how to improve the Wikipedia MHP article."

I did not say there was a consensus about defering criticisms to job #3. I suggest this scheme #1, #2, #3 as a possible workable *compromise*. I agree that task #3 consists of reporting what the sources say without editorializing. It will be a hard job since it will involve actually understanding both points of view, something which no other editor in the mediation seems capable of doing, since they all "know" that the "other" point of view is wrong.

But no single editor has moved one millimeter from their position that "their" approach is the only right approach (whether simple of conditional). No one is interested in compromise. No one is interested in learning from the others. The example you gave of Nijdam's contribution yesterday is an example of exactly why I am quitting.

Your belligerent and uncompromizing reaction hows that you did not even read what I wrote. So much for your interest in achieving consensus. Richard Gill (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Have a nice life, Richard. Glkanter (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lack Of Cognitive Skills

There is no forum or website where one's unambiguously written word is perverted to advance a contrary argument as much as it happens here on Wikipedia.

Attention spans are short, time is, as always, limited. An entire well thought out thread can be blown up with a single, simple, intentional 'misquote'.

Intellectually dishonest. Abhorrent behavior. Glkanter (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Suppose the supposedly well-thought-out thread was founded on an oversight, on a blinkered vision? That's why I left the mediation. Richard Gill (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Attack the person when all else fails. Glkanter (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, how about that? Looks like I'm *not* the only one that finds obvious, and self-beneficial flaws in the reading comprehension skills of our favorite esp-enabled Professional Mathematician editor. This time, an unbiased, but involved, 3rd party showed some concerns, about his very own writings! Glkanter (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What concerns are you referring to? Is that 3rd party also a professional mathematician? My writings contain a) some mathematical truths, b) some opinions. Richard Gill (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

'...his own writings...' refers to the 3rd party's own writings. Glkanter (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Everyone should have concerns about their own writings. And you still haven't given me any clue what you are talking about. Richard Gill (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

AGK's comment from earlier this week. Glkanter (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I responded to that comment at the time. I no longer have much interest in the mediation nor do I have any wish to edit the MHP page myself. I have written two peer reviewed papers on the topic, the most recent in the literature, and about the only papers where the simple versus conditional controversy is impartially and intelligently reviewed (all previous papers were written by authorities with dogmatic views favouring one or the other side). One of the papers was sollicited by the editors of a prestigious international encyclopedia of statistical science, contributed to by the greatest names in the field. Anybody who wants to use material from them on the MHP page, including Glkanter, is free to do so. If all present editors want to ignore them, they are free to do that too. Richard Gill (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that your published works are consistent with the POV of at least a significant minority of the reliable sources, as per Wikipedia policy, I'm sure they will be treated appropriately. Glkanter (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would not describe your response to my criticism of your statement that 'the conditional solution tells us more, it is required to be certain that always switch is the optimal solution' as being free of any dogma. Your response was flippant, and your apparent disinterest in responding to my supporting arguments does *not* separate you from those reliable sources you criticize. Glkanter (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"The difference between stupid and intelligent people - and this is true whether or not they are well-educated - is that intelligent people can handle subtlety" -Neal Stephenson.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle. Richard Gill (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been at this for over 2 years, been raked over the coals mercilessly, and have not been shown to be wrong on a single item. Except I didn't understand the reliable sources requirement at first. I've been through:

Why must it be the contestant's SoK?

The host might be biased

1/3 <> 1/3

Random/Forgetful Host

Simple solutions are false, because they can be misapplied to different problems

Only the conditional solutions demonstrate that always switching is optimal

etc.

Plus

blatant gamesmanship

article ownership

absence of good faith

etc.

Even today, there are editors active in the mediation who will either overtly or covertly make the above arguments, or demonstrate the above behaviours. So please, if you're going to criticize me, make it valid. Glkanter (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a passage from Martin's talk page. I hope that explains what I mean. Richard Gill (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

G: That's interesting, Richard, given that you wrote this above:

"We should put both corrected versions of Devlin's argument into the conditional solutions section, where they belong."

and you 'correct' me by writing:

"No @Glkanter, my opinion is that a combined doors simple solution is correct and unconditional..."

Maybe you could explain this contradiction? Of course, the main point is that once again, Nijdam's cries of 'this simple solution is wrong' are unsupported. Glkanter (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

R: Maybe, @Glkanter, you could read my paper and work a bit to try to pick up some subtleties? There is no contradiction. There are reliable sources which treat MHP as an unconditional probability problem. There are reliable sources which treat MHP as a conditional probability problem. Each of the two problems can be solved correctly, and each can be solved incorrectly. If you cannot distinguish between the two problems, and if you cannot distinguish between a correct argument and an incorrect argument, then of course everything I write will appear to you to be full of self-contradictions. That's your problem, not mine.

I agree with you and with Martin and I think Gerhard, that the wikipedia MHP page should start with good (correct, appealing, intuitive) simple solutions, i.e., solutions to the unconditional problem. It would be wonderful if in later sections someone like you could come to learn the difference between the unconditional and conditional problems and also come to appreciate good (correct, appealing, intuitive) conditional solutions. It's like wine. It takes a bit of practice and sophistication to come to appreciate really good wines. Is it necessary? No, it's a luxury, decent inexpensive wine is fine for most purposes! Does it enrich your life? Yes it does. Richard Gill (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that say the solution to the door 1 selected and door 3 revealed problem is properly derived from the unconditional solutions, due to symmetry. These include Morgan and G & S. There are at least two mathematics professionals who have engaged in Wikipedia MHP discussions who concur with this, one of whom is Richard Gill. Arguing that the unconditional solutions solve a different problem than the conditional solutions solve is erroneous, and should cease.

And one more thing, do you really believe, as you repeatedly write, that I do not understand the conditional solutions? I argue that they are not necessary to solve Selvin's, Whitaker/vos Savant's, and K & W's problem about a game show with 3 doors, 1 car & 2 goats, where the contestant has selected door 1 and the host has revealed a goat behind door 3, as the simple solutions also solve this same problem. A viewpoint many of your colleagues share. Come to think of it, you share it too:

"This little article contains nothing new, and only almost trivial mathematics. It is a plea for future generations to preserve the life of The True Monty Hall paradox, and not let themselves be misled by probability purists who say “you must compute a conditional probability”. - The Three Doors Problem...-s Richard D. Gill Mathematical Institute, University Leiden, Netherlands http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill Page 9 February 15, 2010

Glkanter (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Only the conditional solutions demonstrate that always switching is optimal. That's true! And in fact Gill (2011) is the *only* reliable source which addresses the issue of optimality. Richard Gill (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's *not* true. In each play of the game, it is 2/3 vs 1/3 by switching. The contestant may switch, and win 2/3 of the time. He may stay, and win 1/3 of the time. He may flip a coin, but that is consistent with the erroneous answer that it doesn't matter, and can't be the right strategy for both a wrong and correct solution. In any case, flipping a coin only wins 50% of the time. There is no other strategy available in a single play of the game. Any choice but switch reduces the likelihood of winning below 2/3. Either towards 1/3, by always staying, or towards 50% by flipping a coin. As the odds never change from 2/3 & 1/3, no new/other strategy can develop. Glkanter (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read Richard's various responses above. Anyone reading this discussion is welcome to draw their own conclusions. Glkanter (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Collaboration Skills

Glkanter, I suggested some time ago that you read my latest paper but you did not care to do so. It seems to me that it is a sign of your inflexibility if you are surprised by some evolution in my thoughts. What is better: someone who rigidly sticks to his opinion by filtering out all possible evidence that that opinion was wrong, or someone who is persuaded by arguments of other people to re-evaluate his own opinion?

Furthermore, I was not aware of belittling or insulting you. If you object to my "style" you can always leave the party. Richard Gill (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. That may be the prudent course.

Starting points

G., I'm trying to find out on which points editors do agree. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/Starting points. Nijdam (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Gill (2010), Gill (2011)

Well Richard, I have now read both MHP papers that you link to on your professional page. My take-aways are:

• The Van Damme reference on page 10 is curious, as I'm pretty certain I have read that Monty Hall himself has said he never revealed a goat, then offered the switch on Let's Make A Deal. I therefore have no idea how a discussion of what choices real-life players made can take place. Wouldn't someone have seen this happen on TV in *all* the times it was allegedly played this way, then either tried to be a contestant, or write a paper about the contestants' stupidity? Surely at least one viewer would have been familiar with The Three Prisoners problem. Here's one source. Here's Monty's actual letter to Selvin. Note Selvin's letter that precedes Monty Hall's letter, "I invented switching'. Further, for an apples to apples, rather than an apples to pears comparison, the real life contestants would have to have been informed that Monty Hall would *always* reveal a goat behind another door, and *always* offer the switch. Being as Monty Hall says he never offered the switch, that information was not provided to the contestant. Nor did the real life Monty Hall reveal a goat 100% of the game plays and offer the switch 100% of the game plays, as the 2/3 & 1/3 result from *any* solution requires. Based on what I've seen, which is Morgan's paper, your 2 papers, and I'm guessing van Damme's paper, maybe being published in a peer-reviewed professional journal doesn't assure whatever it is you all seem to think it assures. And maybe my refusal to blindly admire the emperor's new clothes is well founded.

Maybe van Damme was ill-informed. It is part of the folk-lore that the offer was always made and that no one ever switched. Richard Gill (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In your words, that excuse is 'nonsense'. In my words it's 'bullshit'. You could have applied the same logic I used to debunk the fallacies. I think Nijdam would call you both, 'lazy'. Please, don't tell me any more about the omniscience of the high priests if this unverified, easily debunked 'folk-lore' is what passes as 'knowledge' in a world-class, peer-reviewed professional math journal. I hope your car mechanics have higher standards for the manuals they use before fixing your cars. That's ironic, isn't it? Your profession pales to the car mechanics in your concern for truth? Why was it so important that I read 'folk-lore' masquerading as truth? Glkanter (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My paper is about the MHP, not about the true game show. I only report what van Damme wrote. Whether or not the scenario of MHP was real or not is irrelevant to the point which van Damme was making, and to which my paper is making at that point: I think you also agree that confronted with MHP, ordinary people guess 50-50 and hence don't switch, and wouldn't switch if the game is repeated many times either. Richard Gill (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• On page 15, you use the term 'lucky number' as the door choice derived by rolling a fair die. In everyday english in the US, these are mutually exclusive concepts. I therefore am unsure of your meaning of 'lucky number' as used throughout the paper.
• Your conclusion to the February, 2010 paper:

"This little article contains nothing new, and only almost trivial mathematics. It is a plea for future generations to preserve the life of The True Monty Hall paradox, and not let themselves be misled by probability purists who say “you must compute a conditional probability”."

Would indicate agreement that the veiled criticisms in the Conditional solution section should be removed.

Yes, and I have always thought this. Richard Gill (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in all your writings about optimal, and min-max, etc., you could have emphasized this, or at least made it clear, so that the Wikipedia article could have been improved. Perhaps the last 2 years of arguing, and the whole mediation could have been avoided had you done so. On further review, I remember the day I pointed out Morgan's comment about symmetry validating the simple solutions, and your excited response. You immediately found math sources and Wikipedia sources that supported them. I find your response disingenuous, approaching dishonest. Glkanter (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think our problem is that you always found something to disagree with in what I wrote, so you never focussed on the things I wrote which you agreed with. So you kept throwing away the baby with the bathwater. I think I've always been completely open about my opinions, criticising anything which I believe is incorrect, and retracting my criticism if I came to understand it was misunderstood. You've put off reading my draft papers for half a year --- in which time you could have helped improve their presentation. You have been incapable of admitting some subtle distinctions which mean a lot to quite a few sources, quite a few of editors, and quite a few of readers. I think I've exhibited the patience of angels, continually trying to get these things across to you. Richard Gill (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you and Nijdam are playing word games, perverting the Socaratic method for no reason, and not recognizing which 'student' has been the most honest, and has tried the hardest to understand whatever it is he's not seeing. That's why I keep showing what I think are contradictions. No matter. Your defense of 'folk-lore' is comical, and shows what all this high priest jazz and world class peer review is really worth. Glkanter (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not playing word-games, I am not defending van Damme or folklore. I'm rather grateful for your references to the true state of affairs on that game show, I'll put that into my Citizendium article. I am disappointed that you can't distinguish between Nijdam and me.

As an insider I can tell you that I also don't have much regard for world class peer review, and I hate arrogant high priestly behaviour. I loath it and I have been fighting it all my life. I applaud your tenacity and intellectual honesty, and I'm also a lover of the Socratic method. I think however you are suffering from tunnel-vision: you are so sure you are right you're not able to open your eyes a bit and see that there is more in the world. You keep showing me what you think are contradictions and I keep trying to explain why I don't think they are contradictions. Too bad ... we're not communicating well. Time to quit. Richard Gill (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. They are appreciated. I don't agree about 'tunnel vision'. I won't go into the long litany, but I have spent two years involved in circular arguments, reading a lot of stuff, asking hundreds of questions of all the participants in order to improve my understanding of the issues (many important questions go unanswered), then re-stating what I've just been told, and asking if I have interpreted things correctly. And maybe drawing a conclusion based on 'If I understand what you said correctly, then...' And what do I get? I am told I jump to conclusions, etc... And, more importantly, I *still* read what I perceive as conflicting responses to the questions that read, in my own words, "Do the simple solutions derive the 2/3 & 1/3 result to the conditional problem in a mathematically rigorous way?" and "Is the Monty Hall Paradox that it's 2/3 & 1/3 rather than 50/50'?". Until those questions have simple, unqualified 'yes' or 'no' responses, there's no point in further discussing, editing or mediating. Glkanter (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And my focus has never veered from editing a Wikipedia article that helps a Wikipedia reader settle a bar bet on why it's 2/3 & 1/3, and not 50/50. Which, imho, is the primary function of the Wikipedia article. These are my opinions. I could be wrong, but I can support them. And there has *never* been such a discussion of 'the goals for the article' in the 2 years that I have been involved. While we may disagree on the goal, or how important the High Priest journal stuff is to the goal, my steadfastness is *not* due solely to ignorance and/or stubbornness. Glkanter (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have disagreed (and provided support) with your claim that certain symmetry assumptions are not required *as long as the contestant makes his initial door choice uniformly at random*. If I recall, you are unable to say whether failure to do so makes it more likely or less likely that the contestant will select the car. As we are only creating a model of the real world, I fail to see why this uninformed door selection method changes the odds from 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Accordingly I do not accept the conclusion in your 2011 paper that the contestant's door choice is of any importance.
• I have disagreed (and provided support) with your claim that Q-2 in the 2010 paper:

"And sometimes people become very confused when they realize that the answer to Question 2 can only be given its pretty answer “2/3” under further conditions."

I assume by 'further conditions' you mean a couple of symmetry premises. Therefore, I:

• Disagree that Q-0, which can be calculated without plugging in 50/50 anywhere does not make use of those premises to solve the door 1 & door 3 problem with the 2/3 & 1/3 results. I suppose I could expand your "If Prob(P = C) = 1/3 then Prob(S = C) = 2/3, since the two events are complementary." into 6 nearly identical statements, specifying the door selected and the door opened. And since I don't know any more or any less about any one of the 6, my model says they are all equally likely, that is 2/3 & 1/3, including the door 1 & door 3 statement. But is that really necessary? Isn't this what Boris, Morgan, G & S, and simple mathematics have been saying about symmetry?
• Disagree with any implications that any Selvin-derived MHP problem statement about a game show omits those symmetry premises

Glkanter (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed! This is very useful for me. Boris invited me to write an article on "citizendium" about MHP. The two papers you've read were written for people from the mathematics/statistics worlds. But on citizendium I would be writing for interested citizens in general...

In general my answer to your comments is: if you think you disagree with me, please consider distinguishing between the correctness of an argument from the correctness of a result. Please distinguish between statements about conditional probabilities and statements about unconditional probabilities. Please distinguish between different common understandings of the notion of probability. Richard Gill (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You know Richard, my inability to communicate on this topic to your expectations is both a fact, and regrettable. Despite my shortcomings, I strive to present thoughtful, reasoned, fact-based, and source-based relevant arguments at all times. That you choose to not engage me at my 'level' may be based on good science, or maybe not, but it also regrettable. Take a look at the discussion going on this morning on Martin's talk page regarding "1/3 <> 1/3", and you'll understand why I take such great offense when you unjustly and cavalierly lump me into the same 'extremist' category as some other editors. Glkanter (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And I strongly disagree that any source is solving some undescribed unconditional solution. With symmetry, the simple solutions solve the door 1 and door 3 100% conditional problem. Hence, I find your discussions of different problems, further premises, or whatever, unsupported and contradicted by the sources who offer the simple solutions to the door 1 and door 3 100% conditional problem that they state in their publications (which is all sources of simple solutions, no reliable source describes an unconditional problem without door #s, an open door, etc), incorrect mathematically, not relevant to the question: 'should the contestant stay or switch', and confusing not beneficial to understanding the 2/3 & 1/3 vs 50/50 paradox to the likes of me. Glkanter (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And if all that stuff is based on a *variant* of the MHP that you devised which contains fewer premises, and is not part of the editing the article and conditional vs unconditional discussions and arguments, well, than I misunderstood, my disagreement may be inappropriate, and I apologize. Glkanter (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

When I use the word conditional, I use it in its technical (probability) sense. I think that is part of the ongoing misunderstandings. I do try to find a common level at which we could fruitfully communicate. It's still an unsolved problem for me. But I'm really happy you took the time to read through my writings.

My writings were inspired by the wikipedia discussions. They are not a part of the editing of the article, I am not editing the article anymore. If anyone would find something useful in them concerning the conditional versus unconditional arguments I would take that as a compliment. But the papers are written at a different level from the one which I need to find on which to engage you. Maybe my citizendium project will produce something more useful for that purpose. See Citizendium, User talk: Richard D. Gill at Citizendium. Richard Gill (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I need to clarify one thing. My comment above, which begins with 'I strongly disagree...' pertains to the discussions on the various Wikipedia talk pages, not your papers. By the way, do you agree with my comments on van Damme? Glkanter (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to include whatever premises and assumptions are necessary in order to accomplish the 2/3 & 1/3 result that Selvin, vos Savant, and everybody except Morgan come up with. I also do not agree that assigning uniform at random is a contrivance. Rather it is expected that a contestant in a game show would have no knowledge of the car's placement unless specifically told, and it is necessary for Selvin's and Monty Hall's and vos Savant's simple solutions to return 2/3 & 1/3. The famous paradox does not say, 'always greater than 50 %, so switch', it says 2/3 & 1/3.

Lastly, I'll go you one better. Because of the initial random car placement the contestant reasons that his chance of selecting the car was 1/3. With 2 doors, 1 car and 1 goat, he knows that other door can't be any worse than 50/50. Heck, his door might still be only 1/3, and can't be better than the complimentary 50/50. So he switches, knowing he's at least 50/50, and maybe as high as 2/3. Which premises do I need for that solution, as long as I have the 100% condition that Monty always reveals a goat behind another door and always offers the switch? That was Whitaker/vos Savant's question, right, should he switch? Glkanter (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The mathematical answer is contained in Gill (2011), html version at my homepage. I tell you precisely which mathematical premises you need for each mathematical conclusion. Propositions 1, 2 and 3 in Section 2.1. That is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Your last argument seems to be close to Proposition 2, which is pretty much what Morgan and his mates were so proud of. Richard Gill (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess we will always have a disconnect between the high falutin' and the common man. Did you ever post these statements anywhere:

The so-called unconditional problem statement is equivalent to, and derived from, the conditional problem statement by application of the symmetry principal. There is no loss of granularity in using unconditional solutions to solve this unconditional problem rather than using a conditional solution to solve the conditional problem, Hence, there are not 2 competing interpretations of the MHP that return the result 2/3 & 1/3. The simplists and the conditionalists are solving the exact same problem.

No looks to me like nonsense and certainly not written by me. Richard Gill (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If I get into a discussion about car maintenance with workmen down at the local garage, then they are the high-falutin' guys and I am the common man. Eskimos have 20 words for different kinds of ice. Richard Gill (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How about just 1 time, rather than brusquely dismissing what I write without explanation, you tell me why its nonsense? My point is that nowhere on these Wikipedia talk pages have you said that the unconditional problem is a legitimate simplification of the conditional problem. Which is why there are not two competing sides with two competing problems, as has been argued non stop for almost 3 years. Glkanter (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, my 'at least 1/2 and maybe as high as 2/3' solution is not similar to Morgan's. The results look similar, but the solution formulations are completely different. And I don't require a discussion of the host bias contrivance, or a discussion of frequentists and subjectivists. Think about that common man again. If, as you say, the MHP is not a probability problem, can it still be a famous and delightful paradox without solving for 2/3 & 1/3 if I have to use Morgan's or your solutions to show that it's always 50% or better? Will vos Savant publish that in her column? What if she can use my solution? Glkanter (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Richard, my little solution meets your goal of not requiring probability. Morgan's solution is hip deep in it, and your solutions requires game theory and other advanced topics. I use common everyday logic. So, while the Monty Hall problem of 'should the contestant switch' can be solved using Morgan's and your solutions, the delightful and famous Monty Hall Problem *Paradox* counter intuitive solution that you *should switch* is no longer accessible to the common man. Only the priesthood gets to enjoy it. Glkanter (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you read carefullly the statments and proofs of proposions 1, 2, 3? What is so difficult about them? Richard Gill (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my abilities, yes, and I've been re-reading them now. Hence my comments about accessibility to the common man. Glkanter (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard, did I read correctly that the 2010 paper describes the unconditional problem statement as different than the conditional problem statement? And that the 2011 paper makes it clear that they are the same problem? If so, does that mean the 2010 paper should not be referenced in that regard? Glkanter (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No you didn't read this correctly. I think the 2011 paper is much better, and more complete, than the 2010 paper, but I don't think my ideas changed in between. Richard Gill (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did read correctly. On page 4, Q1 and Q2 are described as the warring factions, both of whom have it wrong. No mention is made that they are arguing over nothing. More 'nonsense'. Bordering on 'intellectual dishonesty' in my book. Many of your responses above, and the writings in the 2010 paper, are inconsistent with your response. Much more of the paper, including the conclusion, would have been greatly strengthened by any such support. Glkanter (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm very aware that I am responding to a world renowned university chair. I take no pleasure by writing the above responses. In fact, I'm greatly saddened. Glkanter (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the "warring factions" are arguing over nothing. I've never said so. Regarding the point that my papers could have been better, yes of course they could have been better, pity you didn't read them earlier, then you could have helped me make them better. Richard Gill (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

arbitration case

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Monty Hall problem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Rick Block (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem opened

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @143  ·  02:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Posting evidence in an arbitration case

Hello Gilkanter, I'm not an arbitration clerk, so the advice I'm offering here isn't official advice from the arbitration system, but simply friendly advice offered by an onlooker, to take or leave as you see fit.

The material you posted on the evidence page isn't in a format that's likely to be useful to the committee; as the instructions at the top of the page specify, evidence should be in the form of diffs. You've made statements in your defense, but offered no evidence in support of those statements. How evidence is supposed to work: You make an assertion, and then you supply diffs to back up that assertion. (The arbitrators (hopefully) will click on the diffs and decide for themselves whether the diff does provide sufficient evidence to make the assertion a valid, evidence-based assertion.) If someone thinks that assertion should be included in the final decision, they will copy the assertion from the evidence page to the workshop page, and the assertion will be "workshopped;" in other words anyone who wishes can discuss whether that assertion should be part of the proposed decision. The arbitrators may or may not be part of those discussions. Eventually, the arbitrator who has been tasked with drafting the proposed decision will post a proposed decision, either on the workshop page, where it can be discussed by non-arbitrators before being moved to the proposed decision page, or sometimes the draft proposed decision is posted directly on the proposed decision page, where it can only be discussed by arbitrators. Once the proposed decision is posted on the proposed decision page, the arbitrators vote on each item in the proposed decision, and that vote determines the content of the final decision.

"Diff" is shorthand for "Difference" and refers to a particular edit, like this. The difference page shows the difference between that particular edit and the one just before it on that particular page; the upper right hand section shows who made the edit, the time and date, and the contents of the edit. The edit I chose as an example might (or might not) be used in evidence to support an assertion like "Gilkanter has been uncivil to other editors." It's borderline too old (generally you want diffs within the last year) and also is from very early days in your editing and you may not have been aware of the rules of editing at that time. Were I preparing evidence against you for an arbitration case I wouldn't use that diff myself, but someone might, and that's why I chose this particular diff as an example. You find the diffs through the history tab of the page in question.

Also, you say that if the mediation pages are made available, you will use material from the mediation to present your case. This isn't a useful approach to take. As was made clear on the mediation talk page, the mediation committee has a very clear policy that nothing that happens in mediation can be used as evidence in arbitration or any other dispute resolution, and that's why the mediation was blanked as soon as the committee was notified that a request was being filed. It will do no good to keep banging your head against that brick wall; that's the policy. If you want diffs to use in evidence, you'll need to look elsewhere than the mediation. Furthermore, you'll want to be sure that the diffs you provide relate to user conduct rather than to article content, as the committee tries to stay out of content issues. Woonpton (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

[Written prior to an edit conflict]

Thank you very much for the thoughtful and thorough explanations of how things work. I understand about diffs pretty well.

I recognize that my postings do not reflect the standard defense to some arbitration accusation. That's a conscious decision on my part. I can't tell what I need to defend. And since I think the whole point of the accusations is to perpetuate some gamesmanship, etc., I felt it worthwhile to show that my argument is not a 'fringe' theory, but rather the POV of most Wikipedia editors. With the table, I can show that the other guy's POV is not even supported by reliable sources. I think those issues are of more importance than Rick Block's feelings.

I'd appreciate your further input on how I might best make these cases. Like you said, anything over a year old is pretty trivial. Well, the mediation was 14 months long, so there can't be too much out there.

I do not apologize for any diffs. That one you linked to is on my own talk page. And it came after I had been vandalized (raped) by a thug on the MHP talk page. Read that whole section on my talk page, or go back to the archives. Dicklyon accused me of vandalizing my own diffs/section in a talk page. Then he edited my own stuff in a very aggressive and unwelcome manner, and never apologized. He even insisted I was at fault. That incident became the basis of the trumped up RfC Rick Block filed on me.

Anyways, thanks, I appreciate your input very much. Glkanter (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

[Written after the edit conflict]

I was and remained shocked that 14 months of diffs have been disappeared. I had no idea that could happen on Wikipedia. That should have been made very clear prior to the mediation's beginning. I still can't believe that is the policy. Glkanter (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that I offered some friendly advice doesn't necessarily mean I'm "on your side" in the sense that I support your conduct, your arguments or positions, it's just that I figured that everyone is entitled to a fair "trial" even on Wikipedia, and that maybe you didn't have enough experience/observation of ArbCom to understand how counterproductive your approach is likely to be. I felt it only fair to try to give you a hint that it might be a good idea to change the approach you are taking. "I'm not the bad guy, the filer is the bad guy" is an approach that's just about 100% guaranteed not to end well for the person taking that approach. And arguing that your POV is the "right" POV or the consensus POV (a content argument) is also not likely to get you anywhere, especially in a complex case like this. The arbitrators are not going to read the sources and decide for themselves what the consensus of sources is; that's not their job, and they are not likely to take your word for what the consensus is when there is obviously an intensely active dispute among good faith editors on that issue.

As for not apologizing for diffs, if you say "fuck you" to another editor and then not only refuse to apologize for the incivility, but blame him for it instead, that's not going to be viewed well by a majority of Wikipedia editors, and I suspect most arbitrators would not view it in a positive light. It doesn't matter where you said it; talk page comments are not exempt from being used as evidence in an arbitration. All that blather about he did this and he did that and he didn't apologize....blah blah blah is irrelevant, not a useful argument and is not likely to have the result you intend.

I've done what I can here, and I'm a bit sorry I bothered. Woonpton (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks anyways. Glkanter (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's an intersting diff from Woonpton from 11/2010. He sees the same problems I describe above. Too bad the Woonpton that posted the above diffs doesn't. Glkanter (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? Someone invited me to participate in the Monty Hall Problem topic area; I declined because I didn't see any possible benefit to getting involved in a long-boiling dispute over trivial issues. To me it looks like a lot of people talking at once and no one listening to any of the others; there is nothing about this conflict that appeals to me. At the same time, my perspective on the dispute has nothing whatever to do with my advice about how to approach arbitration; they are completely orthogonal issues, and nothing I said on my talk two or three months ago is at odds with anything I've said here today.

You responded on my talk to that comment at the time, by saying that you agreed with me about the inaccessibility of the article; I thought at the time that you may have misunderstood me, but chose not to respond because I didn't think it was that important. But just to make myself clear now, since you've brought it up, my objections to the article, then and now, have nothing to do with the material being "inaccessible" in the sense of being too mathematical or academic. I am a retired statistician; I am completely comfortable with conditional probability, with Bayes' theorem, in fact with probability in all its permutations, so to speak. My objections are about the organization and readability of the article, the simple fundamentals required for any article to be comprehensible to a reader. I said then that I doubted that a naive reader, reading the article in the version I last saw (I haven't looked at it since, so don't know if it's improved since then) would even get a clear idea of what the Monty Hall problem is, what the answer is, or why the answer is what it is, since the article has become so littered with irrelevant detail. But I also said that at that point it was hard to see how it could be fixed (although now that I think of it, I think maybe it could be fixed by topic-banning everyone who has engaged in this dispute and reverting to a much earlier version, say back before the dispute ever began).

I was simply trying to be helpful, and I'm ever more sorry that I bothered. Oh, and by the way, it's "She." Woonpton (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are aware, of course, that any edits to the article by Glkanter or Martin Hogbin have been immediately, and in many cases, without discussion, reverted for over a year now? So when you talk about how crappy the article is, you're describing the same thing Martin & I have been fighting for over 2 years? Honestly, we're not the bad guys. We're not even 'contributors' to the problem. We're victims. Along with every MHP reader. Except we get beat up, and have nonsense actions filed against us, for our good faith efforts. Glkanter (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that explains everything then, doesn't it? Glkanter (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Glkanter

• • My entire section of evidence and responses can be read here. Glkanter (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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.

The editors who want an emphasis placed on some 'shortcomings' of the simple solutions are just making it up.

• "What the most reliable sources about the MHP say is that it is a conditional probability problem. Period. Full stop. There are related unconditional problems, but (IMO) the related problems are distinctly not what most people think of as the MHP or what most people "solving" the MHP using an unconditional solution mean to be solving." Rick Block (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Specifically, unless someone can find a source that defends the validity of an unconditional approach against the published criticisms, e.g. says specifically what unconditional problem some unconditional solution is addressing, or specifically how their unconditional solution addresses the commonly understood conditional problem, the article must not provide any such defense. Lacking any published response (and not just a subsequent regurgitation of an unconditional solution) from the "unconditional side" this is a completely NPOV approach." - Rick Block (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• "I sincerely hope yuo do not mean by popular literature, the incorrect literature, deceiving the readers. Nijdam (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)"

The only sources that they claim are 'critical' start with a problem statement different than the 'standard' MHP, as per the following table.

There is no 'significant minority viewpoint' supporting the outlandish claims repeated by these editors. (All references are from the MHP article.) And Morgan, prompted by a letter to their publisher from participating editors Martin Hogbin & Nijdam, has admitted at least one error, and has backed up on their claims.

The sources themselves do not delineate "which" problem they are solving (see Nijdam's OR explanation of the differences). That is also a Wikipedia editors contrivance.

Accordingly, the article should not have the "Simple solutions are wrong" POV it has now, and it would be a contrivance and a disservice to bifurcate the article as if the sources were answering different problem statements. Because they are not.

Source	Solution Type Given	Problem Statement As Per K & W?	States "Which" Problem It Solves	Says All Simple Solutions Are Wrong
Selvin - 1975	Unconditional Table	Yes	No	No
Selvin - 1975	Formal Conditional Decision Tree	Yes	No	No
Selvin/Hall - 1975	Simple 100% Conditional	Yes	No	No
vos Savant - 1990	Unconditional Table	Intended To	No	No
Morgan - 1991	Many	No	Yes	Yes & No (also says the Formal Conditional Decision Tree and Bayes solutions are "False")
Morgan - 2010	n/a	Yes, I Suppose	n/a	No
Rosenthal	Simple 100% Conditional	No	Yes	No
Rosenthal	Bayes	Yes	Yes	No
G & S	Simple 100% Conditional	No	Yes	No
G & S	Formal Conditional Decision Tree	Yes	Yes	No
Countless	Simple 100% Conditional	Yes	No	No
Countless	Formal Conditional Decision Tree	Yes	No	No

Posted by Glkanter (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note, too, that Selvin, the originator of the puzzle, who gave it the 'Monty Hall' name, and vos Savant, who made the puzzle popular (otherwise there would *be* no Wikipedia MHP article) and responded to thousands of letters, both gave unconditional tables of all possible outcomes as their initial solutions. And never renounced them. Keep this in mind when you read certain editors explaining things like 'intent', and the 'real problem', etc. They are completely contradicting these two fundamental sources. Which I have pointed out thousands of times. So they know it, and they do it anyways. Glkanter (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Response To Rick Block - Glkanter cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability:

[Quoting Rick Block Begins (diffs removed)]

Y cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability:

• table "based" on Carlton's solution:
• Glkanter's "Carlton's decision tree":

[[Quoting Rick Block Ends]

This is nothing more than Rick Block's continuing Gamesmanship and harassment.

Arbitration participant Gill110951 disagrees with Rick Block:

"My opinion is supportive of Glkanter, though I think his version of Carlton needs some polishing. Decision trees help develop probabilistic thinking. One can give a perfectly good decision tree for the so-called popular solution. That solution is a perfectly respectable (though not unique) solution to a perfectly respectable (though not unique) mathematization of the informal question posed in vos Savant's article, for instance. The MHP is partly such a famous problem because of the richness of thought which it has engendered. The wikipedia page should give an attractive overview, make the maths and logic transparent, bring out the unity of the different approaches, and not dogmatically promote one particular POV. Gill110951 (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)"

Arbitration participant Martin Hogbin disagrees with Rick Block:

"I agree that we should take the host's goat door choice to be uniform at random, regardless of how the host actually chooses, because the player does not know the host policy. These are the reasonable assumption to make and these assumptions are implicit in Carlton's tree. Thus Carlton's tree shows that a reliable source has made the same assumptions that you and I make but no mathematical solution can prove that those assumptions are correct. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)"

This is the same style of visual aid as used by the formal conditional solution in the article. It shows that the simple solutions *are* indeed 'conditional', and that a door has been opened, leaving just 2, which some editors insist is the key to many puzzle solvers deriving the incorrect 1/2 & 1/2 response.

This decision tree is derived from:

• vos Savant's problem statement
• Various reliable sources giving similar simple conditional solutions

• Carlton's simple solution
• Monty Hall's simple solution that Selvin (the problem's originator and name-giver) so effusively praised.
• Rosenthal's simple solution
• (optionally) Morgan's (false) Solution 5

False? I know. "It's complicated."

• Countless more reliable sources

• Mathematics - the multiplicative identity element (multiply by 1)
• Various Wikipedia policies on visual aids, synthesis, and OR

Conditional Decision Tree Showing Results and Probabilities as per: vos Savant's (1990) Problem Statement, Monty Hall's/Selvin's (1975) Simple Solution, Carlton's (2005) Simple Solution, Rosenthal's Shaky Solution (2005) and (optionally) Morgan's (false) F5 solution to Whitaker's Question in vos Savant's Column.

• "Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?" - vos Savant, Marilyn (1990). "Ask Marilyn" column, Parade Magazine p. 16 (9 September 1990).

"As long as you initially pick a goat prize, you can't lose: Monty Hall must reveal the location of the other goat, and you switch to the remaining door - the car. In fact, the only way you can lose is if you guessed the car's location correctly in the first place and then switched away. Hence, whether the strategy works just depends on whether you initially picked a goat (2 chances out of 3) or the car (1 chance out of 3)." - Carlton, Matthew (2005). "Pedigrees, Prizes, and Prisoners: The Misuse of Conditional Probability". Journal of Statistics Education [online] 13 (2). http://www.amstat.org/publications/JSE/v13n2/carlton.html. Retrieved 2010-05-29.

• "Monty Hall wrote and expressed that he was not "a student of statistics problems" but "the big hole in your argument is that once the first box is seen to be empty, the contestant cannot exchange his box." He continues to say, "Oh and incidentally, after one [box] is seen to be empty, his chances are no longer 50/50 but remain what they were in the first place, one out of three. It just seems to the contestant that one box having been eliminated, he stands a better chance. Not so." I could not have said it better myself." - Selvin, Steve (1975a). "A problem in probability" (letter to the editor). American Statistician 29(1): 67 (February 1975).

• [The following is an unabridged quotation with not a single word removed, or any other editing. Emphasis mine.]

"Shaky Solution: When you first selected a door, you had a 1/3 chance of being correct. You knew the host was going to open some other door which did not contain the car, so that doesn’t change this probability. Hence, when all is said and done, there is a 1/3 chance that your original selection was correct, and hence a 1/3 chance that you will win by sticking. The remaining probability, 2/3, is the chance you will win by switching.

"This solution is actually correct, but I consider it “shaky” because it fails for slight variants of the problem."

- Rosenthal, Jeffrey S. (2005a). "Monty Hall, Monty Fall, Monty Crawl". Math Horizons: September issue, 5–7. Online reprint, 2008.

• Similarly, 1 is the identity element under multiplication for the real numbers, since a × 1 = 1 × a = a. Also called unity. [32]

• "(False) Solution F5. The probability that a player is shown a goat is 1. So conditioning on this event cannot change the probability of 1/3 that door 1 is a winner before a goat is shown; that is, the probability of winning by not switching is 1/3, and by switching is 2/3." - Morgan, J. P., Chaganty, N. R., Dahiya, R. C., & Doviak, M. J. (1991). "Let's make a deal: The player's dilemma," American Statistician 45: 284-287.

Posted by Glkanter (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Rick Block Has Claimed Ownership Of The MHP

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)

Response To Rick Block: Glkanter Has Not "...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.

Response To Rick Block: He Is 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':

[quoting Rick Block begins]

Signs of disruptive editing (from wp:disruptive editing):

Y is tendentious:

• "There is no possible way I am wrong about this", reposted to article talk page, chronicled to his talk page, reposted to Richard Gill's talk page

[quoting Rick Block ends]

...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)

Response To Rick Block: More Gamesmanship, This Time During This Arbitration

I just noticed Rick Block misquoted me. He posted that I wrote:

"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)

Response To Dicklyon: Let's Get That Incident Straight Once And For All

His version of the events is, and always has been, a blatant falsehood. I started a new section on the MHP talk page with this diff, then fleshed it out with a few more diffs right afterwards. [I ask that everybody keep clicking "next edit" so they can see the obvious, unprovoked transgressions by Dicklyon.] Here's the edit summary on his first diff where he deleted detail from my edits on a talk page:

"(Reverted 1 edit by Glkanter; Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism. (TW)) (undo)"

He accuses me of vandalizing a section that I, myself, had just created. And calls my very neutral chronological representation '...Obviously incorrect, pointy addition..." It's a talk page, and I was trying to piece together how & when the POV of the literature 'changed' as per Rick Block. Of course, the chronology showed that this 'change' never occurred, despite what Rick Block continues to claim to this day.

Now he continues to present himself as poor little ol' Dicklyon, who was attacked by mean ol' Glkanter. What rubbish. Here's Dicklyon's user page, where he brags about the beat downs he's put on deserving editors. I saw this at the time of his actions, and actually *begged* him to keep it civil. I even offered to let him *have* that section, and I would start a new one. He kept blaming me for his actions, which I rejected. Then he and Rick put together that bogus RfC, even though Rick Block, an Admin, made no comment whatsoever about the whole incident. You should read the ever-changing and dishonest revisionist history Dicklyon kept contriving in the RfC. Then Rick uses that RfC that he filed, and my quite valid defense to it, to support his claims in this Arbitration that I am disruptive. It makes me sick just to have to revisit Dicklyons actions and the subsequent dishonesty that followed it. I wasn't going to mention him at all. But Dicklyon brought it up. The truth then, ought to at least be presented in this Arbitration. Glkanter (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Response To Nijdam: He Continues His Disruptive Editing In This Arbitration

It's evident Nijdam does not care to follow Wikipedia policies. The diffs below are consistent with his discussions, edits, and reverts for the last 2+ years. The diffs below are special, though, as they are contained in his postings to this very arbitration.

Here's his comment about sources:

"A lot is said about sources in this discussion. Some are used just to support an editors view. The point is: are they reliable sources. Many of the sources are not reviewed and some have to be considered no more than a column in a popular magazine. So it would be best if criteria are given to consider a source reliable. At least is any source that promotes S1 as a correct solution to F0 per definition not reliable. Nijdam (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)"

And where he dismisses other editors, well, me, anyways:

"In the following I do not account for Glkanter, whom I do not take seriously. From the other parties all except Martin Hogbin understand that F0 is solved by S0 and F1 is solved by S1, and that S1 does not solve F0. As for the main point of discussion it is Gill and Hogbin who strongly defend F1 to be the standard version. The others take F0 to be the standard, mostly accepted version... Nijdam (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)"

Two More Editors Nijdam Doesn't Take Seriously

From what I gather, Boris Tsirelson is the most respected subject matter expert *in the same field as Nijdam and Richard* editing on Wikipedia. Nijdam's posting was replied to by Boris on December 15, 2009:

">>>>>Okay, but I doubt whether these are the arguments the adversaries of the simple solution have in mind or whether this makes it better understandable for the interested readers. I also cannot imagine you use this reasoning in your introductory course. Nijdam (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)"

"Well, we now agree on the mathematics (modulo a miserable problem of denoting by A different things on different days of discussion), and I feel my mission finished. About my introductory course: I had no reason to use this argument, but I could, and it would not make more troubles than other topics; however, this is hardly relevant to WP. About adversaries I do not know; I only feel that arguments of symmetry are quite easily guessed by many non-mathematicians (they do not vast effort to the trouble of formalization...). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)"

Edit Summary: "(→Comment Boris: my mission finished)"

And:

• Tell me why Nijdam ignores what you and Boris have come up with, that the literature had all along? Glkanter 2/20/2011

• How can I tell you how Nijdam's mind works? It's incomprehensible to me. Richard Gill 2/20/2011

And lemme tell you, it is disheartening, frustrating, aggravating, and unsolvable when Nijdam would refuse to engage me on the discussion pages, but would repeatedly revert my edits. And no admin (including Rick Block, who filed this arbitration against me) cared to understand what was going on, so I was put on the 1RR block list. That's pretty frustrating, too. Of course, Catch 22 was already in place for that. The more I complained about the improper reverts that I was reverting, and the more unblock requests I filed, and then my complaints about the admins' indifference to my unblock requests, the more of a typical, guilty, complainer/edit warrior I would become in the admins' eyes. That old "j'excuse/j'accuse" thing again. With no known solution:

"I'm not attacking motives. I'm describing disruptive editing via Gamesmanship by Rick Block and Nijdam."

"All I can say is: WP:NOTTHEM. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)"

Edit summary: "(→June 2010: never take it into your own hands)"

Well, actually, Rick Block *did* take note of the edit warring going on. He reported me at least 4 separate times, the first one being denied. Plus the bogus RfC. All other editors who were necessary to have a war: Rick Block reported 0 times. That includes his ally, Nijdam, who would revert, but refuse to discuss *anything* with me. And Rick was aware of this, having mentioned it at least once in order to humiliate me. (still looking for that diff...) This is a big part of why I think they were operating in cahoots to maintain their veto power over edits to the article. Glkanter (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to Rick Block's Response to Martin

This is what Rick Block wrote:

"What the content dispute is about is essentially irrelevant for the purposes of this arbitration. What is at issue here is user behavior, specifically the refusal of some editors (Glkanter is by far the worst, although Martin, Richard Gill, and Nijdam share this to a lesser degree) to let the article represent in an NPOV fashion what reliable sources say as opposed to what these users think about the problem, despite repeated attempts to focus discussion on what sources say"

Which is really weird, because when I post things in support of the simple conditional solutions, I'm just repeating what those source say. And when I challenge the POV and UNDUE weight given to the so-called critics of the simple conditional solutions, I'm referring to your over-reliance on between 0 and 5 sources. But you tell me I don't understand probability, that I haven't read enough sources, that I edit tendentiously, that I'm disruptive, etc. You've even filed an RfC and this arbitration against me. But I'm just repeating what countless reliable sources (Selvin & vos Savant among them) are saying, and enumerating that there are very few, if any critics.

• Don't those sources count, or do you agree with Nijdam that [paraphrasing], 'since they're wrong, they're not reliable'?
• Do you have any diffs where you instruct Nijdam to stick to the reliable sources?
• Are there more than the 5 so-called critics of the simple conditional solution that you've enumerated, of which I have already debunked your classification of 3 of them as 'critics' ?
• Do you still consider every source that gives a conditional solution a de facto critic of the simple conditional solutions?

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

Posted by Glkanter (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Use the proposal templates in the workshop to make suggestions/requests for sanctions that should be deployed by Arbcom. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your evidence is currently 1700+ words. Could you please reduce it. If some of the content is in response to evidence supplied by another editor after you wrote your initial piece, could you please indicate that in the title (Response to X), as such responses are not usually counted in the 1000 words. Thank you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have modified the headings as suggested. Could you please review my changes, and let me know how many words I have remaining? I'd like to promote some things from the talk page to the evidence page. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your 'evidence' was still well over 1000 words - closer to 3500 actually. I have taken the liberty of truncating it to 1000 words exactly. You may include whatever you wish in those 1000 words, but you may not go over, especially when other parties to the case have done their best to get down to the limit. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

I think your actions and your tone are *way* out of line for many reasons. Glkanter (talk)

I suspected you wouldn't be pleased, and I'm sorry for that. But rules remain rules, I'm afraid. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

It was my expectation that arbitration committee member Elen of the Roads would review each section that I had labeled as a 'Response' and provide feedback as to the '1,000 word exception for Responses' for each. Glkanter (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And where did I say I was going to do that. In any case, it is only rebuttals of other users evidence (User X states that I was edit warring, but those diffs are three years old, etc) that is excepted from the 1000 words, and then only when it is short. You added back in stuff that had been removed to the talkpage once already as unsuitable for inclusion. What did you think was going to happen? Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It was my expectation based on our conversation. I was wrong, obviously. I apologize, and will not repeat that erroneous statement again. Glkanter (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Upon further review, I *was* told that responses were excluded from the 1,000 word limitation. I'm pretty sure, from his/her responses, that the arbitration clerk who deleted my evidence didn't give that any consideration at all. Glkanter (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Timeline for evidence in Monty Hall case

Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Evidence#Timeline for Evidence, Proposed Decision. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Summary of The Truth

I think we more or less agreed on three questions:

1. Would it be a fair bet at odds 2:1 that the car is not behind the door you first chose?

2. Would it be a fair bet at odds 2:1 that the car is not behind the door you first chose (door 1), knowing the host opened another door (but not knowing which)?

3. Would it be a fair bet at odds 2:1 that the car is not behind the door you first chose (door 1), after you saw the host open door 3?

It is good that you agree that the three questions are different in the sense that they require different arguments to answer correctly.

You gave three answers:

1. Unconditional - can be solved by the tables of all possible outcomes as per Selvin & vos Savant

2. Simple Conditional - can be solved by logic, as depicted in the decision tree I have ascribed to Carlton

3. Formal (Complicated) Conditional - can be solved with Bayes or full blown decision tree conditioned on door #s

However, Question 3 doesn't need to be solved with Bayes or with calculations based on a full blown decision tree. It can also be solved by symmetry (ie by plain words and plain logic). Since the host has to open either door 2 and door 3, and the numbering on the doors is uninformative, the odds in the two cases must be the same, hence the same as what they were before seeing the door numbers.

This argument has been given in various forms by numerous reliable sources.

Question 1 can also be answered in many ways. One way is the following: if the player's choice is random there are just three equally likely possibilities: goat, goat, car. So 2:1 he hits a goat. (This was Monty Hall's response to Selvin, it is the economics and game theory answer, it is a solution given frequently by new editors on the talk pages, surely it is in many reliable sources too). I would call this a solution by logic, wouldn't you too?

I suppose that your "logic" solution to Question 2 is the same argument, but now using the "equally likely" of the location of the car, given our state of knowledge. Richard Gill (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• My only intent was to demonstrate to you that there are 3 types of solutions from reliable sources being debated on the pages of Wikipedia. As we both know, whoever frames the debate and it's vocabulary has an advantage. I wanted to take some of that away from Rick Block and Nijdam. With or without the help of the Highest and Most Holey of the High Priests.
• After you posted 'The Truth' on an arbitration page, which did *not* include #2, I started our discussion on your talk page. You argued with me extensively that there are only 2 solutions, reluctant at first to agree with me on #2. This was consistent with your earlier inexplicable insistence on playing word games, and slippery semantic avoidance when I was trying to give #2 the name 'simple conditional solution' in order to distinguish it from #1, which is (correctly) called the 'simple unconditional solution'. This all took place on an arbitration talk page when I asked 5 distinct questions to 'direct' you to conclude #2 actually exists. You played your usual word games, corrected my improper use of the word 'probability', and rather than build upon my idea, you repeatedly rejected it, telling me that my terminology was 'different than the other editors used'. Once again, I had to repeat and clarify and cajole and repeat again countless times, accept being told I'm stupid and argumentative, only to have you ultimately recognize the merit of my argument, adopt it to your bosom, then act like it was your POV all along.
• How does that go, Richard? First an idea is rejected...
• The 2nd group of 3 statements that I offered was nothing more than a reference to the reliable sources, so that you could easily recognize that I was not espousing OR. I'm not making any comment as to which solutions can solve, or are best for solving anything. Because the reliable sources don't.
• Of course the simple conditional decision tree shows that Nijdam's arguments against the simple conditional solution are incorrect. The contestant *is* left to choose from exactly 2 doors. I presented this to you and the other editors last summer, modestly calling it The Rosetta Stone of the MHP debates, but y'all argued about OR and column headings. And it shows Nijdam's argument '1/3 <> 1/3' has no merit, either.
• So, today, anyways, we seem to agree on things. I'll take it. Glkanter (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's toast to that, brother!

The reason I didn't initially have #2 is because the difference between #1 and #2 is, IMHO, insignificant, while both their difference with #3 is large. And Rick c.s. think that only #3 is The One and Only True MHP. But I was happy to accommodate you in the interests of presenting a united front. (BTW it is your use of "conditional" that I have problems with, not "probability"). Richard Gill (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Stunning. You see *no* difference between Selvin's table of all possible outcomes, and the logical solutions lile Monty Hall's that Selvin praised so highly?
• Please explain my abuse of the terms '100% conditional' or 'simple conditional'. Glkanter (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Naturally I see a huge difference between solutions based on logic and insight, and solutions based on arithmetic or on formula manipulation. For each of the three problems, there exists a huge variety of solutions. If you don't have the flash of insight in order to see the stunningly effective short logical solution, you have to just sit down and calcukate, from first principles. Hopefully, you'll get a sweet answer and a glimpse of the short cut which makes it obvious.

You don't abuse any terms, you just use them in differently. The conditional probability of A given B means, by definition (for people who studied probability calculus), the probability of A and B divided by the probability of B. People who talk about conditional solutions mean solutions where you calculate the probability that you'll win by switching given you chose door 1 and the host opened door 3. Richard Gill (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• From 'stunning' to 'typical'. You ignore the fact that I had to post 5 times before you corrected The Truth. You use Morgan-like vagueness to avoid answering how & why you could:

• Lump #1 & #2 together
• Defend it 5 times
• Get it horribly wrong when you do add #2 to The Truth. Until I pestered you about that, too.

• And you continue to scold me for my improper use of jargon (destroying any point I was trying to make on an arbitration page, thanks again, for nothing), then tell me my use is just different than the other editors. [Page down once or twice for where your continued obstinance forced me to ask 5 distinct questions, only to have you mealy mouth them. Of course, they ended up supporting the need for #2.] Yes, that's my whole goddam point, for the 29th time, Richard, with no apparent impact. The common usage by the ownership block of editors is intended to hide the validity of the simple conditional solutions from the reliable sources.
• I have not enjoyed these conflicts with you one bit. Making any progress has taken approximately 25 - 50 times the verbiage and effort that it should have required. You've backed down on just about everything you said I had wrong, yet never directly acknowledge your changed viewpoint. And you rely on double talk to avoid acknowledging that you *have* changed your viewpoint. But this is all transitory. Who knows, you're likely to post something that conflicts with your current point of view today, tomorrow, and/or the next day.
• I hope we're able to improve the article soon, so I don't have to put up with your BS much longer. 11:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think your terminology is *wrong*, but in the interests of forming a common front I just called it *different*. Ciao. Richard Gill (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Of course. Today I'm wrong, tomorrow you'll seem to agree, the next day I'm using the terms improperly, the next day I'm jumping to conclusions. But God forbid you should actually rephrase what I've said in the manner it would pass muster. Like the 'missing' part of the 'symmetry' argument. Something was missing, but you you would never say exactly what.
• So, since you say I am wrong, delete #2 from The Truth. Then admit that you think #2 & #1 are the same: Selvin's and vos Savant's tables of outcomes are the same as the logical solutions where an unspecified door has been opened to reveal a goat. But, please, don't *ever* provide your preferred terminology for the terms 'simple conditional solution' and '100% conditional' to the unwashed. Just keep evading the questions I ask, tell me it's different, or wrong, or whatever and give your indecipherable, ever-changing answers. Glkanter (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If I try to rephrase what you've said in a way which I think would pass muster, you abuse me for claiming E.S.P. or doing O.R. or just talking B.S.. So clearly there is nothing I can do to support you. I'd like to, but I am not able to. Anyway, just let me repeat, that I'm really grateful for the discoveries which you led me and others to make in the literature of MHP. Richard Gill (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, if those other guys *don't* get topic blocked, what difference does it make if I'm blocked or not? My article edits always get reverted, anyways. Glkanter (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated personal attacks on the other parties involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have also deleted your userpage as an attack page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have not made any personal attacks on any other parties. I have not included a single committe member name on my user page. Other than the admin that filed the bogus arbitration charges against me, who has had a proposed finding of WP:OWNERSHIP against him included in the decision, I have not named a single person. I have not violated any Wikipedia policy in letter or spirit. I obviously have offended the sensibilities of the admin who blocked me, but that is a very different issue. She has offended my sensibilities in her handling of my arbitration case, but I can't block her, or delete her user page. As my user page has also been deleted, I cannot document what I'm stating. Also, as my user page has been deleted, it's likely other Wikipedia users will think I have committed some heinous acts deserving of punishment. Which, of course, is not true. I would like my user page restored, as it is in no way an 'attack page'. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You may not be able to read the user page, but we can. It's a rant about the other editors. The key word here is proposed - ARBCOM have not yet made a decision, the case is still open, but in the view of what has been proposed you have decided to launch your fighters and make a pre-emptive strike. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I see no reason to unblock or restore that user page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note for reviewing admin - this is not an Arbcom block, just a normal admin action. Should the user develop some clue as to why their behaviour was problematic, they may be unblocked without further reference to me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict with the above decline: I've looked at your deleted user page and at your recent contributions. Taken as a whole it does seem as though you are taking a relentlessly and consistently confrontative position towards pretty much everybody and everything, notably the people who disagree with you in your arbitration case. Under these circumstances, I can understand why the arbitrator who blocked you concluded that your contributions were, on the whole, disruptive rather than a benefit to the project. I am aware that you are convinced that great injustice is being done to you and that you want to protest that, but, frankly, doing so in this manner does not help your case at all. Tone it down, please, read WP:GAB, take under consideration that this is how uninvolved outsiders perceive your conduct, perhaps wait a week or so, and consider making another unblock request that convinces administrators that you won't continue in the same manner if you are unblocked, and what useful article edits unrelated to the Monty Hall problem you intend to make if you are unblocked (you have made only three, ever).  Sandstein  22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes, I am experiencing something Orwellian here. The only reason I am the subject of an arbitration case is because the admin that made the specious arb request, has taken ownership of the MHP article, something which 3 committee members agree with (plus the 3 editors in addition to myself who presented first-hand evidence), so far. That my punishment for responding to this proposed 5 year fundamental & deceitful violation would exceed his punishment (limited to 1 revert a day) blows me away. I have posted the facts, and my thoughts on these facts on my own user page. I have not attacked anyone. That my style may not please someone is not justification for the actions taken against me. I reached out for help with this issue countless times over 2 years, only to be rebuffed, and I didn't feel like biting my tongue about it now. But I did not attack anyone. Nor do my postings indicate that I am anti-social, have gone rogue, or in any other way must be stopped before I do more damage. Glkanter (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As to being treated unfairly, yes I believe I have been. The arb committee member who blocked me was prompted By Rick Block to read my user page, vis a vis my postings about the arbitration. He also coaxed her to add a finding of (paraphrasing) 'makes personal attacks' a day or two after she wrote the original proposed decisions. One diff she referenced was actually Rick Block flipping out at me. When this was brought to her attention, she deleted that diff, and put in some other diffs. One of those diffs, which I mention on my user page is the October, 2008 diff where I very nicely explain how maddening it is to try to discuss the MHP with Rick Block. I describe his *techniques* as being like Jello. She calls that an 'attack'. Another one, where I make a simple statement that 'So & so is garbage' is from February, 2009. Using those as justification in an arbitration in 2011 to support that I need a 1 year article block is long stretch. I certainly am not getting an assumption of good faith with justifications like that. Glkanter (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Anything negative about another editor is an attack - you might not see it that way, but it breaches WP:CIVIL - any suggestion that the other editor is also uncivil is not a valid reason to do the same. So your user page clearly attacks other editors, which is why it was deleted. "Response time frame" - there isn't one. The unblock template causes the request to be listed at Category:Requests_for_unblock#Pages_in_category, where many admins will see it, and will drop by to have a look - but there's no guarantee that they will do anything. I will leave closing the current unblock for someone else.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Indeed, what about my expectation of innocent until proven guilty? Its seems that I am not being afforded the assumption of good faith. The arb committee member that is running the arbitration I am commenting on is the admin who blocks me & deletes my page? That would seem to be some sort of COI, no? Could you please state unambiguously what offense(s) I have committed that lead you to agree with my being blocked and having my user page deleted? I took care to include the word 'proposed', and so far, 3 committee members agree about the WP:Ownership charge (plus the 3 editors in addition to myself who presented first-hand evidence), including the member who made that finding of facts on the decision page, who also blocked and deleted me. My statements of fact regarding my arbitration case are not attacks. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC) The more I consider this, the more apparent how wrong this is becomes. An editor would have to go through an RfC, and have little control over the outcome. But an admin who I have had legitimate differences with can independently, and without any due process whatsoever, block me indefinitely (permanently, until I 'get my mind right') and censor my entire user page at the same time? No, That's not right in any way, shape or form. That level of domain over another editor should not be up to a single admin, and I should not have to beg for a return of my Wikipedia privileges and user page. Glkanter (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Hi, it's been over 12 hours since my 2nd request for unblocking and the restoration of my user page. I could not find a response time frame expectation in the documentation. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Hello, again. This unblock/user page restore request has not been adminstered to in over 24 hours. This situation is no longer "Orwellian", it has , unfortunately, reached the Burgess/Kubrick realm. Glkanter (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC) The indefinite block is equivalent to expulsion. This is unwarranted. I did nothing but post legitimate, moderate criticisms of the arbitration case I was the subject of. The only admin named was the admin who filed the arb case against me. At no time did I make any attacks against him. These postings have been improperly miscatagorized as 'personal attacks' by the admin who is running the arbitration case. That is an obvious conflict of interest, and is contrary to Wikipedia protocal. There were no time sensitive or Wikipedia sensitive reasons the usual procedures of engaging an uninvolved admin couldn't have been followed. Glkanter (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I had hoped we could leave your request open until the arbitration discussion concluded, to see whether you'd be willing to edit under whatever decision results. But, since you seem to be requesting an immediate response... I just don't feel comfortable unblocking you when you seem to indicate that you don't think you've done anything disruptive, and would edit similarly if unblocked. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As I do not expect to encounter another article that has an admin/editor who silently claims ownership (including the MHP), I will have no reason whatsoever to post complaints and comments as I have done for the last week or so. As long as no article owner files false RfCs, does not revert my legitimate article edits, and does not report me to the arb committee as 'singlehandedly' preventing an article from being improved, I will have no new interactions with admins, or any other authority within Wikipedia. I will have no reason to post almost anything other than article discussions and article edits. I will try very, very hard not get in arguments, nor will I give other causes to be reported for bad behaviour. Glkanter (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The responses from the admins fail to consider any aspects of this block and page deletion except for the interpretation that I have posted personal attacks in the last week or so. This aspect is nothing more than a value judgment, which I, of course disagree with. I have posted complaints and commentary of an appropriate, but apparently unpopular, nature. What the admins are *not* addressing is the inherent conflict of interest by the initiating admin and the severity of the indefinite block (tantamount to expulsion, as there is no unblock until I concede the errors of my ways). And how these are in direct contrast to the spirit and policies of Wikipedia. I have explained these issues, above, and to date they have been ignored. Glkanter (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The arb committee member has imposed her preferred arbcom remedy (and much more) on me, in advance and separately from the committee:

"Glkanter is banned from Wikipedia for one year, and is further subject to an indefinite topic ban on subjects related to the Monty Hall Problem.

Support:

1....

2. First choice - I've just indeff'd him after another run of attacks on Rick Block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)"

I have been given more than the greatest punishment proposed by the admin I was politely criticizing. She has improperly usurped the authority of the entire Arbitration Committee with her draconian and unwarranted actions. Glkanter (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I was posting on my own user page for goodness sake. And my postings did not come close to being personal attacks. If a certain admin, who shall not be named, hadn't kept posting to that arb committee member's user page that I was posting stuff, literally no one would have seen the postings. I was in no way whatsoever calling attention to the postings. Rather, having been warned and deleted for "tendentious' editing (another judgment call made by the admin who blocked & deleted me) on the decision talk page, I posted what was happening and brief, polite comments, on my user page. Take a look at the decision talk page, then tell me that I was posting in a comparatively "tendentious' manner. But no one else has been warned or had postings there deleted. Glkanter (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This request does not take into account WP:NOTTHEM as well as my recommendations of 22:56, 16 March 2011. At this point it is clear that you are going to be banned from the Monty Hall problem, so any unblock request will need to convince us that you will completely disengage from that topic and its editors, and that you will make useful edits related to some other topic.  Sandstein  21:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish I had a dime for every time I tried to explain to an admin that Rick Block was exerting WP:OWNERSHIP over the MHP article, and they replied mechanically with WP:NOTTHEM. Except, sometimes, it really *is* the other guy, as per the finding of facts by the arbitration committee. It would have been nice if over the course of 2+ years, at least one single admin had looked into my claim, and maybe even gave me some guidance and support on how to bring it to the proper authority's attention, rather than giving me the old WP:NOTTHEM and the j'excuse, j'accuse response. But, that apparently isn't in the admin's 'job description'. To say I, and many others saw this travesty coming would be inadequately redundant. Glkanter (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd like to support Glkanter's request to be unblocked. Some of the evidence against him consisted of his reactions to my reactions to his reactions to ... At the time I personally took his reactions towards me to have been done in good faith. Whether or not I briefly took offense at the time, I certainly do not harbour any grudges for past behaviour. In fact Glkanter's principled stand for opening up a particular wikipedia article to a broader range of opinions was a noble and ultimately, we may hope, succesful action. Richard Gill (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll say this again, since Glkanter doesn't seem to understand. This block is ENTIRELY a response to his persistent, unabating personal attacks on other parties in the case (any anyone else who came near him) over the 2-3 days prior to his block. It is NOTHING to do with enacting the Arbitration decison, although Glkanter's behaviour is probably making it more likely that he will be banned. He needs to formulate an appeal that addresses his behavioural issues, rather than continuing to threaten everyone around him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll say *this* again: The issue is not your judgment of my behaviour, and it never has been. The issue is your inexplicable heavy handed treatment of me throughout the arbitration case. We can begin with the unequal handling of my evidence, your unwillingness to discuss why it was truncated in the first place, and your gross neglect in responding to my repeated requests for an explanation or for 'permission' for restoring it to a level equal to that other admin/editor's evidence's word count. [There's plenty more examples of this unequal treatment that I could provide.]

That you would unilaterally choose to expel me, (mostly based on the coaxing, cajoling and prompting from that other admin/editor), from participating in Wikipedia is unacceptable. I've behaved very well throughout. On my own user page, after being warned off and deleted by you from the various discussion pages, I've made honest, polite criticisms of the case without naming names, with a single exception. And all of those statements have simple been statements of fact. To call any of these "personal attacks" is hogwash. That you fail to see the conflict of interest in your actions of blocking and deleting me is inexplicable. That you fail to see the excessive nature of this punishment is inexplicable. That you fail to see you have made the arb case against me 'moot' with your actions is inexplicable. Your actions are the ones that are indefensible, not mine. Your actions have biased the arbitration case, likely beyond hope for me getting a fair shake. Nicely done, madam. Glkanter (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I consider all the yukking it up with your chums about Klingons during the decision portion of my arb case to be a clear example of "tendentious editing". Certainly of zero value to the proceedings. No warnings issued, no deletions made, though. I'm sure others feel as I do, as well. On the other hand, I tried to get that whole crew, including you, to focus their attention on 3 OR items that are actually in the arb case, and you deleted my diff as "tendentious editing". Glkanter (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, the only one you have to blame for this block is yourself. I do understand your frustration, but it is not an excuse for persistently refusing to pay attention to the Wikipedia policies, and neither is the misbehaviour of others. You had your chance providing evidence of such misbehaviour on the Monty Hall evidence page, but in spite of this being pointed out to you several times, you wasted the opportunity with irrelevant argumentation. What you are now saying here only makes it worse. Cool off for some time, read a good book or something instead of spending time on Wikipedia, and when you are calmed down, think if you maybe did something wrong that brought this upon you.  --Lambiam 20:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I was posting on my own user page for goodness sake - it's not your page, it's a page that the Foundation allow you to use under the policy for user pages WP:UP - it is not a soapbox to have a rant about other users and their behaviour WP:UP#NOT. Remember, every admin that come by to view your unblock, can and probably will, view that user page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem with emotive words like wrong, violate and so on. Everybody works on wikipedia in good faith, I assume, and we all are human (or maybe not???), we all violate some wikipedia policies of guidelines or whatever from time to time. We can always explain that we do this because we think that other policies and guidelines weigh more heavily on that particular issue. More important is to decide whether something is productive or improductive. It usually isn't productive to tell other people they were wrong. It might be productive to tell them that the way they were working seemed not to be conducive to their own aims. And you should listen sympathetically when they suggest that from their point of view they had no other option, of that to them it seems that they are being treated differently from others. EG some people are WP admins, some people are famous scientists... . Justice in a free society not only has to be fair, it also has to be clearly seen to be fair. Richard Gill (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time, once again Lambiam, to try to help me understand how I might accomplish more with fewer conflicts and aggravation for everyone on Wikipedia. I will outline my concerns at a high level. If you would like greater detail, to the extent I can provide that, I will. The reasons I have not followed the advice given are:

• The admin explained the block & deletion as necessary due to:

• "...repeated personal attacks on the other parties involved in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem"

and

• "...ENTIRELY a response to his persistent, unabating personal attacks on other parties in the case (any anyone else who came near him over the 2-3 days prior to his block.)"

• The above are one admin's opinions as to the nature of my postings.

• In real life, I know that personal attacks are wrong, and have never been in trouble with the law for making personal attacks
• I have taken part in online communities as far back as Compuserve, and understand the expectations of each participant
• In the 2 years I have been on Wikipedia, I have been the recipient of very strong comments that are of a more offensive nature than anything I posted in the last few days, and saw no consequences accrue to those individuals
• The admin that blocked and deleted perceives herself as one of the parties that has been personally attacked
• The admin that blocked and deleted has an obvious conflict of interest
• Until I agree in writing with that admin's opinions of what constitutes a personal attack, I am effectively expelled from Wikipedia forever

That's no way to run a railroad, is it? Glkanter (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronhjones, if we're simply going to pick apart each others' response, rather than discuss the improper actions taken against me , I will offer this response:

• You use the term 'rant', in both of your responses:

• "You may not be able to read the user page, but we can. It's a rant about the other editors."

and

• "...it is not a soapbox to have a rant about other users and their behaviour WP:UP#NOT."

I was blocked indefinitely and deleted for 'personal attacks' as described:

• "...repeated personal attacks on the other parties involved in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem"

and

• "...ENTIRELY a response to his persistent, unabating personal attacks on other parties in the case (any anyone else who came near him over the 2-3 days prior to his block.)"

There's a difference. A huge difference as far as Wikipedia is concerned. And each term is only an admin's opinion. Neither of which I agree with. You guys seem to be reading a 'personal attack' from any statements of criticism. That ain't right. I only named a single editor. And simply stated arb com facts about him. The penalty invoked against me is outrageous. Glkanter (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronhjones, you never responded to why *I* am not entitled to 'innocent until proven guilty', or 'the assumption of good faith'.

But that's how it works, isn't it? Once an admin decides I have violated a rule, I am no longer entitled to the protections of the rules, am I? Like any conflict of interest rules, for example. Some admin decides I have made personal attacks, and all my 'rights' are forfeited. On the other hand, for over 2 years, I have to deal with a guy who has taken ownership of an article, but, as you guys *always* point out (while ignoring my repeated pleas for help) that doesn't give me any excuse for anything. Glkanter (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee Found Admin/Editor Rick Block Took Ownership Of The MHP Article

Which is what I've been saying all along.

How they find Ownership, but don't find an absence of good faith editing (or Gamesmanship or Wikilawyering, and I'm sure there are others) is mind boggling.

How they find Ownership, and the punishment remedy is nothing more than being restricted to 1 revert per day is mind boggling.

• Why not block him from Wikipedia until he promises to follow the rules (like an arbcom admin did to me)?
• He's certainly shown a pattern, and never acknowledged that there was anything wrong with his actions (same as me, they say).
• I would describe him as likely to continue has past ways (same as they say of me).

Well, you're all welcome. It was my pleasure to bring Rick Block's long standing (5+ years) of Ownership violations to light.

And to all you admins, who for 2+ years said I was violating the rules when I made that charge, thanks for nothing. Thanks for sanctioning me. Thanks for not looking into my concerns. And thanks for never believing me. But especially, thanks for never helping me find a way to advance my concerns, because...

Heck, if Rick Block (the now found to be owner of the MHP) hadn't filed the arbitration request against me:

• "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." - Rick Block

... he would still be able to deny that he took ownership.

Thanks, admins, for I couldn't have done it without you. Glkanter (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you involved in an arbitration case other than Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem? Because that case doesn't seem to be closed yet, or have any findings of fact published yet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if Klingon references were distracting

(EC)

Dear Glkanter, I saw that you had been blocked, and looked here.

You mentioned Elen "yukking it up with" her "chums" about Klingons.

For the record, I don't believe I had any discussions with Elen before the last 2-3 weeks.

Please understand that the mathematicians and ArbCom started the week with a severe difference of perspective (on references in math articles), and that by week's end we were very glad that a good position had been adopted. I was relieved at the outcome, and a number of mathematicians were happy to poke fun at themselves as "Klingons", to underscore our appreciation that Elen (and others) had addressed our concerns, despite the lack of a universal translator!

I am sorry that the Star Trek jokes caused some irritation to you. Nobody meant you ill will, nor meant to distract attention from the issues you mentioned.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. My greater frustration was that so many qualified individuals were discussing hypothetical cases of OR, when there are 3 issues of OR of interest in the arb case itself. We had the attention of so many editors discussing the exact topic that I feel is, and has been plaguing the MHP article for over 2 years, but not a single person, involved in the arb case or not, could change their focus, even temporarily. I mentioned it twice right there in the discussion thread (it was deleted once), and still, no response at all. But, I'm glad Wikipedia is a better place for the discussions you all had. Oh yeah, and the MHP is not exclusively a math article. For the typical Wikipedia reader wanting to understand the Monty Hall Problem Paradox of why it's 2/3 & 1/3, rather than 1/2 & 1/2, it's barely math at all. All you need is the Law of Total Probability, really. Glkanter (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

How The Arbcom Request Against Me Should Have Been Phrased

"In response to my long-standing and improper WP:OWNERSHIP of The Monty Hall problem article, 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. This user is a self-admitted SPA [2], subject of a previous RFC, with a history of:

• gross incivility (representative examples: [3] [4] [5]),
• personal attacks (representative examples: [6] [7] [8] [9]), and
• edit warring (see block log and note that this was while formal mediation was ongoing).

This editor will (of course, and correctly) cast me as the bad guy here, due to my long standing WP:OWNERSHIP violations and although I admit I have made an occasional intemperate comment under extreme and relentless provocation (e.g. [10]), I trust arbcom will see things much more the way I do than the way he does. My request is for arbcom to accept this case, consider the evidence that will be provided, and take appropriate action."

Posted by Glkanter (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh.

And now we find out the greatest Wikipedia offense of all is to be critical of how your arbcom case is handled (despite what my block says, that's why the actions were taken). After I was indefinitely blocked and my user page was deleted, all of a sudden my 'remedy' is:

"1.2) Glkanter is banned from Wikipedia for one year, and is further subject to an indefinite topic ban on subjects related to the Monty Hall Problem."

Oh brother. Glkanter (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A note to the arbcom member who refers to my 'one trick pony' diff...

That I declined an invitation to join the centrifugal force discussions is indicative of nothing more than I had the good sense to *not* join the centrifugal force discussions. Any other inference is incorrect.

That I decided to focus my attention on the inexplicable inability for any editor to improve the MHP in no way makes me a bad person. Any other inference is incorrect.

Taken together, and put in the context of supporting a one year Wikipedia ban, one could easily define your comments as an unwarranted personal attack, couldn't they? Glkanter (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not getting involved in the centrifugal force discussion was probably wise. ;-) However Wikipedia a big project, covering most topics known to mankind. You haven't shown any interest in developing any other topic, so I lack any basis to conclude that you can participate effectively in other areas. ArbCom regularly bans people; admins regularly ban people. Often very smart people, and sometimes people who had the best of intentions all along. If you really want to show that you can work collaboratively and productively in another topical area, or among a different set of editors, I'll be happy to talk with you to see if we can find ways of allowing that. For example, I would be happy to consider allowing you to pick a different topic, and assign a mentor to work with you on that topic, and only that one topic. After you have demonstrated you're an asset to the project, the Arbitration Committee could relax the topical boundary and/or lift the ban altogether. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to let the whole Monty Python skit Monty Hall subject rest and take up this offer.  --Lambiam 22:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I ask the question because you incorrectly used that diff, where you describe me as 'wise', above, as support when you said that:

"He admits being here for one purpose."

...to support your vote for a one year Wikipedia ban. That diff does not support that statement, nor have I ever made that statement on Wikipedia.

• Based on the standards applied in order to block me indefinitely, you made a personal attack on me within your arbcom vote. Glkanter (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You said you are 'a one-trick pony on Wikipedia' and I say 'He admits being here for one purpose.' Please show me how I have misrepresented you, and help me understand why you consider it to be a personal attack. If you want me to remove my comment, I am happy to do so. My vote will still stand.

Your other point above is orthogonal to my point. I can think it was wise for you to steer clear from centrifugal force and yet still use that diff as supporting evidence that you lack interest in any areas of Wikipedia. Imagine, if you will, that you had responded "No way man, that centrifugal force discussion looks like more trouble than I am interested in at the moment because I have a burning desire to start helping out with the article Pokemon." Or, "I can help improve the centrifugal force topics, but that discussion seems like it will be another ridiculous waste of hot air, and I already have one of those problems on my plate."

My votes don't need to be correlated directly with a single findings of fact. Consider my vote to restrict Rick Block; I have abstained on the FoF about him, but I still think something is needed to shackle Rick a bit, even if it is a token measure.

My vote to ban you isn't a personal attack; it my assessment on what is needed to a) avoid further problems wrt MHP, and b) avoid further problems wrt yourself.

IMO, the overarching principle about this case is 'The best intentions of all involved have failed, miserably.' I think you all have tried to help, with occasional successes, and the varied disputes are all valid viewpoints, but the result is what is, and you all share in the blame for this protracted dispute continuing for as long as it has.

If you really want to prove yourself, I am willing to look for solutions where the risks are low. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I guess quoting people only partially, to fit your narrative is permitted when you become an admin:

"Glkanter, OK. You can go to my talk page and take up where Martin left off. See if you are still on Martin's side when it comes to centrifugal force. I would certainly appear to be on Martin's side on MHP. But I think I know what motivates my opponents at centrifugal force. David Tombe (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)"

"::No thanks. I'm a one-trick pony on Wikipedia. Anything more complex than 1/3 * 100% = 1/3 is beyond my job classification. Glkanter (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)"

And the only logical way to look at is if Rick Block had not exerted WP:OWNERSHIP in violation of the most fundamental policies:

• Talk page discussions would have reached consensus.
• Mediation would not have been necessary.
• This trumped up arbitration case, in front of this obvious, and unapologetic Kangaroo Kourt, where Rick Block, who has been found to violate for over 5 years (but will escape any meaningful sanctions for) WP:OWNERSHIP, accused me of "...singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made." would not have been necessary.
• You guys wouldn't have decided it was necessary to recklessly smear my good name.

This isn't complicated. Glkanter (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In this section I am here to explain my position in regards to the FoF about yourself, and discuss options going forward. You reply by ranting about Rick Block. Please stop doing that. If you have something to say about him or anything else to say to the arbitrators, present it calmly and neutrally, otherwise your talk page access will be removed so that arbitrators don't need to keep reading your posts here. If that happens, you will still be able to communicate with the arbitration committee via email, however you will be put on moderation and rants will be rejected.

I have very explicitly said that I consider everyone to blame, and that includes Rick and yourself. If you want to continue participation on Wikipedia, it would help immensely if you showed some appreciation that you were part of this mess, and started thinking about how you can participate without ending up in a similar mess.

In regards to your good name, please let us know if you would like the name 'Glkanter' to "vanish". It is probably best that you request this via an email to mail:arbcom-l.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I love how some of you guys are capable of knowing what I meant when I posted something, better than I know what I meant when I posted something. Another arbcom member used my "Conventional Wisdom" business card against me because I posted it 4 times, on 4 different pages over 2+ years. Despite my detailed explanations. It was also used against me by Rick Block in his evidence.

And I see someone is suggesting a '16 month statute of limitations' for Rick Block's diffs, but not mine, so as to avoid giving Rick Block any punishment. Wish that guy would have mentioned it earlier, because my "Conventional Wisdom", "Jello", "garbage", and many other diffs used against me are more than 24 months old.

But anyways, you guys refuse to respond to my comments about how none of this happens without Rick Block's WP:OWNERSHIP violations, or why Martin's finding of facts was ignored, or how numerous editors spoke up during evidence to agree that Rick Block exerted ownership. All you guys focus on is my increasing frustration with the unequal treatment I have received in the arbcom case. We can start with my evidence being truncated to exactly 1,000 words, while Rick Block's was, I think, 1,700, my stuff being collapsed for no reason, and how despite repeated requests, no good answers ever came forth.

I could have done like countless editors before me, Martin, and Richard, and just walked away in the face of Rick Block's antics. But I stayed, waiting for this very arbcom opportunity. And you guys make a farce out of it. Just like Woonpton predicted on February 17th - 5th paragraph.

'Ranting' about Rick Block? The guy exerted ownership over the article for 5 years, you see the consequences, and because he's an admin, he gets a pass. Every other editor has been disrespected by the arbcom members in this case, but not Rick Block. Isn't that an odd coincidence? So, yes, the more you guys ignored the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the more I spoke out about it.

Because I can't imagine a worse offense in a community that relies of reaching consensus amongst editors who are presumed to be of good faith. And WP:OWNERSHIP by an admin who *still* denies it, isn't good faith. Hey, why don't you block *him* indefinitely, until *he* promises to change his ways, and be a rules-following member of this society? It's a shame I have to explain this to you people. But I think you all secretly understand it. Glkanter (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, John Vandenberg, your opinion that:

'I have very explicitly said that I consider everyone to blame, and that includes Rick and yourself."

...shows a great lack of understanding of the MHP history, and how the editing and consensus processes work. And a myopia to the multiple transgressions Rick Block has committed over 5 years. Which is consistent with the sole finding of ownership, but no other findings. Preposterous. He didn't exhibit one bit of good faith, although he pretended he did. And he even protests still that he did show good faith. Or work toward consensus. By definition, that's not possible. On the contrary, he prevented any consensus that didn't meet his demands. Wake up. Or at least admit that you're giving him a pass. It's so obvious.

I am part of the solution, that is if you guys had done your job right, not the problem. Because unlike edit warring, WP:OWNERSHIP *does* only require one person. For you people to make me out to be the bad guy makes me sick. Glkanter (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "tendentious editing".

I finally looked up the definition of the word "tendentious". It means 'biased', perhaps even 'controversial'. That's an inaccurate charge against me:

• No diffs were included to support this finding of fact. The diffs included are:

• 3 edits to the MHP article. All of which were reverted. That indicates I'm no more biased than whoever reverted me. I refer to reliable sources, and many editors, but not the admin/editor who exerted WP:OWNERSHIP, concurred with my edits.
• The "Conventional Wisdom" section I use to introduce myself to new, sympathetic editors. As I am not a world renowned subject matter expert, I use this section that I wrote in February, 2009 as my 'business card' to show that I am not a gadfly, or responding to some slight. This diff was posted only once on the MHP talk page, then on my talk page and two other editors' talk pages over the course of 2+ years.
• A posting to another user's talk page. I have no idea what that one is meant to indicate.

• My MHP talk page editing has always been promoting the reliable sources.
• Where I disagree with other editors, it's based on the reliable sources.

• I included evidence that shows the current and long standing POV of the article is not based on reliable sources
• I included evidence that shows the decision tree I promoted is based on reliable sources

• I was no more "tendentious" than half a dozen other editors on the MHP talk pages. I felt I was adhering to 'community standards'.

If my 'bias' is my refusal to quietly accept the malarkey put forth by the admin/editor who exerted WP:OWNERSHIP over the MHP article, then there's nothing I can say. Glkanter (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The charge of "tendentious editing" against me came out of nowhere on the decision page:

• There is no mention of "tendentious editing" by any participant on the main case page.
• There is no mention of "tendentious editing" by any participant on the main case talk page.
• The only mention of "tendentious editing" on the evidence page is in regard to my 'Conventional Wisdom' section I describe above. That single mention, from the admin/editor who exerted WP:OWNERSHIP over the MHP article, both intentionally misquotes my diff, and takes it grossly out of context. I made a very big issue of these misleading tactics on the workshop page. As I mentioned above, that diff was posted to the MHP talk page only once, then on my own talk page and two other editors' talk pages as my 'business card' over the next 2+ years.
• There is one mention of "tendentious editing" by an uninvolved editor on the evidence talk page relating to a posting on the evidence talk page.
• On the workshop page, there is some confusion, and a discussion between me and the drafting arbcom member regarding the diff I posted on the MHP talk page one time, my own user page, and two other users' talk pages over the next 2+ years. This was prompted by my response to the evidence page charge described above.
• The Workshop page's finding of facts reads:

"A group of editors has engaged in tendentious editing

"A group of editors, and Rick Block in particular, has engaged in WP:Tendentious editing. Here are some of the relevant characteristics of problem editors from the article on the subject:"

• The workshop talk page does not have any discussion regarding the above finding of fact.
• The decision page has a finding of facts that I and another editor separately engage in 'tendentious editing' but not the admin/editor named on the workshop page.
• There is no discussion of "tendentious editing" on the decision talk page.

I gotta tell you, that one really caught me by surprise, the way it got turned around on me without any warning whatsoever. Posted by Glkanter (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Various Mischaracterizations Of My Recent (Deleted) Postings Is Offensive, Approaching Personal Attacks

I'm at a great disadvantage here, because an admin with a conflict of interest made a determination about my postings, my intent, my lack of good faith, etc., then deleted the data that determination was based on.

Why don't you guys return my page to the way it was? There's nothing offensive, nor any personal attacks, nor anything that will jeopardize the workings of Wikipedia or the workings of the arbitration.

Restoring my page will have no affect on my ability to make edits anywhere else. What it might do is show that one party to this dispute is not being forthright. I'm willing to be exposed as that party.

In the interest of fair play, please restore my page, at least for a few day, anyways. Glkanter (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No. That is not the intention of your user page. You've had opportunity to present your evidence and contribute to the workshop.

If there was something recorded on your userpage which you would like a copy of, I can email you a copy of your deleted userpage.

If there is something specific that you would like to point out to arbitrators, you can say it here. However please be concise. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the e-mail offer. I accept, as long as I'm free to re-post the last week or so postings I made. I'll redact the name of the only admin/editor I mentioned in my so-called 'personal attacks'. Glkanter (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The offer stands on its own. If you want it, you can have it. I'm not here to bargain with you.

However if you post something on this page which an arbitrator thinks is inappropriate, your permission to edit your own talk page will also be revoked.

All arbitrators are currently monitoring your talk page, in case you say something important for us to read. I recommend that you use your talk page sparingly, and primarily to make very concise points for the arbitrators to read. Posts here which are not useful for the purposes of arbitration result in the time of 18 arbitrators being wasted. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good then. Please e-mail the page to me. Thank you very much. Glkanter (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sent. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And received, thank you.

Maybe you could clarify something for me. How do the functions/purposes of the Workshop page and the Decision page differ? Thanks. Glkanter (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And I'm very sensitive and respectful to the issue of wasting the time of 18 arbitrators. Due to a WP:OWNERSHIP issue on the MHP article and talk pages, inestimable amounts of good peoples' valuable time (and that includes a half dozen mediators) was callously and selfishly wasted over a period of years. Check out the 22 archives for a glimpse into that abyss. But really, you had to live it to understand the incredible frustrations. Glkanter (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The workshop page is for everyone to collaborative draft proposals which will resolve the dispute. The Proposed decision page is for the arbitrators to collaboratively draft a decision which will resolve the dispute. The arbitrators usually use the best ideas from the Workshop page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC) I have had the joy of reading all the archives; I tried to poke out my eyes afterwards.

Thank you for the thorough response. Am I reading too much into this statement from the top of the worksheet page when I interpret it to mean proposed items "only"?:

"Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes."

That is, only proposed items from the workshop can be included on the decision page. Can you please clarify this as well? Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators can and will put any item on the Proposed decision page if they feel it should be part of the final decision. This includes, of course, also items meeting that condition that they happen to find on the Workshop page – but in most cases such items will be modified in the process, copying the idea rather than the text. For an orderly process, (non-Arbitrator) users wishing to propose an item should do so on the Workshop page. (As this case shows, it might be a good idea for Arbitrators too to subject non-standard proposals to discussion on Workshop pages before putting them on a Proposed decision page.)  --Lambiam 22:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Entirely agree with that last point Lambian - I am never again trying to draft something like what ended as 11.4 without workshopping first, and I feel this would be advisable for any specific application of editing policy. Glkanter, the parties and wider community are welcome to make proposals on the proposals page as to what they see as important principles, key findings of fact, or appropriate remedies. Some of these will make their way onto the proposed decision page, possibly modified, and probably accompanied by others which were not included in the workshop. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you can help me understand the reasoning behind the drafting arbcom members' decisions based on the following:

• One admin/editor had a finding of fact of WP:OWNERSHIP posted on the decision page

That admin/editor is pretty much the only person to suggest my editing was problematic anywhere in the arbitration, up through the workshop

• On the workshop page, Martin Hogbin specifically named that same admin/editor for tendentious editing in his finding of facts.

No participant other than that named editor refuted Martin's finding of fact.

• A finding of tendentious editing is consistent with a finding of WP:OWNERSHIP. He must have been using one or more techniques in order to exert his ownership.
• Falsely accusing another editor of tendentious editing would also reasonably be a technique used by an editor who is exerting ownership over an article.

Yet, the drafting arbcom members chose to ignore Martin's finding of facts in this regard, and give credence to the admin/editor who was at the same time proposed as violating the ownership rules.

Can you help me understand how these counter-intuitive decisions were determined to be in the best interest of Wikipedia? The reason I ask is, I see no arbcom member participation or discussions regarding either findings of facts in regards to editors, or remedies, on the workshop pages. Glkanter (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be having trouble reading the proposed decision. There is a finding of fact against Rick Block here, and a proposed sanction against Rick Block here. As to your editing, your conduct has been sufficiently bad that three admins have declined to unblock you, and you are likely to remain unable to edit while you remain fixated on Rick Block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a finding of fact of ownership. But not the tendentious editing. You pretty much ignored my entire question. Glkanter (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And without that 'fixation', he would be free to continue his WP:OWNERSHIP violations. Glkanter (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Before the case is closed, could a vote re-count be conducted, please?

While I am unfamiliar with your voting methods, it looks like remedy 3.1 - Rick Block Topic Banned - may have passed, rather than failed. Could someone take a moment to review this? Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Please update the Implementation notes for the Monty Hall problem.  --Lambiam 00:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged. Glkanter (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And What's Up With That "Privileged Nature Of Mediation" Canard?

No participant had *any* such expectation. I have no idea what it means. The whole thing was conducted in public. Some mediator wanted to conduct it in private with just a few editors, Martin refused, and got the rules changed to prevent that.

So, the whole thing gets deleted, but you admins (including Rick Block?) can still see it? And the mediators, who would seem to have some meaningful input to the arbcase, are *excluded* from participating because of the 'privileged nature' thing? Who is being protected? From what? None of it makes a lick of sense, and is very counter-productive. Glkanter (talk)

It is no-one else's fault but your own if you don't read the policy - which very clearly states that mediation is privileged, mediators may not take part in the case, and posts made during mediation cannot be used in a hearing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The next time an admin posts, in any discussion with an editor, "You know, I hadn't looked at it that way. That's an interesting point. Maybe that needs to be looked into." will be the first time. Glkanter (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm a random admin, unconnected with this in any way except that I declined an unblock request and so you're on my watchlist at the moment. You just stated that I have never taken time to look at any editor's reasoning, that I've never changed my mind in response to clear reasoning or discussion, in all of my time as an admin. I'm not sure why you would say that; I've made a lot of edits in my time at Wikipedia, and it doesn't seem likely that you have reviewed all of them- especially since I have often made comments very similar to the one you state I've never made. I feel like you are insulting me for no clear reason, just to make a point in an argument I'm not even involved in. Would you like to apologize to me? Or do you feel good about the way you've talked about me in the comment above? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Very often during the arbcom case, I was told I don't understand things very well. This is another one of those times. I'm only vaguely aware of you, with your prompting, as another admin who did not feel it necessary to respond to my legitimate concerns that I raised in an unblock request. I saw no need to engage you, and do not believe I have ever posted your name. Perhaps you could tell me what your comment relates to? Glkanter (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I just wanted to share how I felt about the comment you made immediately above mine, which seemed to me to insult every administrator on Wikipedia, even, as you say, ones you aren't actually talking to. If you don't feel that comment was a problem, that is totally up to you, and I won't demand anything of you at all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, The relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines have been carefully explained to Glkanter on multiple occasions, and in his replies to those explanations he has shown no apparent lack of understanding, just lack of agreement with the policies or lack of agreement that the policies apply to him. In particular, it has been explained to him in detail again and again that personal; attacks such as the one above will not be tolerated and it has been explained in detail again and again what the consequences of such behavior will be.

As for his apparent desire to make arbitration an expansion of mediation, the policy is clear: mediation relates exclusively to disputes over the content of a Wikipedia page and grievances relating to the conduct of another editor are not suitable for mediation. Arbitration, on the other hand, is based upon the principle of ignoring the content of user disputes and focusing on user conduct. Two different solutions addressing two different problems.

In addition, the privileged nature of mediation as explained in WP:M is a good policy. A very good policy. I have never had a dispute go to formal mediation, but if I ever do I really want to be able to speak freely - and to have the other party speak freely - without worrying about some future repercussions elsewhere. Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Followup: Glkanter contacted me by email (which is fine) and asked me to "correct [my] misstatements". I think it's fair to post the fact that he does not agree with the above, although I doubt that this will surprise anyone. I stand by what I wrote, which again should be no surprise. I am going to leave it at that; I don't think further discussion will be helpful at this point. Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for posting continued personal attacks. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact ArbCom at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

An arbitration case regarding Monty Hall problem has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the sanctions that were enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Monty Hall problem (broadly interpreted)
• Glkanter is banned from Wikipedia for one year, and is further subject to an indefinite topic ban on subjects related to the Monty Hall Problem.
• Nijdam is topic banned from the subject of the Monty Hall problem for a period of one year.
• Rick Block is restricted to 1RR on the Monty Hall article for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

September 2011

You appear to be editing using IP addresses despite being banned. Please stop your disruptive editing. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in the IP addresses you use being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a request for arbitration enforcement at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Glkanter -Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)