Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & MBK004 (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren (Talk)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. 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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Temporary 1RR on Race and intelligence

For the record - as an uninvolved administrator, due to active ongoing edit warring on Race and intelligence I have full-protected the article for 3 days, and imposed a 1RR edit restriction on the article for the duration of the arbcom case. It's possible that this will be objected to by other admins, editors, parties involved here, or Arbcom members; any normal reasonable consensus can overturn it. I suspect here would be the right place to comment on it if so, but that's up to the participants. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed. Did anyone follow up Vecrumba's suggestion? Carcharoth (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Support — Rlevse • Talk • 20:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Support, and in general support uninvolved administrators making such actions (subject of course to community review) SirFozzie (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per SirFozzie, but I would suggest some kind of notification on the talk page. Shell ^babelfish 01:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A good move. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Comment by others:

Implemented. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Can a notice be placed at the top of article listing any and all restrictions, mediations, arbitrations, and any past enforcements applicable to the article? It seems to be an undocumented minefield. Thank you. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth asked, "Did anyone follow up Vecrumba's suggestion?" Peters himself and I both posted at various times, as new sections of the article talk page, notices about the arbitration. But those have auto-archived now, out of view of new visitors to the article talk page. While most regularly visiting editors since late May 2010 are well aware of the arbitration case, nothing appears in the talk page templates about that or about any editing restrictions. The article proper has systemic bias and disputed tags since April 2010, but again no mention of the arbitration or editing restrictions. Currently the talk page templates refer to the mediation "consensus," of which I was not a part. What is currently posted on the article talk page is confusing to new editors, I think. Peters and I both looked for standard templates appropriate to an article being under arbitration, but I couldn't find anything like that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

breakdown of content issue

Just because this has been bugging me forever, please allow me to break down the fundamental content dispute, so that we are all sure we are on the same page with respect to the issues. First, the observable fact around which the entire debate revolves:

• There are reliably measurable differences in performance on various forms of intelligence tests between ascribed racial groups.

No one disputes this empirical evidence. What is disputed (hotly) is the theoretical explanation for this observable difference. The theoretical explanations fall along the following dimensions:

Determinate causal theories
These assert that racial groups as ascribed have a meaningful real-world existence, and that the above empirical result is valid as well as being reliable.
Genetically inherited differences between ascribed racial groups	Evidence: Genetically inherited differences exist on an individual level, from parent to child. This is extended to races as a whole through a number of speculations, but currently with little in the way of concrete evidence. Identifiable genetic differences exist between races: This is a given - for instance, skin coloration is clearly determined by genetic differences - and the idea is extended to proposed genetic bases for intelligence. However, no explicit proof currently exists that genes influencing intelligence are among these identifiable genetic differences.
Sociological differences between ascribed racial groups	Evidence: A number of sociological and social psychological studies which show how intelligence scores, academic performance, and a number of other factors related to intelligence are influenced by sociological and psychological factors from early family and community experiences. This is an expansive literature, though much of it is social scientific and social theoretical rather than biological.
Intermediary spectrum	The above two positions are extremes - most researchers believe that any relationship between intelligence and race is going to show a mix of genetically inherited and sociologically derived factors. The wikipedia debate, however, tends to focus on those extreme manifestations of theory.
Methodological refutations and re-evaluations
These are claims that dispute the validity of the observed evidence, while acknowledging its reliability.
Improper ascription of racial groups	Two lines of thought here: Racial groups are primarily sociological constructions, not genetic ones, and thus cannot have significant genetic differences. Generally this points to studies which show that the human genome is much less diverse than genomes of other species, but other species are not classed into distinct races despite their diversity. This necessarily implies that the observable genetic differences between ascribed races are meaningless (literally 'skin deep' - insignificant statistical clustering). Selection bias and self-fullfillment issues. In the vast majority of cases, racial groups are ascribed using self identification - i.e., the subjects taking the intelligence measure report on their race themselves. The relationship between self-reported race and genetic phenotype is tenuous (studies have shown that there is a relationship between certain genetic markers and self-report of race, but that merely shifts the issue to the previous bullet point) and subject to potential biases (e.g. upper-class, well-educated individuals from minority groups may not identify with that minority group, and may self-report irregularly - e.g. Tiger Woods, who is portrayed in the media as black, but self-reports as asian).
Incorrect validity assumptions about intelligence	Two more lines of thought: That intelligence tests themselves do not actually measure 'intelligence'. They are measuring something - education level, differences in parenting style, differences in cultural cognitive demands - but not actually 'intelligence'. This critique obviates the genetic question, since genetics only enters into the equation as a holdover from intelligence research (intelligence research has always presumed that intelligence was inherited). That the term 'intelligence' itself is not sufficiently well-defined to create a meaningful measure in the first place, and is largely a code-word for prejudicial beliefs (e.g. people who behave in socially unproductive ways, and are not classifiable as 'insane', are instead classified as unintelligent). This critique effectively reduces the R&I debate in the literature to circular reasoning, as both intelligence and race are viewed as manifestations of predefined prejudice.

I believe that covers the significant points - please let me know if I've forgotten something, and I'll make addendums or corrections. I don't mean to take a particular side in this, just to list out the scientific arguments and some of their aspects, in case it helps understanding the debate. I could also make a breakdown of the ideological stances, if that would be helpful, but that will get more problematic, because it would have to address the numerous examples of editors misrepresenting each others' ideological positions. --Ludwigs2 20:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is valuable context, and I would very much appreciate it if other parties, especially those adversarial towards Ludwigs2, would comment on whether this is a fair framing of the content dispute. Steve Smith (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea whether any of this discussion will bear on our decision in the case, but as a point of information, I fear that some of the commenters below may be falling into an error by making an assumption along the lines that "if the heritability of intelligence exceeds 0.5, this means that genetics are more important than environment in explaining differences in intelligence." That this is a fallacy or at least an oversimplification was pointed out long ago by Kamin, who noted that the measured heritability of human height might be as high as 0.9, but that if a wealthy population eats well while an impoverished population is malnourished, the children of the former will wind up substantially taller based entirely on environmental factors, despite the high heritability. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is really a bit of a red herring. There's nothing particularly complicated or ideological here, except perhaps what academics mean by "race", normally considered to be a social construct. For scientists, "population groups" has become one of the standard unambiguous terms that is usually used instead of race, which often is only used as a folk taxonomy. That's explained in race (classification of human beings). There is a recognized world expertise and consensus in psychometrics, e.g. in the Cambridge Psychometrics Centre. Some of the most distinguished researchers in the world are associated with that centre: James R. Flynn, Nicholas Mackintosh and Robert Sternberg. They have published standard textbooks: for example Handbook of Intelligence (ed. Sternberg), IQ and Human Intelligence by Mackintosh and What is Intelligence? by Flynn. These books describe different theories of intelligence and are excellent WP:RS for wikipedia articles. However, as far as the article race and intelligence goes, it is concerned mainly with the 15 point gap between average scores in IQ tests of white Americans and African Americans. That particular topic is treated under "ethnic groups" or "group differences in intelligence" in books like this. So in the the case of the article it means what is measured by IQ tests carried out on particular population groups. There are indeed texts devoted solely to the black-white IQ gap, for example the 1998 book edited by Christopher Jencks. There is also a multidisciplinary 2002 book Race and Intelligence edited by J.M. Fish which goes into huge detail about race in this context. Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci correctly identifies major reliable sources on this issue in his comment immediately above. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

However, having an analytical framework independent of the pros and cons of the various positions is useful. I personally tend to agree with Mathsci but I think the framework is useful. Being able to categorize what areas a particular source bears on, as part of an analysis of the underlying content issues, is very useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mackintosh and John C. Loehlin in the Handbook both cautiously examine all the evidence and conclude that too little is known at present to infer that some inherent genetic factor due to race contributes to the racial IQ gap. I believe that Captain Occam, David.Kane, etc, take the contrary hereditarian position. I don't take any position whatsoever, except to transfer what can be found in WP:RS to wikipedia. Any framework would come from reading and absorbing those books, which are quite neutral. Personally I couldn't go anywhere near editing the "science" parts of race and intelligence: to me it has the same status as cold fusion, a complete muddle. I have, however, written one article on pseudoscience: ECE theory. Mathsci (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The science is not particularly difficult, but is heavily muddled by some strong ideological stances. And yes, you're right, M - general consensus is that there's insufficient reason at present to make a positive inference about relationships between intelligence and racial genetics, though there is no solidly conclusive evidence refuting it, either. It's one of those topics where science journal articles consistently end with "Research is ongoing...". My own sense from Occam and DK is less that they are explicitly advocating for the genetic position (the way that mikemikev and TechnoFaye were), but rather that they are opposing what they view as efforts by you and others to extirpate or crush the genetic position within the article. I'm not saying that's what you're trying to do, I'm just suggesting that's the perception: Just as you see them dangerous human/SPA hybrids that need to be opposed, they see you as an unreasoning and aggressive opponent of a questionable but noteworthy scientific position.

<shrug>

Politics is one thing, and this is a politically charged issue for sure. But scientifically this is just a theory: evidence for it is available, but weak; it is distasteful and unconvincing, but it is rational given its assumptions; it is not generally accepted, but there is insufficient evidence to refute it outright in the current state of knowledge. IMO, no one should be making more of it or less of it than it is, and all of the political foofaraw should be neatly tucked away in its own sections in the article, rather than being played out in ANI and the article talk page. --Ludwigs2 05:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is I never have tried to "extirpate or crush the genetic position within the article", because I have never in fact edited those parts of the article race and intelligence. I have helped write the neutral lede, the history (extended to "current debate") and added info from a book review of Nicholas Mackintosh. Making false claims or innuendos like that is not permissible in an ArbCom case, if you can't provide diffs. That is what the evidence section is for. On the other other hand Captain Occam and David.Kane have made their staunchly hereditarian views very clear off-wiki. Mathsci (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, let me try one more time to connect with you on this point. I don't want to be pushy, so I'll let it go after this. I didn't say that you actually tried to crush the genetic position, all I said was that's probably what a number of other editors think. I mean, can you see how the numerous calls for blocks and topic bans, the heavy-handed use of labels like SPA and FRINGE, the unpleasant tone of talk page comments - all aimed at people who support the genetic position - might be interpreted as an effort to squelch that viewpoint? Do you understand how that kind of behavior might make those editors feel threatened, defensive, and angry? Can you imaging how a defensive, angry editor might turn around and start attacking you in turn, and how that might draw in your friends (like Enric and Hipocrite) to join the fight? This is a social dynamic, and none of us are outside of it. Everyone is engaging in behaviors that inflame the situation, but no one (except me) seems aware that their own behavior is complicit in the destructive dynamic, and so the dynamic simply spirals out of control.

The dynamic is not going to go away (not until we evolve into a wiser species), but it can deescalate with a bit of care and attention. that's my biggest beef with this mess, honestly: no one seems interested in deescalation at all; everyone wants the next post to be a little bit louder than the last. do you see what I'm getting at? --Ludwigs2 18:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A breath of fresh air from Ludwigs2. It is valuable to separate the science (what there is of it) from the ideology. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Mathsci claims never to have tried to marginalize the hereditarian hypothesis, and yet one of his assertions in this ArbCom case is that the hereditarian hypothesis is a fringe theory and "a minority point of view, not accepted by the mainstream". By any reasonable definition, the environmental hypothesis is even more fringe, supported by an even smaller minority, and expressly rejected by the mainstream. The lack of conclusive evidence for the primacy of either of two complementary causal factors, both of which almost certainly have some validity, does not make them fringe. I thus find Mathsci's comments here evasive at best. Rvcx (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

By any reasonable definition, the environmental hypothesis is even more fringe... And in which reliable secondary source might I find that? aprock (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to l), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals.", from this. Check page 16 for the (lengthy) list of signatories to the statement. Any more questions? Rvcx (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked individual != race. Not to mention that heritability != genetics, and that inferring the environmental hypothesis is even more fringe from that source is something quite beyond WP:SYNTH and more akin to making stuff up. aprock (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that one point alone does not equate to the heritability hypothesis, but the editorial in total has been interpreted (mainly environmentalists, including by Campbell, who wrote "The principles outlined in the Wall Street Journal article [lead to] the strongly implied conclusion (inadvertent or deliberate) that Black-White differences are genetically determined."[1]) as an endorsement of the heritability hypothesis. My point is that many intelligence researchers have explicitly refuted the notion that environment is the main determinant of intelligence; few have explicitly refuted the notion of heritability, only cast doubt upon evidence in its favor. I'm not saying that these researchers are necessarily correct, only that it's patently ridiculous to dismiss an unproven theory as fringe while accepting a refuted theory as mainstream. It seems pretty clear that both sides are mainstream; there is good respectable science demonstrating both factors. Rvcx (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Rvcx, what you say in the indentation level just above about heritability suggests that you need to read the sources more closely. There is a source from 2009 by Bouchard and colleagues (currently cited in the article) that points out that "even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability." This distinction between the pre-Mendelian concept of heritability and how much a trait can be influenced by the environment, whatever the heritability number happens to be, is well known to anyone who reads the genetics literature. It is too bad that Gottfredson doesn't express this distinction correctly. But of course this kind of discussion, a content discussion, doesn't belong on the Arbitration Committee workshop pages at all, but back on the article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Rvcx, this is not a high school debating society. This is wikipedia. You have apparently not read any reliable secondary source on this subject at all. So in this case edits that state "it's patently ridiculous ..." are not helpful in any way. You state that Donald T. Campbell was an "environmentalist" - no, he was a social scientist. Scientists do not neatly break up into "hereditarians" and "environmentalists". Nor is there a simple choice between a "hereditarian hypothesis" and an "environmental hypothesis". At present there is no known explanation for the black-white racial IQ gap. The possibility that it is partially due to a genetic factor connected with race has not been accepted by the mainstream. Flynn has indicated that the racial IQ gap is narrowing. That is what the reliable secondary sources say. Now please go and read them and stop pretending to be an expert yourself. We leave that to the sources not wikipedians with 219 content edits to their name and most of those about Larry Sanger and Carly Fiorina.Mathsci (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs has consistently been of the view that this dispute can be resolved only by addressing content issues alone. Ludwigs has been very averse to policy issues and consistently discouraged discussing them during the mediation. Ludwigs has criticized me for taking issues from the mediation to ANI [2] I disagree with Ludwigs' position on content only solutions and believe that both content and user conduct issues need to be addresses. I would argue that since this dispute has been escalated to arbitration a few months after mediation, content only solutions have not yet demonstrated any evidence of bringing stability to the article.

What Ludwigs has discussed in the "Determinate causal theories" would be a useful introduction for those new to the controversy. But it appears that Ludwigs is once again trying to introduce his version of a content based solution. Most of the core issues Ludwigs has written about are found in various forms in the current version of the race and intelligence article. They are also found in the pre-mediation version and most previous versions as well. They are discussed in the 80 or so Talk page archives, in the two mediations that have taken place and in 8 or so archives of these mediation proceedings.

In short, it is important that the arbitrators are familiarized with the content dispute, but I don't think it would be appropriate to allow this arbitration process to deteriorate into lengthy and never ending discussions over content. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Time out - This is not the place to re-fight the whole underlying content issue. Take that to proposed findings and your evidence pages, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be no point in editors like RVcx stating their personal opinions, which have nothing at all to do with what's in secondary sources. That, and not an issue of content, is one of the main underlying problems. Indeed, having made various faulty assumptions, it's not hard to justify many personal opinions by just citing primary sources. That is one of the main problems at present with the article and the editing environment. Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the general overview of the real world topic rather than any pov of editors (my interactions were limited to the History of the race and intelligence controversy article), I'd agree the sources indicate almost universal agreement that:

• Both heredity and environment factor in the intelligence of individuals
• Heredity and environment are not completely independent factors: they interact
• Extreme conditions in the environment are known to affect the heritability of intelligence

But there are strong disagreements about:

• How intelligence is defined; how well it can be measured
• How race is defined; to what extent do biological differences correspond to racial groupings
• Whether intelligence testing measures an aptitude or capacity or if it measures culturally acquired skills (or something in between)
• Whether intelligence testing can appropriately discriminate any biological determinants from cultural
• Whether genetic inheritance (hereditarian pov) or cultural (environmentalist pov) factors are the most significant determinants of intelligence
• Whether comparison of distributions of test scores among various groups who are defined socially are a reliable method to form conclusions about biologically based group differences

In terms of the so-called "gap" in the average test scores between racial groups, those leaning strongly to the "hereditarian" view are confident that the tests are reliable measures of genetic aptitude and conclude genetic inheritance to be the chief, but not the only, factor. Those leaning strongly to the environmentalist view emphasize the inadequacies in the studies the hereditarians tout as supporting of the conclusion. In the real world, the environmentalists outweigh and outnumber the hereditarians.

As to the "political" business, it is both naive and unwarranted to pretend to treat the race/IQ topic as if it were some kind of paper-shuffling, interdisciplinary/academic squabble. The subject has been thoroughly entangled with ideology from beginning to end--there have been, and continue to be, both real world socio-political motivations driving it and policy consequences resulting from this kind of research.

That said, I can't say that the disputes around me as I began editing stemmed from confusion or disagreement in terms of this overview. It had too much to do with editors opinions and conclusions surrounding the topic over and above those given in the most relevant and appropriate secondary sources. Too many self-appointed "experts" when what the articles needed were "encyclopedia editors". Professor marginalia (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Professor Marginalia (although find the "this the content situation; too many people are playing expert" combination ironic), however I think the big problem hasn't been the acknowledgement of disagreement in the scientific community, but rather a tendency to classify anything controversial as "fringe" and "unscientific". Let's be clear on this: trepanning is a fringe theory of how to increase intelligence; both genetic and environmental influences are mainstream theories. Rvcx (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree-but you apparently concluded that my "content situation" posted above comes from some supposed "expertise" on my part-no. I relied on secondary sources for this. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Time out - Was some part of "This is not the right place to re-fight the content dispute" unclear? Please calm down and take this to evidence and talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Before I get involved in this discussion, I need to ask something: Is ArbCom going to be ruling on questions of article content in this case? I was under the impression that content issues are outside of ArbCom's jurisdiction, and that it only rules on matters of user conduct. But the question of whether the hereditarian hypothesis (that genetics contribute to IQ variation not just within races, but also between them) is mainstream, a notable minority view, or a fringe view is definitely a content dispute. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Best not to get involved in this discussion, I'm thinking (beyond making comments on the original breakdown, per Steve Smith's request). I just offered this breakdown as an aid for people not familiar with the scientific issues of the topic - the discussion seems to have gotten a bit off track. --Ludwigs2 23:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Steve Smith's request for opinions on Ludwigs content issue framing. Ludwigs2 wrote The wikipedia debate, however, tends to focus on those extreme manifestations of theory. I think this is completely inaccurate. We don't have two sides, one arguing for 100% genes theory, and one arguing for 100% culture theory. What we have is one side arguing that the article should only represent 100% culture theory, and another arguing to fairly represent the current academic debate between 100% culture theory and 50/50 culture/genes theory. It's that simple. mikemikev (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev is completely wrong. However, that's focusing on the article content, not the content issues. I would ask Mathsci whether he feels the framing created by Ludwigs2 is accurate. (Unfortunately, he's on Wikibreak again.) Without his input, I cannot say whether Ludwigs2's interpretation is fair, and I would advise the arbitrators to consider, independently, whether this framing of the issues by one of the parties may be self-serving, whether or not intentional. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad: The 'corn analogy' of plants growing short in poor soil and tall in rich soil, despite having the same heritability, is actually attributable to Charles H. Cooley (1897). Jensen was well aware of this possibility, and did not base his argument purely on heritability estimates (although that does place a constraint on pure between group environmentalism). The 50/50 genes/culture theory does not refer to heritability, but to explanation of the racial IQ gap. Plants of a different height could be in different soil, have different genes, or a combination. The argument is based on several lines of evidence. mikemikev (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment. ArbCom cannot rule on content, whether the framing of content is appropriate or not is not germane to the proceedings here and should have been happening at mediation or at article talk. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Attention needed in AN/I thread

There’s a recent matter that I’d like to have the attention of one or more admins or arbitrators. In order to explain what it is, though I need to provide a little background first.

One June 10th, I was blocked for two weeks by the admin 2over0, with the explanation “for repeated edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith”. This block was not in response to any community discussion or report about me, and since 2over0 did not provide any diffs of the specific behavior for which I was blocked, several editors have asked him in his user talk if he could explain the justification for this block. (It’s not at all obvious when and where I recently engaged in the behaviors he listed as reasons.) According to his contributions he was online and editing other pages while he was being asked about this, but never replied to any of the questions about it in his user talk. He appeared to go offline entirely a few hours after this, and hasn’t been back since, so as of now a specific justification for my block still hasn’t been provided.

A few hours after blocking me, 2over0 lifted the software restrictions on my account so I would be able to participate in this arbitration case, while still keeping me under an editing restriction that disallows me from editing any pages not specifically related to the arbitration or to appealing my block. Since I’ve never been under this type of editing restriction before, I requested advice in Jimbo Wales’ user talk about the proper way to appeal an editing restriction that’s been set in place by a single admin. (2over0 gave me permission to do this.) The advice I received from the admin Floquenbeam was that I should use the unblock template the same way I would with a normal block, but when I attempted this, my appeal was rejected on the grounds that I’m not technically blocked.

More recently, the admin who rejected the appeal of my block decided that the discussion about this matter belonged at AN/I, and posted a thread about it there. The thread is here. At this point there have been no new votes for or against unblocking me in over 24 hours, but an admin still has yet to close the thread, and during the past day it’s descended into petty bickering.

I would like it if sometime shortly, an arbitrator or other admin could evaluate the contents of that thread, and determine whether or not there is a consensus for removing my block. (There certainly isn’t a consensus for keeping the block, so it’s either a consensus for unblocking me or no consensus at all.) If the answer is that there’s no consensus, so that there’s still no answer either way as to whether my block was necessary and whether the proper process was followed for implementing it, I would also like an arbitrator to please review my block and evaluate the answer to this. Since my block was set in place by a single admin without any community discussion or consensus, I would assume that a single admin would be all that’s necessary in order to revoke it.

In evaluating the AN/I thread, I would also like an arbitrator to please look at the exchange between me, Hipocrite, Aprock and Ferahgo the Assassin towards the top of it, and determine whether or not Hipocrite and Aprock have engaged in outing there. The relevant question is whether it’s acceptable to try and confirm personal information about another user that this user has never stated on-Wiki or at any page they’ve linked to, but that another user (Mathsci, in this case) has concluded by combining information from several different pages that this and other users have linked to separately, some of which are no longer linked to on-wiki because the page revisions containing the links have been deleted. This claim about Ferahgo the Assassin seems to be made whenever that user comments on anything in relation to these articles, so there’s a good chance that this issue will come up again before the arbitration case is finished. Could an arbitrator or arbitrators please make a decision about whether this sort of claim about another user is permissible, for the purpose of how it should be handled for as long as the arbitration case lasts? --Captain Occam (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As stated in my evidence Captain Occam outed himself on his now deleted user page, which arbitrators can view themselves. There he had two links to the website DeviantArt, which were clickable. One was to a website he wrotes was set up by himself and his girlfriend [3], the other was to his own account [4]. In addition his eponymous comic strip was mentioned, The links immmediately gave the real life names of Captain Occam and his girlfriend, who had the DeviantArt pseudonym Ferahgo-the-Assassin, Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) on wikipedia has a similar link on her user page and has twice interceded on Captain Occam's behalf. In addition in uploading this image file File:Populations.png, Captain Occam [5] revealed his real life name himself. If Captain Occam had really wished to preserve his anonymity, he would not have placed these clickable links so prominently on his user page. Now it is too late. Captain Occam has had no reservation about getting his girlfriend to act as a WP:MEATPUPPET on his behalf to back up his position on other users out of the blue [6] [7][8][9] or to intercede on his behalf when he's in difficulties.[10][11][12][13][14] Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert's review of Captain Occam's behaviour on Talk:Race and intelligence and Race and intelligence prior to the block does not seem to be accurate. He seems to have failed to notice that Captain Occam was reinserting material rejected by consensus for the third or fourth time. This behaviour of Captain Occam is typical. Here is another example of WP:CPUSH [15]. Georgewilliamherbert is making value judgements about content and failing to notice long term behaviour, which is precisely the problem with WP:CPUSH. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Occam didn't edit the article between my full protection of the 8th for 24 hrs ending and the block. He had made 2 relatively minor edits (in comparison) earlier on the 8th, and a long series on the 6th which were immediately reverted by someone else without fuss.

Occam's edits on the talk page for the days leading up to the 10th were, as I said, in the context of friendly and productive multiparty discussions on the talk page and were not disruptive.

We are arbitrating whether there's a problematic long term pattern. The arbcom case is the place to plead that case. We are not supposed to use admin discretion to presume the outcome of the arbcom case while it's in play. If Occam had done something serious during the case that's one thing. What he did leading up to the block was clearly not serious and urgent requiring admin attention despite the Arbcom case, and doesn't justify the block.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the "parties section" :-) I have no view on the CO block. Although I am no longer editing Race and intelligence (my last edit was 3 weeks ago on May 25), I think your edit restriction on the article is good. Full protection during arbitration might also be a good idea, just in terms of possible drama prevention. It would keep things cool. 2over0 apparently blocked on the basis of long term behavior, although I'm not sure; presumably when he resumes editing those issues can be clarified. Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

GWH: Thanks. I was pretty sure that having these restrictions lifted would be the eventual outcome one way or another, but I’m still glad it’s finally happened.

Even now that my restrictions have been lifted, though, I still have a few questions that I’d appreciate you (or another uninvolved Arb/admin) answering:

1: What would have been the appropriate place to appeal these editing restrictions if there weren’t an arbitration case underway, so I wouldn’t have had the ability to request admin attention about it on the workshop page? You’ve said that community votes in an AN/I thread aren’t a normal way to resolve issues like these, several people told me in Jimbo Wales’ user talk that I shouldn’t have been asking about it there either, and when I tried to appeal my block using the unblock template, it was rejected on the grounds that I wasn’t technically blocked. Hopefully I won’t have to be in this situation again in the future, but if I ever am, I’d like to know what the appropriate way of dealing with it would be.

2: Even if 2over0’s block was made in good faith, I still feel that he may have acted outside of administrative norms by implementing it. This block essentially amounted to a discretionary sanction, which is not something that current policy allows on articles where ArbCom hasn’t specifically authorized it. His failure to explain the specific justification for the block, even when asked for it in his user talk (before he became idle), also seems to go against point 3 of Wikipedia:ADMIN#Accountability (“Failure to communicate”). What is the best way to get ArbCom to review whether 2over0 has (intentionally or not) acted against the standards of behavior expected of admins?

3: Can I please have an answer to my question regarding the policy about outing? Mathsci’s first two comments above don’t seem either accurate or appropriate, particularly his linking to two off-Wiki personal accounts of mine that are no longer linked to on-Wiki because the page revisions containing the links have been deleted, and then stating the personal information about me that he’s inferred from them. The reason an admin deleted these page revisions was precisely because Mathsci was regarding the links as an invitation to make personal attacks involving any information he could find or infer about me from these accounts. But even now that the links to my personal accounts are no longer accessible on-Wiki, now that he knows their URLs he’s continuing to link to them regardless, and engage in the same behavior that the admin who removed the page revisions was trying to prevent.

Mathsci’s linking to an off-Wiki blog entry that he claims was written by David.Kane (and which, as far as I know, David.Kane has never linked to here) might be another example of the same problem. I was hoping David.Kane would bring this up himself, but according to his user talk he’s currently traveling and has only intermittent internet access, so in order for this to have an admin’s attention I should probably ask about it myself. Mathsci’s bringing up off-Wiki personal information about the users he disagrees with seems to have actually increased as a result of the arbitration case, so I think it’s important for an arbitrator or admin to make a decision about whether or not this is acceptable. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the admin SheffieldSteel has contacted me in response to some of the concerns I raised about this in the AN/I thread, so I’ve also explained this issue to him in his user talk. My comment there includes a few additional past examples of the same problem that I’ve described on this page, so anyone who’s examining this issue might want to read what I’ve said there also. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding 1) (where to go) - I think ANI was appropriate; I don't know that the form of community vote that happened there was the right way to determine it though.

Regarding 2) (admin behavior) - Although I believe it was mistaken, the block and the restrictions were within the range of normal admin leeway. ANI and if that failed Arbcom would be places to bring up severe violations of admin discretion, but I don't think this rose to that level. Him going idle at the time he did confused the situation but that wasn't abuse, it was just how the project works sometimes.

Regarding 3) (outing) - I think you need to leave that to the Arbcom case here, IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Doesn't need arbitration to decide it; I'm writing up a ruling there now and will copy the key info here in a bit. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Review and decision

This is an unusual situation - we rarely impose the type of edit restriction that limits someone to Arbcom case responses only, though it's been done a number of time. The admin who imposed it also has become idle for 5 days. Community "votes" also aren't exactly a standard way of resolving issues with blocks.

Logically - the edit restrictions were a modification to the original block. The place to start in determining what to do going forwards is reviewing the specifics of the original block.

In the days leading up to the block, Captain Occam focused editing on the Arbcom case and on the talk page of the Race and intelligence article. Having reviewed all the threads there, in the days leading up to the block, Occam edited in a manner which was somewhat milder than the prior months, was discussing largely in good faith, and was not doing anything out of the ordinary for the situation currently under arbitration. There were extensive fruitful multiparty discussions going on on the talk page.

The underlying content and behavioral issues at play in the Arbcom case can be seen in the ongoing activity, and perhaps it would be best for all parties if we simply lock the article from editing for the remainder of the case, but the editing slowed down significantly over the last few days (since I full-protected for 1 day on June 8th). It was certainly not worse than prior times.

I believe that the block was done in good faith. However, I believe that in retrospect, nothing was going on at the time of the block that was out of the ordinary or beyond that already subject to normal Arbcom review and needing admin intervention. Admins should not be afraid to enforce policy normally against Arbcom case participants, but we also shouldn't focus overly critically on them. Arbcom will make any out-of-the-ordinary decisions required.

Had there still been an active block I'd overturn it at this point. Given the edit restriction was a replacement for that, I believe that it should just be vacated at this time.

This is not an invitation to resume any disruptive behaviors. However, reasonable normal behavior with due respect for the Arbcom case underway is not a problem for the encyclopedia or community.

As an uninvolved admin, having reviewed, I am doing so. The additional restrictions in place on Captain Occam are vacated. I am going to copy this section to WP:ANI, the Arbcom case workshop, User talk:Captain Occam, and User talk:2over0.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with the anti-mediation fervor

3) I'm a bit tired of people beating the anti-mediation drum, so I'd like the arbiters to make a (pro-tem, at least) ruling on a few points, just to silence a whole lot of fruitless noise.

The mediation process was neither failed nor flawed:

1. The mediation progressed by discussion between those parties who chose to participate, in a fair and neutral manner.
2. The failure of certain parties to participate is a matter for concern (see below), but is not a failure of the mediation. Silence implies a degree of consent, and the mediation was always open for participation by any party.
   • in fact, I explicitly encouraged absent parties to participate, and they refused (diffs to follow). As is their choice.
3. Mathsci's choice to ignore the mediation and try to address the matter in ANI is not a failure of the mediation. That is a failure on Mathsci's part to exercise good judgement and common sense. All of Mathsci's concerns could (and should) have been addressed easily and quickly within the context of the mediation itself.

The tactics I used to maintain civility were both functional and appropriate:

1. Any strong actions I took were a direct response to Mathsci's campaign to disrupt the mediation, and were carefully restricted to the removal of personal attacks and inflammatory language. Nothing I did changed the nature of the ongoing discussion; my acts simply snipped off incivility and pettiness in the bud (comprehensive list of diffs to follow).
   • And yes, I recognize that some editors disliked the fact that I redacted their incivlities. I just don't care, because it needed to be done. Tough love, baby.
2. The period after I began using strong actions was possibly the most productive period in the history of the mediation. Had the absent editors chosen to participate productively at that point, this issue could have been resolved completely.

The mediation result may not be optimal or correct, and is subject to discussion and amendment:

1. As noted above, the absence of involved parties from the later stages of the discussion is a cause for concern.
2. Per WP:CCC, consensus can change, but a changing consensus does not invalidate a previous consensus. I have no problem with the results of the mediation being partially or wholly overturned through legitimate discussions, but the argument that the consensus reached in mediation is somehow invalid is specious.
   • I'll add that a precedent in which a procedurally valid mediation is invalidated because some participants don't like the outcome will be devastating to the mediation process on wikipedia.
3. The mediation results should be treated as a completed and valid whole, and the issue of the mediation set aside; further discussion of mediation issues should focus on revising or deleting particular results of that mediation
   • I'm thinking particularly of the recent silliness over trying to qualify the mediation FAQ on the article talk page. move forward, people; change the damned thing as of now, but don't haggle over what happened in the past.

Finally, do I need to point out that the mediation is not (and never was) the focus of this arbitration? The mediation is not a causal or contributing factor to the problems at R&I (which would exist even if the mediation had never been opened). People may not like the course of the mediation (people sometimes mistake me for Barney, but not often), but that is a separate issue that is of no relevance here. If anyone wants a comprehensive explanation of the methods I used in the mediation, I'm more than happy to explain in detail; I am perfectly confident in my actions. But I don't believe it belongs on this arbitration page, so offer me someplace else to post it. --Ludwigs2 17:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Can't support this; in fact I disagree with several of the points. ArbCom has reviewed the conduct of informal mediators before when there are allegations of partisanship or inflaming rather than calming the situation. Acting as a mediator doesn't put someone's behavior above scrutiny - if anything, editors acting in that capacity are generally held to a higher standard. Anyone who manages to exclude participants of a certain viewpoint by alienation needs to seriously consider whether their skills lie in mediation or if perhaps they were more involved with the topic subject than they realized. Shell ^babelfish 01:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose (almost) all.

"You" = Ludwigs2, the proposer.

1. Mathsci's opposition (at the time) to the mediation makes it void, even if it had been working. (Mediation requires consent of 'all the parties.) I didn't choose to formally oppose the mediation in March, but I consider it flawed, for the reasons specified in Mathsci's nomination comments and evidence.
2. As I pointed out in my evidence, I was not uncivil; I was questioning the credentials of Dr. Pesta as a source, not User:BPesta22 as editor. If you choose to remove civil questioning of the credentials of a quoted expert, because he happens to also be an editor, that is grounds for a topic ban, at the very least.
3. The period after you "began using strong actions" was apparently productive, because all those editors who questioned Jensen's results, and had secondary sources questioning Jensen's results, were absent. There may have been other points of view which were absent.
4. And I, at, least am not questioning the results of the mediation. I'm questioning the methods. If the methods are in violation of Wikipedia principles, then the results should be ignored, just as edits by a banned editor are ignored.
5. Per WP:CCC; consensus can change, but a consensus obtained by censoring opposing views is no consensus at all. (See point 2.)
6. As for FAQ#3, even some of the (then) active participants are noting that it doesn't reflect a consensus established during the mediation. If that FAQ was acted upon, in spite of being an incorrect consensus, that's reasonable grounds to remove all the disputed material added with respect to that consensus.
7. The mediation may not be "a causal or contributing factor to the problems at R&I", but it prevented (IMHO) an honest resolution of the problems. Even if that were not the case, your actions in the mediation are specifically questioned in the RfAr, and are subject to review.

(And I have no idea whether I'm a party, at this point. I think I am.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I’ll let Ludwigs2 address most of these points, but I’d like to address this one: “The period after you 'began using strong actions' was apparently productive, because all those editors who questioned Jensen's results, and had secondary sources questioning Jensen's results, were absent. There may have been other points of view which were absent.”

Since Slrubenstein, Aprock and Muntuwandi were active throughout the entire mediation, I think it’s inaccurate to say that all of the editors who questioned Jensen’s results were absent. The most that can be said is that if certain users with this perspective were indeed driven away from the mediation (not that I’m convinced this was the case for anyone other than you), then this perspective may have been under-represented in it. However, consensus in any discussion can only be determined on the basis of the users who are participating in it. Remember my analogy of an AFD discussion: if there were users who objected to the arguments being presented in an AFD discussion, but for any reason (even an entirely valid reason) they never raised their objections in that discussion, would that invalidate the discussion’s outcome?

When we discussed this on the article talk page, I also pointed out that Varoon Arya and DJ have both been driven away by Mathsci from all of the current discussions regarding these articles (as Varoon Arya mentioned here and DJ mentioned here), so their viewpoint has not been included in any consensus reached in the discussions over these articles during the past month. If you believe that the absence of certain users during the mediation invalidates any apparent consensus reached during it, then by exactly the same standard, any consensus reached on talk pages during the time since Varoon Arya and DJ were driven away is not valid either. I tried to get you to address this point several times on the article talk page, and you never did, so I don’t believe that you have a counter-argument to this. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Adressing Arthur's points, 1 by 1 (using same numbering, so careful with later revisions):

1. Mathsci was welcome (and encouraged) to bring up his objections in mediation. He didn't. Mediation is not governed by ANI, and no ANI-necessary complaints were present. I did not believe it was appropriate for Mathsci to scuttle an ongoing discussion by tricking administrators into nuking it, so I didn't allow him to.
   • Tough for him. maybe next time he'll remember to try a calm, measured approach first, rather than screaming like a baby straight out of the starter blocks.
2. BPesta was not present as a source in the mediation; BPesta was present as an editor. His qualifications as a source are irrelevant to his place as an editor (which is true of every editor on wikipedia), and efforts to disrupt his actions as an editor by using his personal credentials are clearly personal attacks.
   • The appropriate venue for your concerns was to raise a wp:COI query, not to try to silence an editor because of what he does for a living.
3. All editors (including yourself) were asked and encouraged to re-enter the discussion at that point. I do not know what your (or their) reasons were for not doing so; I merely point out that none of you did.
4. Feel free to question the methods - However, I have no idea what it is you think you are questioning. as I said, I created a fair and civil zone for discussion amongst those who cared to participate; to the very limited extent that you participated, you got the same treatment as anyone else.
5. No censorship occurred. preventing uncivil treatment of fellow editors is not censorship, since such treatment has no place on wikipedia, and certainly has no place in mediation.
6. I have no concern with what you do with the FAQ from this point on (unless I decide to reenter the R&I debate after the arbitration). I'm simply telling you there is no value and much harm that comes from trying to retroactively attack the mediation. accept it, then change it; move on.
7. The only thing that prevented an 'honest' resolution of the problem was the shameless trolling Mathsci engaged in at ANI, and the extended drama-trauma that followed. The thing you and he and everyone else on your side of the fence seems to forget is that you were the ones who decided not to participate in the mediation. You all decided not to participate, not even to the extent of asking to have the mediation closed (which you all could have done very neatly if you'd just started a thread on it in the mediation). If the mediation result is biased, the cause is your failure to engage the mediation honestly and earnestly.

Point of fact: you have absolutely no one to blame for the results of the mediation except yourselves, and possibly Mathsci's unfortunate penchant for stirring up trouble in ANI. sorry, but that's a simple fact; you all chose politics over the encyclopedia, and here we are. --Ludwigs2 00:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Re point 1. I would have thought that objecting to the structure of the mediation at ANI constitutes objecting to the mediation. I suppose the arbitrators will have to decide.

Re point 2. That is a lie. As can easily be seen by the evidence I submitted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence, I was questioning Dr. Pesta's papers, not the editor's credibility or expertise. I'm sure the Arbs will see the actual diffs and see the only rational interpretation, which is not yours. (In case that is interpreted as violating WP:NPA, I'm only reporting the edits. Any interpretation as to the editor's rationality is irrelevant.)

Re points 5 and 6. A then-active editor notes (now) the absence of consensus. I'm not going to check the thousands of edits to see whether he noted it then; because of your censorship, I'd have to check all the edits, rather than just looking at the archives.

I'm not going to add my opinion as to what should be done with the article, here, as it's a content issue. However, I will say that any statement sourced to primary source which is opposed by secondary sources must be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Re your "I would have thought that objecting to the structure of the mediation at ANI constitutes objecting to the mediation." - Only in the same sense that trying to poison someone's dog is equivalent to asking them to keep the dog from barking at night. You fail to understand the point, Arthur: I don't have a problem with Mathsci's concerns; I have a problem with Mathsci's ridiculously tendentious and excessive behavior. No one with common sense and good judgment turns to ANI for problems easily resolved outside of ANI.
• Re your "That is a lie" - no, you're flat-out wrong. Here's the diff you yourself posted [16]. You say that BPesta is the sole source of most of the agreement (meaning the agreement that the editors were proposing for changes in the article), and then go on to explicitly say "We need some evidence that [BPesta]'s not WP:FRINGE." This statement contains two gross mistakes that add up to incivility:
  1. FRINGE is a term that applies to theories on the questionable outskirts of science, not to people. You might have asked whether BPesta's theories or research were fringe, but asking whether he himself is fringe is improper and uncivil
  2. BPesta is not a source for the agreement in the way wikipedia uses the word source, any more than you are a source for this arbitration page by posting here. A source on wikipedia is published material that is used to support claims made in article space. BPesta was not offering his published work for use in the article; he was only using his personal knowledge to help resolve a dispute between editors. You are entitled to disagree with him, to argue with him, to pit your personal knowledge against his personal knowledge. but you are not entitled to dismiss him as 'fringe' on the grounds that he might have published work off-wiki that is not being included in this article. That, again, is fringe is improper and uncivil.
     • or are you suggesting that we should judge all editors according to their off-wiki activities and writings?
• Re your: "A then-active editor notes (now) the absence of consensus..." - so what you're saying is that you have no evidence? search the archives for {{hat}} and {{nono}}: those were the two templates I used for redacting comments ({{hat}} for paragraphs and {{nono}} for inline uncivil comments). I never deleted anything from the page, so that I could easily restore passages if some one successfully argued for restoration. Go ahead and search, and post the results here - you'll save me the trouble of doing it myself. --Ludwigs2 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Unlike ANI, where we have to convince administrators, here, the only purpose is to convince the Arbitrators, who are probably more used to seeing absurd arguments. I said "Dr. Pesta", rather than User:BPesta22, without comment as to whether they are the same person. It's your conclusion. that I was attacking User:BPesta22's edits. So, unless you bring up a new point, I'm done here. (And the editor did refer to Dr. Pesta's work; I don't recall if it was for inclusion in the article, or for context.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL - the only reason a "Dr. Pesta" ever came under discussion is because Mathsci (and others) asserted/determined that BPesta was "Dr. Pesta". no works by any Dr. Pesta were cited in the article; no works by any Dr. Pesta were cited on the talk page or the mediation page. So, either this "Dr. Pesta" is not a source at all anywhere on the R&I topic (in which case your comment was incompetent and entirely irrelevant to the page), or you were actively following the association between "Dr. Pesta" and user BPesta which was common knowledge on the page at the time.

So, were you guilty of incompetence then, or are you trying to cover your a$$ now? occasional incompetence is understandable - happens to the best of us - but if I read what you posted above in a sour light it almost sounds like you were complicit in trying to OUT user:BPesta22 as this "Dr Pesta", so that you could accuse him of being fringe and help "your side" win a content dispute. And now you're trying to cover it up using the Clinton defense - depends on what you mean by Pesta... - which is seriously sketchy. If there's any truth to that 'sour light' suspicion, I suggest it might be time for you give up your sysop bit. Administrators who have a poor grasp of policy are troubling, but administrators who manipulate policy in order to dominate content discussions (even if they are not explicitly using their administrative powers to do so) are a threat to the project as a whole. --Ludwigs2 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Arthur Rubin has now withdrawn his comment below in which he’d initially claimed that the mediation was invalid because of certain editors’ lack of participation in it. Does that mean this particular issue is resolved now? Specifically, I’d like to know whether this is sufficiently resolved that we can include the mediation’s conclusions in the talk page FAQ again, without all of the changes that Aprock made to it. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No. It's still not consensus. If Aprock is at all correct, it's the consensus of two editors, ratified by Ludwigs2, and if even if it were consensus then, as Aprock is one of the two editors, it would improper to say it was consensus now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What Aprock is claiming is that is he is not one of the two editors who was discussing this, and that the only two editors who were discussing it are me and Varoon Arya. You can see that from his comments on the article talk page, “My argument is based on the fact that the ‘decision’ was made by you and Varoon Arya alone.” Aprock isn’t claiming that as one of the two editors involved in this discussion, he now disagrees with its conclusion; he’s claiming that he was not one of the two editors involved in it at all.

He’s also claiming (in his last comment on the talk page) that the discussion did not address the question of whether or not the hereditarian hypothesis is “fringe”. Those two assertions are what his changes to the FAQ are based on. I don’t think either assertion is correct, but since I haven’t been able to convince him otherwise and he’s reverted any efforts to undo his changes to the FAQ, his changes still stand. Ludwigs2 was hoping we’d be able to resolve this issue by discussing it here, but I can’t tell whether we’ve come any closer to resolving it as a result of this discussion. Have we? --Captain Occam (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

:I see your point. Still, as Ludwigs2 did refactor comments, I cannot be absolutely sure if there was discussion elsewhere on the article talk page or on the mediation talk page. I didn't see any any agreement that the heridtarian position was not fringe in the exchange you pointed me to, only that the consensus (of those two editors) was that it was not WP:FRINGE to discuss the issue of race and intelligence. As far as I know, there's no objection to that.

I was hoping we could come to a new consensus that the heriditarian position was not fringe, but was not mainstream. That appears not to be feasible.

I don't consider the later issues in the FAQ particularly controversial (other than self-identification of race being correlated with genetics), but I'd need to see pointers to the respective discussions in order to see if there was a consenus. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

We really need to resolve this. I was hoping that at least temporarily, it would be a non-controversial solution for the FAQ to just link to the relevant part of the mediation archives, since that way readers could evaluate for themselves whether or not these points can be legitimately considered a conclusion of the mediation. But apparently neither Verbal nor Ramdrake is happy with that idea. And they haven’t explained why not, either here or on the article talk page, despite my requests (in my edit summaries) that they do so.

The thing I have the largest problem with is Verbal’s wording “these decisions are not reflective of the current consensus”. (It previously said “not necessarily reflective”.) It’s probably the case that these conclusions aren’t currently supported by consensus, but it isn’t reasonable to assume that consensus will never support them. And if we have to update this part of the FAQ every time consensus on the talk page changes, it completely defeats the purpose of having a FAQ at all.

Can someone please decide what’s reasonable here, and edit the FAQ accordingly? Since the FAQ is under 1RR, and Verbal and Ramdrake apparently aren’t willing to discuss their edits to it, I don’t think I can resolve this issue on my own. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Captain, I think it's fairly obvious at this point that many of the points comprising "Point 3" are heavily challenged, at least as far as there be~ing a significant consensus about them. Therefore, either we indicate it's not the current consensus (doesn't mean we can't come to a consensus about them eventually) or we just don't mention "Point 3" at all. Either suits me fine.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of these points aren’t currently supported by consensus, and if the statement that it’s not supported by consensus were just a comment someone were leaving on a talk page, I wouldn’t object to it. The problem I have is that the FAQ will be displayed at the top of the page indefinitely, probably long after the current group of editors involved in this article has moved on, and a new group has arrived who may feel differently about these points. Will it be necessary to monitor the discussion on the talk page to see who agrees or disagrees with these points, and modify this part of the FAQ accordingly whenever the opinions there change? That doesn’t seem reasonable, but the only alternative is to leave the current wording there indefinitely regardless of whether consensus eventually favors these points again, which would be even worse.

The purpose of the FAQ is as something that can be left the same regardless of the current discussion on the article talk page, which means it should be something that can apply regardless of the current opinions being expressed by editors there. Saying that these points are “not necessarily reflective” of the current consensus would be an example of that. Saying that they “are not” reflective of consensus, on the other hand, is something that will need to either be changed whenever the discussion changes, or be left in place even when it’s no longer accurate. Can you understand why I have a problem with the FAQ containing items for which this is the case? --Captain Occam (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Then, leave point 3 out of it until some consensus emerges about it. We just can't say it represents any kind of consensus, or even that it may not represent consensus when it is being openly challenged. This is just misleading the reader. Also, it demonstrates the inappropriateness of basing such decisions on editors' positions rather than reflecting accurately what is to be found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources. I believe it has been demonstrated there is an ample abundance of such sources.--23:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please directly address what I said in my comment? The purpose of the FAQ is to provide something that can be informative in the long term, regardless of the current opinions on the talk page. You stated yourself in your previous comment that it’s possible we’ll come to a consensus about these points eventually. In order for the FAQ to be informative both in that situation and in the current one, rather than needing to keep being updated, it needs to not make a specific statement about what the current consensus on the talk page is.

You don’t appear to have a counter-argument to that. The second part of your comment makes it sound like you personally disagree with whether these points are an accurate reflection of what’s in the source material, but I think you know that we aren’t here to discuss content. The point I’m making would be the case regardless of what the FAQ said, even if it said something I completely disagreed with. Would you be so adamant that the FAQ make a blanket statement about it not being supported by consensus if you personally agreed with it? --Captain Occam (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I've addressed your comment directly, inasmuch as can be done. We cannot present a position about which we haven't reached consensus as being supported by consensus, no matter how much we'd like to and how much it would simplify our lives. As I said, the alternateives are either 1)to leave it out of the FAQ entirely until the day we reach a consensus on the issue or 2)go by the consensus already established in the body of secondary sources which is available to us. Then, the consensus would be significantly different than the previously purported consensus (which is, I believe, why it is now being directly challenged).--Ramdrake (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

“We cannot present a position about which we haven't reached consensus as being supported by consensus”

Are you aware that I’m not advocating this? My intention is to make no statement either way as to what the current consensus on the talk page is, because the current consensus is subject to change. All I intend to do is provide a pointer to the decisions reached during mediation, while offering no comment whatsoever as to whether consensus currently supports them or not. All of your comments have been addressing the assumption that I want to specifically state that consensus supports these points, which I don’t.

Until you respond to what I’m actually saying (which I’ve tried to explain several times now), my argument about why this is appropriate remains unaddressed. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ramdrake, do you have anything to say in response to this? I agree with you that I shouldn’t put anything in the FAQ to suggest that the conclusions of the mediation are currently supported by consensus, and I have no intention to do that. However, you have not raised any problem with what I do intend to do, which is to have the FAQ make no statement either way about what the current consensus on the talk page is (either for or against the mediation’s conclusions), because the FAQ shouldn’t need to be updated every time consensus on the talk page changes. Since you haven’t argued against this idea at all, I can’t tell for certain whether you actually disagree with it: our disagreement here might just be the result of you misunderstanding my intentions.

If you have any suggestions about the best way to make the FAQ offer no commentary whatsoever about what the current consensus on the talk page is, I’m open to them. If you don’t, I’ll try to do this myself, but if possible I’d prefer to do it in a way that would be satisfactory to you also. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - mikemikev (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Support, for the reasons I stated in my comment above.

Incidentally, where are all of the arbitrators? GeorgeWilliamHerbert has performed some useful moderator-like duties in these discussions, but the purpose of our bringing up most of these issues here was in order to have the arbitrators’ help resolving them. So I’m confused by the fact that the arbitrators seem to be staying out of these discussions. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The arbitrators probably haven't read all the evidence and traced the diffs, yet. Besides, they are perfectly willing for parties to admit intent, so "parties" are usually not censored. Clerks have been known to remove off-topic comments, but, as far as I can see, there's little along those lines here. Uncivil comments, but not off-topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment It unlikely that Ludwigs2 can give an objective account of mediation. His interactions with Xavexgoem, where he was told to stop sniping at editors and that his task was to encourage and facilitate the participation of all those involved in mediation, show that Ludwigs2 misinterpreted the role of mediator. For example he refactored my comment that David.Kane's draft was pushing a point of view. (See my evidence, in particular these diffs.) Mathsci (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Mathsci, I can give a perfect accounting of all of my behaviors in the mediation (it was all very carefully considered and planned out). I'm simply waiting for an arbitrator to ask for details, because I'm not going to waste time countering this kind of specious argument without a good reason. --Ludwigs2 19:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Desired outcomes

These are some of the outcomes I would like to see come from this dispute resolution process

• Stable article
• Stable talk page ie fewer but more productive discussions
• Reduction in edit warring
• Reduction in users' adrenaline levels
• Atmosphere of trust
• Reduction in incivility
• Less noticeboard activity related to the topic of race and intelligence
• More time and energy to contribute to other articles

I make no specific suggestions on how these outcomes can be achieved. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur: any solution that produces these outcomes would be welcome. But as I've said previously, I believe the only solution that can effect these types of changes is to explicitly protect the consensus discussion from the various forms of political manipulation that have become the norm in this debate. --Ludwigs2 16:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

5)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Arthur Rubin

Proposed principles

Mediation without consent is void.

1) A mediation, where one of the parties didn't consent or withdraws consent, is void from that point onward. Withdrawn. The conditions set by the mediator are not binding on non-participants, and it was still a failed mediation, for other reasons, but that one is incorrect. My apologies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Note that this would require a new definition of the concept of consensus. Consensus as it is currently understood on Wikipedia does not require unanimous agreement. not even consensus in mediation requires that. The point of a mediation is to resolve entrenched disputes, not reach complete agreement.

Further, this is redundant. mediations can always be closed by participating users through discussion in the mediation. what Arthur is asking for here is some sort of administrative oversight of mediation so that lone, complaining participants can use ANI to disrupt a mediation that is progressing in a direction they don't like. might as well be honest and call this proposal the sour grapes clause. --Ludwigs2 17:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Policy#Disputants point 2. "Any disputant may refuse or withdraw from the mediation process at their will. No party is required to participate in mediation, though refusal to do so may result in the dispute escalating to binding resolution through the Arbitration Committee." However, after studying the MEDCAB documents more carefully, this is incorrect. Leaving in place, but struck out, so that the comments may remain relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wholly disagree. I have been part of proceedings far more contentious than those here and the mediation. I have never run across someone stating at such proceedings they are no longer playing in the sandbox, and anything that is decided in the sandbox after they take their pail and shovel and leave is invalid. That posits that any one editor has the authority to invalidate the decision of a community of editors and is entirely inappropriate. If someone decides to abstain then that is an implicit agreement to abide by the decision of the rest. Perhaps if editors realized that's how it works they would cooperate better play nice in the sandbox in the first place. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Questioning an expert, even if he is an editor, is essential to NPOV

2) Questioning the credentials of an expert whose works are being considered as references, even if he happens to be an editor, is not a violation of WP:NPA, and is essential to WP:NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb#Notable persons who are Wikipedia editors, which may have at least tangential relevance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm often blown away by NYB's encyclopedic memory of past principles. Cool Hand Luke 02:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You could also use the search engine... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tend to remember the ones I wrote myself. Especially when I wrote them on the workshop before I was an arb, and Fred or Kirill stole found value in them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(To Captain Occam, who should have posted in this section) I believe the question of Wikipedia facts below to be incorrect. But even if it were correct, and if Intelligence isn't WP:FRINGE, papers in reliable sources can be questioned by comments about them in other reliable sources. I'm referring to Jensen's work, here. Reliable third-party interpretations of his work should be used in preference to his own comments about his work. (Note the conditional tenses here: I'm implying that Captain Occam's statement is incorrect, and that I didn't check whether Intelligence is WP:FRINGE.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To Vecrumba. That's just wrong.

• Acting on personal conjecture as to the credibility of the author of a secondary source, without reliable evidence, is wrong. Speculation is allowed (at least on article talk page); how else could one ask for evidence?
• Deciding whether a secondary source is reliable and/or fringe is something we must do, as editors.
• Deciding which reliable sources to use in an article, when they differ, is also something we must do, as editors. If placing both statements together would be WP:SYN, we would have to be very careful quoting both.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To Vecrumba. That's approximately correct. An author's commentary on his own work is self-published. It may be used for some purposes if he's an expert in the field (not only on his own work), but it should not be used if contradicted by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, missed this one earlier. Didn't miss per comment below, but state more clearly: this is the crux of the issue, that it's using source A OR B when fair and accurate representation of the subject matter must include, by definition: what a source (1) stated (the "original"), what reputable sources (2,3,..) stated regarding (1), and what (1) has stated about the "original" (and related 3rd party commentaries) subsequently. To state the last must be excluded in favor of other sources is to institutionalize that:

1. an individual's commentary regarding their own work is immaterial; and
2. where that individual's commentary disagrees with reputable 3rd party assessments, the 3rd party assessments are correct and the individual's commentary, by explicit exclusion, is, ex vi termini, in error.

No, no, no, no, no. As stated, this excludes comments as "self-published" even if appearing in a peer-reviewed journal. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No. If an editor's work is explicitly offered for inclusion in an article we have wp:COI to deal with the problem. otherwise, an editors credentials are not relevant to editing. Wikipedia is the 'encyclopedia anyone can edit', and does not want to encourage a witch-hunt mentality, in which editors are allowed to pore over the credentials of other editors looking for personal material that can be used to refute their edits. --Ludwigs2 17:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To the PARTY "Captain Occam": It's not entirely a red herring, even if Dr. Pesta's works weren't considered. It applies to Jensen, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE applies to all references, whether or not suggested by an editor who may be an expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Expertise might help individual editors to locate sources to write articles. But even experts have to follow wikipedia rules when writing articles in their subject: for example all the edits in Plancherel theorem for spherical functions are sourced, even if some of the very short proofs were hard to locate in the literature. Captain Occam recruited Bpesta22 to assist in discussing material from primary sources during mediation. Captain Occam and others referred to him as Dr. Pesta. However, for the purposes of writing the article, there are several major commentators, with impeccable academic credentials, who have edited or written reliable secondary sources on the topic (Sternberg, Mackintosh, Flynn, Loehlin, Jencks); Bpesta22 did attempt to question the competence of Richard Nisbett, who has been an occasional expert commentator since the late 1990s and who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious scientific bodies in the US. The debate on Race and intelligence touches many disciplines: anthropology is an obvious case, since "race" is involved. At least two academic anthropologists are actively editing the article, but their credentials have never been mentioned nor used to invoke authority to win an argument. When material on the fringes of science is too recent and not yet evaluated, e.g. in cold fusion, it is probably inappropriate or premature to include it in an encyclopedia. Certainly wikipedia editors cannot evaluate material directly themselves, even if they are self-professed experts: that would be WP:OR, like creating a book review on WP. Saying that edits push a WP:POV, that editing histories indicate a single purpose account or that editors should not be swaying arguments by invoking authority do not constitute personal attacks. They are simply reminders of wikipedia core editing policies, which apply to every editor (for example an editor editing their own BLP). In editing these articles, no scientific expertise on my part has been used, apart from access to university databases. My mathematical credentials have been questioned out of the blue by hostile editors: that is not a personal attack, even if wholly irrelevant. However, when Rvcx casts doubt on my competence in mathematics and then, having solicited information on my career, replies that[17], "How easily I forget that every conversation with Mathsci is about dick-measuring and personal attacks. Shame on me.", that is a personal attack. Similarly Ludwigs2 claims on WP to be an expert of science, and more so than other editors who have never made any such claims, are completely irelevant for editing wikipedia. Familiarity with and competence in paraphrasing reliable secondary sources is all that is required. Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again Mathsci seems unable to see the difference between questioning the assertions he makes and questioning his credentials, which are of far more interest to him than anyone else. The only one begging to compare credentials is Mathsci. How naive I am to keep assuming it's possible to discuss ideas on their merits; instead everything must be appeals to expertise and ad hominem. Perhaps Mathsci's interactions would improve if he found a way to engage without trying to flash mediocre academic credentials at everyone he runs into. (Or number-of-edits credentials, for that matter.) Rvcx (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment. Discussing what reliable sources state regarding an expert, whether a participating editor or not, is not violating WP:NPA. However, questioning the author of a secondary source based on personal conjecture or editors drawing their personal conclusions regarding scholarly secondary sources are both violations of WP:NPOV. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To Rubin—If a source is reasonably well known (i.e., discussed in secondary sources) it must be dealt with in the article appropriately, whether you or I consider it majority, middle of the road, or minority opinion. It is NOT our role to play censor based on our personal likes/ dislikes/ prejudices. Being inclusive makes for good narrative. Not being inclusive makes for bias, not to mention a whole lot of completely unnecessary (IMHO) arguing about whether or not to include something. I won't use the word censorship; however, not including someone's comments about their own work "preferring" those of others is one-sided censorship, IMHO:

1. "X" published study "A"—valid content
2. "Y" and "Z" subsequently state something about study "A"—valid content
3. But we censor what "X" themselves subsequently states about study "A"?—not valid content

If I'm misunderstanding, and I hope I am, please correct. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment. This is another red herring. None of Bryan Pesta’s papers are being used as references in the article, and the only papers by him that we’ve considered using as references are those that have passed peer review for the journal Intelligence. Since the purpose of peer review is for a group of experts in the relevant field to ensure the reliability of research, any questions about the reliability of papers that have passed peer review need to be directed at the peer review process for the journals in which they were published, not at the credentials of the papers’ authors. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose just about everything Arthur Rubin has said. The philosophical point of the "principle" is so wooly I can't really comment, but I encourage the arbitrators to expressly refute Arthur Rubin's contentions. First, commentary from peer-reviewed papers is not self-published, nor are quotes from authors about their own work if they are reported in other sources. Second (from the same diff), if we're extending this notion of "expert" from editors to authors (from Pesta to Jensen), then it's clearly absurd for Wikipedia editors to be deciding who's (not) an expert: that's a job for secondary sources. (And again, the authority of peer-reviewed papers comes more from the journal in which they're published than the names of the authors; digging into author lists of idontlikeit papers is just an excuse to exclude information). Third, editors are in desperate need of guidance on the difference between points of view and fringe. Just because something isn't proven to be 100% rock-solid fact doesn't mean that it's fringe. Editing the R&I articles doesn't require picking one mainstream view and discounting everything else as fringe, nor does it require deciding on a few "experts" who are right about everything and dismissing everyone who disagrees with them as wrong. It requires representing notable views without attacking them. Rvcx (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Questioning the credentials on an editor who declares him or herself to be an expert is, in my opinion, fair because the editor is bringing his or her expertise to the 'consensus determining process. However, it is not for us to question experts in general though we can use their credentials (which university, what position), the statements of other experts, or the degree to which their work is cited in reliable sources to judge the quality and the importance of their work. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Mathsci / mediation

1) Mathsci withdrew his support from the mediation in April 2010.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think that in general, there is too much emphasis in the evidence and the workshop on the mediation, and too little on the underlying content on the articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, this doesn't matter. Mediation is voluntary; if it doesn't resolve the dispute (i.e. participants quit or can't agree) other methods are available to resolve disputes. Shell ^babelfish 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment I suggested in late March that mediation be terminated. It was first terminated officially by Xavexgoem on March 28. I was involved in the early stages of mediation and made a concrete suggestion then as to how the article might be rejigged, which was agreed by consensus. During my usual wikibreak from mid-January to mid-March, a whole new series of editors joined mediation and some of the original ones disappeared, including Wobble and Ramdrake because of health problems and hospitalization. Before discovering the identity of the fourth mediator, I objected to the fact that single purpose accounts, far outnumbered regular editors and that a decision had been made to make the article "data driven", i.e. edited from primary sources. That unprecedented change in the editing environment suggested to me that mediation had failed. Nevertheless, as at the beginning of mediation, during the brief 2 week prolongation of mediation requested by Ludwigs2, I made two concrete suggestions in an attempt to restore WP:NPOV (a new lede and an expanded history section), which also were agreed by consensus. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Not actually a matter of Fact: Actually, this is debatable. I explicitly asked Mathsci (very early in the 'troubles') if he wanted me to remove his name from the list of participants [18]. Mathsci's response was evasive - [19] - but since he was obviously aware of the question and did not ask me to remove him, that's a pretty clear indication that he wanted to remain as a participant.

However, this is somewhat irrelevant. Mathsci's only involvement with the page (at least until I browbeat him into some degree of participation in the mediation) was to confound, confuse, and disrupt the process. like any other page on wikipedia, editors whose only goal is to disrupt the operation of wikipedia are best handled under wp:DENY. I did my best in that regard, but he was exceptionally persistent in his disruptions and supported by editors like Enric, and fed by editors like Occam who couldn't not respond to his behavior. As I have said multiple times already (and will likely say again), if he had chosen to participate in the mediation productively - if only to go there and ask to have it closed - this issue would have been resolved. It's his tendentious fixation on disrupting the process (rather than resolving it) that lies behind this entire arbitration. --Ludwigs2 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad: You're probably right. However, some of the conduct problems were (IMO) encouraged by the mediator, and some made worse by the dispute as to whether the mediation was, in fact, in progress, so it's not entirely irrelevant. Besides, it's the only problem I'm absolutely sure about. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment. I regret that this is a red herring per my comments above. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with NewYorkBrad, Vecrumba and others. Mediation is a non-binding process and it is fairly obvious that it failed in this case. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Credentials of Dr. Pesta

2) Arthur Rubin questioned the credentials of Dr. Pesta, not that of the editor. Ludwigs2 refactored his comments on the mediation page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. (Clerks may split if neccessary, but it doesn't seem to make sense otherwise.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Explicitly refuted above: There was no D. Pesta listed as the author of any article cited as a source in the main article or on the article or mediation talk pages. There was only the assertion by various editors that User BPesta was a 'Dr. Pesta' who might or might not have written fringe material of no direct relation to the article. --Ludwigs2 19:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies (Mathsci)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ludwigs2 banned from mediating

1) Ludwigs2 be banned from mediating, for a period of 2 years.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The privilege clause only refers to formal mediations conducted by the mediation committee, not informal mediations such as occurred here. Shell ^babelfish 22:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Shell is correct; nonetheless, I think there is too much emphasis in the evidence and on this page on problems with the mediation, rather than on the underlying editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Time is arbitrary, and if he shows that he believes the findings are appropriate, an appeal might be made to the community (not MEDCAB, the community at large). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(To Vercrumba): As the "mediator", ze has the responsibility to "play fair", which I am saying that he didn't do. However, I, as a (then) uninvolved administrator, should have objected to the structure of the mediation at the time, and we wouldn't be in this mess. Still, the first ANI thread (which was specifically deferred until the end of the mediation, not closed, per se), indicates a claim of misconduct, which should be noted. If the Arbs believe that the current mediation structure is unclear; then clarifying the structure to note what "powers" and responsibilities a mediator has (in Principles), and warning Ludwigs2 not to violate those, might be adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(continuing). The other "hereditarians" were engaging in civil edit warring; Ludwigs2 was mediating the edit war. That seems to involve more responsibility, still, as blocks and bans are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, perhaps clarifying the "rules" which Ludwigs2 clearly broke would be adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting note. It is claimed in Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Policy#The privileged nature of mediation, that disruptive actions in the process of a mediation should not be used by ArbCom. This makes the entire arbitration problematic, as most of the evidence (on both sides) would be considered inadmissible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. This proposal is of a punitive nature which is not consistent with Wikipedia's policy of imposing sanctions only in order to stop undesirable behaviour in the future. Any shortcomings of Ludwigs2's past behaviour are an understandable reaction to the trolling, goading and vituperative personal attacks that have been such an unedifying feature of this dispute. Ludwigs2 does not have a history of excessive and recalcitrant misbehaviour and there is no reason to suppose that he will not be able to function as a competent mediator in the future. Therefore this proposal is unjustified. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC).

Comment User:Mathsci/subpage7 shows Ludwigs2's responses from the time that I suggested mediation had failed (for the reasons given above). In March Ludwigs2 objected to the use of the National Academy of Sciences as a WP:RS and apparently was not happy with the findings of two RfCs. He made two reports connected with the RfC's on WP:ANI and was blocked as a result of the second.[20] I can't comment on his suitability to mediate other cases, but clearly, considering the long history of problems on the controversial article Race and intelligence and other race-related articles, Race and intelligence was probably not the best article on which to switch from editor to mediator, having only started editing the article when mediation was well under way. Scientific competence is not a required skill for informal mediation for any article; refusing requests for a new draft of the article to be edited outside namespace and then suggesting that the draft be locked at the close of mediation also fall outside the role of a mediator. Ludwigs2 has expressed his personal opinions on the issues underlying the debate on race and intelligence [21]: these seem to have little or no connection with what can be read in the major reliable secondary sources. In general, if editors have strong personal feelings about issues like that, about other editors (e.g. BullRangifer/Fyslee), or what they hope to achieve through mediation, they should probably think twice about volunteering to mediate. Surely the role of a mediator is simply to facilitate discussion through a mutually agreed orderly structure, not to bully/control/micromanage other users. Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Supplementary comment If Xxanthippe continues to suggest that I have been trolling, cherry-picking sources, POV-pushing a Marxist/New Left viewpoint or otherwise, she should provide diffs in her evidence to support those claims or withdraw them. Her comments, so far unsupported by diffs, verge on a sustained personal attack, possibly due to a grudge that she is harbouring. At the moment her statements read like empty rhetoric. Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor Mathsci does not note my objection to his accusing a Jewish editor of being a holocaust denier nor my objection to Mathsci associating me with racist views. I don't know what grudge I am suspected of harbouring. There are plenty of diffs here.[22] Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

Comment on Mathsci's digression: this is all patent nonsense. If Mathsci wants to expand this discussion into my interactions with Brangifer (and brangifers mind-boggling misinterpretation of the NSF). as I have said multiple times, the NSF is a perfectly valid source, it's just that brangifer badly abused the rules of reliable sourcing in order to pursue his own rather pathetic) agenda with respect to pseudoscience. User:GwenGale spent a good deal of time trying to clarify to brangifer exactly where he went wrong with his logic, to no avail; Mathsci apparently missed that thread. --Ludwigs2 19:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Proposal - Nope: I did nothing wrong in this mediation, and ther has been no evidence presented to the effect that I did. As I said before, if you want to open a detailed discussion of my actions, I'm willing; if not, where is the evidentiary grounding for this? --Ludwigs2 19:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment. I do not see that Ludwigs2's behavior has been more egregious than anyone else's; "2 years" sounds like it's getting a bit personal regardless of the "arbitrary" qualifier. That is an outside observation from someone not particularly interested in studying the history of conflict at the R&I article. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Re to Arthur Rubin's note about privileged nature of mediation -

The Mediation Committee can't impose evidence admission standards on either Arbcom or the community.

Anything that was done on-wiki is fair game for us to review. Emails that someone provides (either by mutual consent on-wiki or privately to Arbcom if one party won't release publicly) are fair game for Arbcom to consider.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Shell is correct. To Arthur, as a general note, I'm not aware of (nor am I fond of) the idea of remedies that exceed 1 year, if a duration is to be specified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Wikipedian - Strongly support, deferring to ArbCom on the issue of length of the restriction. As a new Wikipedian who first read the article in June 2009 (for personal research) but only began editing in May 2010, my observation is that the mediation process did not help improve the quality of the article or the atmosphere of the talk page for the article. If most of the parties here are engaging in "he said, she said" about the mediation process even more than about the editing of the article proper, it seems to me that the mediator must be primarily responsible for the break-down of the mediation process. On my part, I find many of the comments by Ludwigs2 there and here to be extremely off-putting and unhelpful to improvement of the article. Perhaps the published rules of the Mediation Cabal make more clear what should have been done that wasn't done by this mediator in this case. But in any event I support a ban of Ludwigs2 from mediation for a time period considered customary and appropriate by the Arbitration Committee. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji: I suggest you read the actual mediation material, rather than judging by the comments and results here. a mediation is only as good as its participants, and when you have a participant who refuses to leave the mediation, refuses to ask for closure, and determinedly sabotages every step of the ongoing process, the results are not likely to be good. You don't have to like me (that kind of thing is pretty much a non-issue for me), but it would be good for you to judge by actual events rather than hearsay. --Ludwigs2 07:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope my comments here will not be taken as a personal attack or "anti-mediation fervor", rather just an observation, and possible advice for the future. I agree with some of WeijiBaikeBianji's comments. Ideally, a mediator shouldn't become the subject of frequent discussions. Mediation is necessary when two parties are stuck in the dirt with a dispute. It is important that the mediator does not get dragged down into the dirt as well. He or she must remain above the fray. There were two previous mediators, Xavexgoem and Wordsmith handled the mediation for about a month, yet these two are hardly ever discussed. It is clear that Ludwigs is the subject of many complaints about the mediation. While Ludwigs has steadfastly defended his actions as mediator, mediation problems are continually being mentioned. Since much of this drama happened on his watch, he should bear some of the responsibility for the drama caused. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, Wapondaponda, let's be clear about facts and subtexts here:

• up until Mathsci entered the arena, there were no complaints about the mediation. If anything, people seemed to appreciate the structured approach. I'm not saying the mediation was making fast, stellar progress - there were still issues with tendentious editing, TechnoFaye's labile outbursts, attrition of editors from one side of the debate, etc. - but there weren't any real mediation problems.
• Mathsci's entry into the arena was not into the mediation but into ANI, and in his first three posts on the topic he shifted the discussion away from the mediation (and TechnoFaye's behavior, which was the origin of the ANI thread), and focused it on me (criticizing me and calling for me to be blocked). This was obviously personal, and I believe - given other comments that Mathsci has made in this arbitration (see his evidence page) - that it was a response to the fact that I had threatened to begin an RFC/U on user:BullRangifer because of an entirely unrelated issue.
  • Mathsci made no contributions to the mediation page at all for four or five days, and when he did, he spent most of his time there attacking me and other editors (that is, until I started redacting his personal attacks).
• over the next two weeks, despite Mathsci's efforts, several uninvolved editors/admins (including Xavexgoem) suggested that they thought the mediation was making progress, and continued to say so up until the time that the mediation ended.

The only reason that there is a question about the mediation process at all here is that Mathsci has spent the last god knows how many weeks screaming, whining, badgering, and politicking to make it seem as though I (as mediator) were the origin of some (unspecified) problem. Without him, who would have complained? if it hadn't been for Mathsci, I suspect you or AProck would probably have gotten a discussion going in the mediation which would have resulted in its closure, and that would have been that, without all the drama. The reason why Xavexgoem and Wordsmith didn't have these problems is that they did not have an editor who was dead set on causing them personal grief for totally irrelevant reasons. not that I think that's the only reason Mathsci did what he did, mind you, but I think it's clear that the manner in which he approached the problem (I mean, an editor of Mathsci's experience spouting off in ANI like a frustrated, wet-behind-the-ears newb?) speaks to an interpersonal rather than content problem.

"The only reason that there is a question about the mediation process at all here is that Mathsci . . . " No. That's not the only reason that there is a question about the mediation process. The main reason--just about the sole reason--I have questions about the mediation process is that I continue to see the overt behavior of the mediator on pages related to the arbitration case, on the article talk page, and on some related user talk pages. Mathsci is entirely incapable of making something seem to me to be otherwise than what I can see with my own eyes. Of course, I have no comment at all on any aspect of anyone's behavior that appears somewhere where I haven't looked, but I have been looking up diligently most of the pages most closely related to this current arbitration case, with a view to editing and improving the article in a cooperative spirit when the controversy abates. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji: You seem to be under the impression that I am still the mediator for that page. That is incorrect. I challenge you to go to the mediation page(s) and find any place where I was rude, uncivil, undignified, or where I otherwise engaged in bad behavior. If you find one (doubtful), then you should post it here so we can discuss its merits (trust me, if I did something wrong I'll be more than happy to acknowledge it). As of the end of mediation, however, I am simply another editor (nothing more, nothing less) and moreover an editor who is seriously and I think justifiably angry about the way this mess has played out. I know my tone is harsh, and I don't see any reason that you should like it, but if you cannot distinguish between my behavior as a mediator during the mediation and my behavior as an editor after the mediation's end, then your opinion is not wholly credible. Take the challenge, or drop the issue. --Ludwigs2 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean, part of this is just amusing: I've offered to mediate one article; If I were to get restricted - who cares? The only ramification is that wikipedia loses a good mediator for no particularly good reason, on no particularly good evidence, and I get to find other ways to occupy my time. The main reason I'm bothering to argue with this at all is that I hate to see this kind of trolling make any headway.

In short, if you want to swallow Mathsci's line of bull whole-hog, I can't stop you. But I will make no bones about the fact that that is what you are doing. --Ludwigs2 23:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to comment on Ludiwgs2's repeated claim that my contribution to mediation was unconstructive. The lede of the article was changed because of my suggested lede. The extensive history was also started during mediation.Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence#The_history_section I have no idea at all why Ludwigs2 is seeking to misrepresent what went on during the last 2 weeks of mediation. Creating the first version of what later became a history article was a lot of work, which Ludiwgs2 has chosen to overlook. On June 1, he himself intervened inappropriately on WP:NPOVN where I had made a request about the History article.[23]: Christ on a stick, Mathsci, when are you going to learn to stop basing all your arguments on ad hominems? You do damned good work when you buckle down and work, but you waste so god-damned much of everyone's time with this paranoid grandstanding and vapid name-calling. Go kiss ArbCom's ass on your own time - we don't fucking care. yeah, yeah, I know, I'm the worst of the bunch (or will be, on your next post). note my pre-emptive one-fingered salute. Is this acceptable behaviour on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, Mathsci, I never claimed that your contributions to the mediation were unproductive. My claim was that getting you to contribute at all was like pulling teeth - You entered the debate as a purely destructive force in ANI, and you only bothered to rewrite the lead and create the history article when it became clear that you were not going to succeed in your main goal disrupting the mediation and editing process. In short, the only reason you participated constructively is that you needed to do something to save face on the page after your failed attempts at disruption. I have no problem admitting that you do good work when you put your mind to it, but in this case doing constructive work was an embarrassed afterthought.

and if you want me to apologize for losing my temper as you tried to expand your paranoid grandstanding to yet another wikipedia noticeboard, I'm happy to do so. I won't retract a thing I said (which is all substantively true) but I will admit I could have said it better. While I realize that you will likely never admit (and possibly never recognize) the extent to which your own behavior is a problem, your failure to acknowledge it is irrelevant. It would be nice if you could do so and could modify your own behavior back to something resembling wp:CIV; if you can't, ArbCom needs to set up rules for you to keep you in line. --Ludwigs2 14:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposals by David.Kane

Overview

Three of the ideas below (multi-day section editting, single, limitted set of consensus sources, a new article organization) are presented as serious, perhaps extreme, attempts to "break the back" of this dispute by significantly changing the way Race and Intelligence is edited and sourced. All are worth trying and, together, they would lead, I think, to much better article quality, perhaps providing a guideline for how to handle similarly controversial topics in other parts of Wikipedia. These changes do not favor one "side" of the debate over any other. Why not try them for 6 months? The editing surrounding the article could hardly become worse . . .

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of the dispute

The focus of the dispute at Race and intelligence and related articles centers around the hereditarian hypothesis: approximately 50% of the difference in average IQ among racial groups is caused by genetic factors. One group of editors believes that, regardless of whether or not the hereditarian hypothesis is true, it is certainly notable and merits extensive discussion --- in proportion to its presence in the peer-reviewed academic literature --- in relevant Wikipedia articles, with most of that discussion occurring in Race and intelligence. The other main group of editors believes that the hereditarian hypothesis is either WP:FRINGE or not notable enough to merit significant coverage in Wikipedia. This disagreement manifests itself in debates over WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPA, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:TAGTEAM and other Wikipedia policies. Yet even if the two groups of editors were in complete agreement about these policies, the underlying dispute over the appropriate placement, if any, of material related to the hereditarian hypothesis in Wikipedia would remain.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Require multi-day section editting

1) A significant change in Wikipedia editting procedures is required for Race and Intelligence. Consider three concrete examples of good editing outcomes: the History section (here and here), the Debate assumptions section (here and here) and the Lead here. All these cases resulted in significant improvements to the article and featured widespread consensus among editors of very different viewpoints. Common factors: 1) Drafting was done on the Talk page, not in the article itself. Only after the section was complete was it moved into article space. 2) Drafting occurred over many days, allowing all editors time to register their opinions. 3) Comments from all were repeatedly solicited and incorporated. 4) The entire section was edited at once, thus allowing compromise over what to include, what to exclude and the relative proportions devoted to different material. Standard editing procedures have produced seemingly endless conflict and edit wars at this article for years. I think that this new procedure --- which I call multi-day section-editing --- should be required going forward. Place the following guideline at the top of the article talk page. "Do not make meaningful edits in this article directly. (Such changes will be reverted if they are at all contentious.) Instead, take the entire section which includes the portion you want to change, create a new version of it on the Talk page, seek comments from other editors over a period of at least 4 days, incorporate those comments, and then paste the entire new section into the article in a single edit once consensus has been reached."

Comment by Arbitrators:

This does work well during mediation or ongoing disputes but long term goes against the idea that "anyone can edit". However, I can see putting problematic editors from this case under a similar restriction. Shell ^babelfish 01:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Neutral. It could be done well, provided that it requires a real WP:CONSENSUS, inviting previously disenfranchised editors, over a period of time for any mainspace change. (Yes, that includes the ones discouraged by User:Mathsci, as well as those disinvited by User:Ludwigs2.) This was not done in (some of) the examples the proposer gave. I disagree with the Rvcx's opposition; it could be an reasonably imposed editing restriction, if there were a firm consensus that it would help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly in favor of "inviting previously disenfranchised editors." Indeed, I like to think of this change as providing a "clean slate" from which we can start together to build a better article. By the way, which examples that I provided did not do this? As best I can tell (and I was an active participant at the time), all three cases featured extensive and good faith requests for comments from all participants. As to whether or not this change requires a "firm consensus," I certainly agree that such a consensus would help. But I would settle for something less, like "no one violently opposed," or at least "most willing to try an experiment for six months." David.Kane (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I 'disinvited' someone? Arthur, do you have a diff for this, or are you making this crap up out of whole cloth? Fair warning: the next time you accuse me of something like this without providing evidence I will ask an arbiter to sanction you for it (don't know what that would entail, but I'm tired of you lying about me). --Ludwigs2 22:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)--Ludwigs2 22:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

comment. What we have here is a contentious content dispute that has user conduct problems. I think any measures to improve the quality of the article are welcome by everyone. Improving the prose, structure and readability of the article, fixing grammar,typos and references are quite uncontroversial, mediation or arbitration isn't necessary to do this. The real problem is various editors would like their preferred POV to be given more prominence in the article. Any proposal that does not address the underlying problem is unlikely to bring stability to the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Which "preferred POV" are you referring to here? I can't tell if I agree or disagree with you without more detail. David.Kane (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for a dozen reasons, main one being it's the editors here who need to change, not the rules. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This article was a battleground 5+ years ago and (almost) all the editors were different. Even if you topic banned every editor who had ever edited this article in the past, it would still become a battleground in the future because the content is so difficult. David.Kane (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The only constant has been Slrubenstein. [24] mikemikev (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose This seems more appropriate for parties who voluntarily join mediation than for general article space. Rvcx (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I sort of see the Arb Com process as enforced mediation. After all, they want to "break the back" of the dispute. Perhaps this would do so. Would you object to trying this for, say, 6 months?

Oppose While this is a good idea and something I try to practice myself, I think it sets a bad precedent of over complication to impose it on the article. mikemikev (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you object to trying it as an experiment for 6 months? David.Kane (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Question Is the new "pending" approval mechanism of any use here? (Or can it be extended to incorporate a series of changes available for review?) Just thinking out loud. Something that is an actual WP mechanism would be less of a minefield for new editors stumbling in. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Require a single, limitted set of consensus sources

2) A significant change in Wikipedia sourcing procedures is required for Race and Intelligence. Instead of allowing any editor to add material from any reliable source, we should determine, via consensus, a limitted set of excellent sources. One such list is here. See here for previous discussion. The important point is not what sources are included. Indeed, I predict that all editors involved in this article could come to consensus about a reasonable list easily enough. Furthermore, the list could be revised once a year. The benefits of this plan include: First, no more endless dispute about whether a particular theory or topic is WP:FRINGE. If it is included in these sources, it may be mentioned (but does not have to be) in the article. If it is not included, we do not mention it. (Editors who want to include it need to wait for the annual revision to the source list.) Second, no more edit warring when an editor, especially one with no familiarity with the article, adds random fact X from secondary journal Y. In general, this edit will be perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia standards, coming as it does from a reliable source. In general, one "side" of the debate will agree that it belongs in the article. The other side will seek to remove it, citing WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. Endless edit-warring results. Third, every fact/theory/data worth mentioning in the article is, unsurprisingly, mentioned in one of these sources. After all, that is would good secondary sources do: bring together all the important facts/theories/data! (I challenge the editors opposed to this change to point out a specific something that belongs in this article that is not discussed in my list of sources.) Fourth, nothing in this plan would make anything worse. (I would especially appreciate if those opposed would cite concrete scenarios in which this article and the editting around it would become worse with this change.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly opposed This opens wide the door to selection and or publication and or exclusion bias -- and even if you and I and every other editor here agrees on some sort of definitive list, there will always be a new editor coming along to challenge the list based on some sort of perceived bias (selection, publication or even exclusion bias). I see this as increasing rather than decreasing the controversiality of the article. IMHO, again, not the way to go. That's my objection.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you be against a 6 month experiment, with all agreeing to revert to the current version if it fails? You could very well be right (and I could be wrong) that such a change would increase controversy. Why not try it? David.Kane (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Opposed: Instead of focusing on excluding sources, editors should instead find a way to present information from sources accurately and non-judgementally. In particular, an agreed list of sources does not address problems of undue weight: turning a footnote or unrelated fact from a reliable source into a central focus of an article is often inappropriate. The list of sources is not the problem; how they are used is. Rvcx (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "editors should instead find a way to present information from sources accurately and non-judgementally," but, for whatever reason, that has been impossible in this article for more than 5+ years. Would you object to trying this as an experiment? David.Kane (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Opposed. A list of "preferred sources" might be helpful, if all major editors agree, but any source which criticizes a preferred source must be considered automatically allowed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(Followon). Any specific list of sources selected to support the points which any major editor thinks should be in the article would obviously appear to be satisfactory, until another point comes up which should be in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(Folowon 2). It wouldn't eliminate the debate as to whether a concept was WP:FRINGE; being mentioned in a reliable source does not mean it can't be fringe. And, some might argue, that we would need fringe sources to document the content of fringe views, while noting that they are fringe. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "all major editors" need to agree. And my claim is that they would! Indeed, no editor has (yet) complained about the specific list I provide above. Would you object to that list? Do you know any editor who would? David.Kane (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I can think of a few omissions from that list which I think should be included. The two that come to mind at the moment are Flynn’s 1980 book Race, IQ and Jensen, and Jensen’s 1998 book The g Factor, but there may be others also.

I haven’t yet put a lot of thought into this list, because it’s not clear yet whether or not we’ll be using it. I suspect that the same may be true of other editors also, and that as a result we won’t be seeing the full amount of dispute that can exist over this list until and unless it becomes clear that we’ll be using your proposal about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutral: While I can see how this idea might help avoid some of the problems that the article has had up to this point, I also feel that it might introduce an entirely new set of problems, such as arguments over what sources should and shouldn't be on our allowed list, and what the proportion of "pro-environmental" and "pro-hereditarian" sources on it should be. This is particularly an issue with regard to the fact that research in this area is ongoing, and it's important to keep the article up-to-date. Ordinarily, I would imagine that a newly-researched line of data would initially receive a brief mention in a single sentence (assuming it's been discussed by a reliable source), and if over time more and more sources begin to discuss it, its coverage in the article would be gradually expanded accordingly. But imagine how difficult this would be if the only sources we're allowed to use are those on our "approved list": we would be unable to update anything about the article without first going through the process of adding the new sources to this list. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: No valid reason to establish this "rule". It's arbitrary, it's silly, and having "too many sources" is not the source of the problem. This "walls out" the universe of good content for no purpose whatsoever except to add an arbitrary layer of complexity to dispute over. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The "valid reason" is that this article has been the cite for endless edit-wars for 5+ years. Unless I have missed something, no one else has proposed something that has a plausible chance of "breaking the back" of the dispute. (Most/all of the other proposals either re-iterate Wikipedia policy or seek to ban/punish editors on one side of the other. None will generate a higher quality article.) Again, the main purpose is that this rule would stop 50% (perhaps 90%) of the pointless bickering over [WP:FRINGE] and [WP:UNDUE] that plague the article. Would you object to trying this as an experiment for 6 months? David.Kane (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Breaking the back" requires presenting the topic in a manner that is other than polarized. The chances of that being done successfully will (I believe) be hindered even further by a restriction of sources. What is required is discussion of sources in more depth than simply applying labels to them to denounce them and to cut off meaningful dialog. What exists now is "I refuse to discuss that source because it is WP:LABEL". That is an individual editor assuming the role of censor; that is no different from the suggestion that if someone leaves a mediation they were originally part of, any subsequent agreement is void. THAT attitude is what is the source of contention at the article, it is not the fault of sources.

   If you want to try something for 6 months, that would be banning WP:ALPHABETSOUP: WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:NPOV and all the rest, and for all editors to explicitly commit to discussing sources and content using plain English with NO labels. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would object to trying this as an experiment for 6 months. I've seen enforcement against tendentious editors as often extremely effective in fostering higher quality articles. And I've no reason to believe that they'd be any less disruptive in consensus-building to adopt 20 sources than they have shown to be in other aspects. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Again, a good idea de facto, but not something to impose de jure. mikemikev (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Silly idea contrary to every wikipedia policy. We look for all possible WP:RS. There have been problems with the article for a long time: they vary with time. At present they come from a group of like-minded editors that includes David.Kane, Captain Occam and Mikemikev (the last active but most disruptive). Their method, which David.Kane continues here, is to make sure that wikipedia policies, such as the use of secondary sources, do not apply to this article. David.Kane's massive rewrite ran a coach and horses through wikipedia policy. He wishes to continue that with these new proposals. One of the two worst decisions taken during mediation, with Ludwigs2's acquiescence, hinged on a semantic quibble: that the minority hereditarian point of view was not a fringe point of view. However, in secondary sources, the group of hereditarian researchers, most of them psychologists, some of them retired and most of them not government-funded, is described as small or "very few". The second ill-judged decision was that the article should be data-centred, a decision which amounted to the policy of using primary sources and not secondary sources. When the preponderance of editors active on the article allows editors like Varoon Arya to be described as "neutral", there is a severe problem. (He was the editor who sanitized Race and crime in the United States, Mainstream Science on Intelligence and Snyderman and Rothman (study). Similar whitewashing was conducted by Captain Occam on Rushton's book Race, Evolution, and Behavior [25] where he simply removed 2/3 of the content, namely all criticisms of Rushton's research. These all form part of a "walled garden" of articles.) At present there is a problem with balance among the editors on R&I. There are too many editors active on R&I whose main priority is the editing of race-related articles on wikipedia from a particular point of view, with hardly any editing experience elsewhere in WP and who propose changing core wikipedia editing policies to suit their ends. To acclimatize that kind of editor to wikipedia, the best policy would be to grant them the luxury of an extended period away from these articles to discover the delights of editing normal non-controversial properly encyclopedic articles elsewhere on wikipedia. Then perhaps things might click. They will be less tempted to spend their time trying to organize other editors with bogus wikipedia policy. Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I believe a large part of the conflict, as characterized above, is the reductio ad hereditarians et environmentalists, labeling "hereditarians" as "fringe" and removing the mainstream view that both heredity and environment play a part in intelligence; the question is how one moves between the characterization/measurement of individuals and the same for groups when conducting group studies, regardless of how those groups are defined—whether based on self-identification or some other process of assignment.

   I perceive Mathsci's account above as an attempt to enforce polarization at extremes (remove the center) and then eradicate the undesired extreme. In particular, no one is proposing changing editing policies, that is just more misdirection to draw attention away from understanding Mathsci's self-serving "two-sided" presentation of the conflict. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА. This is becoming tiresome. If it's a minor semantic quibble why is Mathsci making an issue of it? Instead of bringing up content issues here, why doesn't Mathsci go the Race and Intelligence talk page and make a convincing argument supporting his assertions? Or link to where he, or anyone else, has. mikemikev (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly Oppose I am editing my comments from 22 June 2010 and updating the time stamp to make clear that this is still a bad idea, contrary to core Wikipedia principles. There is new research on this topic all the time, and there are dozens of detailed points that may come up in several reliable sources, but perhaps not clearly in the two dozen or so most widely known reliable sources. To date, the article is very poorly sourced to the best literature on human behavioral genetics (and not fully sourced to the most recent literature on IQ testing), and the way to improve the article going forward is to improve the sources by looking for more up-to-date, more specialized sources on specific issues that are still confusing in the article as it now stands. Moreover, this proposal would have the effect of putting undue weight on one minority point of view in the article and thus force the article to build on a narrow foundation of minority sources that have been refuted by better subsequent sources. P.S. The comment by RexxS that came in this morning in my time zone suggests a better approach, namely looking diligently for higher quality sources based on best scientific practice. The article currently only poorly reflects sources of that highest level of quality. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mathsci that a topic ban on several editors is more consistent with Wikipedia policy than an exclusion of reliable sources In the subsection above for comments by parties, Mathsci has written since I last commented, "To acclimatize that kind of editor to wikipedia, the best policy would be to grant them the luxury of an extended period away from these articles to discover the delights of editing normal non-controversial properly encyclopedic articles elsewhere on wikipedia." This is more consistent with Wikipedia policy than arbitrarily limiting the number of sources that can be used by all Wikipedians to edit articles on a controversial, heavily researched topic. There are a variety of reliable sources on the topics related to the content of the article(s) subject to this ArbCom case, and if editors can't bother to read widely in those sources, they are welcome to edit articles for which they are more willing to read the relevant reliable sources. Wikipedia policy and current goals of the Wikimedia Foundation are all about adding more and better reliable sources to articles all over Wikipedia. If efforts to better source Wikipedia articles are frustrated by POV-pushing editors, better to topic-ban the editors than to censor use of reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Where there is considerable ongoing research and a multiplicity of sources available, then selection of sources by editors is problematical, as each will have their own criteria. An alternative would be to adopt higher standards of sourcing – as is currently done for medical articles and documented at WP:MEDRS. Perhaps some of the criteria laid down there (which supplement WP:RS) would help in determining the most relevant sources to use. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That is very interesting. Thanks for pointing out WP:MEDRS. But I am not sure if those guidelines actually solve any of the major disputes that surround the article. Other than work related to Lynn, it is not clear that WP:MEDRS would rule out any of the sources which create trouble in this article. Yet I would certainly be in favor of considering those guidelines in constructing a restricted list. David.Kane (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose This only shifts and escalates the polarization from discussion of content to discussion of sources before even getting to content. No, no, no, no, no. The best encyclopedic narrative is inclusive, not exclusive, when it comes to reputable sources. This and other attempts to dictate what sources or types of source are admissible or not (with particular emphasis on the denouncing and otherwise labeling sources as inappropriate) are fundamental originators of conflict at the article. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than "shifts and escalates" I think this would "narrow and focus" the debate. Again, I am making an empirical claim: The editors most associated with this article could agree on such a list. No one seems to dispute that, although only few have chimed in on that point directly. I agree that, if we can't come up with such a list, the idea is stupid. But I bet that we can! Certainly it might be useful to find out, don't you think? I agree that the "best encyclopedic narrative is inclusive, not exclusive, when it comes to reputable sources," but we have had 5+ years of trying that approach. The results have been horrible. Shouldn't we try a different approach? Would you object to a 6 month experiment? David.Kane (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

David, you wrote, "I am making an empirical claim: The editors most associated with this article could agree on such a list." I'll respectfully disagree with that claim. My empirical claim is that some editors agreeable to a tightly limited source list would not agree to using all the sources already posted in userspace for all editors to refer to in an even-handed way to edit the article. (By the way, the Intelligence Citations list will be expanding quite a bit more during the next week, as I find time to enter into the list books I have on long-term loan from my state flagship university's wonderful library and articles I have collected over the years.) But let's try the empirical experiment of asking other editors: how many editors reading these ArbCom workshop pages would be willing in principle to refer to any of the sources in the Intelligence Citations Bibliography while editing the article? Do you all agree to look up the sources, read them to understand what they mean and how they back up what they say, and calmly discuss them on the article talk pages? I am absolutely not going to accept a more limited source list than what is already posted there. (Again, there are still quite a few sources to add to the list as I type this, and there is new research on this issue continually.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji: Which editors are you talking about? I have no problem with including all your sources. None. But MathSci, among others, does not think that work by Jensen and Rushton, for example, can be considered a WP:RS. You fight is with him, not me. I only propose the trick of a limited list to make the editing of the article easier, essentially forcing all editors to agree, ahead of time, that these sources are OK. The last 5+ years of experience has shown that, without such a trick, edit-warring is unavoidable. David.Kane (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Any recognized scholar is a reliable source of their own work, particularly as published in (peer-reviewed) and/or respected journals. Jensen and Rushton are cited as examples of their position—one position among others—per Hunt and Carlson: "There are differences in intelligence between races that are due in substantial part to genetically determined differences in brain structure and/or function (Rushton, 1995; Rushton&Jensen, 2005)." as already appears in the R&I article. Claiming not WP:RS to delete content is obstructionist at best, resulting in the conflict which has lasted lo these many years at R&I. The R&I article is patently NOT about who is "right" among the multiple positions on R&I among those who study intelligence. Anyone who inisists it is about the "correct" perspective on R&I is part of the problem, not the solution. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"I am making an empirical claim: The editors most associated with this article could agree on such a list. No one seems to dispute that"-- Well I dispute it. I think it's ludicrous any agreement on a "20 approved sources" list would go smoothly. And wikipedia is supposed to be an "anyone can edit" encyclopedia--such a list imposes restrictions on "anyone who edits" instead of remediating biased and disruptive editing habits. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I might substitute "perhaps well-intentioned born of desperation but totally inappropriate" for "ludicrous" (though the latter is, admittedly, more my gut reaction). The sources are not the problem, nor is the number of sources used correlated in any way to the problem. That said, given the current state of article narrative, I strongly suspect that the size of the problem is inversely proportional to the number of sources used, which I expect is counter-intuitive to those who have held out the hope that less is more, also meaning that restricting sources will only escalate the conflict. (I believe that opponents coming to a gentlemen's agreement on their implements of conflict is called a "duel.") PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Guidance requested from Arb Com on contentious claims made in reliable sources about living persons

I would appreciate guidance from Arb Com about a long-running dispute in this and related articles. Does a contentious claim made about a living person in a reliable source need further documentation if a Wikipedia editor objects? The original debate is here. Several similar debates have followed, summarized here. My understanding of WP:BLP is that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The critical question, obviously, is just what "poorly sourced" means in this context. If a reliable source reports that person X says that Arthur Jensen wrote Extreme Claim A, do we just report that fact? Or should we demand to see evidence from Jensen's actual writings that he did, in fact, make Extreme Claim A? I would appreciate guidance from Arb Com on this situation. My proposal would be to clarify WP:BLP to make it clear how to handle these cases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Contrary to what David.Kane is claiming (I have no idea why he is being so disingenuous), none of the claims are contentious, since they have appeared in multiple peer-reviewed articles and text books published by major publishing houses, such as Cambridge University Press, University of Illinois Press, Springer Verlag. This request is a smokescreen to conceal David.Kane's repeated removal of statements by Jensen concerning blacks. The underlying problem is with the editor David.Kane and not with reliable secondary sources. Those sourced statements were intially removed for entirely different reasons as stated in the evidence section. This is one case where WP:BLP clearly does not apply. Since this does not seem to be a general point, but specifically about Jensen, I would reiterate that, in my view, some of the things Jensen has said or written cannot be used in wikipedia articles. In the collapsed section below from an interview in 1972 with Jack Fincher, editor of LIFE, Jensen said, "Sterilization wouldn't be based on a single test. It would have to based on social competence. People with IQs of 70 or below are a burden on others, a disservice to themselves. Left to their own devices, they simply create problems, their lives are so miserable. In our society it's only humane to take care of them as best we can, but we should prevent them from reproducing." Even if reported by a WP:RS as they have been, they are unsuitable for wikipedia. In the same way David.Kane's statements in User:David.Kane/EphBlog about the young man Robert Shvern (now blanked), which he could source to some Williams College information source, are wholly unsuitable for wikipedia. Wikipedia is certainly not here for David.Kane to continue his off-wiki campaigns. If Arthur Jensen has found himself at the centre of a huge controversy in real life because of something he wrote, it's not the role of wikipedia to paint a picture of those events which differs from what has been reported in numerous highly reputable secondary sources. That would be an attempt to whitewash history, no matter how politely and civilly David.Kane tries to go about it. David.Kane seems to be attempting to change wikipedia policies to suit his private ends. Mathsci (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"none of the claims are contentious" is clearly a false statement. Consider the original claim that started this debate. Donald Cambell claimed that Arthur Jensen "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." Surely we can agree that this is an extreme claim that would be highly notable if, in fact, Jensen had made it. Yet there is no evidence that Jensen ever recommended this and lots of circumstantial evidence that he would have disagreed with it. How should BLP handle these situations? Several editors agree with me that such claims should be deleted prior to thorough discussion and, eventual, consensus on the talk page. Others disagree. So, clearly, BLP needs to be clarified so that we can determine which side is correct. David.Kane (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Numerous reliable secondary sources do write that and those are what we rely upon. The above is just the personal interpretation of David.Kane, an extremely disruptive editor, here to push his point of view on wikipedia. No secondary source says these claims are contentious, just David.Kane and like-minded wikipedians. David.Kane has invited editors from gene expression to help him edit here [26]: he has expressed his view strongly on that website that race is a biological attribute and asked for help in arguing that here [27]. He might try to hide these strong personal beliefs while editing on wikipedia, but they are apparent in the highly ambiguous edits he produces. He himself is responsible for major BLP violations in the Race and intelligence article. He describe scientists far more eminent than Arthur Jensen as "environmentalist researchers" in the Race and intelligence article:

Researchers fall into two groups: hereditarians and environmentalists. Both argue that, although race and intelligence are fuzzy concepts, they can be operationalized enough to draw conclusions about the connections, if any, between the two. Hereditarians argue that genetics explain a significant portion (approximately 50%) of the differences in measured intelligence among human races. Leading scholars of this view include Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Richard Herrnstein, Linda Gottfredson, Charles Murray and Richard Lynn. Environmentalists argue that the hereditarians are wrong, and that genetic differences are not an important cause of differences in measured intelligence among human races. Leading scholars of this view include Richard Lewontin, Stephen J. Gould, James Flynn, Richard Nisbett and Stephen Ceci. There are also other scientists who either take a more middle ground between these two viewpoints, or believe that there is currently not enough evidence to determine what part, if any, genetics plays in racial differences.

This is mostly David.Kane's WP:OR, not supported by any secondary source. These personal prejudices might be fine on a personal blog, but not on wikipedia. Richard Nisbett is a cognitive psychologist, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, not an "environmentalist researcher" [28]; James R. Flynn [29] is an emeritus professor of political science, not an environmentalist researcher; nor is Stephen J. Ceci [30]; nor Richard Lewontin, formerly a member of the NAS, [31][32]; and Stephen J. Gould died in 2002. Why is David.Kane so ultra-sensitive to neutral commentaries in WP:RS about Jensen, yet willing to misrepresent living scientists in such a cavalier fashion? None of them have done any substantial research in "race and intelligence" recently: they might have written commentaries at times, but "race and intelligence" is nowhere near their primary area of research. David.Kane reinserted this original research into "race and intelligence", against consensus, after a corrected version had been produced in Race and intelligence#Current debate. It can now be read at Race and intelligence#Hereditarianism and Ennvironmental influence. So his game is to have two versions of the same material: one a neutralised and correctly sourced version (Current debate), adapted and enlarged by me from his original material; the other his previous WP:POV version, mostly unsourced WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, with major BLP violations. That is how he edits: by civil POV-pushing, which in the long run is essentially bullying, breaking all core wikipedia editing policies, determined to have his own synthesised original research prominently on display on wikipedia. This is quite far from "high-quality, neutral, encyclopedic content" that MastCell has indicated as one of the central goals of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Qualified support: BLP policy did not engender the problem, yet re-iterating it in the arb decision would be good. However, the BLP disputes unfolding in front of me did not pertain to "poorly sourced" references, nor were each of them "contentious" by any reasonable definition. More to the point, each weren't even about a living person but about the scientific work of a living person. Deletes were merely "labeled" as BLP violations, the policy "invoked" to justify applying the WP:UNDUE, WP:V and WP:PSTS policies extralegally. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment In a recent email I asked Jimmy Wales explicitly if material in a Springer-Verlag book satisified WP:RS on wikipedia. He agreed that it did. On the other hand David.Kane, misinterpreting a statement Jimmy Wales on WP:BLPN, twice blanked material by Joan Freeman from Gifted Child specifically mentioned in that email [33] (paraphrase) [34] (direct quote). Captain Occam made an even odder edit, removing only the part of a longer quote from Joan Freeman which irritated him. Later, after having blanked content by Alan Ornstein, David.Kane blanked material by Yehudi Webster, again as a BLP violation, after Professor marginalia had added it.[35] In a later edit another user reintroduced the material and it remains there. (A full history with diffs of these BLP blankings is given here.) Conclusion: David.Kane and others have been gaming the system by using BLP policy as another bogus excuse to remove neutral material that goes against their personal point of view.

David.Kane's concentration on Jensen (and this bogus BLP point) seems to be a ploy to avoid the fact that it is Rushton's work (not Jensen's) that he is WP:CPUSHing onto wikipedia. How is Rushton described in peer-reviewed journals? This is what William H. Tucker wrote in the article "The Leading Academic Racists of the Twentieth Century" in the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education:

"Rushton became infamous in social science departments in late 1999 when tens of thousands of academic psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists throughout the United States received unsolicited copies of his abridged pamphlet, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, produced and distributed with Pioneer's financing. In this brief work Rushton described African blacks through the centuries as naked, dirty, impoverished, and unintelligent. In the modern era he called their IQs the lowest ever recorded. The pamphlet went on to explain that this appalling condition was a consequence of evolutionary history, in which modern humans first appeared in Africa but only some of them remained there while others headed north, evolving into whites and Asians. To cope with the demanding weather, the latter groups, according to Rushton, developed genetic traits for greater self-control, lower levels of sex hormones, higher intelligence, more complex social organization, and greater family stability. In brief, he concluded, blacks were genetically disposed to greater sexual activity but less interest in parenting more likely than other races to be "cads" rather than "dads." Clearly part of an attempt to influence public opinion about race, publication of the pamphlet was announced at a press conference, and a tear sheet offered bulk rates for distribution to media figures and columnists who write about race. In addition, Rushton was a regular speaker at American Renaissance conferences, a group whose newsletter proclaimed that blacks were entitled only to liberty, security, and the right to acquire property, but not to such "phony" rights as the ballot, jury service, intermarriage, equal accommodations, or access to jobs, housing, schools, and public transportation. Rushton's speeches, featured in the newsletter, provided scientific rationalization for the group's desperate desire to reconstruct an American apartheid.

Why are David.Kane and others WP:CPUSHing to have Rushton's theories so fully explained on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The policies are clear enough already. I've checked the appropriate pages on the Biographies of Living Persons policy. What is asked for in biographies of living persons is sourced statements, rather than statements made up by the Wikipedian editing the article. On the issue of the article in arbitration, there are dozens of sources making dozens of (sometimes contradictory) statements about some of the most controversial living persons who deal with the issues treated in the article. It is enough that a statement about a living person who has long lived in controversy be sourced, and that the source be checked by other Wikipedians, without using an overly expansive interpretation of WP:BLP to engage in edit-warring. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to read the links that I provided? Note that several editors agreed with me that false statements about Jensen, even if reported in reliable sources, should be deleted. If it were only me who thought this way, then, yes, BLP might be "clear enough already." But, since it is not, BLP ought to be clarified, one way or the other: many are not acquainted with wikipedia editing policies. David.Kane (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

All sorts of people edit wikipedia. There were no "false statements about Jensen", just David.Kane's constantly repeated assertions of BLP violations. Neither constant repetition nor claims of consensus make David.Kane's assertions correct (cf the editing patterns described in the evidence of Professor marginalia and RegentsPark). Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We’ve already discussed this here, and I think it’s important to point out (again) that per the comment that I quoted there, Jimbo Wales has agreed both that these claims about Jensen are contentious and that viewpoints should not be attributed to him unless we can find him having advocated these viewpoints in his own words. In some cases, when we read what Jensen himself has to say about his viewpoints in these areas, his stated viewpoints are the opposite of what was being claimed about him in the article. This is what we mean by “false claims about Jensen”. As an example, when we were discussing the claim that Jensen has “recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites”, I provided a quote from Jensen’s 2002 interviews with Frank Miele to demonstrate what Jensen has actually recommended with regard to education:

"I favor any measures that would maximize free choice. It won’t lead to either complete segregation or complete racial balance. I have repeatedly emphasized, particularly in talks before educational organizations and in a recent publication, that quality education does not mean the very same program of instruction for every child, but equal opportunity for all children to receive a specific program tailored to their individual differences in general ability and in special aptitudes. I especially stress the words individual differences to emphasize that these differences cut across all racial, ethnic, and social class groups." (Emphasis in original.)

In this quote, Jensen makes it quite clear that what he has recommended with regard to education is different programs based on each student’s individual mental ability, and that since people of every level ability are found in every racial and class group, this won’t result in either complete racial balance or complete racial segregation. This is very different from claiming that he advocated different education on the basis of race. Therefore, to claim that he advocated different treatment on the basis of race is misrepresenting his opinion. Mathsci, I think you’re aware of this—we’re not robots; we’re capable of evaluating when sources do and don’t agree with one another. The question is whether a statement which clearly misrepresents the viewpoints of a living person, yet is reliable sourced, is allowable in an article under BLP policy. For you to claim that the article never included any false statements about Jensen is just obfuscating the issue. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

When any reliable source make a contentious claim, we should consider making a specific attribution to that source, rather than presenting their position as fact. "The Foo Times called McGuy's comments regarding Bar 'advocating assassination'". This isn't a BLP issue per-se, but rather a more fundamental issue of sourcing, NPOV, and verifiability. Contentious claims should not be reported as factual, no matter what the subject area. We should just say who said what and leave it at that. Gigs (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Sticking purely to the critical question, obviously, is just what "poorly sourced" means in this context. If a reliable source reports that person X says that Arthur Jensen wrote Extreme Claim A, do we just report that fact? , the answer should be yes, it is completely appropriate to present material that is reliably sourced regardless of whether the material is critical or not, provided, of course, the material makes sense in the context of the article. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Reorganize the material in Race and intelligence and related articles

The material under dispute in Race and intelligence and related articles should be re-organized in the following way. First, there should be a main article entitled Group differences and intelligence (credit to EdChem). Let me quote MathSci: "Careful authors use terms that do not beg various questions, e.g. Nicholas Mackintosh has a section in IQ and Human Intelligence on "ethnic groups" and John C. Loehlin has an article on "Group Differences in Intelligence" in the 2004 Handbook of Intelligence." Correct. These and other quality sources make it clear that such an article is notable enough and well-sourced enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Such an article would follow Loehlin and Mackintosh by noting all the obvious caveats: intelligence is not a well-defined term; IQ test results are not the same thing as intelligence; human groups are generally socially constructed (but also not always independently of biology); group definitions vary by country/culture and change over time; some scientists challenge the ethics of this sort of research and so on.

Second, this main article (which only discusses human groups and intelligence in general) would have a collection of daughter articles, ideally with titles like Sex and IQ, Race and IQ, Religion and IQ and whatever. I am flexible about the exact number of articles and the titles used. I recommend using "IQ" instead of "intelligence" because virtually all work in this area uses some form of IQ test to measure intelligence. The main benefit of this plan is that it allows for more productive editing because the disputes, for example, over what "intelligence" and "race" mean exactly are placed in specific locations. An article like Sex and IQ would be much easier to handle in this structure because the main article on Group differences and intelligence would have already handled all the preliminaries.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems like a proposal for Mediation, not ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 16:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I appreciate the gesture of credit, but I was really more following a suggestion implicit in Mathsci's comments that an article like Group differences and intelligence might be a good way to go. Having said that, I can see a few dangers in the details being proposed here. My thought was a single article of which racial topics is only a small part rather than a parent article to group together the current bunch of stand-alone articles. Just off the top of my head, some potential problems that occur to me include:

• the race / IQ article would have the same battles as the current article
• if issues of problems with IQ testing (for example) are all covered by the parent article and thus excluded from the child articles, the child articles if read in isolation could present a misleading impression
• warring on the parent article could easily occur without other editors of the article recognising the reasons behind the disputes
• having an article that must be read as a precursor for another article to be comprehensible seems a poor precedent to set. Does WP even have navigation templates to inform readers that article X is necessary background reading for article Y? Wikilinks for when a reader seeks additional information are fine, but necessary background seems to me to be an implicit part of an article, not something to restrict to a parent article

Unless there is way too much material for a sensibly sized but still thorough article on Group differences and intelligence then my gut instinct is that keeping material together in a single article with the race issues kept as a small part is a preferable way forward. EdChem (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. All the above points are reasonable. If any arbitrator expressed an interest in this idea, I would be happy to provide a point-by-point commentary, but my sense is that none are. The key point is that "there is way too much material for a sensibly sized but still thorough article." Just as we had to (and it was a good thing that we did) make History of the race and intelligence controversy a daughter article, we will need to do that for other material as well. The only question is if this process will occur under Arb Com's supervision. I think it should. David.Kane (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Group differences and intelligence would provide for more room to discuss statistics and heritability (within group versus between group and implications definitely needs better WP coverage) without being overshadowed by "race." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

EdChem, you wrote, "My thought was a single article of which racial topics is only a small part rather than a parent article to group together the current bunch of stand-alone articles." This would be my thought too. I think it would help the article now under ArbCom review to make its title Group differences in IQ without hiving off a lot of daughter articles, for the reasons you have mentioned. Just like the example Mathsci mentioned about European ethnic groups, sometimes a simple change in article title does a lot to make an article less of a POV-pushing magnet. Thanks to you for focusing on this suggestion and to David for posting it as a new thread here. I agree with the idea of one one-stop-shopping article, without numerous daughter articles, kept at a summary level of presentation with full reliance on secondary sources of greatest reliability. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The title you’re suggesting sounds extremely similar to Between-group differences in IQ, which was the name of our failed attempt to move the race and intelligence article around eight months ago. As you can see, that article has now been deleted. I think it’s probably not a good idea to start a new article with a name that’s nearly identical to an already-deleted article, without a justification for creating it that’s any different from the justification that was given for this last time. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Rvcx

Proposed principles

Notable omissions from sources

1) If source A makes assertion X about topic Y on the basis of data/sources Z, and source B addresses topic Y on the basis of data/sources Z but omits assertion X—even where X would have high relevance to B—this constitutes a dispute over X between sources A and B. In keeping with WP:ASF, such an assertion X should be attributed to source A, with the prominence of A noted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This proposed principle restates the aphorism that meaning can be inferred from silence, echoing what Sherlock Holmes described as the curious incident of the dog that did nothing in the night-time. We could use some more explanation of how it ties directly to this case, however. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment Great example (from User:Kotniski): one (otherwise reliable) biography of Chopin claims that he "changed his citizenship [to French]", but none of the other biographies mention it, and it also happens to be dubious from a legal point of view. The notable omission of this fact from other sources is sufficient grounds to consider it disputed. This is even more relevant for synthesis performed by reliable sources: if one source reports that a data shows that Chemical X is the cure for cancer, but other sources report on the same data but don't call it a cure for cancer, that synthesis must be considered disputed (even though nobody explicitly bothered saying "it's not quite a cure for cancer"). Rvcx (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: the primary relevance in this particular case is in conjunction with the next principle. The fact that Jensen has been pushed time and again to make categorical statements the race should be used as a primary criterion for decision-making, but has repeatedly refused to do so, does dispute claims in secondary sources that he supports such policies. Many fights in this article have been about attributing beliefs and contentions to people that those people notably failed to articulate. Such inferences are best attributed to the source(s), and not stated as fact. Rvcx (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Support, but not relevant to this case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad. Silence should not imply consent in this Arbcom debate. There is so much trolling and wall-of-texting going on that a participant is hard pressed to read everything, even those contributions that are worth replying to. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

Comment by others:

Comment: If it is generally accepted by reliable sources that a source (in this case, Jensen) holds a view (in this case that race should be used as a primary criterion for decision-making), then that claim can and should be made in an article (where the claim is relevant) whether or not the source has explicitly stated that view. A statement of the following sort "It is generally accepted that (cite1,cite2,cite3) Jensen supports policies ...." is not only perfectly reasonable but is also accepted practice. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources for personal beliefs

2) People's statements about their own beliefs, when published in reliable sources (such as media interviews and peer-reviewed papers) are reliable sources about those beliefs. This is particularly relevant to "notable omissions", above: if a third party performs synthesis of a person's statements in order to attribute to them an unstated belief which is notable for its omission from their own statements, then that synthesis should be appropriately qualified.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment This strikes to the heart of many BLP concerns: we need to be very careful about misrepresenting someone's beliefs. If they didn't say it themselves, then it should be clearly attributed as someone else's interpretation, not asserted (or implied) as a fact. Rvcx (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the combination of points 1 and 2. A person's declining to say that he is X is rarely a notable omission. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose Now that I have had time to read this proposal a few times, and to think about its implications for a variety of articles on Wikipedia, I too oppose the combination of points 1 and 2 as part of the ArbCom decision. Sometimes a living person is silent about some aspect of himself simply because he doesn't want that aspect to be found out. Again, I think BLP policy on Wikipedia is fine as it now stands: statements about living persons must be sourced if the least bit contentious. And, as Rvcx helpfully reminds us, the NPOV policy already requires all editors to assert as facts only what are facts (e.g., that a cited source claimed that such-and-such a living person had this or that opinion). That's enough. A too-broad expansion of BLP in the manner proposed would gut most biographical articles on Wikipedia and rob Wikipedia both of NPOV and of encyclopedic tone. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: If I read this correctly, this does not make sense. It is standard practice to interpret and understand the works of others and if reliable sources report the interpretations of experts, we should report those as well. For example, justices are often referred to as 'liberal' or 'conservative' based on an analysis of their decisions whether or not they self-identify themselves as being liberal or conservative. Since the label is important in understanding the work of a justice, we should choose to report reliable secondary sources that so interpret their work. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight on ad hominem

3) Egregious undue weight placed on criticisms of living people can constitute a BLP violation, even when such criticisms are well-sourced.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is true as a principle; see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Criticism and praise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment Using the running back article as a venue for discussing OJ's wrongful death liability decision or for quoting the many editorials calling him a vile murderer would be, at the very least, unencyclopedic. But it's also got to run afoul of some other policy. I'll plead ignorance here; such attacks just feel worse than normal undue weight. Rvcx (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Perhaps this is better expressed as "Egregious undue weight placed on criticisms of living people in articles about subjects written about by those living persons is unencyclopedic advocacy." I'm wary of expanding the WP:BLP policy so far that a sourced statement about Arthur Jensen (to refer to the example at hand) would be excluded from the article about Arthur Jensen. But an article about race and intelligence should refer to the FACTS of that issue, not to the persons who bring up (or ignore) this or that fact. What seems to be fundamentally amiss about how the article is being edited at the moment is a substitution of calumniation of one researcher for refutation of the factual basis for his conclusions. It doesn't really matter how many odious opinions a person may have been reported to hold--an odious person can still have factually correct opinions about other matters of fact. To ensure that the facts reported in the Race and intelligence article are correct, one must get past the personal reputation of any researcher who has ever published on the issue and see what facts are indisputable and which are in dispute. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A sound general principle but it may be observed that omitting those highly controversial claims which generate such responses in the relevant literature will meet the principle. That is to say that if Arthur Jensen's claims were discredited, and Jensen's rep trashed in the process, easier to omit his claims altogether rather than include the rebuttal and trashing. The principle should certainly not be used to whitewash bad or fringe science. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

With little knowledge about the content issue, I agree with Angus McLellan's summary. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor ad hominem and expertise

3) WP:NPA is not confined to civility; it is intended to focus discussion on content instead of other editors. Claims of editorial privilege on the basis of editing experience or off-wiki qualifications are distractions at best. Similarly, dismissal of editorial contributions on the basis of who is making the contribution (including their editing experience and off-wiki activities) is inappropriate. Concerns about editor conduct or competence should be addressed through WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, and WP:ANI, not on article talk pages or policy notice boards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment It's one thing for ANI threads to degenerate into name-calling; at least that noticeboard is supposed to be supervised. The personal bickerings on BLPN and the article talk pages, however, have just served to derail content discussions, which cannot all be settled in perpetuity by ArbCom. Rvcx (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Support, without reservation. mikemikev (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Well worth consideration I don't know what guidance previous ArbCom rulings provide on the issue of Wikipedian civility to other Wikipedians, but plainly this is an editor conduct issue that needs to be addressed in the context of editing the article under review in this case. I would expect article talk pages to be all about content, and not about what one editor thinks about another editor. A constructive atmosphere of working together to edit an encyclopedia should be what Wikipedia culture is all about. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure what the underlying issue here is but any off-wiki qualifications and off-wiki activities that are made available on wikipedia should be open to consideration and questioning by editors without resorting to ad-hominem attacks. Bickering and name calling is, of course, already off-limits per WP:NPA. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

As per [36]. In addition:

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

1) Original data on race and intelligence is a primary source. Summaries and commentary on such studies authored by scientists, such as Mainstream Science on Intelligence, the findings of the APA panel on intelligence, and commentary pieces in scientific journals, are secondary sources (even when they conflict). Textbooks on race and intelligence are tertiary sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment There has been a long history at this article of excluding sources and one of the main arguments has been that only textbooks and popular summaries are reliable secondary sources, with the secondary sources listed above (for example) excluded because they are primary. This seems like a misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY, and a convenient excuse to exclude apolitical secondary sources. Rvcx (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

@Aprock: This just seems to be more ad hominem; a scientist's description of his own experiments and data is a primary source, but his commentary and summaries of work by others is not. You can't throw everything with someone's name on it out the window because that person also happens to have done original work in the field. If anything the only issue there is one of reliability—whether the author's conflicts of interest make him unreliable—not whether he's a primary or secondary source. The real problem here is that we keep hearing "there is no suggestion in any secondary source..." arrived at by ruling out everything written by everyone in the field. (I think there's a more subtle issue of whether a scientist's evaluation, analysis, and conclusions of his own experiments count as a secondary source or not—if they were published by someone else they surely would be—but I avoiding entangling that question here.) Rvcx (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are responding to here. I did not write "there is no suggestion in any secondary source..." aprock (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - mikemikev (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment The definition provided above of primary sources is incomplete. WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event.... Suggesting that Rushton and Lynn - two of the most prominant researchers into R/I - are not primary, but secondary sources, indicates that there is still some misunderstanding about the status of sources here. aprock (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment This analysis seems to miss the point entirely. Opinion pieces in the WSJ or reports of the APA are primary sources. The main texts that could be used for editing Race and intelligence are not, as Rvcx dismissively claims "popular texts". The main secondary sources, which include detailed discussions by some of the top experts in the world, include Handbook of Intelligence, ed. Robert Sternberg, Chapter Nine, Group Differences in Intelligence, by John C. Loehlin, Cambridge University Press; IQ and Human Intelligence by Nicholas Mackintosh, Oxford University Press, Ethnic groups, pages 142-181); and Where have all the liberals gone by James R. Flynn. Chapter 3, Cambridge University Press. Rvcx edits seem to display no awareness at all of the academic world of psychometrics: in those circumstances, perhaps he could explain why he is making such self-assured yet hopelessly mistaken comments? In the book of James R. Flynn What is intelligence? (Cambridge University Press), Flynn lists in Box 8 on page 82 "prominent researchers in intelligence". He writes, "I put my faith in scholars like Clancy Blair, Steve Ceci, Roberto Colom, Ian Deary, Bill Dickens, Christopher Hallpike, Arthur Jensen, Nick Mackintosh, Charles Murray, Ted Nettelbeck, John Raven, Michael Shayer, Robert Sternberg and Wendy Williams." Since Flynn is also an acknowledged world expert, that can help wikipedians to find their way around. Rushton and Lynn are not listed; as Aprock points out, parts of their work have been called into doubt by experts. Mathsci (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose as Written Too much is being made here of a trichotomy among primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Moreover, some of the examples incorporated in the proposed finding of fact are inapposite. Often enough, one published "source" (one article, one book, one statement by a professional association) can be a primary source for some issues, and a secondary source for others. (Other than Wikipedia noting that Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source, the distinction between secondary and tertiary sources is not so important here.) It appears not to be any part of ArbCom's role to rule on which sources are primary and which are secondary as to any content issue. Wikipedia editors who roll up their sleeves and read the sources carefully can figure out on article talk pages which parts of which sources accurately report the facts that should be included in an encyclopedia article with neutral point of view. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The (weak) hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe

2) The idea that genetics is one factor in racial IQ differences may not have achieved consensus in the scientific community, but neither is it fringe (and, in fact, no other factors have achieved consensus either—although some have been disproven).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment A fair reading of the sources shows that the level to which genetics play a role in racial intelligence gaps is a central topic of research and debate. The constant attempts to dismiss it as a fringe theory, and protestations that there is "not a shred of evidence" and that the theory is "not taken seriously" are patently absurd. A 100% genetic-causation theory may be fringe, but I've never seen anyone arguing that the articles should cover that view, only the view that the variance is partly genetic and partly environmental. Again and again editors have demonstrated that the idea is taken seriously, only for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to rear its head. I know ArbCom doesn't like to address content issues, but this particular one has gone on for so long in so many venues, and is just so obvious if you read the sources, that a final word on fringiness might help everyone move forward. Rvcx (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Please keep in mind as well that a failed scientific theory is not by any means fringe. the history of science is littered with failed theories, most of which concerned important scientific questions that were raised and settled in favor of some other theory. 'Fringe' involves an overt denial of accepted scientific theory and evidence which simply does not exist in this debate, if only because the empirical evidence supporting any perspective is so tremendously weak. --Ludwigs2 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment The accounts in the books of Nicholas Mackintosh, John C. Loehlin and James R. Flynn mentioned above all examine the evidence for believing the hereditarian hypothesis and find that, to date, there is insufficient evidence to come to any conclusion. The number of people engaged in hereditarian research is small and hardly any of it is government funded. It is certainly not a major research topic as Rvcx claims. It is a minority point of view, but it is not clear that anybody has ever described it as a fringe viewpoint, although it could be described as a topic on the fringes of science. Depite this, however, expert commentators such as Flynn have indicated that Jensen's original ideas have spawned valuable research. Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci - well put. --Ludwigs2 22:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It was my understanding that ArbCom doesn't rule on content issues, so if I am correct in that understanding, there should be no finding of fact on this issue one way or the other. P.S. It is factually correct that Flynn has praised Jensen for raising questions that have prompted important research. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with WeijiBaikeBianji including the P.S. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies (Rcvx)

Mathsci and Hippocrite strongly admonished

1) These two editors (at least) strongly admonished for ongoing personal attacks and posting personal information about other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment Other parties could be listed here (and concerns about admin rights raised) but I'll leave that to the discretion of ArbCom. Rvcx (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reluctantly Support as to Mathsci This is not a comment on the person, and I note for the record that Mathsci's behavior seems to be improving during the course of this arbitration case, but I would support an admonishment of Mathsci for attacks on editors when identification of problems with edits and other overt editor behavior would have been enough. It is my understanding that all Wikipedia sanctions are treated not as punishments for past behavior but rather as incentives to improved future behavior. (In the worst case, when users are banned, the sanctions are preventives of future continued bad behavior.) It is my observation that Mathsci is a very assiduous content editor with access to excellent research facilities and knowledge of how to use those facilities to improve many Wikipedia articles. That behavior record could speak for itself, greatly to Mathsci's favor. It is regrettable that Mathsci has engaged in a wholly unnecessary pattern of personal comments on other editors as persons (also here on the arbitration case pages) rather than dispassionately reporting overt edits and user conduct through Wikipedia enforcement mechanisms. Again, on my part I assume that Mathsci can learn from an admonishment and improve his future behavior. I don't think even the most helpful content editor should get a free pass on following Wikipedia civility guidelines. Rvcx writes that "Other parties could be listed here," but I will not comment on any other user under this heading. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci restricted

2) Mathsci is prohibited from commenting on any other editor's qualifications, competence, pattern of editing, or biases in any way for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment When Mathsci stays focused on content he's a valuable contributor. When he shifts his focus to other editors he is consistently disruptive. Rvcx (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Even if Mathsci were occasionally correct about other editors, he is frequently incorrect, and his personal attacks are always unhelpful; nothing has ever been gained from his aggressive style of belittling others' competence, pattern of editing (whether number of edits or breadth of subject) or biases. Some editors are able to help nudge others in the right direction with diplomatic commentary on such matters; Mathsci is not. The most troubling part is that his prolific contributions mean engaging him on content matters would be valuable, but many (most?) of his discussion immediately descends into ad hominem; forcing him to leave the politicking to others and comment only on content would retain his value and give him some experience disengaging personally. Rvcx (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

@Xxanthippe: I tend to think standards of conduct should be higher for more prolific editors: they are more likely to interact with more other editors, and thus the damage caused by bad conduct is proportionally worse. Rvcx (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this view. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

Comment The collection of attack pages Mathsci hosts in his user space are a perfect demonstration of his warped priorities. Instead of spending hours trawling through other editors' histories in hopes of finding dirt to use against them in ad hominem attacks (and inventing dirt where he can't find it), all that energy could instead be directed into content issues. And it shouldn't need to be said, but most of his attacks are without any merit whatsoever; they are transparent trolling for reaction and denials. Rvcx (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

These are part of my ArbCom evidence page. Instead of making personal attacks ("trolling through other editors' histories in hopes of finding dirt", "transparent trolling for reaction and denials") and needlessly escalating disputes, Rvcx might possibly contemplate acquiring a mentor to learn how to contribute more constructively to this encyclopedia. Its primary purpose is to add pieces of knowledge from secondary sources to articles. Just this weekend with the creation of about 55 new image files, some from the British Museum, and two new articles Clavier-Übung III and Hanover Square Rooms, I have already far exceeded his content contribution (certainly in bytes he has contributed very little of substance). That has taken hours of effort, which is still continuing. The first of these is a major music article, which is extremely difficult to write. Rvcx single-handedly precipitated this ArbCom case—Captain Occam gave him a little guidance—with no very clear reason: judging by his proposals here, it might have been a response to being criticized for not consulting secondary sources when editing articles. He continues to give the impression that this case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mathsci. Perhaps that was his intention. Mathsci (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Rvcx, has removed one instance of "trolling" - changed now to "trawling" - but left the other. Not very promising really. Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to propose a restriction upon me as part of this arbitration then please propose it and provide evidence demonstrating the problem it addresses. If you're not willing to do that, then please strike your comments about me, which have nothing to do with this case. Constantly denigrating other editors as less valuable and less capable than you is not appropriate behavior, and it is behavior that merits punishment. I have been very clear from the start that this is the reason I created this ArbCom case: administrators have failed to check Mathsci's continuous stream of hostile condescension which consistently alienates other editors. And just to rise to the bait, I should point out that while Mathsci's "scholarly textbook or nothing" rule may be handy for his own contributions, it is not Wikipedia's policy, the subtleties of which he either fails to comprehend or selectively rejects in favor of his own preferences. Where matters of policy and collaborative editing are concerned, it is Mathsci who requires a mentor. (Now disengaging from yet another pointless Mathsci-instigated sparring session.) Rvcx (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

hell, I'd like an arbitrator to ask Mathsci to strike every last un-diffed or obviously incorrect piece of muckraking that Mathsci has spewed all over this arbitration. It would reduce his contributions to the discussion by abut 90% and might allow us to see real issues that are currently obscured by his huge puddles of verbal diarrhea. But I don't think an arbitrator will do that, and I no longer believe Mathsci is capable of doing it on his own, so I think we're stuck. --Ludwigs2 00:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Rvcx, when you write, "behavior that merits punishment," I'm wondering where in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines that you find any mention of punishment at all? It was my understanding (as possibly the person here who most recently registered as a Wikipedia editor) that all Wikipedia sanctions are about encouraging good behavior, and nothing else. We all let bygones be bygones if other editors behave constructively in building a neutral point of view, reliably sourced free encyclopedia. (The rare case of users being banned is to prevent future misbehavior, not to punish past misbehavior, if I correctly understand Wikipedia's dispute-resolution procedures.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji: ideally that's true, and we have a number of guidelines that point to that - wp:AGF, wp:BITE, etc. Unfortunately, by the time a problem reaches arbitration, you can be reasonably sure that all of the parties involved are aware of the 'let bygones be bygones' principle, but at least some of them have decided to ignore it utterly, because they are stuck in their own particular headtrip. When you have experienced editors ignoring principles of civility in order to pursue agendas, then punishment may be the only remaining option: everyone is loathe to ban an experienced editor from the project, but something has to be done to shock them back into paying attention to wp:CIV. --Ludwigs2 04:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. "Qualifications" seems reasonable, but competence, pattern of editing, and biases are exactly the problems Mathsci is complaining about, and they are frequently valid complaints. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

there is a fairly significant difference between making a complaint to be reviewed by others and making a complaint as a form of character assassination. For example, If you were to ask me whether Occam qualifies as an SPA, I'd probably say yes, he does - his editing history is thin. however, I would never use the term SPA in order to assassinate Occam's character (by suggesting that SPAs have all sort of negative qualities, and trying to make those qualities 'stick' to Occam). Mathsci does not use terms like SPA as analytical categories to be considered by others; he uses them as 'terms-of-disparagement' designed to get other editors into administrative trouble. Again, this is labeling: Mathsci is mostly interested in assigning other editors into categories so that he can use those categories to sink them, and that's just pure incivility. --Ludwigs2 07:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Xxanthippe:

There is a serious behavioural issue here that Arbcom needs to address as above or otherwise. Several editors in this dispute have not behaved perfectly but my perception is that 75% of the trouble is generated by the personal conduct of Mathsci. His provocative and aggressive behavior has infected other users and made them behave in way worse than they would otherwise have done. His accusing a Jewish editor of holocaust denial is a low for Wikipedia. [37]

There appears to be a perception on the part of Mathsci and some others that because has a high number of edits he should be treated more leniently than a less prolific editor. I find that unacceptable. As Mathsci has felt able to comment on my own editing [38] I beg the indulgence of Arbcom to comment on his as it is pertinent to this discussion. Mathsci is a prolific but prolix and verbose editor who is reluctant to use a phrase where a paragraph will serve. He lacks the skill useful to the editor of an encyclopaedia - the ability to cut to the chase. To take an example he likes to quote, this article is written in the ponderous style of a review article or a monograph for professional mathematicians. It lacks the graduated introduction to the subject and lightness of touch that is valuable for pedagogy, which is one of Wikipedia's uses. Mathsci is also a profligate user of Wikipedia's resources, constructing the article with some 230 edits, all of which have to be stored on Wikipedia's servers. In all this Mathsci is no worse an editor than many and better than some. He can make useful edits when not engaged in his perennial feuding with other editors, but he is no paladin. His conduct should be judged by the same standards as apply to any other editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

Further: Mathsci's behavior becomes more and more bizarre. He has now created attack pages ("a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that was created primarily to disparage its subject") (User:Mathsci/AC4, User:Mathsci/AC5, User:Mathsci/AC2, User:Mathsci/AC1) on his putative opponents where he records their alleged misdemeanours. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

Comment These are subpages linked to my part of the evidence page (AC=Arb Com), just as happened in the Abd-WMC case at one stage here. In that case the subpages were at User:Mathsci/Abd1, User:Mathsci/Abd2, User:Mathsci/Abd3, User:Mathsci/Abd4, User:Mathsci/Abd5, User:Mathsci/Abd6, User:Mathsci/Abd7, User:Mathsci/Abd8, User:Mathsci/Abd9 and User:Mathsci/Abd10. In that case and in this case the pages are put up for deletion as soon as the ArbCom case has finished. From the tone of her writing, I would assume that Xxanthippe bears some kind of irrational grudge against me. I am sure that ArbCom will take careful note of her comments on my "profligate use of Wikipedia's resources, constructing the article with some 230 edits, all of which have to be stored on Wikipedia's servers." To me what she has written about my editing seems to be a spiteful personal attack. Mathsci (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This page [39] created by Mathsci about myself starts out with a grizzle about an imaginary grudge, goes on to criticise my edits on other pages and finally rambles off into string theory, in which subject I have also somehow been found wanting. What the page ought to do, and what it does not, is contain NPOV diffs that are directed at the evidence in this Arbcom case. If this isn't an attack page I don't know what is. Mathsci is abusing the Arbcom process and I ask Arbcom to remove the page. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

I just realized that I had encountered you before at another fringe science AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Dunning-Davies where you wrote, "The topic of fringe science has fascinating psychological and sociological features". You also made identical remarks in very long detail about Plancherel theorem for spherical functions and sandboxes. In the third comment there about that, you wrote, "Sandbox edits are not retained after deletion. In principle this can reduce the profligate use of WP resources." So fringe science and that same complaint, does look a bit like a grudge. Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I can't follow the above logic. I ask for the attack page User:Mathsci/AC2 that Mathsci has created on me to be removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

Not many diffs in /AC2, actually. Perhaps you (Mathsci) should support your allegations with specific diffs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly I can add annotated diffs. Xxanthippe should also practice what she preaches: she should provide diffs to support her claim that I am a "Marxist/New Left environmentalist". That seems to be an unfounded personal attack. That should be removed from her evidence if she has no means of supporting it. Mathsci (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion moves further away from the realm of reality. I have not claimed that Mathsci is a "Marxist/New Left environmentalist". If Mathsci is, in fact, an environmentalist I commend him for his concern for our planet. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC).

What Xxanthippe wrote in her first submission and part of her evidence seems to make no sense at all. She talks about the "vociferous environmentalist faction". In her comments in the RfAr, she wrote:

"One of the two factions involved edits from a perspective sometimes associated with Marxist/New Left circles, that environment is the primary determinant of the correlation.The other faction, sometimes associated with more conservative thinkers, holds that heredity is. It should be possible to write an article that reflects both perspectives in a balanced way but such an article has not yet emerged. I have neither the knowledge nor inclination to edit the article myself but I do know when people are trying to pull the wool over my eyes. I find the edits of the environment faction, particularly by editor Mathsci, to be too often slanted and biased, cherry-picking sources to support a particular point of view and rejecting attempts at compromise. Attention has been called to his unacceptable conduct by many editors but he persists. I have attempted to place an NPOV flag on the article but, despite the vast amount of controversy surrounding the article, the flag has been thrown off."

What "vast amount of controversy surrounding the article" is Xxanthippe referring to and what evidence is there - apart from her own assertion - that editors are either hereditarians or environmentalists? That unjustified assumption is precisely the fallacious point of view that RegentsPark has carefully explained in his evidence. Xxanthippe added an "expert" tag to the article that was twice removed by Slimvirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and also by me. Is Slimvirgin a Marxist/New Left environmentalist also? Arthur Rubin suggested that I provide diffs for Xxanthippe's edits. I'm currently looking at all 4.000 of them, but it'll take a while. What surprised me—unless I've missed something—is that apart from a few contributions on fantasy novels and writers back in 2006 and a recent addition to gauge fixing#coulomb gauge, most of her edits do not involve adding substantial content or creating articles; it's mostly watching a set of articles for changes and voting in AfD's. She has never had any experience of anything remotely like History of the race and intelligence controversy. Perhaps now might be a good time for her to provide diffs to support her claim that I am pushing a Marxist/New Left environmentalist point of view and that I have consistently cherry-picked in my editing. At the moment, these seem like very odd things to write about an editor with an unproblematic content editing history. Mathsci (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not called Slimvirgin, Mathsci or anybody else "a Marxist/New Left environmentalist". I am flattered by Mathsci's intention to trawl through my 4000 edits but suggest that it might be possible for him to find something more useful to do with his time. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC).

I wrote the above comment before reading this [40]. After reading it I can only gasp. It must a candidate for Wikipedia's champion attack page. Because the page is a separate part of Mathsci's Arbcom evidence I am not permitted to place a reply on it. The page is a cowardly abuse of Wikipedia's process. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

Arthur Rubin asked me to provide diffs so I did. It is an evidence page. Xxanthippe is a party in this ArbCom case and has edited History of the race and intelligence controversy. This is not Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mathsci. Xxanthippe is, like me, just another party in this case. She has written negative comments on my editing ("cherry-picking"), claimed POV-pushing on my part, implied in the the RfAr that my edits represent a "Marxist/New Left environmentalist" point of view, and on these ArbCom pages criticized the general quality of my edits in mathematics, without providing any diffs. Her edits in this area have been disruptive and so it is normal that they be scrutinized. I made one edit on WP:ANI, where I referred implictly to an off-wiki post, linked by a user to his WP user page. I described the post as discussing ideas verging on "holocaust revisionism" but I made a wikilink to holocaust denial. That comment was removed by Maunus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who sent me an email about it; later Aprock explicitly gave the link. Xxanthippe has chosen to frame that one edit as, "Mathsci has accused ******, a user who has an Ashkenazi userbox on his user page, of being a holocaust denier." I did no such thing and Xxanthippe's repeated claims that I have done so without diffs are unhelpful. If Xxanthippe had read the subpage carefully, she would note that I was driven more or less to WP:OUT myself there, because of her attacks on me and in particular the way I write mathematics articles. I do believe Xxanthippe is bearing some kind of grudge: otherwise it's hard to understand why, all of a sudden, after accidentally seeing a report on WP:ANI, she threw herself into the History article, with so many preconceived ill-informed ideas, and went on to make so many edits attacking an editor of long standing for the 32nd article he had created on wikipedia.[41] Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Defer to the ArbCom The comment threads in this section speak for themselves about the appropriateness of the proposed enforcement. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'd just note that Jensen and Marxism are, in fact, quite intertwined, as in discussions of Jensen and racism it has been postulated that (as Roland Puccetti summarizes Marvin Glass) "Marxism provides a superior moral stance, compared to liberalism, for justifying suppression of free speech by some individuals, e.g. racists", and there has been considerable discussion around radical Marxist critics denouncing Jensen's work as promoting a racist belief system under the covers. "Marxist" is not a slur in this context. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) First violation one week, then a month, etc. up to a year, with the restriction period restarting after each block (i.e. one continuous year of good behavior required to lift restriction)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment The restriction listed above shouldn't affect ability to work on content, so it's much less severe than a topic ban. In that case, it makes sense to reset the clock instead of just letting the time run down between blocks and landing us right back in the same situation a year (and a bit) from now. If Mathsci keeps violating the restriction he should keep being restricted. Rvcx (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:MastCell

Proposed principles

Agenda accounts

1) There is no restriction against single-purpose accounts; in fact, many of our best articles were written by such editors. However, an editing history consisting largely or solely of promoting one side of a contentious topic may be problematic, as Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There are SPA-related principles from prior cases that may have somewhat more nuanced wording, but the thrust here is generally sensible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment: I have nothing against this principal in theory, but, in practice, many/most/all of the editors who sling around the accusation of SPAness seem to do so in an attempt to silence a particular point of view. I can only speak of my own experience, but, using the above definition, I could be termed an SPA since a majority of my edits are to race-related articles and my edits to, for example, Race and Inteligence have "largely" --- a difficult word to define, eh? --- consisted of trying to ensure that the minority hereditarian view is not treated as WP:FRINGE and ensuring that it is handled in an NPOV fashion. Needless to say, editors like Slrubenstein (in good faith) strongly disagree and think that I am an SPA with "editing history consisting largely or solely of promoting one side of a contentious topic." Am I? Without more details on just what is being proposed here, I am not sure what to think. David.Kane (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'd like to see some recognition that while SPAs per se are not a problem, the proliferation of agenda accounts (those focused narrowly on one side of a specific controversy) hinders the development of neutral, encyclopedic articles. Actually, Antandrus said it best (see #9). MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is that it would only deal with "limited-agenda" accounts (e.g. accounts dedicated to a specific article or topic, narrowly defined) and fails utterly to deal with "broad-agenda" accounts (e.g. accounts dedicated to pursuing an agenda across a significant range of pages). In other words, UserX is considered a problem as he focuses all his efforts on one side of an argument that spans one or three pages dealing with issue Q, but UserY is not considered a problem as he focuses all his efforts on one side of an argument that involves forty or fifty articles dealing with issue P? Mathsci can be counted on to represent one side of an argument in any fringe theory debate, and he does so on dozens upon dozens of articles, with the same kind of reckless abandon in re: wikipedia principles (like civility) that he has shown on R&I. Broad agendas are (again, arguably) far more damaging and far more difficult to control than narrow agendas; does that mean (through some pervertedly pragmatic logic) that we should ignore them? --Ludwigs2 07:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What Ludwigs2 writes about me does not seem to be accurate. I have no history of editing articles in fringe science or otherwise. My editing of Race and intelligence, which has been on my watchlist for 3 1/2 years prior to mediation, constituted 31 edits, mainly adding sources. Apart from writing a neutral lede in the first week of April, my contributions to Race and intelligence have been on its long well-documented history, part of the history of psychology, from the mid-19th century up until the present time. I would not touch the "science" involved with a barge pole. Ludwigs2 has incorrectly suggested that I have an agenda, but that is not borne out by my content editing history. My policy is to paraphrase the best reliable secondary sources, having located and identified them, not to synthesize content myself and to maintain a neutral point of view. I would never feel at ease adding extended content which was not encyclopedic (that applies even to the stub ECE theory on a pseudoscientific topic). In the case of race and intelligence, the subject is discussed by impartial world experts in psychometrics in university level textbooks or encyclopedias. These are the natural sources to use for wikipedia. Very recent speculative research, that has not been probably evaluated by the scientific community, might not be suitable for inclusion on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: While single purpose accounts are not problematic by definition, they do come with the possibility of being agenda accounts because their rasion d'etre is their area of interest rather than the encyclopedia is more likely to be their area of interest rather than the encyclopedia. In controversial areas, this manifests may manifest itself in the form of attempting to ensure that their views and beliefs are well represented in the encyclopedia, especially when that POV happens to be a minority view in the academic community. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@Vecrumba. I believe that the focus of this arbitration exercise is the role of SPAs. What we have here are three sets of editors. One set, a few long term editors with eclectic editing patterns who are concerned that SPAs are skewing neutrality in articles on race. A second set, a few editors (with varying length of editing histories) who are SPAs primarily interested in articles on race and who believe, either sincerely or disingenuously, that they are being unfairly maligned by the first set. Then there is the third set which appears to have got involved for well-meaning reasons (I'd, for example, place ludwigs2 in that set). While it may seem to you that Focusing on SPAs--rather than on polarized content--as an issue will only facilitate denouncing editors with the SPA label and not improve content, the reality of this arbcom case is that it centers on figuring out whether or not these SPAs are skewing articles and whether or not these SPAs are being treated fairly by the long-term editor set. Ignoring the SPA issue will make this arbitration exercise meaningless. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think we're in agreement. My only concern is insuring that the discussion of whether or not a particular editor is (A) disruptive and (B) an "SPA" be separate from a generic discussion of the potential evils of SPAs and (thus) opening the door for denouncing editors as disruptive SPAs based on article involvement (or not) elsewhere without dealing with specific content edits. So, in terms of these proceedings, one can certainly discuss (A)+(B) with regard to a specific editor and present evidence in support, but evidence focusing on (B)=SPA implying or supporting the contention (A)=disruptive is inappropriate, and generic findings regarding alleged SPAs should be discouraged except for statements of principle. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (again) for that last change. I can agree with your statement. As I have run into (verified as) paid propaganda pushers elsewhere on WP, I am well aware of the dark side of SPAs. (Ironically, as they were fronts for "objectivity" and "legitimacy," one could actually debate them on interpretations of sources once you could track down a source itself and see it was, in fact, being misrepresented). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment @RegentsPark: I disagree with the meme that editors with narrow topical interests do not have the interest of the encyclopedia first. The only concern is whether reliable sources on a topic are fairly and accurately represented, and that, in the case of R&I, which has been an area of evolving scholarship, that the article ultimately represent current scholarship and how we got to where we are. IMHO the shouting over SPAs and agendas at R&I has drowned out--and is not a substitute for--meaningful discourse among editors. Focusing on SPAs--rather than on polarized content--as an issue will only facilitate denouncing editors with the SPA label and not improve content.

• @RegentsPark, thank you for that change. "Likelihood" should be judged only on whether reputable sources are represented fairly and accurately, including a source as a whole, not just word bites. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci:I also disagree with the implication that relating the subject of R&I is best served by only <- missing word added "impartial world experts in psychometrics in university level textbooks or encyclopedias." My survey of archives such as JSTOR paints a far richer picture of both reputable scholarship as well as representation of key (notable) voices from affected communities, all which are part of the mosaic which the R&I article should convey. The R&I article is not a thesis, let's not write it that way. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

By this stage a large number of survey articles or books, all WP:RS, have been discussed (Jencks, Fish, Mackintosh, Sternberg-Loehlin, Flynn, Anderson, etc). Vecrumba has several times made the unsupported claim to have at his disposal a whole new series of WP:RS. So far Vecrumba has not mentioned any specific articles or books. He should give a list of the ten most significant WP:RS instead of making empty statements. Without a specific list, telling ArbCom that "JSTOR paints a far richer picture of both reputable scholarship as well as representation of key (notable) voices from affected communities, all which are part of the mosaic which the R&I article should convey" is not particularly helpful. Having scanned the shelves of C.U.P., one of the major publishers of books on intelligence and educational psychology, it's hard to take very seriously Vecrumba's claim that this is an area of "evolving scholarship". That seems to be an inaccurate assessment of the academic world and for example contradicts the recent statement by Gray and Thompson in the neuroscience part of Nature that there is very little research in this area. It could be that Vecrumba is just confused about primary and secondary sources and the core editing policies for writing wikipedia articles. Until he provides a list of new sources, here or on the article talk page, Vecrumba's statements are not particularly helpful. So far he's said on the talk page of HR&IC that he's not happy with material on Henry H. Goddard, paraphrased from IQ and Human Intelligence by Nicholas Mackintosh. If he's upset by material from an undisputed WP:RS, not a lot can be done about that. Mathsci (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

R&I has evolved over time—I am talking of the long view. The article needs more of a chronological view so that we are not butting sources against each other that are a decade or more removed from each other so that evolution can be properly described. Certainly there are those who will contend that R&I devolved with regard to Jensen's study. I regret I'm not here to respond to your inquisition. I find your disparaging of Hunt and Carlson's "Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence", a recent (2007)—and I think quite valuable for its perspective—source, questionable enough. And regarding Goddard, I stated that the WP article omits Goddard's later retraction of his earlier positions. I've been too busy to attend to fixing that, but thank you for the reminder, it had slipped my mind. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Your characterization that I disagree with or am somehow upset over what a reliable source states regarding Goddard is a gross and patently offensive—and I am beginning to think deliberate—misrepresentation, given your innuendo elsewhere that I am lying regarding my interests here. I have no clue (and it might be enlightening to find out) what I have done to earn your derision and wrath—and as I have offered elsewhere we chalk this up to initial perceptions gone wrong, I can only take this to be your preferred method of editorial interaction. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Peters, you write, "The R&I article is not a thesis," but of course by Wikipedia policy it must be an encyclopedia article. I have read multiple encyclopedia articles about the subject of human intelligence (or of "race") over the years, and thus far Race and intelligence has a long way to go to become a well edited encyclopedia article on its claimed subject. You mention sources you have seen--please kindly submit those to the User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations/SuggestionsPage I keep in userspace so that we can all be aware of the best reliable sources. The only thing that slows my development of that source list is my own slow typing; your typing (or copying-and-pasting with computer-aided tools) can help the source list grow faster. Please show us what you are finding. P.S. Just remember that it will still also be Wikipedia policy to prefer secondary sources (only some of which show up on JSTOR, to which I also have access) over primary sources (which is what most of the sources on JSTOR are) for editing articles. Let's follow Wikipedia policy to edit carefully and thoughtfully a well sourced English-language encyclopedia with neutral point of view. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your non-inquisitor request. I'll tend to that as I have a chance, that is, looking to add some sources which can enhance telling the story of R&I. My only point is encyclopedic and telling a story are not mutually exclusive, and eyes will glaze over if the article reads as a thesis. (For the sake of clarity, I completely agree that the "world expert" sources Mathsci mentions are essential to the article, I merely suggest there is a wider net encompassing applicable reliable sources to superior reader-involving narrative.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I made mention of some articles I have found useful at R&I talk mainly as relates to Jensen. Perhaps more appropriate to history of R&I as observed, but one cannot write of R&I without a proper perspective on the history of the issue. Hopefully things will wrap up here fairly soon as the level of accusations and recriminations appears to be rising, and nothing good ever comes of that. My commendation on your composure and feedback on the state of the article, I look forward to your contributions. (And I say that regardless of editorial viewpoints; this is an observation only on being the kind of collegial influence the article needs.)

   The sense I get is that there could be a lot more progress at the article if editors would cease and desist making this about "personal" agendas. I am willing to accept that editors are largely stating their positions in good faith. That seemingly every editor is currently seen by at least one other editor as acting in bad faith is what has led us here. (I'm regretfully using "led us" instead of "led to these proceedings" as I must include myself among those perceiving, and perceived in, bad faith.) Perhaps if people read sources for what they say and less for what they are looking for and took editorial feedback at face value rather than for imputed hidden agendas, things might go a bit more smoothly. You don't pick sources according to what you believe. You pick highly regarded sources, read them, and see what they say about what you believe. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Sincerest apologies to all for the missing "only" (marked in red). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Ludwigs2

Proposed principles

On mediation

1) Informal (MedCab) mediation should not be subject to administrative oversight.

Problems with individual participants, or even the mediator him/herself, may be subject to administrator intervention at extreme need (as with any other page), but decisions about the mediation itself should only be reached within the mediation, by discussion and consensus of participants. Administrative oversight of mediation will have no positive benefits, and will only encourage ill-tempered participants to try and resolve mediation issues through administrative action rather than discussion. Please remember that MedCab mediation is voluntary, and decisions are not binding on a page except to the extent that they are accepted by mediation participants and non-participants alike; participants are free to participate in or leave the mediation, and accept or reject the results of mediation at their pleasure. Participants should be encouraged to resolve mediation problems (including closure or rejection of the mediation) within the mediation itself; and discouraged (per wp:FORUMSHOP) from expanding already-difficult mediation discussions into new and more contentious arenas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Please see my comments above. I don't think the mediation should be the focus of this case, and I certainly don't think that the Mediation Cabal process itself should be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

No comment. ArbCom can decide whether MedCab is subject to oversight, and will do so, regardless of proposals here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. However, I do think some the arbiters should make some statement aimed at forestalling attempts to subvert MedCab processes through ANI, AN or other administrative proceedings. Even if it's done without prejudice to this case (i.e., with no claim that anything like that actually happened here), I would like to see the Mediation Cabal protected from attacks of this sort by disgruntled participants in the future. --Ludwigs2 06:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

On content wars and politics

2) Using social and political means to control page content violates the core principles on which Wikipedia is founded

Wikipedia ostensibly operates on the principle of consensus, which - in even its loosest sense - requires calm and deliberate discussion of proposed substantive changes to content. Editors who habitually call for the use of administrative action (bans, blocks, restrictions, and other administrative sanctions); or who habitually use defamation, labeling, insults, attempted outing, or other efforts at socially categorizing editors into targeted groups; or who habitually enter into discussions only to make them increasingly inflammatory or tendentious - such editors demolish the possibility of discussion or consensus, and ultimately reduce wikipedia to political battles. Those who intentionally destroy the consensus process in order to achieve a political goal (no matter what that goal is) destroy wikipedia as a whole in the process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Interesting. Isn't that what Ludwigs2 was doing; politely, but using his position as mediator to take the "moral high ground" to direct specific content exclusions? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Content exclusion? no, and if you believe I did you'd best start providing some evidence. Continued speculation on this matter without evidence is eventually going to bite you, but hard.

On the other hand, it was exactly what I was doing to preserve the consensus discussion (which is what gave me the actual moral high ground). Or better put, I used (and am still using) politics as a fire-break, to render political action impotent and try to force the discourse into a higher, more communicative mode. The first part of that has worked pretty well, the second not so much, which I attribute - mostly - to the fact that Mathsci (and to a lesser extent you, Enric and Hypocrite) was less interested in the R&I debate per se, and more interested in using it as a tool to target me personally. Personal grudges are much harder to massage into reasoned discourse than political ideologies are. but such is life... --Ludwigs2 23:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Miscomprehension and misuse of of policy

1) Arthur Rubin, Mathsci, et al, misconstrue policy for the purpose of labeling and 'disenfranchising' editors

As noted above, both Mathsci and Arthur Rubin confuse and blur the distinction between the personal interests and actions of Wikipedia editors and the rules we apply to scholarly sources. wp:FRINGE is designed to deal with questionable articles, books, or other published materials that are being offered as sources for Wikipedia articles. FRINGE is not (and never was) intended as a guideline to deal with the behavior of wikipedia editors, and certainly not to deal with behavior that occurs off-wiki. This is a general and consistent problem, something that has been applied to multiple editors on R&I alone (BPesta22, Occam, David.Kane, dab (on this very arbitration page), just to name a few), and always intended to debunk or disenfranchise an editor personally, rather than dealing with any content issues that editor might raise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Someone is miscomprehending Wikipedia policy. I'm happy to let the Arbs decide who, as they will, regardless of what we propose here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As am I. If I'm wrong, all I need is a decent explanation of the mistake I made and I'll accept it. But I currently don't see any reason to think that I am. no offense; the way I've explained things is the way things make sense to me. --Ludwigs2 02:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disagree I disagree with the finding of fact as proposed, especially as to the prominent mention of Arthur Rubin and the lack of specification of who "et al." is. ArbCom doesn't rule on content, but the subject of the article(s) under arbitration is well known in the real world to be a subject that provokes fringe writers. If any subjects on Wikipedia deserve editing attention with regard to the WP:FRINGE guideline, this subject is surely among them. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji, you have missed the point, and fallen into the same miscomprehension that Arthur and Mathsci suffer from. You can not treat editors as though the were sources, period. There is no policy or guideline on wikipedia (the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, remember) which states that editors need to be reliable sources with respect to the subject matter. Questioning whether a cited source is presenting a fringe idea is an acceptable use of the policy; Questioning whether an editor is presenting a fringe idea is a misapplication of the fringe policy, and violation of wp:CIV, wp:AGF, wp:CONSENSUS, and likely a couple of other behavioral policies. In other words, you can argue about the worth of a published source until the cows come home and I won't find fault with it, but the moment you start aruing about the worth of a fellow editor, you've stepped way over the line that separates editors from trolls. --Ludwigs2 07:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom has made rulings on fringe advocacy: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion#Pcarbonn. One of the stated reasons for accepting this case was to examine problems associated with single purpose accounts. Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci - in that page you linked to, Pcarbonn admitted to a violation of conflict of interest. In short, he was expressly editing to try to improve the reputation of a particular journal. The fact that the journal in question has a reputation for being fringe is irrelevant: he would he been just as guilty if he had been trying to promote the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Conflict of interest is a valid problem; what you pursue isn't.

Look, I understand the strategy here, I just disapprove, deeply. So, let me once more spell out the political gamesmanship you engage in so we all see it.

Wikipedia has (generally speaking) two kinds of policy:

• Behavioral policy, which controls and sanctions bad behavior by editors, but as a matter of principle and tradition is applied fairly leniently.
  • once established, an editor is afforded a degree of latitude under AGF for bad behavior - you yourself are an stellar example of this, as both you and other editors have argued extensively that your bad behavior might be excused due to your tenure on the project.
• Content policy, which balances or removes sourced material based on its encyclopedic qualities (or lack thereof), and is applied stringently to maintain the quality of the project.
  • material that is unencyclopedic, or traceable to unencyclopedic sources, can be and often is removed peremptorily, without a lot of discussion.

Granting that there are often cases where both policies come into play, what you (and Arthur, and others) habitually do is try to apply content policy to editors, because (obviously...) content policy allows for much stronger remedies than behavioral policy. In essence, you consistently try to remove editors the same way you would remove badly sourced material, and consistently deny that there's a distinction to be made. You handle disputes over content by trying to send the editors who oppose you to wikipedia's administrative equivalent of a Siberian transit camp - it's Kafka-esque.

You leave me in a hard place here, Mathsci. I want to AGF that you have the intelligence to recognize that editors like BPesta and Occam and even Pcarbonn are not published sources and should not have their credibility attacked the way you might legitimately attack the credibility of a source under content policy. I also want to AGF that you wouldn't intentionally resort to this kind of filthy, disgusting politics just to get your way on wikipedia. But there aren't any other options that I can think of. So I'll leave the decision up to you: would you prefer that I assume you are too intellectually 'limited' to understand the distinction between an editor and a published source, or would you prefer that I assume you are intelligently but viciously Machiavellian? Or is there a third way of explaining the situation: one that doesn't deny the obvious fact that you consistently try to apply content policy to editors? --Ludwigs2 14:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Political Maneuvering by Mathsci

2) Mathsci uses purely political tactics - smear campaigns based on misrepresentations and outright lies - to achieve his ends

Please read the section I've added in the evidence page, and then read the sub-page Mathsci offered into evidence. That subpage is effectively an attack page: It is presented as evidence but has little or no grounding in reason or fact, and is constructed with so many misrepresentations and fabrications that it can only be intended as a smear tactic. Note also that this type of tactic forces opponents to adopt the same wall-of-text style - There is no defending oneself against these kinds of fabrications without extensive argument. This behavior is poisonous to the wikipedia editing environment. --Ludwigs2 16:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)--Ludwigs2 16:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nonsense. Evidence subpages are explicitly allowed to have what would otherwise be personal attacks, provided that they support the "attacks" with diffs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

except that Mathsci's "evidence" is not supported by diffs - what diffs he uses (at least in my case) are largely unrelated to the claims he makes. I agree that editors are allowed to use more pointed language in arbitration than they are in normal editing (though if anything, Mathsci has toned down his language since entering into arbitration), but arbitration is not open season to indulge in whatever crapulence strikes one's fancy. so nonsense right back atcha. --Ludwigs2 01:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC).

If only that were so. But where I label Ludwigs2's edits as personal attacks, that generally is the case. Ludwigs2 has already been blocked once for that, when he suggested I should get psychiatric help for paranoia. On ANI he called me "an inveterate troll who uses intimidation, harassment, political gamesmanship, and other emotional tactics to try to dictate wikipedia content. He is simply not worth the trouble he causes. It's truculent ciphers like Mathsci that make editing wikipedia an excruciating experience." Is this the behaviour of a responsible wikipedian? He also suggested that I am one of the main editors that has stopped him editing fringe science, where he apparently is one of wikipedia's most expert editors.[42] He wrote, "I swear, if I could get a short list of people (including yourself) topic-banned from fringe articles for 6 months, I could vastly improve a whole ream of articles quickly and efficiently, without any of this stupid drama." This is hyperbolic misrepresentation: I don't edit fringe articles or any articles in Ludwigs2's sphere. This is reminiscent of non bacon-related comments of ChildofMidnight. BTW, as Ludwigs2 has set himself up as my psychoanalyst/psychotherapist on wikipedia, I should comment that my content editing will remain constant in bytes but be a little less often as I am now busy off-wiki preparing lilypond files of Bach's catechism preludes BWV 684, 685, 686, 688 and 689 (not so far on the web) in order to produce PD midi files for Clavier-Übung III. Perhaps I risk a further dose of psychoanalysis for making this statement ... oh, dear. Mathsci (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment Here's more of Mathsic's "evidence", note second paragraph of pure muck-raking. Mathsci omits in his statement (and 1RR report and diff for documenting his attempt to communicate with me) that it was he that did not respond to my posting on article talk. I especially enjoyed his self-gratifying lording of his number of contributions in 2010 over mine, reflink included. Sorry, I was busy watching my mother die. Really, the more blatant tearing down of editors (with "evidence" having nothing to do with R&I) is presented (along lines which I perceive as Mathsci's definition of he who does not stand with him stands against him) as "preparing evidence" the lower these proceedings are going to sink. At the moment, the pit continues to be bottomless. Nothing like being attacked and abused to make one think that perhaps collaborating with informed editors on a topic of life long interest is not worth being treated with utter contempt. Fortunately, I have encountered rays of hope, hopefully they won't be sucked into the black hole before these proceedings are over. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I think I'll stick to my work rule #1, deal with people who are nice*. There appear to be enough of those who are more interested in the subject than their editorial POV regarding the subject. Hopefully they won't be dissuaded by the degree to which our purpose here: determining how to depolarize the situation (and eventually R&I article content), has disappeared from the communal discussion agenda. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

* "nice" takes precedence over whether or not I agree with someone PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies (ludwigs2)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Mathsci

1) Remedies with respect to Mathsci:

• Civility restrictions for a period of 6 months, site-wide, with a review at 3 months. This involves the following, for which any uninvolved administrator could give short blocks:
  • No tendentious editing: This precludes extensive arguments that distract from content discussions, as discussions whose only purpose is obstructive.
  • No personal attacks or inflammatory speech: This precludes direct personal attacks, and also precludes indirect attacks such as the use of labeling or categorization of other editors (including labels derived from policy, such as SPA and FRINGE), assertions or speculations about the off-wiki behavior or sympathies of other editors, calls for blocking or banning other editors, or any other behavior which could reasonably be interpreted as derogatory, demeaning, threatening, or otherwise intended to provoke a heated response.
• 1RR for a period of 6 months, on any topic reasonably deemed to be contentious. Let him go back to content editing (which he is good at, and makes him an asset to the community), and keep him away from political battles (which he is also good at, but which makes him a detriment to the community). retracted, per comments below.
• Full restriction from starting or contributing to threads at any administrative page for 1 year, except in cases where his own behavior is under review. Nothing was resolved from the 8 or 9 threads he started, hijacked, or participated in with respect to R&I except a huge increase in stress and bad feelings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose most. Although I don't think he has done much wrong, I am only going to comment on specific points and subpoints.

• Including giving extensive arguments in "tendentious editing" is absurd. Giving irrelevant extensive arguments, perhaps, but "extensive arguments that distract from content discussions" seems too subjective.
• NPA has been extended beyond belief. "Calls for blocking or banning other editors" possibly should be subject to mentoring, but, as he frequently is (civilly) attacked by other editors, he should have the right to reply in the appropriate forum, even if the attack is in an inappropriate forum.
• 1RR seems inapproriate. However, I don't have much objection if the 1RR is applied to all editors when it is invoked on a per-article basis.
• The last restriction is absurd. Nothing was resolved in his (prima facia) justified compaints on ANI, because they were hijacked by other editors.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. the vast majority of comments Mathsci made in ANI, the R&I talk page, and the mediation page were in some form of other efforts to attack other editors. granting that he rarely comes out with anything as direct and extreme as "editor so-and-so is a st%pid f%ck", the sheer volume of personal comments (combined with the numerous and protracted efforts to elicit administrative action against others) is oppressive. I could excuse him an extreme statement in a moment of anger, but this continual barrage of milder attacks is far worse in the long run, and deserves a much stronger punishment than a momentary indiscretion.

and the last restriction is probably the best thing that could be done for wikipedia. Mathsci's love of political drama is well demonstrated in the reams of ANI material he has provoked. none of it is functional or healthy for the encyclopedia. AN and ANI should be reserved for problems that (a) require immediate attention, or (b) have failed other attempts at resolution. they should not be used as a first course of action, or ever as a mere forum in which to berate other editors.

you may be right about the 1RR, though. Mathsci has a tendency towards pithy reverts, but doesn't really rely on them inappropriately. I'll retract that pro tem. --Ludwigs2 20:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)--Ludwigs2 20:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the 1-revert restriction is necessary. Ludwig, I don’t think you’ve been involved in these articles at the same time that he’s been edit warring over them, but you might be able to get an idea of what’s it’s been like from this section of my evidence. Although this wasn’t either of the two examples I mentioned in that section, something else that also needs to be considered is the way he reacted when he was opposed to a five-to-one majority about whether the History of the race and intelligence controversy article violated NPOV. He stonewalled the entire discussion with comments like this one, and when the five editors who disagreed with him eventually got tired of this and decided to change these aspects of the article despite his objections, he reverted us until he couldn’t revert anymore without violating 3RR, and then filed a complaint at AN/I about “tag teaming”. If he’s going to create this much drama by abusing his ability to revert, I think something needs to be done to prevent that from continuing.

In all honesty, my own suggestion would have been a topic ban for him. I’m aware that he sometimes makes useful contributions to these articles, but the most important question here is not whether or not his constructive contributions outweigh the strife he causes. The relevant question is whether his constructive contributions outweigh both the strife he causes and the absence of the three editors whom he’s driven away from these articles. It’s unlikely that even an editor who’s an absolute angel could make more productive contributions than three other editors combined. When one combines the strife caused by Mathsci’s participation with the fact that his participation in these articles comes at the expense of three other editors, I think having him involved in them really does more harm than good. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci may have been involved in a few incidents, but one thing is certain, he is not an SPA. Whatever problems some editors have with Mathsci are likely to remedy themselves with time, because, based on his editing record, Mathsci will not be camped out indefinitely on race and intelligence issues. I cannot say the same for the problems created by SPAs who are camped out indefinitely on race and intelligence issues. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Captain Occam

2) Remedies with respect to Captain Occam:

• Civility restrictions for a period of 1 year, site-wide, with a review every 3 months. This involves the following, for which any uninvolved administrator could give short blocks:
  • No tendentious editing: This precludes extensive arguments that distract from content discussions, as discussions whose only purpose is obstructive.
  • No personal attacks or inflammatory speech: This precludes direct personal attacks, and also precludes indirect attacks such as the use of labeling or categorization of other editors (including labels derived from policy, such as SPA and FRINGE), assertions or speculations about the off-wiki behavior or sympathies of other editors, calls for blocking or banning other editors, or any other behavior which could reasonably be interpreted as derogatory, demeaning, threatening, or otherwise intended to provoke a heated response.
• Mandated mentorship: Occam should find an experienced mentor willing to guide him away from otherwise tendentious editing styles; preferably one who can model good behavior (since I happen to believe that Occam has been modeling his actions on the behavior of Mathsci, which is unfortunate)
• 50/50 editing split, for a one year period - at least half of Occam's editing (by edit count) should be on topics completely unrelated to the Race and Intelligence controversy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I tend to find Captain Occam's aggressive, impatient editing patterns unhelpful, but incivility is not one of his problems, so the civility restrictions will have no effect. Many editors have described his pattern of editing as WP:CPUSH.

Identifying tendentious editing is not so straightforward. One administrator may consider a series of edits "tendentious" while another will consider them to be WP:BRD. It is very likely that aggressive editors will exploit this ambiguity to the full. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Complex solutions such as mentoring or 50/50 editing split are difficult to monitor and enforce.

Wapondaponda (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, though I do think as guidelines these might help point him in the right direction. really, I think he just needs to learn when it's time to give it up for a while, go do something else, and come back when things (internally and externally) are calmer. Of course, I think most of us could use that reminder at times as well... --Ludwigs2 02:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your mentorship idea is a good one, as long as it’s with someone where they and I have mutual respect for one another. This is actually something I wanted even before you suggested it. The reason it hasn’t been happening is because I’m pretty selective about who I think I would benefit from as a mentor, and all of the editors who I’ve regarded as potential mentors have tended to not stick around for very long.

Going with the most obvious example, I regarded user:Varoon Arya as something like a mentor for around six months, but in April he quit participating in all of the articles where I’d benefit from his guidance because he couldn’t tolerate Mathsci’s behavior. If ArbCom can get Mathsci’s behavior under control, though, and VA resumes participating here as a result, I’d approve of having him as a mentor whether ArbCom mandates this or not. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

just as an aside, if he's willing Arya be an excellent mentor. You might pester/beg him for some informal advice on various issues regardless of the outcome of this arbitration. that's a good role model (far better than me even, though it pains me to say it ). --Ludwigs2

Captain Occam's statement above is emblematic of the problems dogging the article. Varoon Arya is part of a group of editors I have colloquially referred to as "Captain Occam and Co." These editors have been described as "civil POV pushing SPAs". When Ludwigs discussed a mentor, I don't think he had in mind a fellow member of Captain Occam and Co., rather he was probably referring to an experienced, respected and uncontroversial editor. Varoon Arya has practically already been Occam's mentor since this controversy began last year, and what good has come out of that. I gather the role of a mentor is to advise on productive editing patterns, to be more like a mainstream wikipedian, whatever that is. But Captain Occam appears to be more comfortable with a mentor who shares his own controversial views on race. That is quite disappointing. I do not support mentorship as an official arbitration decision per my comments above. However if Occam feels that mentorship can improve his wiki-experience, then that avenue can be pursued unofficially. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

“When Ludwigs discussed a mentor, I don't think he had in mind a fellow member of Captain Occam and Co”

You do realize that the unsigned comment above is from Ludwigs2, right? Ludwigs2 apparently think VA would be “an excellent mentor” for me. What you’re saying about his opinion goes against what he’s said himself. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I was wondering who made that comment, I didn't see his signature. So then I would like to advise Ludwigs as well, that the ideal mentor would be someone who is uninvolved, experienced, respected and uncontroversial. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Wapondaponda: I don't entirely share your opinion of Aryaman, and I object (as a standing rule) to any effort to group editors into cabals, sides, or other organized groups. there are always going to be editors who have disagreements and get into fights - that's an inevitable part of being human - but when you start organizing editors into opposing camps is stops being a fight and starts being a war, and war screws things up royally. I mean, consider: if you lump all these editors together, they are likely to lump you in as one of 'Mathsci's Minions', and then they are going to accuse you of all of Mathsci's bad behavior because they will cast you as part of his cliche. is that how you want this situation to progress? that's almost inevitable - read the article on fundamental attribution error and you'll see the effect I'm talking about. let's not continue that any more than we have to. --Ludwigs2 16:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I consider this a case of moral relativism. When you read Captain Occam and Varoon Arya's somewhat "racialist" exchanges, one can sense that the editors are very sincere about there beliefs. If aliens with no knowledge of earth's culture were to read them, they might believe that a racialist view was moral paradigm of the day. Captain Occam always speaks highly of Varoon. I have also known for a while that you hold similar views because in this exchange, you state about Varoon, "I've never seen you come anywhere near pushing a POV". Not exactly an ideal statement for a "neutral" mediator to make, because it appears that you were taking sides, something that happened all too frequently during the mediation. I digress, anyway Varoon noted something interesting in his opening statement when he stated

I think a great many conflicts within the project could be avoided if Wikipedia were to make it clear to its contributing editors as well as to its readers that WP:NPOV really means "the POV taken by most modern western (e.g. secular, liberal, humanistic, etc.) academics".

It seems that Aryaman doesn't agree with certain aspects of a liberal, humanistic NPOV. He is correct to state that it is the mainstream npov and there is a reason why. We live in a global world were there is a lot of exchange of ideas, business transactions, and movement of people between continents. A humanistic perspective is what helps bring stability in a global setting. How would one expect to do business with a people from another continent, or go for a holiday in a foreign land if one is outwardly nationalistic, racialist or racist. Similarly Wiki editors come from various ethnic groups, so if one posts some ethnically insensitive material on the user page, they are setting themselves up for friction.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as long as editors are contributing positively, anybody is welcome. However this invariably means that some editors with extreme views will also be editing. Wikipedia is very tolerant and extremely accommodating to editors with different views, which is something I accept as important for the success of the encyclopedia.

In short Aryaman has made some controversial edits on Wikipedia and is currently involved in this dispute. This does not make him an ideal mentor for general purpose editing. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your objection, and have no problem with the selection of a different mentor (assuming anyone is interested in what you and I think).

However, I'll point out, again, for the record (because I'm starting to get annoyed by all the ignorant posturing that's going on about this), that neither you nor the majority of editors in this problem have the slightest idea what my beliefs about the issue are. as a mediator I was constrained to approach the topic with a blind, neutral detachment, which is what I did. As an editor I find technoFaye's perspective deeply offensive, and the Occam's and Mikemikev's opinions scientifically unsound (though I reognize the scientific core of their positions). On the other hand, I find Mathsci's behavior appalling, and am none too pleased with the behavior of the other editors with whom I tend to agree. Sticky wicket for me: some of the people I agree with are (for some reason) far bigger assholes than most of the people I disagree with.

I expect you, and others, (and any intelligent, reasoning individual) to be capable of distinguishing between information and action; between article content and editorial behavior. we all like to think that the editors who are good with content are also the editors who demonstrate the best behavior on-project, and that may even be true in some statistical sense, but there are many obvious cases where an ignorant editor is pleasant to work with, while a knowledgeable editor is a complete jerk. We have to treat the two dimensions separately - deal with ignorance regardless of how pleasant the editor is, and deal with jerk-ness no matter how knowledgeable the editor - otherwise knowledgeable jerks will encourage ignorant editors to be jerks all over the project, and life on wikipedia will get continually shittier. Mathsci on this article has been a grade-A jerk, despite his evident skills (TechnoFaye periodically achieved grade-A jerk status as well, though I sympathize with her personal issues and am willing to cut her some slack). Occam and Mike never really got past grade-B jerk level, while you, aryaman, AProck, and slrubenstein topped out at grade-C in your worst moments (and that I think was mostly a response to frustration). Compare that with people like Ramdrake and MastCell, who always seem to be calm, reasonable, and on-point (even though I sometimes disagree with them, I would hesitate to criticize them). if you must know, I am always just as much of a jerk as I need to be, and hopefully no more. it's usually play-acting for me - I hate politics with a passion, but I am damned good at them.

Also, NPOV is not the 'western' POV, except by default. I expect as wikipedia matures it will become more global in nature, but right now there is a huge selection bias in wikipedia editors towards those who have the western educations and sufficient free time to engage in these kinds of picky, paltry debates. --Ludwigs2 06:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose part; my comments above in regard the extension of NPA in regard Mathsci apply also to Captain Occam, even though I don't think the captain's request to block Mathsci was actually justified, he gave reasons which should have been given consideration.

Agree with mandatory mentorship, and with an editing restriction to only looking for a mentor if the mentor withdraws. The latter being enforcable by blocks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not That Mentor I'm not sure that mentorship is an appropriate remedy at all here, but I am certain that the mentor named above would not be helpful for Captain Occam's behavior issues, having read the user talk pages and the article edits of both. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why not? As Ludwigs2 described above, it’s important to distinguish between content and behavior. And since ArbCom doesn’t rule on content, if they suggest (or require) me to find a mentor, the purpose of that will be only to help me learn how to contribute in a way that other editors are less likely to view as antagonistic, not to change my perspective about what content does or doesn’t belong in the article.

I consider Varoon Arya to be especially useful as a potential role model because while his perspective regarding content is similar to mine, nobody has ever made any accusations of policy violations against him that weren’t obviously completely frivolous. (Such as Muntuwandi’s claims that even if there’s nothing wrong with VA’s contributions, his having a point of view about this topic at all disqualifies him from editing articles about it.) In other words, he’s pretty close to what I’m hoping to eventually be like myself, once I become experienced enough as an editor that I know how to avoid being viewed as combative. It’s much easier to learn from someone like this than it is from someone whose experience isn’t so directly applicable to my own situation.

All of these suggestions that Varoon Arya wouldn’t be appropriate as a mentor seem to be based on the assumption that the purpose of the mentorship would be to change my perspective about content, which I’m quite sure would not be the purpose of this remedy if ArbCom enacts it. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

3) Remedies with respect to Arthur Rubin:

• review of Arthur Rubin's editing history to make certain that he has not:
  • Used his sysop rights to engage in advocacy on fringe or pseudoscience articles.
  • Used the type of misunderstanding and misapplication of policy (with respect to wp:FRINGE, wp:COI, wp:NPOV and other policies) to engage in advocacy on fringe or pseudoscience articles.

Withdrawn - no pressing need to get into this issue here. --Ludwigs2 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have more to say on this issue, but it is not specific to Arthur (whom I am probably just misunderstanding) and better placed as a request for an amendment on the previous pseudoscience ruling. I will make that request, and link from here when I have.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• I don't think I used sysop rights (other than possibly rollback) in this dispute.
• See my comment to proposed finding of fact 1 above. Someone has misinterpreted the policies, and a policy clarification would be helpful.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It also is not a "remedy", per se, but a request for followup. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

that is true - have I misplaced the request? --Ludwigs2 06:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't recall a previous arbcom case where followup vigilance was requested. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

well, it will probably amount to nothing, and (in appropriate self-reflection) was probably a pissy request on my part anyway. probably I will sleep on it and retract the request. I may not get along with you 100%, Arthur, but I can't honestly or seriously conceive of you as some kind of wikipedia problem. let it slide for now, and I will reconsider the issue int he morning. --Ludwigs2 07:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Consensus and Civility

4) General remedies with respect to Consensus and Civility:

• An en claire statement from the Arbitration committee that the use of consistent incivility and administrative gamesmanship as a primary means of settling content disputes is not to be tolerated. This should be accompanied by guidelines for stronger enforcement of policies and practices involving consensus and civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Interesting Other users (both involved and uninvolved in the arbitration) have proposed civility as a key principle for this case. This is an interesting proposal on how civility could be underscored in an ArbCom remedy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Captain Occam

Proposed principles

Restoring of reverted material without discussion

1) After a bold edit has been reverted, it is disruptive to continuing reinstating it without engaging in discussion and seeking consensus.

This is in reference to the problem I mentioned here. If there were a specific rule against doing this, which were enforceable by blocks, I think a large part of the instability of these articles could be avoided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What constitutes outing

1) The rule against WP:OUTING applies to any personal information about a user that they have not stated on-wiki or at a page they have linked to, even if this information can be researched or synthesized on the basis of things they’ve disclosed.

Descriptions of this problem are on the evidence page are here and in the my last few paragraphs of this section, and there’s a further example of the problem itself here. Mathsci, Hipocrite, and (to a lesser extent) Aprock all seem to be of the opinion that when a person has linked to an external page or stated that it belongs to them, this not only grants other users permission to bring up any personal information available on that page, but also any personal information which can be obtained by following links from that page or combining information on it with information found on other pages. In David.Kane’s case, what this has meant is that since he stated at one point in the past that he writes for EphBlog, Mathsci and Hipocrite feel that they have permission to link to or quote any posts from this blog that David.Kane has never linked to or referred to on-Wiki, as well as any news articles which discuss David.Kane in the contenxt of this blog, even if these pages contain personal information about David.Kane that he’s never disclosed or linked to. I don’t think it’s reasonable for the policy regarding outing to have this apparent loophole. With enough research, it’s probably possible to obtain David.Kane’s or my address or phone number by following links and synthesizing information from the external pages that he and I have linked to or associated ourselves with. If any information which can be obtained in this manner is to be regarded as fair game to be brought up on-Wiki, the rule against outing offers essentially no protection to anyone who’s ever linked to an off-wiki personal account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment: WP:OUTING states Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia (bold text mine). --RegentsPark (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal points of view

1) For an editor to have a personal point of view about a topic is not in itself a conflict of interest, and does not in itself discredit their contributions. The only criterion by which an editor’s contributions should be judged is whether these contributions are consistent with NPOV and other polices.

This is in reference to the problem I mentioned here, in which topic bans have been sought for editors simply on the basis of the fact that they have points of view about this topic, regardless of whether or not there was anything wrong with their contributions: [43] [44]: “So you admit that Aryaman has a POV but that his actual contributions comply with NPOV.” This issue has also come up several times in this arbitration case, where editors who disagree with me and David.Kane have argued that our having personal points of view means that we should not edit these articles, and tried to prove what our personal viewpoints are on the basis of things we’ve written off-wiki, such as in this diff. In the discussion about whether my block from 2over0 was justified, this went as far as claiming that most of the votes in favor of removing the block didn’t count because they were from people who appeared to share my point of view about these topics. (Beyond My Ken and Muntuwandi both claimed this.) I think existing policies such as WP:NPA already made it clear that these type of ad hominem arguments don’t belong at Wikipedia—we’re supposed to comment on the content, not the contributor—but this problem arises so often that I still think ArbCom ought to provide a specific ruling about it.

According to the list of principles from past arbitration cases, ArbCom has already offered a ruling similar to this in the past: "A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree that in general, an editor's personal viewpoints should not be relevant to Wikipedia. I also agree that in general, editors should be treated as individuals and not part of a group. Lastly I also agree that in general, what happens off-wiki should stay off-wiki. But these are not hard and fast rules. In my opinion any information that assists in making better decisions can be used on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether it is something intangible, like a POV, or whether it is a wikipedian's off-wiki friends, or the off-wiki writings of a wikipedian. If you look at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, at least three incidents involved off-wiki behavior, including one that involved controversial remarks on an off-wiki blog. This is just an example of the fact that what happens off-wiki is sometimes considered. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference between the blog post linked in that request for de-adminship, and the posts from me and David.Kane that you and Mathsci keep bringing up, is that the former is specifically an attack against other Wikipedia users. Off-wiki attacks against other users are explicitly covered by WP:NPA. On the other hand, there’s no policy by which it should matter if you can find evidence from my and David.Kane’s off-wiki writings that we have a viewpoint about this topic, and attempting to discredit our contributions on that basis alone seems very contrary to the spirit of NPA. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is not exactly the same, probably no two incidents are ever exactly the same. AFAIK, there is no policy that directly deals with your situation. As for the image you placed in the race and genetics article, I did not dispute it solely based on what you said on your blog, though I found your comments quite revealing, but also on the fact that you placed an image in a section that you had not read, or just barely read, or did not appear to understand. This was perfectly consistent with your admission that you hadn't read Cavalli-Sforza's book, yet were making edits to sections that included information from Cavalli-Sforza's book. Except for the image, you had just about zero interest in the race and genetics article as I have not noted you to make any significant edits to the article. Any independent editor who would review that situation, would probably come to a similar conclusion. I took it that what you had written off-wiki was perfectly consistent with your on-wiki behavior. Likewise, David Kane, has tried to be super polite, but there has been an element of advocacy in his edits and I have previously complained about this. All this before anyone knew about his blogs. It turns out that his blogs simply corroborate or even confirm that Mr. Kane is advocating a POV on Wikipedia.

As I have mentioned before, it is your own responsibility to manage your private life when contributing online. You were actively advertising your blog on Wikipedia in the hope that editors would read it. Now you get upset if editors find out who your girlfriend is, know your views about race or know your views about the holocaust. I find it ridiculous that you want to blame other editors for a problem of your own making. I have no interest in the Soap Opera of your private life, but because you keep bringing it to Wikipedia, it becomes relevant. Your supposed girlfriend voted for you in a poll, and then you expect the community to completely ignore the obvious COI. I think that is just plain silly and a tad bit immature. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you’re going to bring up your behavior with regard to this image in the race and genetics article (my own comment was referring only to your more recent personal comments about me), I think it’s important to make sure everyone is aware of how this actually went. This was discussed here. You removed the image at least five times, violating the 1-revert restriction of your probation in the process, and the justification you gave for this changed every time you removed it. Each time that I modified the image in order to address your objections to it, or it was determined in some other way that there was no substance to one of your objections, you simply dropped that objection and came up with a different policy to cite as a basis for removing the image. You admitted in several places that the real reason why you wanted to remove it not because you thought there was anything wrong with it in terms of content, but because you did not approve of what you perceived as my motives for adding it to the article, which you’d concluded based on things I’d written outside Wikipedia. The diffs demonstrating this are included in the AN/I thread I linked to.

You say that any independent editor who was involved in this discussion would have come to the same conclusion that you did, but both of the two uninvolved editors who commented in the AN/I thread about this (Georgewilliamherbert and Off2riorob) were critical of your behavior, and the admin FT2 also pointed out to you here that it’s inappropriate for you to try and discredit my contributions on the basis of viewpoints I’ve expressed outside Wikipedia. Yet even after multiple uninvolved administrators have explained to you what’s wrong with this behavior, you’re continuing to not only engage in it, but also to claim that any uninvolved editor would think it’s reasonable. This is one of the worst examples of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I’ve ever encountered.

Your comment contains a bunch of other falsehoods also, but the rest of them I’ve already pointed out in response to both you and other editors elsewhere in this arbitration case, so there’s no need to run through all of them again. However, I would like arbitrators to please take note of this: Muntuwandi has been told by at least two administrators about what’s wrong with this behavior, has received editing sanctions for it (in the AN/I thread), and yet is not only still engaging in it but is also claiming that there was never anything wrong with it at all. His personal attacks aren’t as in-your-face as Mathsci’s are, but his refusal to get the point about this over a period of more than six months is disruptive in an entirely different way. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As usual, misrepresenting what others have said. You mentioned about this [[ANI thread,

both of the two uninvolved editors who commented in the AN/I thread about this (Georgewilliamherbert and Off2riorob) were critical of your behavior

This is a misreprentation, this is what GWH stated,

You are both misbehaving in a very public manner and place. The fate of editors who do that is usually short and unfortunate. Would you both please accept the Trout of Shame and knock it off, before I or another admin takes sterner action?

IOW the administrators didn't want to get involved in a content dispute, and he later decided to slap a 1 month 0RR on the both of us. This of course doesn't mean that we were equally being problematic, I guess he was just trying to appear impartial. So you are giving the wrong impression that he was only critical of my behavior when in fact he was critical of yours as well. Selective memory?

The last comment in the thread states

I'm not sure if this is the perfect solution because Captain Occam and Varoon Arya work in tandem while Muntuwandi seems to be working alone and will likely suffer more with a 0RR restriction but, short of delving into content, I can't see anything better. Muntuwandi, if you remain unsatisfied with the compromise being worked out on the talk page you can always consider an RFC to attract wider input. Meanwhile, I guess this thread can be closed

More evidence of "working in concert".

As for FT2's comments, they are not directed specifically at me, since I did not initiate the discussion about holocaust denial, but were general comments about the off-wiki writings of wikipedians. In fact FT2 does state

In some cases external evidence is useful, but usually it's not needed, the editing speaks for itself

I really don't disagree with FT2's statement, I think it is consistent with what I have written above as well. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I’m aware that both of us received a zero-revert restriction on the article because of this. The difference here is that the behavior I was engaging that resulted in these sanctions (posting lengthy AN/I complaints about other users) is something I largely stopped after this, whereas the behavior that resulted in your own sanctions (trying to discredit other editors’ contributions on the basis of their personal opinions) is something you’ve continued engaging in for the past six months. One of the principles from a past arbitration case states, “Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.” By not only continuing to engage in this behavior, but also continuing to claim that there’s nothing wrong with it, you’re violating this principle in a very obvious way.

Since you’ve selectively quoted FT2’s comment about this in order to make it appear consistent with your own opinion, I’ll quote the entire relevant portion of it:

“Personal interest or thoughts about the Holocaust and its reporting stay off-site; quotes from old blogs stay off-site. Articles are written by reasonable pople collaborating across all viewpoints; if they are unreasonable and won't collaborate this usually shows up in their edits and no external evidence is needed to prove it. Occam's private views won't much interest the project (much less a personal post some years back), the sole question is whether his edits are neutral and reasonable. Likewise if his edits are not reasonable and fair then those will speak for themselves. In some cases external evidence is useful, but usually it's not needed, the editing speaks for itself.”

And you replied to him, in order to argue with him about this: “Given our human nature, if someone makes statements off-wiki, we cannot be expected to completely disregard or pretend that those statements were not made, especially if a user's edits are completely consistent with their off-wiki statements.”

You say in your above comment that you agree with FT2 about this. That is a bald-faced lie; you’ve only made his comment appear consistent with your own viewpoint by selectively quoting a single sentence from it it. Not only have you refused to follow the suggestion provided by the rest of his comment, but you directly replied to him stating why you think he’s wrong about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To repeat what I have said above

I agree that in general, an editor's personal viewpoints should not be relevant to Wikipedia. I also agree that in general, editors should be treated as individuals and not part of a group. Lastly I also agree that in general, what happens off-wiki should stay off-wiki.

I think this is quite consistent with FT2's point of view and is consistent with what you are advocating in this thread. However we also agree that in some cases external evidence is useful, FT2 believes that it is usually not needed, whereas I think that depending on the evidence in question, it may sometimes have some relevance. In the evidence I submitted to the case, almost all the links provided are on-wiki diffs, so I have not depended on off-wiki material and indeed it may not be even be necessary.

According to WP:MEAT

It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate.

While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy

In this particular case, there is some evidence from off-wiki sources that Captain Occam and David.Kane have recruited, or tried to recruit, individuals to help sway the consensus. Whether this off-wiki evidence will be used, will be up to Arbcom. This thread isn't going anywhere, so I'll leave it here. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Another red herring. The vast majority of the off-wiki writings from me and David.Kane that have been brought up by you, Mathsci and Hipocrite have been brought up for no reason other than to try and demonstrate that we hold certain views, and to try and discredit our contributions based on that. This has included using our off-wiki writings to try and prove that I’m a holocaust denier, that David.Kane wants Williams College to make information about their racial achievement gap available to students, and that both of us think of race as a biological attribute. None of this information has anything to do with trying to recruit meatpuppets; the only reason it’s being brought up is in order to use it for ad hominem attacks.

This is a really strange process you have of rationalizing your behavior. I know you’re aware that you’re refusing to listen the advice of administrators about this, even after you’ve received sanctions for it, and you’ve even stated above that you don’t agree with FT2’s instructions about it. So what’s the purpose of continuing to make excuses about this such as claiming that this information is necessary as evidence in this arbitration case, when these excuses are so completely transparent?

If you want this discussion to be over, you don’t have to answer that. However, I would also like arbitrators to be aware of how this tendency is affecting other users (who haven’t had this done to them, at least not yet.) In this discussion, Ludwigs2 was somewhat interested in corresponding via e-mail with Mathsci, but didn’t want to use Wikipedia’s e-mail feature precisely because of how common this problem has become: “Yeah - the problem with that is that you have a history of exposing people's personal information on-project and using it to attack their credibility. Again, I can point to cases involving David.Kane, Captain Occam, BPesta22, DistributiveJustice, Ferahgo the Assassin, and maybe one or two others I've forgotten about, just from this arbitration. Plus, there is at least one case (noted above at link 67 on your User:Mathsci/subpage7#Recent_request) that shows you doing that to editors as far back as 2006. I will leave it up to others to decide what to make of that, but I have absolutely no intention of giving you any personal information, because you seem to take any personal overtures as justification for full-scale outing.”

Arbitrators, I would like you to please consider whether this is a reasonable way for Wikipedia to function. Is it appropriate to allow this problem to become so common that it makes people afraid to use Wikipedia’s e-mail feature? --Captain Occam (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

I think I’ve pretty much covered this in the evidence I’ve presented. I regard Mathsci as the most disruptive user involved in these articles, although as I mentioned there, I don’t think he’s the only disruptive user involved in them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Absolutely Disagree as to Mathsci I will agree with the statement regarding any one user involved in the articles that "I don’t think he’s the only disruptive user involved in them." There has been plenty of disruption by many users on these articles. But particularly as to Mathsci, his edits have been well-sourced, more neutral in point of view than most of the edits proposed during the same period (to some extent this is "damning with faint praise"), and well written on the whole. Under a different proposal on this workshop page, I have agreed that Mathsci should learn from some other editors how to be faultlessly civil. But his edits are generally useful even when he is exasperated by other editor conduct. The way in which Mathsci particularly helps the Wikipedia project is by finding many very reliable sources on contentious issues. As posed, the proposed finding of fact should be rejected by ArbCom. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Although I may change my mind about this, at the moment my attitude is that I’m willing to leave it up to the arbitrators to decide what specific remedies are appropriate here. (Although I think my comment here regarding Mathsci should at least be considered.) The one specific request I have is that the outcome of this case also address the uncivil behavior that’s been discussed from Hipocrite, Muntuwandi and Slrubenstein. I don’t have a specific remedy in mind in their case either—some sort of civility restriction might be worthwhile if arbitrators think they’ve been uncivil enough to warrant that; otherwise a warning/admonishment to avoid making disparaging comments about other editors might be enough.

Now that the proposed decision has been posted, I've decided there is one proposed remedy I'd like to include here.

Discretionary sanctions

1) Editors engaged in long-term tendentious editing or severe incivility on race-related articles may be topic-banned from articles and talk pages related to race, broadly interpreted, by a group of administrators who are to be appointed by ArbCom. The administrators in this group are to be chosen carefully based on responsibility, neutrality, and sufficient familiarity with the subject matter to accurately judge what is and is not consistent with NPOV.

As pointed out in the discussion here (and also here), several editors involved in these articles are concerned that if the authority to implement discretionary sanctions is given to any uninvolved administrator, this may result in an escalation of the dispute as administrators who are uninvolved but have strong content opinions allow these opinions to influence their decisions; or as uninvolved administrators who are well-meaning but uninformed about this topic implement sanctions based on an inaccurate understanding of what is and isn’t consistent with NPOV in articles about it. A way around this problem is for ArbCom to appoint a special group of administrators to handle these sanctions, whom they know to be responsible, knowledgeable and neutral in this dispute. I also think it’s important that this remedy address the issue of incivility, which is at least as much of a problem on these article as anything else, and was the reason why Rvcx originally requested this arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Mathsci

Proposed Principles

Agenda accounts

1) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from the scientology ArbCom case. This proposal and the next one are intended as a possible alternative to MastCell's first proposal. Mathsci (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Everyone's contributions to one topic should be neutral, regardless of which other articles they edit, if any. mikemikev (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment: Agreed with Mikemikev. That someone cares to only edit in specific areas on Wikipedia can also be taken as positive personal dedication to a topic. An editor's sphere of activity has nothing to do with their ability to write objectively. Since the statement, as formulated, describes other parties as having already been determined as being guilty, I must observe that the "SPA" cry is most often used to meat-puppet-ize one's editorial opposition. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Coordination of accounts

2) Creating alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from the scientology ArbCom case.Mathsci (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment The trouble with this principle is that it has already been used by Mathsci and others to dismiss wide opposition (or even consensus) as the actions of an "alliance". The fact that a number of editors agree on certain editorial decisions cannot be taken as evidence of a conspiracy. (Best example: I weighed in at BLPN on the "wrong" side of a dispute, and was quickly labelled a meatpuppet of a group of editors I knew nothing about.) Rvcx (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The other issue with this is that it would impact on Enric Navel, (Personal attack removed) Hypocrite, and several other editors who have explicitly coordinated on this article and in ANI from MathSci's side. If this were interpreted liberally, we would end up with an article in which none of the current participants (except for me, of course, and maybe a couple of others) would be allowed to edit. Which might not be such a bad thing, all things considered... --Ludwigs2 18:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Rcvx's edits Rvcx, a quite inexperienced content editor beyond the articles Larry Sanger, Carly Fiorina and Microsoft Kin, seems to have adopted a questionable point of view on an extremely complex topic with no prior familiarity with the extensive literature on psychometrics and the history of psychology. Nevertheless he imitated the edits of a tag team and then the image blanking of an IP editor, eventually blocked for calling me a "lying scumbag Troll". During the first of three or four reports by David.Kane on WP:BLPN,[45] Rvcx even took it upon himself as a wikipedia editor to read and interpret Jensen's 1969 HER paper directly: but of course wikipedians can't interpret that kind of notoriously controversial article directly. It's a primary source and that's why we use reliable secondary sources. Here is one the things he wrote: "Digging into this more, I'm having a very hard time verifying the text ... I haven't yet read all of Jensen's 80-page piece that is used as a source, but I haven't yet seen anything suggestion that eugenic intervention is "needed"; only his hypothesis that such intervention would have a greater effect on IQ than remedial education (which is a very different contention)." On reading the paper of Donald T. Campbell, former president of the American Psychological Association, he wrote, "I admit that wading through the academic language is tough, but it's crazy to suggest that Jensen's biases are a major component of this critique." There he completely missed the point: Campbell analysed almost all of the 25 points in the WSJ article and David.Kane had objected solely to the lnking of the word "blacks" and "Jensen" in the discussion of point 25, which he claimed was a BLP violation: for example he later approved this diff [46]. I have no idea at all why David.Kane disrupts wikipedia so much whenever he sees a statement connecting Jensen and blacks. Jensen published many statements about "Negroes" and "American Negroes" in the 1960s and 1970s, as reported in multiple secondary sources and his own series of books, which expanded on his 1969 paper.

Rvcx had the secondary sources pointed out to him in that thread, by several users, but he ignored them. Instead he took offense at being told he could not directly analyse Jensen's paper and forum shopped at WP:WQA.[47] On another occasion when the quality of his edits was questioned, he started this ArbCom case. The day before his interactions on WP:BLPN, Rvcx had been warned twice for breaking 3RR in edits to WP:NPOV, the second time by Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [48]. Rvcx blanked his talk page.[49] His interactions with other users, like Alison^❤, seem to be problematic: yesterday he proxy edited for a banned editor and reverted sourced content by Alison on Carly Fiorina: [50][51][52] These are disruptive and tendentious edits. Mathsci (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• I'm not sure how one decides whether an "alliance" is in place, as opposed to a confluence of independently interested editors - it seems open to interpretation. On the other hand, I think a collection of single-purpose agenda accounts working in concert is unlikely to lead to the development of high-quality, neutral, encyclopedic content. MastCell ^Talk 17:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• I'd be interested in knowing what evidence Ludwigs2 has of "coordination", either "explicit" or implicit, involving myself, since I have never had any discussions with any of the editors he lists, on race & intelligence or any other subject, either on-wiki or off-wiki, except those that might occur in the course of commenting at AN/I. What one gets there are my own personal opinions neither coordinated nor synchronized nor suggested nor controlled nor agreed upon in advance with any editor, provoked only by the behavior I see from the group L2 is a part of. As it happens, at times those opinions are shared by others. Ludwigs2 may be of the belief that this equals "coordination", but he is quite mistaken. There is nothing, and can be nothing, like the corpus of behavioral evidence which supports the contention that block behavior in endemic among the heredetarians, nor would MathSci's proposal effect anything I've done, since it concerns substantive editing, and I've never, to my knowledge, edited any "race & intelligence" article, ever, which is why I am not a party to this arbitration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken: I have more evidence for asserting that you coordinate with Mathsci than you and Mathsci have for asserting that I am part of some 'group'. My evidence would be that be that you (like Hypocrite and Enric) apparently support Mathsci (and each other) against all opponents, habitually and uncritically (I see no case in which you have ever disagreed with Mathsci, or allowed that some behavior of his was uncivil or unnecessary). the fact that you guys don't seem to coordinate on-wiki would only mean that you are experienced editors who know better than to leave a wiki trail that will get you in trouble. However, even though my evidence is better than yours (psychometrically speaking), it's still pretty thin, and so I wouldn't make the accusation against you. why is it that all of you (individually or as a group) feel entitled to make those claims about others? --Ludwigs2 14:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• I hate to point it out to you, but I'm not at all surprised that you don't realize it yourself: by saying that there was "explicit" coordination between us, your were, in point of fact, making that very accusation. In other news, I am totally blown away by your sophisticated "nah-nah-nah my evidence is better than yours" argument. It reminds me of exactly why I imposed a ban on myself about interacting with you, one that I have admittedly violated twice now in as many days. So, adieu. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to interact with me, then stop. If you want me to stop interacting with you, then ask. Do you think I enjoy our more pointed exchanges? I'm sure you are a very fine editor in your own way, BMK, but every experience I've had with you has been unpleasant in the extreme, because you seem to like to jump my ass every chance you get. Piece of advice: stop feeding me crap, and you won't get crap back.

and if you'd like me to redact the 'explicit', I'm happy to - I meant it as a reductio argument, not a statement of truth. --Ludwigs2 20:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to make untrue allegations concerning me, you will continue to hear from me; if not, you won't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

terms accepted, considered as mutual. In deference to that, I will remove your name from the above comment. --Ludwigs2 23:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Point Of View

3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from the cold fusion ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are we wasting our time with this? No editor involved with this dispute disagrees with neutral point of view. We are all also in favor of motherhood and apple pie. Shall I make that a formal proposal as well? (If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would worry that this is a straw proposal that MathSci includes so that, later, he can claim that Arb Com "decided" that the hereditarian hypothesis should be restricted to just a sentence or two in Race and Intelligence based on its "prevalence." But I am not a conspiracy theorist today . . . ) David.Kane (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment I don't think it's a waste of time, indeed it seems to be one of the problems being discussed in this ArbCom case. Various editors editing Race (classification of human beings), including you, Mikemikev and Captain Occam, seem to share the view that race is a biological attribute. Off-wiki you wrote this.[53] All of you also seem to favour the hereditarian viewpoint. Either that has been expressed explicitly (Mikemikev) or it is apparent from the sections that you have individually penned (David.Kane and Captain Occam). The phraseology in the current R&I that "race and intelligence" researchers split into hereditarians and environmentalists clearly breaks WP:NPOV as well as various other core wikipedia editing policies. So while you may declare that you do not not disagree with WP:NPOV, you have nevertheless not followed it. Mathsci (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why speculate as to a persons personal POV? Everybody has a POV. This doesn't mean one is trying to skew the article towards it. Slrubenstein clearly favors the environmentalist hypothesis, and has demonstrated that he wants the article to reflect this. [54] [55] Slrubenstein's constant referral to the hereditarian hypothesis as "fringe" is about as factional as it gets, and I believe that any apparent factionalism by those who are opposed to this idea is simply a counter-reaction effect. It's telling that Mathsci doesn't include Slrubenstein in his criticism, and suggests some kind of extreme favoritism or POV bias, rather than neutral objectivity.

It's highly frustrating that the people Mathsci is criticising for "splitting race and intelligence research into hereditarians and environmentalists" are actually those who tried to break away from this mentality. This was the main reason a data-centric approach was considered appropriate during mediation, as opposed to accounting for conclusions, as DJ states:

"re: how much is enough? Enough to cover the data and arguments relevant to the hereditarian view just as we cover the variety of non-herediarian views. This can be accomplished by taking a data/argument-centric view rather than a conclusion-centric view. It likewise should be mentioned as one of many views where summaries are presented, such as the lede. This approach requires that we establish which particular data/arguments to include rather than whether to include hereditarian opinions or not." [56]

It's also inevitable that the article will reflect the culture-only vs. genetic hypotheses to at least some degree, as this is the situation in academia at the moment. mikemikev (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment David.Kane [57] here boasts about improving the Race and intelligence article while implicitly supporting the rights of individuals to suggest that "blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites." This again suggests an agenda that conflicts with the core aims of this encyclopedia. It also suggests that the ambiguous way in which the article was initially written by him was not accidental: instead of giving an unequivaocal statement of the mainstream scientific point of view, it left it up to readers to make up their own minds between the mainstream point of view (no cause has as yet been determined for the racial IQ gap) and the minority point of view (the gap is largely due to a genetic difference between races); indeed David.Kane did not present the hereditarian point of view as a minority point of view. That remains true of the section he reinserted against consensus ("Hereditarianism and Environmental influences"). Wikipedia is not an extension of David.Kane's external blogs; it is not a place for him to continue his off-wiki polemics and character assassinations; and it is not a place for him to quibble interminably over semantics as he dismisses reliable secondary source after reliable secondary source with disingenuous claims that selected parts of their content are BLP violations. He does not seem to be here to improve this encyclopedia, but just to promulgate his own personal beliefs, which run entirely counter to WP:NPOV.

Mikemikev is a far more disruptive editor. Today he reverted sourced content[58] fom a reliable secondary source in the Stanford series on education and public policy by Richard Valencia, University of Texas, Austin and Daniel Solorzano, UCLA. His reason: Material false. Edits like this, which are unfortunately typical [59], are disruptive, tendentious edit-warring, pure and simmple. They are typical of the way in which Mikmikev edits, convinced as he is of the fact that race is a biological attribute. He does not need to use reliable secondary sources to edit wikipedia and can revert an edit simply because it conflicts with his personal beliefs. There does not seem to be any place for editors on wikipedia like Mikemikev.

Captain Occam appeared at the talk page of the history article to support the blanking of properly sourced material from a WP:RS. Classic tag team editing. Mathsci (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Request Mathsci does not insert new material under an old signature. [60] mikemikev (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But the material is false. mikemikev (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because David.Kane, Captain Occam and Mikemikev say so? That's not how wikipedia is edited. Mathsci (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this new comment from you, accusing me (again) of recently engaging in “classic tag team editing” on the History of the race and intelligence controversy article. I haven’t edited that article, let alone reverted it, in over three weeks. Please either justify how my participating in its talk page constitutes “tag team editing” or refactor your comment. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The reverts were done by Mikemikev and David.Kane; Captain Occam supported them on the talk page. Since the ArbCom case started, apart from the removal of images by the IP, there has been very little editing. I have added a small amount of content from reliable secondary sources, some of which now remains in the article. When editing is done in concert, blanking (as here) can be done by any one of a number of editors without formally breaking 3RR. Mathsci (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion in question is here. Note that I did not comment on Mikemikev’s and David.Kane’s removal of this content; the only area in which I expressed agreement with them was the unrelated topic of whether the article on Jensen 1969 should be recreated.

So to summarize: I did not edit the article, and I did not express an opinion about others’ edits to the article. So in other words, when one or more editors has made a change, you consider it “Classic tag team editing” for another editor to express agreement with the first editor(s) about something completely unrelated. Is that correct?

If not, then I repeat my request that you refactor your comment about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In my evidence, editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy is described in detail with diffs for various time periods, mainly up to June 12. I wouldn't draw any general conclusions from the latest brief period of blanking, except that those supporting blanking now seem to have claimed a new reason, namely that ArbCom is going to decide on this kind of content, so no edits should be made, or variants of that.[61] [62] I must admit that I haven't examined these edits so carefully. On the talk page of the article, Captain Occam seems to have used the opportunity to agree with David.Kane that the POV-fork should be restored and to decide amongst themselves just how they're going to go about doing this.[63] Even prior to that [64], Captain Occam had been referring to summaries of or commentaries on Jensen's 1969 highly controversial paper in WP:RS as "conentious". There doesn't seem to be any basis for that statement except the opinions of Captain Occam, Mikemikev and David.Kane. Mathsci (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The workshop comments (see expanded comments, diff at right) by uninvolved WeijiBaikeBianji include a perspective on Jensen that is abjectly lacking from the article, is too long for the R&I article, and deserves a dedicated discussion—which does not make it a "POV-fork." Mathsci's reductio ad conflictum where he is right and opposes content and editors based on endless labeling—content is POV, POV-fork; editors are SPAs, sockpuppets, et al.—I believe contributes to the current polarization at the R&I and related articles. Clearly there are editors who are well informed, advocate for a multi-dimensional, not polarized, presentation of the material, but who will not stand for the current "unwelcoming, invidious atmosphere" as represented by Mathsci's above. His assumptions of bad faith and bringing up of unrelated conflicts into the proceedings here (unnecessary, unwelcome, and un-retracted commentary on Abd and myself) has not assisted in my viewing Mathsci's influence as positive. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view and sourcing

4) The requirement of the neutral point of view that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from the cold fusion ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Beyond the general principle of WP:POLE, which can be inevitable for very contentious topics, this principle has been used as an excuse to reject any sources that Mathsci and others do not like. If being one of the "best and most reputable" sources requires agreement with a preconceived point of view, then any hoped of NPOV is lost. On this article we're not talking about choosing between some conspiracy web site and the New York Times; we're talking abut choosing between several popular textbooks, and excluding summaries published by the American Psychological Association in a journal, or by dozens of scientists in the Wall Street Journal. The "best" language is not an excuse to pick one source and exclude everything of comparable reliability that disagrees. Rvcx (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I have no trouble with treating these as primary sources when discussing the fact that they were published (in the same way that an article about a textbook is different than an article about a topic covered by that textbook), but discussing their publication is not a valid strategy for ignoring their content. By that logic we could add the publication of Tucker's textbook to the history article and then declare it a primary source. Once again: neither the type nor the reliability of a source is defined in isolation; a source is defined by how it is used. The sources I list can be used as secondary sources with respect to Race and Intelligence, since they are summaries and analysis of primary sources in the field. Rvcx (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how academic books on the history of psychology are primary sources. That makes no sense at all. Mathsci (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be incorrect. Rvcx is referring to two primary sources. Both of these, particularly the second published statement by the APA, are described, summarised and quoted in WP:RS. It is on that basis that they are mentioned in the history article, in two short sections. The first says: "In 1994 a group of 52 scientists, including Jensen, were cosignatories of an editorial article in the journal Intelligence entitled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". The article, supporting the conclusions of The Bell Curve, had been expanded from a letter drafted by Gottfredson that originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal." Three secondary sources are cited at the end of the paragraph. The second says: "In response to the debate on The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association set up a ten-person taskforce, chaired by Ulrich Neisser, to report on the book and its findings. In its report, published in February 1996, the committee made the following comments on race differences in intelligence:

African American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally-based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.

Four references are supplied for this, including a link to the original text. I can't quite understand what Rvcx is finding fault with here. In the eponymous article, the 25 points are summarised using a secondary source. The commentary by Linda Gottfredson has been added by another editor and a set of commentaries by later commentators, as comprehensive as I could find, had been added prior to that. In particular Rvcx is quite mistaken in his claim that "popular textbooks" are being used: that's just plain wrong. The sources are scholarly texts, published by top academic publishers, for example university presses. I have no idea why he is also trying to contradict a basic wikipedia principle. But, in his comments, Rvcx actually gives the impression that not only has he not consulted any of the secondary sources (none of them could be described as popular textbooks); but also that he is completely unfamiliar with the content of the wikipedia articles he's attempting to analyse.Mathsci (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

They're primary for the History of Race and Intelligence, secondary for Race and Intelligence. mikemikev (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The passages above are from History of the race and intelligence controversy. Unfortunately most of the sources being used for Race and intelligence seem to be primary. That problem cannot be solved by deeming every primary source to be a WP:RS on that particular article. The WSJ article Mainstream Science on Intelligence can never be a WP:RS. The 1996 findings of the APA on the other hand carry great weight, although again the report is a primary source. However, those findings are quoted at length in numerous WP:RS. Mathsci (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Data is primary. Analysis of data is secondary. See other Wikipedia articles on scientific topics. Otherwise Wikipedia would be at least a year or so behind the times. The APA report is certainly not primary. It could even be argued that it's tertiary. mikemikev (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Which other articles on scientific topics have you edited on wikipedia? In von Neumann algebras, there is a huge output of research articles. It takes about 5 years sometimes to evaluate its importance. And there we are talking about uncontroversial mainstream research, not controversial and possibly dubious research conducted by a small group of privately funded or unfunded researchers. Mathsci (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why personalise this? Anyway, I think we can now leave the issue in the hands of arbitrators. mikemikev (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Undue weight

5) In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them undue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from the cold fusion ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No original research

6) Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from the cold fusion ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

BLP policy

7) The wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons does not normally apply to published commentaries on books or articles of a living person that have appeared in reliable secondary sources, such as peer-reviewed journals or in textbooks of major academic publishing houses. When published commentaries, summaries, reviews or criticisms of this kind are used for writing wikipedia articles, their author should normally be identified in the text of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A first attempt to formulate a statement to clarify problems with the potential misapplication of WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important for ArbCom to be aware that Jimbo Wales has already offered his opinion about this here, with regard to the claim that Arthur Jensen has advocated different treatment for students on the basis of race, which is a claim that has appeared from some of Jensen's critics in reliable secondary sources, but is contradicted by what Jensen says himself:

Sorry to come in late here, but I want to agree with Off2riorob on the philosophical point here. "Contentionus claims require exceptional citations" is a concise statement, beautifully put. Now, as to this particular issue, and whether that burden of proof has been met, I don't think so, but I am not certain. I read enough of the discussion which follows to think that is almost certainly has not been met, but I applaud that people do seem to agree that in order to claim that Jenson "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites" we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics. (First emphasis his, last emphasis mine.)

The perspective that Mathsci has offered in discussions about this issue is that even if a reliable secondary source is making an inaccurate claim about a living person, that inaccuracy will have to appear in Wikipedia's articles, because as Wikipedia editors we need to state what's in the secondary sources without evaluating whether or not those sources are accurate. David.Kane's and own my perspective (and apparently also Jimbo's) is that avoiding potentially libelous material about living figures is more important than avoiding the use of primary sources, and that for this reason if a contentious claim about a living person's viewpoints appears in a secondary source, it should not be included in the article unless it's consistent with what the person has said about their own viewpoints. David.Kane and I feel especially strongly about this when the secondary source is attempting to summarize the viewpoints expressed in a single primary source (in this case Jensen’s 1969 HER paper), so it's fairly clear-cut whether the living person actually expressed any particular viewpoint in that primary source or not. Whichever position ArbCom takes about this issue, it would be useful to have it clarified. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately in this case, as mentioned in my evidence, the multiple commentators were not critics: they were simply writing summaries. Those working on gifted education welcomed Jensen's work, because of their own firm belief in the value of IQ tests: Joan Freeman's account in her Springer Verlag textbook was not critical of Jensen in any way at all, her summary is written in a cheerful style. As many editors have already written during the RfAr, Jensen's 1969 paper was an extremely controversial paper: that can be found in multiple WP:RS. The history article in fact makes no use at all of critical accounts by a series of authors, some still living, such as Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, Christopher Jencks and Stephen J. Gould. SPAs objected very strongly to any paraphrase of the four pages of summary in the Cambridge University Press book of Adrian Wooldridge. As mentioned in the evidence, Captain Occam's initial reason for removing the summary of criticisms of his paper was that four pages was "too short" to merit a summary, The reasons for blanking various bits of articles have varied from week to week. One thing that I did not include- nor would I ever consider doing so-were the following statements from an interview with Jensen by Jack Fincher in Human Behavior Volume I (1972), mentioned in one of the secondary sources:

Extended content

JF: Are you as disturbed as your Skinner paper suggests by the spectre of a growing meritocracy? AJ: Well, it's kind of alarming and one wonders what to do about it. The society that has a caste system or aristocracy of course keeps a lot of ability at every level. People have always been rather surprised, for example, that the castes in India don't vary much in abilities. But in a complete meritocracy as we're bordering on now,where everyone can get scholarships if he has the talent, where talent is searched out wherever it may exist, then you get people moving up and down the socioeconomic scale according to their abilities. What will eventually happen, as Richard Herrnstein points out, is that you'll have this large underclass with no redeeming features, because anyone who's got more ability gets out of there and moves up. But of course this can be changed by genetic means. JF: How so? AJ: By the pressures of selection. This is probably true now of the Jews. They place a lot of value on intellect. The girl won't want to marry a man who doesn't seem bright and the man won't want a wife who isn't bright because he values this trait in his children. What happens then is people at the bottom of the distribution are less apt to mate and transmit their genes down through the generations. This moves the whole population up. This may be why Jews average about 10 points higher in IQ than the non-Jewish white population. My own opinion is that this very bottom end-and I'm not talking race at all, just people-will only be gotten rid of genetically. There's nothing you can do that's strong enough environmentally to raise a mentally retarded child up to the average. JF: So what can you do with him? AJ: In Denmark they've sterilized retardates for about 40 years now. They've virtually eliminated all but the flukes, the genetic anomalies, which is only half of one per cent of the population. The Danes are a culturally and racially homogeneous population, so there's no group that feels discriminated against. It's been done on a voluntary basis. They give the person the option of living in supervised communities or out in the world if he undergoes sterilization. Most take the latter course. In fact, most don't want children. JF: Isn't there an Orwellian danger that the cutoff point, if we can call it that, would be raised relentlessly higher and higher in future generations, creating a society of pure intellect at the expense of other human qualities? Or that it might in some other political way be abused? AJ: Sterilization wouldn't be based on a single test. It would have to based on social competence. People with IQs of 70 or below are a burden on others, a disservice to themselves. Left to their own devices, they simply create problems, their lives are so miserable. In our society it's only humane to take care of them as best we can, but we should prevent them from reproducing. Margaret Mead has pointed out that she's never seen any severely retarded in primitive communities. Presumably, they're simply and ruthlessly eliminated. I'm told it was the custom even in Japan 300 years ago to do away with infants, even children who didn't seem too bright. Perhaps that's one reason why people who spend time in the Orient say they get a feeling the general level of intelligence in the population is higher than it is here.

Mathsci (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Agenda driven editing in concert on articles connected with group differences in intelligence

1.1) A group of agenda driven editors has systematically edited race-related articles on group differences in intelligence to bias content. Undue prominence has been given to a minority "hereditarian" point of view: that the acknowledged 15 point gap in average IQ scores between African American and white American population groups is due in part to an inherent genetic difference between "races". Instead of using easily accessible reliable secondary sources to convey the neutral mainstream scientific viewpoint—that too little is known at present to make any statement about the cause of the gap—the direct use of primary sources has been promoted in editing Race and intelligence.

1.2) In editing the article on the History of the race and intelligence controversy, material from reliable secondary sources has been rejected for a variety of reasons, including wikipedia policy on biographies of living people. This policy has been invoked to justify the removal of selected portions of multiple peer-reviewed academic commentaries on scientific texts, generally acknowledged to be highly controversial.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. First Second Third approximation. Mathsci (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Vecrumba: The "minority point of view" refers to the claim that the acknowledged 15 point gap in average IQ scores between African American and white American population groups is due in part to an inherent genetic difference between "races". Scientific racism is the technical term, often used in academic texts, to describe such claims, because of the underlying assumption that race is a biological attribute. Mathsci (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Vecrumba should probably not forget that he was blocked for 3 weeks last month for disrupting ArbCom pages with intemperate remarks.

@Vecrumba: this is not a content issue but a conduct issue to do with agenda accounts and coordinated editing (principles 1 and 2). Mathsci (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment: More accusations of racism. This is an inflammatory content-related statement of opinion and is not appropriate for arbitration to rule upon. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci: Arbitration will not rule on content. That Scientific racism is a "technical term" does not change that you are quite clearly indicating that there are editors active at the article who are proponents of said racism. I suggest you stick to the discussion at hand and strike your reminder to me. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci: Since you did not strike your side commentary... if you are implying I am an "agenda account" "coordinating editing" where R&I is concerned then please provide evidence against me, else strike your so-called reminder which has no bearing on anything here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It begins to appear to me based on your tone at these proceedings that anyone who disagrees with you in any fashion is an "agenda account" and is open to being accused of wrongdoing. I trust that impression is wrong. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Coordinated civil POV-pushing by David.Kane, Captain Occam, Mikemikev on History of the race and intelligence controversy

2) David.Kane, Captain Occam and Mikemikev have acted disruptively in concert to conduct a slow and tendentious edit war on History of the race and intelligence controversy to remove neutral statements from multiple reliable secondary sourees with which they disagree. They have presented a variety of constantly changing reasons, including claims of violations of the policy on biographies of living people.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think this essay about civil POV pushers says everything that needs to be said.

The term "civil POV pusher" is often used to label an editor who persistently violates Wikipedia editorial policies and guidelines but does so in a superficially civil, non-confrontational way. There has been much discussion about how to deal with such editors. ...

But what if good sources are provided, and therefore verifiability policy alone is insufficient to prove your case? In this case, it must be considered whether this is simply an editorial disagreement rather than POV pushing. Matters of editorial judgment, as opposed to questions about the existence of a source, are often inherently subjective. Thus, if you consider an opposing editor to be a POV pusher because he disagrees with you on a matter of editorial judgment, then you would just as fairly consider yourself a POV pusher for disagreeing with him.

In cases such as this, where there is no reasonably objective standard for inclusion, consensus building is key. This means editors must work together, and not hurl accusations of POV pushing across the aisle. It also means that you might not fully get your way with respect to the editorial decisions being considered. This may be considered objectionable to some, but these difficult subjective decisions should be shared among many editors from different backgrounds, to minimize the predominance of a few editors' POV.

MathSci and I have an editorial disagreement. Hurling accusations of POV pushing is not helpful in resolving such disputes. David.Kane (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Coordinated civil POV-pushing by David.Kane, Captain Occam, Mikemikev on Race and intelligence

3) David.Kane, Captain Occam and Mikemikev have engaged in slow and tendentious edit warring in concert repeatedly to insert material into Race and intelligence and other race-related articles that gives undue prominence to a minority point of view. Instead of relying on existing reliable secondary sources, which present the mainstream scientific viewpoint unequivocally, they have directly synthesized and interpreted primary sources to misrepresent the mainstream view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Mathsci (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think this essay about civil POV pushers says everything that needs to be said.

The term "civil POV pusher" is often used to label an editor who persistently violates Wikipedia editorial policies and guidelines but does so in a superficially civil, non-confrontational way. There has been much discussion about how to deal with such editors. ...

But what if good sources are provided, and therefore verifiability policy alone is insufficient to prove your case? In this case, it must be considered whether this is simply an editorial disagreement rather than POV pushing. Matters of editorial judgment, as opposed to questions about the existence of a source, are often inherently subjective. Thus, if you consider an opposing editor to be a POV pusher because he disagrees with you on a matter of editorial judgment, then you would just as fairly consider yourself a POV pusher for disagreeing with him.

In cases such as this, where there is no reasonably objective standard for inclusion, consensus building is key. This means editors must work together, and not hurl accusations of POV pushing across the aisle. It also means that you might not fully get your way with respect to the editorial decisions being considered. This may be considered objectionable to some, but these difficult subjective decisions should be shared among many editors from different backgrounds, to minimize the predominance of a few editors' POV.

MathSci and I have an editorial disagreement. Hurling accusations of POV pushing is not helpful in resolving such disputes. (Apologies for repeating the same comment twice in a row. If MathSci would consolidate his complaints, I would not need to be so repetitive.) David.Kane (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Does everyone notice the subtle trick that MathSci has pulled in this complaint? It is certainly true that I have added many edits that provide reliable sourced descriptions of the hereditarian hypothesis about the origins of the racial gap in IQ scores. Guilty as charged! It is also not unfair to describe this as a "minority point of view," as MathSci does above. But check out how MathSci links that phrase to WP:FRINGE! This is a central editorial dispute in this article. I (and others) strongly deny that the hereditarian hypothesis is fringe. Indeed, one of the main results from mediation was our consensus that is is not fringe. MathSci's (and other's) refusal to accept the result of mediation is one of the main cause, if not the main cause, of editorial conflict. I can do no better than quote Jimbo Wales:

Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.

If MathSci really believes that the hereditarian hypothesis is a "minority point of view," then he should have no problem including a reliable sourced description in this article. If he believes it is WP:FRINGE, then he should describe it as "fringe." But he should not link one phrase to the other. David.Kane (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This agrees with my observations After reading dozens of article talk pages, user talk pages, and mediation and arbitration case pages, and after following the contribs of the editors named, I have to agree with this finding. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Which of my edits do you think justifies the claim? Please provide a specific diff either here or on the evidence page. David.Kane (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment While reviewing past history is helpful in understanding the conflict, it's inappropriate to divine and assign intent behind editorial behavior where there is a deep-seated and polarized—at least there are some that strive to present it and maintain it as such—conflict. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations by David.Kane

4) David.Kane created the deleted article EphBlog, now userfied at his request as User:David.Kane/EphBlog. The article, now largely blanked, constituted an attack page on several living persons, violating wikipedia policy on biographies of living people. David.Kane has not acknowledged these violations and has stated that he intends to reintroduce another version of the article in namespace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think this was indeed a BLP problem, but this is far, far afield from the focus of this dispute. Cool Hand Luke 18:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Mathsci (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to CHL Although not directly related to this case, it puts David.Kane's supposed sensitivity to BLP issues in race-related articles in its proper perspective. His multiple postings on WP:BLPN seem to have been "stunts". Mathsci (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Topic bans on agenda accounts editing race-related articles

1) Editors engaged in long term tendentious editing, on their own or in concert with other editors, to push a minority point of view on race-related articles, may be topic banned from articles, and their talk pages, that are related to race, broadly interpreted, by any uninvolved administrator. The administrator may determine the period of the topic ban at their discretion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. First approximation. Mathsci (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Helpful Remedy for Many Articles on Wikipedia Here I am expanding my comments previously posted on 1 July 2010. As I prepare to wikify the article under arbitration and related articles once the arbitration has ended, and as I seek out related articles for reliable sources through keyword searches into Wikipedia via Google, I discover that there are numerous POV forks related to the topic of this article, taking the form of book articles on non-notable books or biographical articles on fringe researchers or the like. Currently, there is discussion of a new POV fork article on the talk page of the article under arbitration [65] although there has been considerable subsequent back-and-forth about whether the article will ever be started and whether it might be possible to make it fit the Wikipedia NPOV policy. But there are still a lot of walled garden articles about race and intelligence under a variety of headings that are easily searchable via Google but perhaps not readily known to editors who are not POV-pushing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane, Captain Occam and Mikemikev topic banned

2) According to the terms of remedy (1), David.Kane, Captain Occam and Mikemikev are banned from editing articles or their talk pages that are related to race, broadly interpreted, for a period of six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This would serve (1) as a test of the effectiveness of topic bans of this kind (2) as a guide to see whether these largely single purpose accounts can find ways in which to contribute more constructively to this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Needless to say, I disagree that these users (one of which is me) should be banned. But I do agree with MathSci that Arb Com should treat us all the same. Although I may (?) be somewhat more civil and edit more elsewhere than Captain Occam and Mikemikev, I think that, for purposes of this case, we should be treated identically because we have all engaged in similar behavior on these articles. I see nothing in the last 6 months that would make my behavior better that theirs in any meaningful way (Occam has behaved much better since he was sanctioned prior to that) and would hate to see Arb Com differentiate among us because, for example, I also edit articles having nothing to do with Race and Intelligence. David.Kane (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Futher comment On the talk page here, there is an extensive discussion with diffs of David.Kane's disruptive content edits to wikipedia. The worst example is the section he reinserted in the main article, entitled Debate assumptions, after it had been completely rewritten and expanded as "Current debate" by me. David.Kane is wikilwayering now to justify that he bears mo reponsibility for those edits, despite the clear cut evidence of the diffs. No-one except David.Kane added the content statement "researchers in race and intelligence are divided into two groups: hereditarians and environmentalists" and then went on to develop it. That statement seems to be his own invention and cannot be found in any WP:RS: on the contrary statements like that can be found on numerous far right websites. Describing living cognitive psychologists (Nisbett) or evolutionary biologists (Lewontin) in this way is misleading for the reader and a BLP violation.

The discussions in this ArbCom case and prior to it have focused a little too much on Jensen, an 87 year old retired professor, who does not seem to be engaged in active research on his own. His name has appeared as second co-author in the more recent papers of Rushton. It would appear that this is primarily Rushton's work, not Jensen's. David.Kane has stated that he is interested in presenting Rushton's work on wikipedia. On the other hand Rushton has had his research and methodology criticized by scientists from many disciplnes. He has made his work available on websites of the far right like VDARE. He has spoken at white supremacist conferences organized by Jared Taylor and has made a series of racialist remarks. No matter who his second co-author is, the work of Rushton have not been accepted uncritically by mainstream science. James R. Flynn is an example of a scientist working in psychometrics who has not been criticized in the same way as Rushton and whose theories, like the Flynn effect, have generally been accepted and confirmed by mainstream science since the time they were proposed.

I have had a brief involvement in creating a history article about a controversy, very well documented in WP:RS. I have also very briefly tried to neutralise POV-pushing in the main article by David.Kane. David.Kane's only contributions to the history article have been to repeatedly blank small sections of neutral content from multiple WP:RS. He has kept changing his reasons for doing so, which suggests an agenda behind his edits. In the main article he simply restored his version a week or two after it had been changed. That looks like WP:CPUSH to me.

Creating articles from scratch is a fascinating process, particularly the often organic, sometimes haphazard, way of locating WP:RS starting from dubious ones. That certainly was the case for the much wikilinked Hanover Square Rooms: I had no idea I would be writing about women's suffrage, the early history of hypnotism, an embroidered dead bird or George IV's slighted ego. There can be no harm in giving these users the opportunity to discover the charms and delights of making non-controversial edits to wikipedia outside race-related articles. Mathsci (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If any of the arbitrators are going to consider this proposal, there’s one question in particular that I think they ought to consider about it. Do any of the arbitrators think that topic-banning me, David.Kane and Mikemikev from these articles would accomplish anything significant to end the dispute and drama over them? Mathsci has claimed that the WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics he’s displayed towards us are our own fault because we’re “POV-pushing SPAs”, but he’s simultaneously been displaying the exact same behavior towards Ludwigs2, Rvcx, Xxanthippe, (most recently) Vecrumba, and (in the past) DJ, Varoon Arya, and Bpesta22. Even if David.Kane, Mikemikev and I were to be topic-banned from these articles, as long as Mathsci is involved in them the exact conflicts would continue between him and whatever other editors he disagrees with.

If this conflict between Mathsci and around ten other users is truly the fault of all of us except Mathsci, and therefore the solution should be topic-banning the editors who disagree with him, then at least six topic bans would be necessary, and possibly more than that if arbitrators think they should be on the safe side and also topic ban the editors whom Mathsci has already driven away with his uncivil behavior. In addition, after the case is finished it would be necessary to continue topic banning any new editors who show up in these articles and who disagree with Mathsci, since it has thus far not been possible for anyone to disagree with Mathsci in any significant way without it resulting in more of the drama that it’s resulted in for the ten users I mentioned, and there’s no reason to assume this will change in the future. When a user who disagrees with Mathsci shows up in these articles, it also does not take very long for these same patterns to repeat themselves—Vecrumba is a good example, having been involved in them for only around a month, yet now having already been sucked into the same Mathsci drama as all the rest of us.

Alternatively, the arbitrators could just topic ban Mathsci, and all of the aforementioned drama would disappear. Although there have been disputes over these articles that did not revolve around Mathsci, and disputes are probably inevitable on an article about a topic as controversial as race and intelligence, at least three-quarters of the disputes that have occurred since the beginning of this year would not have existed if not for Mathsci. If topic bans are to be the solution to this conflict, would it be better to topic-ban just one user and have that be a long-term solution, or to topic-ban six users with the expectation that additional topic bans will become necessary as new users show up in these articles? The answer to that is up to arbitrators, I guess. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Especially Agreed as to mikemikev I defer to ArbCom on the length of the ban, which could well be longer, in my opinion. I read mikemikev's contribs the other day to let him speak for himself. Then I knew I would have to support a topic ban of an editor whose posted edits (1) delete good-quality sourced content, (2) over-emphasize poorly sourced fringe content, and (3) include uncivil edit summaries besides. He has my best wishes for learning more constructive editing as he gains experience on Wikipedia articles unrelated to these contentious topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff in which Mikemikev has "over-emphasize[d] poorly sourced fringe content?" I agree that Mikemikev, like MathSci, could be more polite, but I do not think he has ever been guilty of pushing a view that one could fairly describe as fringe. David.Kane (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Captain Occam's latest I see Captain Occam, a party to the arbitration, has written, "Alternatively, the arbitrators could just topic ban Mathsci, and all of the aforementioned drama would disappear." I don't agree with that prediction of the future condition of the article and related articles were Mathsci to be the sole editor banned from the article. ArbCom may see grounds for banning a larger group of editors, those who maintain a walled garden of POV forks on the topic of "race." Some editors, of whom Captain Occam is one, have generally provided a good example of civility, particularly on article talk pages where civility is an especially good instrumental help to editing Wikipedia. Supposing that ArbCom agreed to topic ban Mathsci, the conduct basis for the ban would presumably be incivility and personal attacks. But POV-pushing is also a violation of Wikipedia core policies and harmful to Wikipedia's usefulness as an encyclopedia. Mathsci, in turn, has provided a good example to several other editors of not narrowing his topic focus on Wikipedia but rather, in his words, discovering "the delights of editing normal non-controversial properly encyclopedic articles elsewhere on wikipedia." I commend Mathsci for finding mainstream, reliable sources for all the articles he edits. The single best thing that can be done to improve Wikipedia in the next few years is to source existing articles better. If Mathsci were banned from all the topics mentioned in this case, he would still have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia on other topics. By contrast, it's unclear that POV-pushing editors, whoever ArbCom determines them to be, have any role on Wikipedia at all. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd simply point out that "finding mainstream, reliable sources" and "POV-pushing" are in no way incompatible. I think it's great that so many editors on so many sides bring so many high-quality sources to these articles—most articles suffer from a dearth of such sources. But excluding high-quality sources in order to censor a point of view, and placing undue weight on minor points from significant sources, is POV-pushing just the same. All such problems are best addressed with even-handed, content-focused discussion, but unfortunately the incivility and political gamesmanship at the R&I articles have seriously undermined this. I don't know the history well enough to declare who started it, but there can be little question that it is Mathsci who intentionally perpetuates this culture, and who sees nothing wrong with it. Rvcx (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Rvcx, if I remember correctly, it was at your initiative that the article is subject to this ArbCom case. I first downloaded the article text and its time-stamped citation more than a year ago (May 2009) as part of a research project for my occupation. It was probably much earlier that I first visited the article as one Wikipedia user among millions. The article has always been in terrible shape, not well sourced to the professional literature on the subject. It was my poor timing finally to register as a Wikipedia editor just as the mediation had broken down, just before this ArbCom case began. But I have been researching the article's subject matter continually since 1989, having read an article on the subject as early as 1972. I have been in active online discussion on this issue and closely related issues since before the publication of the book The Bell Curve, back when most members of the general public had yet to hear about the World Wide Web. On that basis, I can't agree with your analysis of the many problems with the article, nor can I agree with your guess at where those problems come from. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out many times on this page, it’s important to distinguish between content problems and civility problems. The article has always had content problems, and I think part of the reason for that is because there were too many editors involved in it whose primary interest was in pushing their point of view (and I’m talking about editors from both perspectives here), and too few editors who cared about writing a neutral, informative and reliably sourced article. The first major attempt from multiple editors to improve the article content-wise in at least two years was during the mediation. I think that as a result of the mediation, the article is better in terms of content than it was a year ago, but I also agree with you that it could be a lot better than it is. On the other hand, the current behavior issues (which started around the beginning of April) can be almost entirely attributed to Mathsci’s battleground attitude against everyone with whom he disagrees. This problem is the main thing that disrupted the mediation, and during the time since then It’s pretty much put a stop to any effort to significantly improve the article content-wise. If it weren’t for Mathsci’s drama-mongering, I think there’s a decent chance the article’s content issues could have been fixed by now. Therefore, dealing with behavior issues probably should be the first priority, since these issues will need to be dealt with before content issues can be addressed.

Also, I agree with Rvcx that using reliable sources and POV-pushing are by no means incompatible, and I’d like to point out that it’s also possible for editors to be involved in a wide range of articles while still pushing a POV. I’d recommend looking at Ludwigs2’s comment here explaining why Ludwigs2 considers Mathsci to have been POV-pushing on these articles. The interesting thing about Ludwigs2’s accusation is that Ludwigs2 actually agrees with Mathsci in terms of content, yet still considers Mathsci’s behavior unacceptable in this regard. When people who share your point of view are accusing you of POV-pushing, I think the accusation especially deserves to be taken seriously. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Uninvolved User:WeijiBaikeBianji

Proposed principles

Decorum

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wholehearted support: If nothing else good comes out of this mess, let's give some teeth to wp:CIV and wp:Consensus. --Ludwigs2 04:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Principle. The language is verbatim from the ArbCom decision in Abd-William M. Connolley. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by (mostly) uninvolved User:Vecrumba

Proposed principles

Collegial focus on content

To advance article content in a collegial atmosphere, discourse must concern content, not editors. "Discuss the edit, not the editor."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree, in principle. However, when editor conduct gets in the way of improving content (everyone seems to agree that that has happened, although not which editors' conduct), it needs to be discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed per WP:NOSPADE. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Heartily agreed That's the way to build a better encyclopedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

1) To encourage a more collegial atmosphere, upon closing of this arbitration, no involved party may institute an administrative action against any other editor active at Race and intelligence and related articles for a period of six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: It is staggering how much time has been wasted at ANI and other forums by editors (mainly MathSci) involved in this article. Although I hope that this is not their/his main intention, such brow-beating is a great way to drive other editors away from Wikipedia. I especially appreciate that this proposal is directed at all of us equally. David.Kane (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose anyone who supports this be blocked on request of any party to this RfA. It would reduce the drama. (No, I'm not entirely joking. It makes more sense than this proposal, and would certainly reduce the drama.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, if an editor violates a policy such as 3RR, then it is perfectly acceptable for an involved party to "institute an administrative action" against the violating editor, though the final decision will be for the administrators to make. Calling for certain editors to be blocked or banned is generally not good wikiquette, but this is already covered in existing guidelines. However, if there are user conduct issues, there is nothing wrong with suggesting certain administrative actions to remedy these user conduct problems. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: In my opinion only Mathsci has abused administrative channels. mikemikev (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Qualified support: I would suggest that this proposal be applied to AN/I threads, but not to other requests for administrative action such as reports about edit warring and requests for arbitration enforcement. AN/I is where so much of our time has been wasted, so there's no reason to extend this restriction to places where it isn't necessary. I'm also hoping that the ArbCom ruling will resolve enough of the conflict over these articles that AN/I threads about them will be completely unnecessary for the next several months, but it's likely that other, simpler forms of admin intervention would still be needed occasionally, just as they are for any other article. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment These proposals seem very similar to everything else Vecrumba has contributed during this ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I believe this is the best way to take the heat out of the system as a number of participants here appear to be too well practiced in quoting acronyms and policy in their pursuit of their editorial adversarial quarry. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Arthur Rubin: Any one who supports this gets blocked? Any uninvolved admin monitoring editor conduct at R&I and related could initiate an administrative action. Should editorial behavior be so egregious as to require intervention, you will not be the only one taking note of it and it will be dealt with. That you are so apoplectic as to advocate anyone supporting my proposal be blocked, that is, you apparently can't get by without opening an arbitration or other administrative request against another editor for 6 months, is, frankly, worrisome.

@ Muntuwandi: The article is already under 1RR. Assuming it reverts to normal 3RR restrictions, an involved party could bring it to the attention of an uninvolved admin. My proposal is primarily focused on arbitration requests and arbitration-related and other enforcement. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Mikemikev: I would suggest reviewing how this arbitration has been progressing. Most arbitrations do lead to some sort of restriction. As arbitrations in contentious areas also escalate bad blood between editors, the atmosphere once these proceedings complete will be more highly, not less, charged. Arbitrations are like seizures. Once you have one, the next one is more likely; and the more you have, the more quickly the next one will follow. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I do hope that subsequent to these proceedings prior uninvolved and subject-matter knowledgeable editors who have not fallen victim to the polarized atmosphere will be able to enrich article content and move it away from its current two-dimensional presentation. Whatever decision is taken at these proceedings must be seen as opening the door to wider participation where editors will not have their words used against them to be set upon as being in the wrong camp. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposals by Hipocrite

Proposed principles

Hounding

1) "Hounding" is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.

An editor's contribution history is public, and there are various legitimate reasons for following an editor's contributions, such as for the purposes of recent changes patrol, WikiProject tagging, or for dispute resolution purposes. Under certain circumstances, these activities can easily be confused with hounding.

Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith before concluding that hounding is taking place, although editors following another editor's contributions should endeavour to be transparent and explain their actions wherever necessary in order to avoid mistaken assumptions being drawn as to their intentions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Dealing with harassment

2) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives themselves to be harassed or attacked – whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment privately to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

David Kane

1) David Kane appears to have initiated houding of Hipocrite

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Made clear in my evidence Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh? There's nothing about this in Hipocrite's evidence. Hipocrite seems to be making this up. mikemikev (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

here, Hipocrite claims that David followed him at an AfD just to oppose him. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hypocrite apparently leads an active fantasy life. I responded to his (ludicrous) claim here. He has neither responded to my questions, nor provided any evidence, nor withdrawn this baseless accusation. David.Kane (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Interaction ban

1) Neither David Kane shall not:

(A) Interact with Hipocrite, on any page in Wikipedia; or

(B) harass or wikistalk Hipocrite such as by editing pages that Hipocrite has recently edited or commenting in discussions Hipocrite has already commented in; however

(C) this remedy does not apply to pages related to Race and Intelligence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please don't let this escalate. Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian#Abtract_restricted. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Xxanthippe

Proposed principles

Wikipedia policy

Proposed action

1. That a NPOV flag be attached to the article until editors agree it is not needed. Because the article is subject to such disagreement by its editors it is desirable to indicate this to readers who come to the article without this knowledge.

2. That attack pages like this [66] be completely and permanently removed from Wikipedia. Other people may want to add to the list.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Both these requests are inappropriate, improperly formatted and in entirely the wrong place. The link is not an attack page: it is part of the evidence and will be deleted as soon as the ArbCom case is over (as already explained). Xxanthippe is a party in this ArbCom case that she has long requested and has edited one of the involved articles. Consequently her own editing history is subject to scrutiny. Xxanthippe has made a number of statements on the content of History of the race and intelligence controversy but so far she has not supported her statements with any diffs or careful commentary on secondary sources. It is therefore an apt observation that her editing history shows that she has almost no experience at all in adding substantial content to articles or in creating them. In the case of this article, her "expert needed" tag was removed twice by Slimvirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which suggests that Xxanthippe has been editing disruptively. From what I understand, she stumbled on the article on WP:ANI while campaigning for Abductive (talk · contribs) to be blocked: she referred to ANI as "that foetid sewer of Wikipedia's underworld".[67] Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Professor marginalia

Proposed principles

BLPs should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles, but these concerns must be balanced against other concerns, such as allowing articles to show a bias in the subject's favor by removing appropriate material simply because the subject objects to it. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately. But the BLP policy should not be invoked to bias claims about or delete well sourced and notable material relating to the professional work of living scientists, policymakers, and other influential persons, even though it may be contentious. The WP:NPOV, WP:Undue, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:PSTS continue to apply in all such cases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Well put, particularly the last two carefully crafted sentences. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment by WeijiBaikeBianji This is a balanced approach to BLP in regard to public figures who have thrust themselves into controversy. There is already strong legal protection for editors to use sourced material when writing about such persons. The problem with the article under arbitration and the several related articles is that a too-restrictive view of BLP is being used to counteract a too-expansive use of ad-hominem comments about scholars, rather than doing the deeper and more responsible research (on both sides) of digging up sources with sound evidence on the factual claims, irrespective of who wrote each source. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposals by Georgewilliamherbert

Proposed findings of fact

All named parties have acted with sufficient disregard for collegial collaborative editing that cooperation is unlikely in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't appreciate the broad-brushed "finding of fact", especially when nobody's offered any such evidence about me. I came to the race/intelligence article through a request on the WP:NORN for uninvolved editors to help sort out disputes over the proper use of sources. The only "conflict" any of the parties had with me took place after they'd created a new unwritten, unorthodox, and never-before-or-since implemented BLP "rationale" to yank the very same content which the removing parties had earlier agreed to with my help in collegial collaboration. So as someone who came there to help settle existing disputes about original research, was successful in doing so, only to have it completely turned around 180 degrees with a supposed new "policy" justification to vet claims via original research ~ I'd welcome an arb com "finding of fact" about just what these relevant policies say and what they mean. Because that's the only issue that pulled me into this, and I think the arb com needs to spell these policy issues out. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment This seems like an extremely unthoughtout suggestion. It indicates that Georgewilliamherbert has a frivolous attitude to ArbCom cases and a fundamental unawareness of their peculiar chemistry, which is different each time. A bold statement like this, unaccompanied by any evidence, indicates a misplaced confidence in his own powers of judgement. He has not made the slightest attempt to analyse any of the underlying problems at all (WP:SPAs, etc). This is extremely surprising to see coming from an administrator. Mathsci (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Further comment Georgewilliamherbert has produced no evidence or diffs to support his comments. Georgewilliamherbert is presumably aware that he should provide diffs to support his statements on this ArbCom case. He has had the opportunity to do so but has not done so so far. Perhaps he should do this now, because otherwise his statements—which appear to be intensely personal points of view from an editor with not much content editing experience—are of no value in this ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- In particular, the prediction that "cooperation is unlikely in the future" is almost certainly correct, unless Arb Com does more than it has, so far, proposed to do. David.Kane (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Responding to some of the criticisms above and below -

Perhaps this is just more stunningly obvious to those of us who are uninvolved in the topic dispute, but you all really and seriously are not getting along. This is not a frivilous attitude. This is an observation made after months of deliberation in private, reviewing the case as it progressed. It's an observation made in an attempt to refocus Arbcom and the participants on the degree of problem you have. The current Arbcom Proposed findings are inadequate - and will in short order end up with admins forced to step beyond them, or a renewed arbcom case.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

All named parties in this arbitration case are topic banned from the main Race and intelligence article for one year. Neutral parties are encouraged to determine whether splitting the main Race and intelligence article into a parent article and child articles for the two main opposed positions in the field is a reasonable approach. If such a split is approved, the named parties in this case may freely edit the subpage for the position they personally support, and may edit a "Criticisms of" subsection in the opposting subpage and the talk page for the opposing subpage, but not the rest of the subpage per se.

This topic ban may be reimposed or extended on an individual basis by any uninvolved administrator, and may be extended to new editors who become involved in actively editing the subject and disruptive advocate one position or the other.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Splitting the article based on POV doesn't seem to make much sense. In particular, how should those pages be named? "R/I (true POV)" and "R/I (correct POV)". Or maybe "R/I (more fingey)" and "R/I (less fringy)". Or maybe "R/I (pro-Rushton)" and "R/I (not so much really into Rushton because he's been marginalized academically)". aprock (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

without commenting on the merits of this proposal (which I want to consider for a bit), I will say that this parent/child relationship issue gets to the heart of the problem in an interesting way. The question is which literature is really the parent topic. people on the genetics side of this debate tend to assume that the R&I research is a subset of intelligence research, which those on the environmentalist side tend to take it as a subset of race research, but the literature on intelligence comes from a very different conceptual standpoint than the literature on race. --Ludwigs2 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is inadequate and fails to address the full scope of the problem here. The disputes have not been limited to Race and intelligence. What initiated the arb com was a BLP challenge to claims about Arthur Jensen that appeared in the History of the race and intelligence controversy and Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Obviously neither of those articles can be split in this "two theory" approach. And the disputes aren't limited to sharp differences of opinion over how much weight to give respective theories, but misuse of sources and non-NPOV editing. The race and intelligence issue can't be anything but a pov-fork if split in two--it's impossible to separate hereditarian theory from environmentalist theory because as it's practiced the two "causes" of IQ difference are directly linked. For example, hereditarians must attempt to identify and quantify the environmental confounders to get valid results--they're the two ends of the same see-saw and the dispute in science is over where to put the fulcrum. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

While I understand that this proposal is not intended as a POV fork, I think there’s a danger that it would still result in one, especially if each group of editors is only allowed to edit the article about the position which they support. In a situation like this, can we really expect either article to not end up being unbalanced in favor of the viewpoint held by the group of people editing it?

I also agree with Vecrumba’s comment below that topic bans for everyone are not appropriate. I think the only way for this conflict to be resolved is if ArbCom does the hard work of determining which editors are and are not being disruptive, and provides sanctions for those who are. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose A frivolous idea not backed up by the slightest shred of evidence. The problem here is with users not following wikipedia editing policy and not using WP:RS, even when they exist. Either editors do that or they don't. In my case, my content editing record can be examined and it can be seen to be uniform over all topics: I am very careful about using good WP:RS. I have briefly edited four articles connected with History of the race and intelligence controversy. On that particular article Georgewilliamherbert's attempted dichotomy makes absolutely no sense, even when viewed from another galaxy. However, the division into editors that follow policy and those that don't clearly does apply. As WeijiBaikeBanji correctly says the rewriting of Race and intelligence has resulted in a worse article. The lede was briefly OK but now is misleading—that can be traced back to improper sourcing, misquoting of sources or simply WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The issues here are WP:CPUSH and WP:SPA. Given the subject matter and what happens in the real world, that is hardly surprising. Mathsci (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment and evidence Just as a matter of interest I tracked the editing of the lede of Race and intelligence here from the close of mediation to July 20 when Race and intelligence was locked.

One recommendation for these race-related articles is that they be permanently semi-protected, as there were several problems from IPs.

The analysis of how the lede changed doesn't really seem to support Georgewilliamherbert's theories. One thing positive that I noticed was that the new contributor WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs) scrupulously checks secondary sources and removes things if they don't satisfy WP:V. In addition he seems to have read mainstream texts like Mackintosh, Flynn, etc. That is exactly the kind of editor we need more of on R&I. Mathsci (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed I had hoped that Arb Com would recognize the value in my proposals. Alas, that has not (so far!) happened. So, although I like my ideas better, there is no doubt that significant action by Arb Com is required, less this be a huge time waster for all concerned. I would be happy to give Georgewilliamherbert's proposal a try. Note that we discussed splitting the article during mediation. (Given that the article is so long that it violates WP:SIZE, doing so is necessary in any event.) I don't see this as a POV-fork. Race and intelligence (Hereditarian evidence) and Race and intelligence (Environmental evidence) would be perfectly reasonable Wikipedia article. As always, the underling problem is with those editors who believe that the hereditarian position is fringe and does not belong in Wikipedia at all. David.Kane (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Aprock - Your proposed titles above are not particularly helpful, and I think illustrate my earlier point.

Anyone who is uninvolved can come up with non-POV labeled names for separate articles on the major points here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my titles are not helpful. But that's because, as Vercrumba notes below, there are no two neat and tidy factions. aprock (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I made a suggestion for POV splitting earlier [68] but it did not find favor. I am not sure if I am included in the proposed ban on Race and intelligence articles, but if so it's no skin off my nose. The only edit I want to make to them is to add an NPOV flag. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC).

Comment No, no, no, no, no. "POV splitting" institutionalizes the meme that there are only two polarized extremes. That is neither a fair nor accurate representation of scholarly discourse on the subject matter. And I don't see how "a pox on everyone" solves anything. That's just continuing to institutionalize the well-practiced "we don't rule on content so shoot everyone." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

When viewing the debate from a distance it does appear that there are two distinct camps and that at least one of them is polarized. I should like to hear some scholarly discourse myself but it is drowned out by the screaming. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC).

You have hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately a proper representation of the subject is not a he-said/she-said of two polar opposites. The more we accept the meme that this is about two opposing viewpoints with each allegedly arguing it is the correct one, the further removed we are from a proper, quality article. Any remedy which institutionalizes the same is not appropriate. Per WeijiBaikeBianji's "Oppose Topic Split" below. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Given all the sturm und drang, from my own perspective I think it's actually hopeful, and not too naive, that there's only been one editor who has been grossly unwelcoming. (Not to say there's not been editorial disagreement, but one can disagree and still be collegial.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And who would that one editor be? I suspect that I know the answer, but I’m still curious to see whether your opinion about this lines up with the opinions of people who have been involved in the article for a lot longer than you. More than half of the people who’ve been involved in the article for the past several months seem to agree about who the most disruptive editor there is, including both people who favor the hereditarian hypothesis and those who favor the environmental hypothesis. I’m interested to know whether a relative newcomer to the article like you ends up reaching the same conclusion about this that all of us have. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be Mathsci. One can even disagree strenuously and engage in pointed dialog and still show respect for editors of a different viewpoint. (Not to mention his treatment of someone who editorially generally agrees with him seems not much better should they attempt dialog with said editors.) In fact, Mathsci does not even know if I agree with him editorially—after all, our only disagreement so far has been over the value of a particular source, which he regards as not particularly useful but I found quite valuable. Nevertheless, he has dredged up EEML and filed innuendo at evidence that I (his use of quotes) have quote-unquote "stated" R&I has been a life-long interest. Not to mention other disparaging remarks along the way against myself and against editors from his past conflicts who are not even involved at R&I, all the while repeatedly self-congratulating himself on his masterful Clavier-Übung III. (He's not the only one here who plays classical organ or who has a brain larger than a pea. However, I don't feel a need to engage in—this could be my perception only—offensively supercilious and irrelevant self-promotion.) I attribute the prior parenthetical remark to insufficient morning coffee (I prefer a mild roast for more caffeine) but do not retract the observation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that’s who I figured it was, and who the rest of us feel this way about also. At this point, the number of editors who regard Mathsci as disruptively uncivil is in the double digits. Offhand, I can think of 10 people who’ve expressed this view: you, me, DJ and Varoon Arya (both of whom have left the project, wholly or partly because of Mathsci), Mikemikev, David.Kane, Ludwigs2, ImperfectlyInformed (in their evidence here), Rvcx, and Xxianthippe.

What I think is especially noteworthy about this is that the problems resulting from Mathsci’s incivility are something agreed upon by people involved in this article regardless of which hypothesis they favor about the cause of the IQ gap. David.Kane, Mikemikev and I are generally thought of as “pro-hereditarian” editors (although I’m not sure if that’s really accurate in my and David’s case), while ImperfectlyInformed and Ludwigs2 are both clearly pro-environmental. As for you, Rvcx, and Xxianthippe, if you have opinions about which hypothesis is more likely to be true, you haven’t expressed them strongly enough for me to know what they are. All of us don’t agree on very much, but we agree about Mathsci.

By contrast, the group of editors who regard the main problem with these articles as being the presence of “SPAs” is limited entirely to a group of editors who strongly oppose the hereditarian hypothesis, and not even all of the editors who oppose the hereditarian hypothesis agree with them about this. As I pointed out on the talk page for the proposed decision, the editors who do feel this way seem to have something of an us vs. them mentality, going so far to apply the "pro-hereditarian SPA" label to anyone who disagrees with them even when it’s not consistent with contributions of the people it’s being applied to. It says a lot more when a group of editors with several different viewpoints are all able to agree about which editor is being disruptive, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with that person about content, than it does for a group of editors who have strong and similar opinions about content to make this claim about everyone who disagrees with them about it. I hope arbitrators pay attention to this distinction. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Topic Split I agree that there has been editor conduct warranting a broadly construed, lengthy topic ban sweeping in many (but not all) of the named parties. But the proposed topic split would not reduce the future occurrence of such conduct, and is squarely contrary to the Wikipedia NPOV policy. I happened to surf by the article Muhammad yesterday, and I notice it wasn't a set of articles such as "Muhammad (Muslim view)," "Muhammad (Christian view)," etc. or any such silly thing as that. If a topic that actually results in people killing one another in the real world can be treated with neutral viewpoint and encyclopedic sourcing on Wikipedia, we ought to be able to do a lot better with the article Race and intelligence and with the several dozen existing closely related articles. Discussion on the proposed decision talk page in the last two days brought up the issue of how the article has changed over the last year. It has become worse. Reliable secondary sources have been chopped out of the article, the lede has become much more POV-pushing, and the scope of scientific disciplines drawn on to edit the article has steadily narrowed. Much of the content of the article as it is today under full protection is fudged and far below encyclopedic standards. What is necessary to improve the article is a group of editors who are focused like a laser beam on Wikipedia policies, especially V and NPOV, and who commit themselves to reading and checking one another's references so that the fudge gets thrown out. Wikipedia already has procedures for dealing with editors who persistently disregard policy by their overt editing behavior, and those are the procedures that will improve the article and articles on related topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Mathsci's attack pages

Can we get an immediate ruling for Mathsci to remove the attack pages he has created? The "evidence" statement linking to them in no way justifies such attacks and is clearly nothing but an excuse to ignore policy and indulge his penchant for abusing other editors. Rvcx (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Enough with the header changes. Edit warring on a case is not looked upon favorably. Everyone's thoughts about the pages have been noted; in the past much leeway has been given for presenting evidence even if that evidence ultimately turns out to be incorrect or worthless. It might be worth bringing up this question again when the case is closing. Shell ^babelfish 15:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The implications about me by Mathsci have already [69] led to a charge of racism being made about me by another editor in a totally different topic. Arbcom has been lax in addressing this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC).

I’ve just looked at the linked AFD thread, and that really is unfortunate. This is perhaps the best example thus far of how Mathsci’s personal attacks can cause more than just emotional distress to the editors they’re directed at—they apparently also soil these editors’ contributions all across Wikipedia, even on articles about completely unrelated topics.

I guess this is a good demonstration of what Francis Bacon said: “slander boldly, something always sticks.” --Captain Occam (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I always liked Truman's formula: "Call your opponent a pig-fucker and sit back while he tries to deny it". shitty behavior either way, but I like Truman's humor.--Ludwigs2 07:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The association with racial bias made about me by Mathsci is being noted by other users [70] to quote "I would also remove the last post you made at the AfD accusing Xxanthippe of racial bias. I have no idea whether it is true or not, but you need to assume good faith on Xxanthippe's part." Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC).

I am not happy with the position of Arbcom expressed above by Shell on 11 July. Material in this Arbcom debate is being used by users elsewhere in Wikipedia as a basis for making scurrilous accusations about me, which are even being picked up by other editors. The damage is exacerbated by Arbcom's tardiness in dealing with the matter. Xxanthippe (talk).

Comment

Long version Rvcx should avoid using phrases like "trolling" or "indulge his penchant for abusing other editors". Comments like that are best avoided. It is language and pot-stirring of that sort that got User:ChildofMidnight banned for a year from wikipedia. If Rvcx does not know how to avoid using language like that, it might be a good idea for him to find a mentor. These are ArbCom evidence subpages, just as previously used in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley (and deleted at my request as soon as the ArbCom case finished). How many times does Rvcx need to be reminded of that? Rvcx seems to have some misunderstanding of what wikipedia is for: it is an on-line encyclopedia where volunteers are encouraged to add content. He does very little of that himself and yet has firm views about other editors and content editing (cf his ongoing editing of WP:NPOV and its talk page). It is completely normal in ArbCom cases that editors—particularly those who have initiated an ArbCom case after a series of hot-headed edits on various noticeboards—should have their editing history examined. Judging from their evidence and their earlier edits elsewhere, both Rvcx and Xxanthippe seem to have encouraged this ArbCom case, prior to its starting, simply thinking it would be a means to attack an editor who adds significantly more content than either of them and edits wikipedia in a normal way on a broad range of topics. They have made no in-depth comments at all about the editing of Race and intelligence. It is a perennially problematic article on wikipedia. That is hardly surprising, since it has been a problematic and highly controversial topic in real life: like stem cell research policy, it touches ethical issues in science and is not usually funded from normal sources; and it is a topic publicly embraced by white supremacist groups.

Both Rvcx and Xxanthippe have used the ArbCom evidence talk page to enquire about or comment on my mathematical standing or ability and then poke fun at it, in a childish way; apart from my having an awareness of how science is conducted in universities like Cambridge or Berkeley or here in France. I can't see how this is vaguely relevant to the case. Nevertheless Xxanthippe has called my mathematical editing of Plancherel theorem for spherical functions "ponderous". I think I mentioned to senior mathematical editors on WP that it was a prelude to future edits of the Selberg trace formula (mentioned in the article). In real life it was actually a summary of the non-examinable segment at the end of a Part III graduate course I gave last year in Cambridge which presented McKean's proof of the formula for discrete cocompact subgroups of SL(2,R) (it also works for SL(2,C)). Anybody with a vague familiarity with the subject might have guessed that or been aware of the significance and, to a certain extent, the difficulty of this material. In the past on wikipedia, I have been asked for expert advice on AfDs (e.g. on nuclearity by Charles Matthews). With so few constructive edits to their names, these editors should examine their own manner of commenting on wikipedia and in this ArbCom case. Rvcs's own WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is apparent in his failure to accept an apology from me on WQA, fairly early on. I can't speak about the charges of racism against Xxanthippe on a particular AfD: she has made exaggerated edits connected with an off-wiki blog entry on holocaust revisionism—this kind of "game playing" on wikipedia could actually be fairly offensive to real life people who have lost relatives in concentration camps, so is probably best avoided in future. It should not be used as a pretext to settle a minor grudge. Scientifically Xxanthippe might like to know that her own edits on AfD—speaking in favour of pseudoscience and supporting the BLP of a scientist, who has rejected the big bang, special relativity and quantum mechanics—have generated mirth amongst some of those running the research group of Stephen Hawking in Cambridge and in the physics group here in France.

Short version "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" (which applies also to Captain Occam and Ludwigs2, who was blocked for making personal attacks on me).

Other comments Fortunately editing of Clavier-Übung III, another intellectually demanding article, continues: the four other editors helping with the editing of that article have made scholarly and pertinent edits/comments. In particular I have spent an hour or two today pondering the "French style", Nicolas de Grigny and his first Livre d'Orgue, which Johann Sebastian Bach copied out by hand. There has been no childish or histrionic ranting on the talk page of that article. At some later time I will probably amend the Picasso-related article Chateau of Vauvenargues to indicate that it's open again to the public with the music room now on view (it contains photos by Jacqueline displayed last year in the Palais Vendôme). In RL I got this info from the person whose uncle dug Picassos's grave: they also provided me with a leaflet and accompanied me last night to Alceste. And in RL yesterday the person who changed the locks on the main door to the chateau reminded me that he was paid with a check signed by Picasso, which he banked rather than keeping. As he is fond of commenting, "J'ai fait des conneries dans ma vie." On the other hand he had successfully exterminated a vegetarian rat in the attic of his mountain chalet in the Haute-Savoie, so there is some justice in life. Mathsci (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Supercilious tripe, for the most part, though I rather liked the cultural sensibilities of the last paragraph. But please do not accuse other editors of childish, histrionic ranting when you yourself are the source of most of the childish, histrionic ranting in this dispute. it's unseemly. --Ludwigs2 16:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the arbs be collapsing this babble? mikemikev (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev has been attacking administrators again. [71] his comments have been refactored as he forum-shopped in the last two days. [72] His bizarre behaviour means that he is on the verge of being blocked.[73] In this case he did not read the talk page or the edit summaries where it was carefully explained that there was a BLP violation concerning Richard Nisbett and Robert Sternberg; and that the content citing Ceci & Williams had already been neutralised in a previous section ("Current debate") where it had described carefully in its proper context (as part of the debate organised online by Nature). Mathsci (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Attacking admins again? When was the other time. OK, I went a bit overboard here. I assumed that the admin was one of your buddies, I guess I was wrong. Actually I'm going to apologise. There was a clear 1RR violation, admittedly deliberately obscured by you by adding as much new environmentalist POV material at the same time. I assumed that the edit war admin would read the diffs carefully. You successfully confused him, congrats. And of course I read the talk page and edit summaries, I thought (and still think) you were wrong. It's a rare occasion when Mathsci fails to embelish his gloating with a little sheer fabrication. Anyway, the point remains: Shouldn't the arbs be collapsing this babble? mikemikev (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Here? [74] Mathsci (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Itsmejudith Yes you're quite right. A case had to be put and, since it seemed to have been left up to me, that's what I did. It has been a little more complex than usual because of editing as a group.

As you imply, qualifications are totally irrelevant. They seem to have been an issue for both Rvcx and Xxanthippe, who brought them up on the evidence talk page. None of my content editing under discussion here is directly involved with science (history, yes). I think Ludwigs2 was the first to bring up science when he commented on ANI [75], "there are few people on wikipedia who understand science in general better than I do, and you are not one of them." Again, no idea why he said that. Mathsci (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

@Mathsci: re: "intellectually demanding" Clavier-Übung III, pondering the "French style", chaste avoidance of histrionics, and the changing of chateau locks and quoting French ("J'ai fait des conneries dans ma vie."—I've done stupid things in my life.), just gag me with a spatula. I must confess it has been quite some time since I have encountered a (not pertinent in any way to the proceedings here except to lord the superiority of one's brain matter over the mentally impotent opposition) more eloquent expression of self-congratulatory self-indulgent self-superiority. Rather part of the problem here: it is the manner of expression, not its content, which constitutes the pertinent evidence. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"They have made no in-depth comments at all about the editing of Race and intelligence." Quoted for truth. But also agreed with Peters that how an editor interacts with other editors is important in itself. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

At least Mathsci removed his unconstructive commentary. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Xxanthippe. It is about time that Arbcom got its act together and put a stop to this mischief. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. There are yet more contentions (Mathsci) of "editing as a group." Any polarized venue will result in editors on BOTH (perceived) sides of an issue editing as a (perceived) group, so, again, yet another immaterial denouncement. We return to:

• To what degree do editors address each other at least neutrally
• To what degree editors discuss sources, not editors
• To what degree editors refrain from waging personal opinion as editorial opinion
• To what degree editors support inclusive use of reputable sources, which would facilitate depolarization of the current content
  • instead of nit-picking, limiting to suggested, etc. resources, which banishes the article (and related) to its current and endless morass

I can't say I "agree" with any editor here on content (which this can't resolve in any event), although I do believe that WeijiBaikeBianji's assessment of the current state of the article and what is missing is on target. I can also say which editors I would be happy to collaborate with, regardless of whether or not I agree with them editorially, and ones whose editorial contentions I would discount based on their treatment of editors whose viewpoints are not aligned with theirs. (And sidebar commentary removed from my diff above, was getting sucked into the black vortex.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Itsmejudith. Could someone please summarise this issue in one sentence? It seems that three pages are being objected to as "attack pages". But these just seem to be Mathsci putting together a case for this hearing. If we are going to have ArbCom cases like this then people have to be allowed to put their side of the story. I also read a lot of fluff by Mathsci about his RL qualifications and interest. I'm simply reading past that. I bet I'm missing something obvious. What? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just what "case for this hearing" is Mathsci putting together? He's proposed no sanctions against editors such as myself and Xxanthippe whose participation has been limited almost entirely to third opinions on a few well-defined issues; there is no suggestion at all that our behavior is at all relevant to the case. Is it ArbCom policy that any case is an excuse for editors to make an enemies list, label them "problem editors", and dig through completely unrelated histories in an attempt to assemble misleading attack pages? Honestly, the lack of action by ArbCom so far can only be taken as an indication that arbitrators think Mathsci's stream of invective merits point-by-point refutation. Obviously Mathsci has far more time for such games, and derives far more pleasure from them, than I do, and he makes good use of the knowledge that nobody will actually click through all his diffs, where he actually includes them, to see how distorted his representations are. If these are the rules ArbCom sets for what has degenerated into childish politicking, then I concede. If any concessions to collaborative work are completely trumped by one prolific editor's whims, then I give up. Wikipedia: the encyclopedia Mathsci can edit.™ Rvcx (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: I believe what you are missing is that Mathsci should be focusing his evidence on specific instances of conduct at the article, but both in his evidence and statements at these proceedings he casts as wide a net as possible including inappropriate (but well crafted to the point of seeming applicable) denunciations of his opposition as essentially an über-polarized SPA meatpuppet gang editing as a group conspiracy and using these proceedings as a forum for disparaging anyone who doesn't explicitly agree with him, including sidebars on editors from Mathsci's conflicts elsewhere and not active on the R&I topic. I regret painting such a dim view—but I came into the R&I article with no pre-conceptions regarding any editor—indeed, if anything, I entered with respect for adherence to scholarly norms regarding the only editor, Slrubenstein, with whom I had crossed paths before at Judaism. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Judith: If you'll examine the pages that Mathsci has leveled against me (I'm not sure if there are two or three of those at the moment - check his evidence), you'll notice the following things (and look, I've included a fake example at right, so that you can get the idea on a more personal level):

Fake Mathsci-style criticism of itsmeJudith
for example purposes ONLY.

Itsmejudith (talk · contribs) is a tendentious, aggressive editor who is constantly getting into disputes with others (see Talk:Great_Divergence, Talk:Astrology_software). She is clearly a fringe advocate with an unwarranted interest in for religious topics ([76], [77], [78]), she collaborates with blocked users (User_talk:386-DX#My_edits_to_Gaza_flotilla_raid), consistently violates NPOV, RS, and V, is guilty of CPUSH, and generally promotes a combative attitude wherever she goes. I believe that she frequents an off-wiki site dedicated to the promotion of a cult religion (at least, she's made some vague claims to that effect). It might be time for administrators to consider a block on her account, or even a ban from editing these kinds of article.

1. Very little in those pages relates to R&I - most of it is Mathsci trying to dig up old dirt on me to make me look bad.
2. Very little in those pages is accurately presented:
   • Many of his comments are unsupported by diffs
   • Most of the diffs he does give have absolutely nothing to do with the claim he is making
3. in the few, rare cases where he presents a diff that is remotely connected with the condemnation he is leveling at me, the way he presents it is so utterly biased as to be worthless.

Now imagine that being done on 10, 20, even 100 times the scale of what I offered at right, because that's what Mathsci does. he floods every page with huge quantities of specious material of this sort: it's oppressive, it's offensive, and at the end of the day few administrators are going to remember whether any of the complaints were valid, they are just going to remember the volume of complaints. it's a disgusting, hurtful tactic. Now personally I know how to deal with it - you'll notice that Mathsci and others have largely backed off on attacking me - but he is still using the tactic heavily on multiple editors in this debate.

Of course, I could go through every single one of his comments on every single page and refute it, which (of course) he would then feel the need to respond to, and the volume on discussion would treble in an instant - do you think that's what the arbitrators want? No, Mathsci is counting on the fact that this "wall of offensive text" strategy will discourage anyone from looking too closely at the details, and he is counting on the fact that anyone who tries to dispute his garbage will just reaffirm it (the added volume of text it will make it less likely that arbs will pay close attention to the details, and the act of disputing - even when what you are disputing is pure unadulterated tripe - looks hostile and aggressive). Mathsci can play the innocent all he likes, but it is clear to me that this is a very carefully considered political ploy, and I am just crossing my fingers that the arbitrators will recognize that and smack him for it big-time, just to discourage this kind of behavior in the future. --Ludwigs2 18:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all comments. I get why people are so cross. I recognise the picture of me, BTW. It was painted in full colour in my unsuccessful RfA, and on some other occasions too. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

lol - judith, just so you know, I made that description up out of whole cloth, by spending 30 seconds picking stuff randomly out of your recent contribs and tossing in a whole bunch of vacuous accusations and policy referents. I've always had the highest respect for you as an editor, I just wanted to show how easy it is to defame someone, and how formulaic the approach is. Heck, I could make Jimbo Wales look like he needs an immediate indef-ban that way, the only problem being that Jimbo could actually indef-ban me for trying it. For the rest of us editors with no particular power, this kind of treatment is brutal.

Sorry I didn't know about your RfA, I would have supported you. If it would make you feel any better, I'll submit an RfA myself - I'm quite certain that would serve to redefine the word 'circus'. --Ludwigs2 23:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith. My contributions to this Arbcom debate and the article that it involves were directed at the conduct of editors and not at the content of the article. My views on the content of the article are here [79]. The attack page [80] constructed about me by Mathsci contains factual errors, irrelevancies and abhorrent implications of association with racism. This material has been cited by an unconnected editor in a totally different forum [81] to imply that I have racist sympathies. This implication has no basis in fact and I totally deny it. Editor Mathsci has also alleged, without basis, that another editor with whom he disagrees is sympathetic to holocaust denial. I hope you will understand why editors are so disturbed at such behaviour. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC).

Comment On March 25, the first day he had encountered me since 2008, Ludwigs2 came out with the following comments to 2 other users involved in mediation while he was still acting as mediator.[82][83] His attitude didn't seem very different from that in his recent disputes with a number of other users, in particular User:Verbal, User:BullRangifer and User:Gun Powder Ma. So far it has resulted in two blocks (and a topic ban from Ghosts as a condition for an unblock).

Could Ludwigs2 please explain which descriptions of diffs in the collapse box below, copied from my evidence, are inaccurate? He could start with this reference to me described there as a "personal attack": [84] "an inveterate troll who uses intimidation, harassment, political gamesmanship, and other emotional tactics to try to dictate wikipedia content. He is simply not worth the trouble he causes. It's truculent ciphers like Mathsci that make editing wikipedia an excruciating experience."

Diffs of Ludwigs2

Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As I explained in my evidence almost everything in that list lies somewhere between a gross misrepresentation and an outright lie. Check my evidence, here for details. I didn't bother checking everything, of course, since a random selection convinced me there was too little of value in the page to be worth the time. Your capacity to create falsehood is bigger than my interest in correcting it.

With respect to the one diff you are referring to, the only thing in that statement I regret is calling you a 'truculent cipher' - a bit heated that, and I apologize for it. With respect to the rest, they are just factual observations:

1. Anyone looking at the extensive, offensive, and largely irrelevant evidence you've presented in this arbitration can see for themselves that you are an inveterate troll who uses intimidation, harassment, political gamesmanship, and other emotional tactics.
2. Anyone looking at the extensive, offensive, and largely irrelevant evidence you've presented in this arbitration can see for themselves that you do make editing wikipedia an excruciating experience. probably not everywhere, but where you get your goat up you're just hell to deal with.
3. I do not believe you are worth the trouble you cause, and I think wikipedia would be a far more functional place without you. It would be a loss, of course. you have superb skills as an editor when you can operate in an impersonal, detached manner (such as on your beloved music articles). But your positive contributions to article like this, no matter how extensive, do not measure up to the thousands and thousands and thousands of lines of spiteful lies and manipulations you've poured out over the article talk pages, ANI, your user subpages, and these arbitration pages, just on this issue alone. You cannot control yourself sufficiently to behave civilly in all cases, and where you lose it and behave uncivilly you do it with such a dedicated and pervasive persistence (and such a low level of self-reflection) that you negate any positive value you might have to the encyclopedia.

Now, are there any other diffs on that page that you think are worthy of discussion, or can we just assume that you know they are all trash and let this conversation drop? --Ludwigs2 15:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment on what is posted above The overall section here on the Workshop page is Analysis of evidence, and here I will agree that an editor's overt conduct on article talk pages can be harmful to the Wikipedia project irrespective of how well sourced the editor's contributions to articles are. Wikipedia has conduct policies requiring no personal attacks and general civility for a reason: to keep a welcoming atmosphere for all editors so that discussions about sources are dispassionate and thoughtful and so that article edits are not taken personally but as good-faith efforts to improve a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. ArbCom sanctions for persistent violations of editor conduct policies are appropriate whether or not an editor makes skillful substantive edits to articles, because many hands make light work, and off-putting misconduct by uncivil editors drives off multiple other editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

“ArbCom sanctions for persistent violations of editor conduct policies are appropriate whether or not an editor makes skillful substantive edits to articles, because many hands make light work, and off-putting misconduct by uncivil editors drives off multiple other editors.”

I obviously agree with this, and I think it’s worth mentioning that Mathsci’s behavior appears to have already had this effect on at least three other editors, as I pointed out in my evidence here. I say “at least” because I wasn’t interacting with Mathsci before this spring, so if he’s done the same thing to other editors before that, I wouldn’t know about it.

Incidentally, Ludwig, you might be interested to know that there’s a name for the tactic that Mathsci is using in his evidence subpages. This is a pretty well-known tactic among creationists, and when creationists use it it’s known as a “PRATT list”. PRATT is an acronym for “Point Refuted A Thousand Times”, and it refers to a claim that’s so transparently false that almost anybody can see through it, such as “if humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes?” Because of this, what creationists often do when posting PRATTs is post several dozen of them at once, in the hope that maybe 10% or so them will be convincing, or that at least nobody will want to take the time to refute them all.

A good example of this is Durang0’s post in this thread at an evolution debate community, listing 75 reasons why he thought the earth is only 10,000 years old. After he’d posted it, someone posted another thread asking if Durang0 could choose five reasons from the list that he thought were especially strong, so they could discuss just those five rather than all 75 of them. But Durang0 refused to narrow his list down at all, and on the thread’s second page, he posted the entire list a second time. What Mathsci is currently doing isn’t very different from this, is it? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Shell I'm more than a bit shocked by the amount of "leeway" that's been extended in this case. The request to articulate evidence in 1000 words is not just of benefit to arbitrators; the parties themselves have some minimal obligation to review others' evidence and provide rebuttal and missing context that arbitrators would take hours to puzzle out on their own. Mathsci's transparent attempt to circumvent any limits by shunting huge masses of text to subsidiary pages successfully discourages analysis or rebuttal from other parties, or at the very least goads other parties into polluting the case with responses to drivel that he knew would never stick. (Note that he hasn't defended either of the pages I've cited, instead picking one ad hominem that he believes is relevant because it addresses someone who made the mistake of trying to mediate.) Charges of the form "Mathsci is engaging in personal attacks on R&I" and "Mathsci is being disruptive on R&I" are not reasonably rebutted with evidence of the form "everybody else is an idiot and a jerk", and the lack of guidance from ArbCom on reasonable scope has just turned this case into a Wikipedia-endorsed venue for Mathsci to spew his vitriol, which the project has happily hosted for a month with no end in sight. Every day he offers up a new wall of text rehashing the same misrepresentations, and every day one editor or another gets sucked in. I have difficulty seeing how the last three weeks of delay on this case have done anything but further allowed Mathsci to obscure the issue, drown out opposition, and reframe a well-defined case of specific behavior and material into a conflict of personalities and warring factions. At this point it just reflects badly on the project as a whole. Rvcx (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing it. I've now read through all of Mathsci's "attack" pages, but not all the diffs. Presenting diffs about editor behaviour is what is expected in an ArbCom case. I said before that I understood why people were so angry. I'm regretting that formulation. I understand that people are so angry. One thing that I did, to start to build up my own picture of how this has escalated so far, was to read through everything posted on 25 March, when Mathsci and Ludwigs2 fell out.

There was an existing thread about TechnoFaye's incivility. Mathsci added that the underlying reason for the incivility was that the mediation was “unsupervised”. Mathsci was on wikibreak and Ramdrake hadn’t edited for 2 months. [85] This could be read as critical of Ludwigs2, but not incivil. It laid open the possibility of an answer. [86] is a comment on the state of the article and not problematic. [87] is more directly critical of the mediation. It does give a reason though, complaining about one ungrammatical edit. Ludgwigs2 replies [88] in a way that is not incivil but says that Mathsci shouldn't have complained about the mediation without consulting him first. This isn’t necessarily fair, because there was already a thread about TechnoFaye, and Mathsci mentioned the previous mediations as well as the current one. Ludwigs' edit summary on this diff was in fact incivil: – “damned well”. It was followed by a retort from Mathsci [89] that was OTT. Even so there were a number of genuine points in the mix, e.g. that the mediation was not announced on the talk page. (But, when I look at the old versions, it was a banner on the article itself.) “This is just disruption, Ludwigs2 and possibly worth of a block of some kind” could be read either as against the mediator or as against editors of the article. But “there have been many long-term problems with your own edits” wasn’t helpful at all.

So in the space of two hours on 25 March 2010 the scene was set for an argument between Mathsci and Ludwigs2 that is still running today. [90] was much more helpful on Mathsci’s part, outlining highly problematic text that had been allowed to stay in the article. [91] was a helpful addition from Ludwigs, but still also contained unnecessarily heavy language “talking shit”.

Nothing truly dreadful on either side, nothing truly wonderful either. I have the strong impression, but can't show, that Mathsci and Ludwigs each assumed that the other was on one "side" in what has been called "Scientific Point of View". Both were mistaken, but now that side-taking has become entrenched. I have done what Mathsci suggested and made myself a 100% anonymous email a/c. I am going to email each of them separately and see how far we can get towards a rapprochement. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I did email both, and it didn't get very far. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite accurate, Itsmejudith. I emailed Ludwigs2 revealing who I was, etc. He did not reply. You then on July 15 suggested that you act as mediator. You wrote, "I believe that the classic approach to mediation is to ask both parties: what result would you like to get out of this. Can you respond to that?" I explained on your talk page that this was an extra layer of complication beyond this ArbCom case that was not required. Even on this page Ludwigs2 makes the false assertion that I edit a whole raft of fringe articles. Elsewhere, as I describe in my evidence, he claimed that I stopped him from editing fringe articles. These assertions are pure fantasy on his part. I can't see how the "scientific point of view" enters into this discussion. I have never had a very clear idea what people mean by it: often I've seen it used as an excuse for people to write articles in mathematics or mathematical physics without using secondary sources, inventing their own "proofs", possibly incorrect (i.e. WP:OR); I have no idea what it supposed to mean in the present circumstances or why indeed it's relevant. In the relatively small amount of editing I have done related to the History of the race and intelligence controversy (now more or less ended), I have steered clear of "science" and stuck to history, which is well recorded in WP:RS and therefore relatively easy to write. If I edit mathematics or mathematical physics articles, I start by locating sources. As far as I'm aware, Ludwigs2 has not edited any articles on wikipedia that could be described as "mainstream science": certainly, Orgone, one of his favourite articles, does not appear to be within the realms of science. On EB it's only discussed in the biography of Wilhelm Reich. Mathsci (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow Mathsci, you do love your ad hominems, don't you. lol... --Ludwigs2 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't get very far because of my own lack of mediation skills, not because of your polite disinclination to participate, which I respect. What I meant by "scientific point of view" is the activity of some people who, to put it politely, put verification above NPOV or consensus, i.e. they are on a mission to debunk. I don't put you in that category, at least I don't on the basis of your work on this article, which is among the best work I've ever seen on this encyclopedia. But perhaps Ludwigs assumed you were in that camp? Orgone is an example of an article that gets fought over by such camps. We have to have an article on it, and of course it must be made clear that it is a notion that is utterly at odds with mainstream science. But Reich was an interesting and complex figure and readers deserve to be able to get a handle on how come he came to have such beliefs. If certain editors I won't name had their way, the article would read "Orgone is a load of pseudoscientific claptrap that idiots who believe in astrology and intelligent design probably believe in too." I only exaggerate a bit. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Rvcx I don't mean to be presumptuous, but do we have a time frame for wrapping this up? There's already so much material here that I've given up on responding to (or even reading) it all. If the amount of rope already provided isn't enough then I doubt any length would suffice. Rvcx (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about the amount of rope, which is why I have discussed the subject of trolling. Race and intelligence issues are prone to walls of text. I hope that this problem will also be addressed. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Rvcx: Coren, the drafting arbitrator, said a week ago here that he would post a proposed decision sometime early next week. (That is, this week.) Since it’s now been longer than that, I asked him on his userpage if he had an updated estimate about this, and he said that he expected to do it either late yesterday or early today. If he doesn’t do it today, then I really don’t know the answer to your question about the time frame. All I can suggest is asking him about it yourself—I’d rather not keep bothering him about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

On-topic comment on WBB's slightly off-topic remarks As stated many times on these ArbCom case pages, it's not hard to identify the main experts in psychometrics. Flynn is one of them and I gave his own list on the evidence talk page. It includes Stephen J. Ceci, Arthur Jensen, Nicholas Mackintosh, Charles Murray and Robert Sternberg. Flynn in 1980 wrote a book Race, IQ and Jensen in which he disagreed with Jensen's hereditarian hypothesis. But, as has been said several times, none of the main experts, and in particular Flynn, have questioned Jensen's contributions: his thinking on level I-level II abilities predates the controversy and even the 1969 paper is acknowledged as spawning valuable research (Flynn effect), I was the editor responsible for adding recent comments of Flynn to this effect in the "Current debate" section of Race and intelligence and related comments on Mackintosh and Flynn's account of Jensen's theory (which he later called an empirical observation) in History of the race and intelligence controversy. In the Race and intelligence article, my recommendation always has been to find reliable secondary sources and use them. I've described several of those sources on these ArbCom pages. A more balanced article could be written using those as a starting point, abandoning the "data centred" editing using primary sources, which can only lead to endless discussions and disputes. (I have not been involved in any of those discussions so far.) Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Itsmejudith's statement It does seem Ludwigs2 agreed with my statement above, which was an expression of my point of view on this article: indentify and follow the expert commentators in the major secondary sources, which are are of course all mainstream. I can't see the point in adding any content on science that is not too well digested or evaluated yet, because it's not appropriate for an encylopedia. As far as I can tell, there have been no major advances for quite a while. Old data recycled, yes, but not much more. I have written an email to chat with Ludwigs2 so that we can privately work out any differences, which seem to be related more to web personalities rather than actual differences, and I hope very much that he responds. Judith was helpful on WP:FTN in sorting that out. I don't really want to edit any articles related to race once a stable editing environment has been reestablished. Two months was more than enough. The history article was interesting, if a little murky, but I have become tired out and have other priorities, i.e. real encyclopedia content and my real life research, which has suffered during this ArbCom case. They are always completely draining and this, of course, more than most because a number of editors, particularly the initiator, seem to have regarded it as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mathsci. I certainly don't want to become involved in discussing dubious science, possibly fringe science, possibly bad science, interminably on an article talk page. Wikipedia will be going in the right direction as soon as a reader looking say at John C. Loehlin's article "Group differences in intelligence" in Handbook of Intelligence and then the wikipedia article find that they are remarkably similar in tone, balance and content, i.e. singing from the same song sheet. Thanks for your help, Judith. Mathsci (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Mikemikev's statement It's not a good idea to put words in my mouth. The problem is to locate reliable secondary sources, not random papers. I have already mentioned at least three definitive discussions by top mainstream experts in psychometrics (Flynn, Loehlin and Mackintosh). Where have all the liberals gone (2008) by Flynn has a 3rd chapter devoted to the black-white IQ gap in the US. I already included this quote on the evidence talk page, but here it is again. It is a reliable secondary source, just like his 2009 book What is intelligence?

What do we know? First, we know that the black-white IQ gap disappeared in Germany. But the numbers are scant, there are unknowns that could have biased the results, and one study should not convince anyone. Second, that the g pattern disappeared in Germany. This shows that the German environment at least addressed the root causes of the IQ gap insofar as it is environmental, something America does not seem to have done to date. The contrast focuses attention on the peculiar black subculture that exists in America. Third, what causes the g pattern is a special inability to deal with cognitive problems the more complex they become. Therefore, we could do well to look at anything in the American black subculture that signals a less cognitively complex environment.
Fourth, about a third of the traditional black-white IQ gap has disappeared. This is encouraging, be we do not know whether it is due to hearing aids [a previous analogy of Flynn] or addressing root causes. Fifth, there is reason to believe that the black loss of ground on whites with age is environmental. I believe this is plausible because of the steady trend to lose 0.6 IQ points per year after infancy. But more to the point, at each age, there seem to be environmental factors that would engender a less complex cognitive environment. Sixth, if that is so, and if hints that black and white are equal in terms of their genotype for IQ at conception are not deceptive, then the entire black-white IQ gap is environmental. The number of "ifs" tells the reader why I believe all conclusions are tentative. And why I said at the start that anyone who claims to know that black and white are genetically equal for IQ is too bold.
The race and IQ debate has raged for almost 40 years. I have been entangled in it for thirty years. It has been a constant and unwelcome companion, rather like living with an uncongenial spouse from an arranged marriage, It has occupied the time of legions of scholars and laid waste acres of trees. Will we ever see the end of it? At least the debate is entering a new and more sophisticated stage. Given the relatively high values for black IQ in infancy and age 4, the focus should now be on whatever causes the decline of black IQ (compared to white) with age. If that can be settled, the main event will be over.
The significance of the debate should not be exaggerated. Everything I say in this book about what afflicts American blacks, the injustice they suffer because of their group membership, and what could be done to give them access to a good life is untouched by the outcome. If there is a genetic component in the racial IQ gap, blacks will have less favorable statistics compared to whites for academic achievement, occupation, income, and mortality. However, the intense feelings that surround this question are largely a product of human misery. If America afforded access to a good life to all of its citizens, blacks would have as much interest in why there are fewer black than Irish doctors as Irish have about why there are fewer Irish than Chinese accountants.

Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, please do not copy paste large amounts of content into an Arbcom case. I genuinely fail to see any point in doing that, other than possibly confusing people into not bothering to reply. As for Where have all the liberals gone (2008) being secondary, maybe it is, I'm not sure. The question is whether The spectacles through which I see the race and IQ debate (2010) will be primary. Will it? mikemikev (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment by WeijiBaikeBianji (Expansion of general comment I posted last evening, United States Central time, which seems still to fit the replies below.) I'm a new Wikipedian, who came on board as an editor only after the mediation on this article ended. Like some other editors here, I am not a party to the abitration, just someone eager to see Wikipedia continue to improve. I had previously visited the article in June 2009 as part of a long-term (more than a decade old) effort to write an article for educated popular audiences on what current research says on IQ testing (mostly for guidance of parents of gifted children). It was after reading (How Wikipedia Works) and ( Wikipedia: The Missing Manual) from my local public library earlier this year that I became a Wikipedian.

• Wikipedia can do better. There is no reason for editors to be uncivil to one another even when editing an article on this contentious topic. Here are some examples of how scholars of differing views get along when they challenge one another's points of view on race and intelligence. Arthur Jensen has written, "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Modgil, Sohan & Modgil, Celia (Eds.) (1987) Arthur Jensen: Concensus and Controversy New York: Falmer. Google Books John Raven changed his opinion about the test his company publishes after reading Flynn's writings: "The results surprise many psychologists. Eductive ability has turned out to be more easily influenced by appropriate educational and developmental experience than reproductive ability." The Raven Progressive Matrices: A Review of National Norming Studies and Ethnic and Socioeconomic Variation Within the United States As Mackintosh (1998, p. 104) writes about the data Flynn found, "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." Here's what Charles Murray says about James R. Flynn's latest book: "This book is a gold mine of pointers to interesting work, much of which was new to me. All of us who wrestle with the extraordinarily difficult questions about intelligence that Flynn discusses are in his debt." Flynn returns the favor. Flynn writes, "Imagine that Arthur Jensen had been persuaded not to publish his 1969 article on race. Not by law but by subservience to the public opinion of his colleagues. I would never have made any contribution to psychology. . . . Would Eric Turkheimer have ever put forward his wonderfully acute analysis of g without the flow of ideas that originated with Jensen’s article?" "Arthur Jensen and John Stuart Mill" Thomas Sowell describes a debate between Flynn and Murray as "a model of how two decent and honorable people should rationally confront their differences over serious issues." "In Like Flynn" Many more examples could be given of researchers on this issue who make clear their disagreements with one another while maintaining civility and mutual assumption of good faith.
• What I have noticed as a new editor on this and related subjects is that there is no longer (if there ever was) an atmosphere of welcoming newcomers, leaving the appearance that many editors on the article feel that only partisans of their point of view need visit and that most editors feel too beleaguered by frequent edit wars to welcome new hands to join the work. Because the ongoing edit wars over the years continually remove sourced materials from this article and related articles, the article stays poorly sourced and below Wikipedia quality standards for far too long. Newcomers who know the research should be welcomed on board, and editors who are willing to work constructively with other editors should be encouraged to follow the reliable sources to find common ground for editing the article.
• With the scholarly activity in the real world in mind, there is no reason to push a point of view on this article. The best scholars on the issue have learned to learn from one another, and the Wikipedians editing the article should follow their example. John Broughton writes in Wikipedia: The Missing Manual page 344, "Among the worst defenders of the status quo are those who believe that consensus needs to be established before any change to an article. That's a total misreading of Wikipedia rules, especially Be bold (shortcut: WP:BB), which encourages editors to make changes whenever there seems to be a good reason to do so." Right now, the article talk page evidences dozens of attempts to slow or undo sourced improvements of the article based on a claim of consensus. That's point-of-view pushing. There is a lot of civility in the talk page discussions of article under this ArbCom review, but the major emphasis is to discourage new editors from editing boldly on the basis of reliable, recent sources.
• Broughton comments in Chapter 11 of his book on incivility and personal attacks. There have been altogether too many personal attacks to and from editors of this article, even posted here on the arbitration case pages. I should make clear as a new Wikipedian that this sort of atmosphere, whether it appears on article talk pages, on user talk pages of editors, or on mediation case or arbitration case pages, is always extremely harmful to the Wikipedia project. Many scholars with great research acumen and personal self-control will not put up with this kind of unwelcoming, invidious atmosphere while editing an encyclopedia, because they can find more civil forums for discussion of research elsewhere.
• I'll try to improve other articles by going back into lurk mode here and working on other Wikimedia projects while awaiting the decision of the Arbitration Committee. I know that ArbCom does not rule on content of articles. It looks like most major principles that would be helpful to deciding the case are now being proposed by parties or other uninvolved editors. Plenty of evidence in the form of diffs has already been posted. Meanwhile I'll attempt to be constuctive as a new Wikipedian by continuing to expand my IntelligenceCitations subpage on my user page, and inviting other editors to contribute more sources. I've spent too much of the last two weeks, besides traveling out of town on two wikibreaks, reading user talk pages and article talk pages and mediation and arbitration case pages related to this case. I will go back now to my usual peacetime habit of reading scientific monographs and articles and will share citations of those with all Wikipedians. Then as the case settles down, I will go back to normal, bold, sourced editing, with a view to improving Wikipedia as an English-language free encyclopedia for the whole world to learn from, on controversial topics like the topic of this article, and on other topics for which I have reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Flynn makes some excellent culture only arguments. His latest paper, The spectacles through which I see the race and IQ debate (in press and pointed out by BPesta22), is particularly impressive. I hope it will be included in the article after it is released. Unfortunately, according to Mathsci, it will be a primary source. mikemikev (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to thank WeijiBaikeBianji for illustrating the richness of subject matter which is palpably absent from the R&I article, "discussion" of which content has been usurped by an onslaught of rules-quoting, condescension, and polarizing moralizing. Back to wiki-break.PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I see wikipedia is considering a real can of worms here. My innermost convictions and my driving animus, the whole reason I am here, is to shamelessly promote the idea taught by Haile Selassie, that one race is not superior and another inferior -- and that until these childish, backward and unfortunate ideas subside, there will always and forever be bitter struggle. You can also rest assured that there are also always going to be a few rabble rousing individuals whose entire purpose is to promote the opposing false notion, that one race is superior and another inferior. These individuals are known, and WILL have to answer for what they are doing some day. 70.16.225.157 (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

dude, that was needlessly messianic. let's try to keep focused on reality here. --Ludwigs2 05:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Itsmejudith. Please see the current discussion on the article talk page on "inbreeding depression". If I were going to sort out this article from scratch (and I might consider doing so in a sandbox together with some other great editors who are currently at odds like Ludwigs2 and Mathsci), I would start with working out which field of academic enquiry the article belongs to. Note that it is in the category "sociology". It relates perhaps more closely to the recent history of ideas or history of science. The underlying problem, that we at WP are saddled with, is that the science has moved forward with lightning rapidity, so that what is and what isn't mainstream is almost impossible to determine using the usual criteria. I have taken the issue back to WP:FTN but would be happier if the article were fully protected during the arbitration, when the efforts of the usual editors are taken up here. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment: the pace at which the science has moved on this topic has been breath-taking, but the results have also been confusing. In the last year we have had at least two prominent psychologists worry publicly about how genomic studies will ignite racism (Geoffrey Miller and Jonathan Haidt), but we have also had dawning recognition among geneticists that the genome is incredibly more complex that hitherto understood (nice article in Nature). My own view is that we need to be very cautious, and if we err, it should be on the side of political correctness. On the other hand, we should supply real information--it doesn't make sense that websites such as VDARE supply better information than WP (which, unfortunately, has been the case during the last several years). A history of science approach therefore seems preferable--we should report on what people have said, without pretending that definitive conclusions have been reached. In fact, that seems to be what most editors want, so why the bickering? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that - as a scientist - I tend to take a scientifically conservative view on issues like this: i.e., I refuse to take any stand unless a clear preponderance of scientifically-derived evidence tells me I have to. I would never in a million years look someone in the eye and say "your race is statistically less/more intelligent than other races", not without a (currently nonexistent) iron-clad body of research to back it up, so I don't know why we should hide behind anonymity and make the same claim in some generic sense. The null hypothesis is always that there is no difference, and when you are talking about entire races (in other words, large groups of people who have been assigned willthey-niilythey into categories) the null hypothesis holds without definitive proof to the contrary. really, this whole conflict lies between people who are (unfortunately) getting ahead of the scientific curve - e.g. Occam and mikemikev - and people who are (unfortunately) reacting emotionally and forgetting about science altogether (e.g. Mathsci).

true fact: no one knows what effect race has on intelligence (if any). what we have is a number of researchers trying to deal with (i.e, scientifically confirm or refute) a vast range of non-scientific prejudices about race and intelligence. when they succeed we should report that. otherwise this is 90% gas. --Ludwigs2 05:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)