Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision

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

Discussion archives: 1 (19 Jul - 1 Aug 2010

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. Carcharoth
2. Cool Hand Luke
3. Coren
4. Kirill Lokshin
5. Mailer diablo
6. Newyorkbrad
7. Rlevse
8. Roger Davies
9. SirFozzie
10. Shell Kinney

Recused:

1. Risker
2. Steve Smith

Inactive:

1. FayssalF
2. KnightLago

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Findings of fact about specific editors

There are a few suggestions I have about Carcharoth’s findings of fact here ought to be improved.

1: The finding with regard to myself states that I was blocked four times in a nine-month period. This gives the impression that I’ve been engaging in block-worthy behavior consistently during that time, which isn’t correct. The only block I’ve received during the past six months was from 2over0, who failed to provide any explanation of what specific behavior it was based on, either before or after replacing the block with editing restrictions that prevented me from participating in any pages unrelated to either appealing my block or the arbitration case. (And it was not at all clear from the explanation he gave in my block log—for example, I had not edited the race and intelligence article for around a week prior to the block.) After reviewing the editing restrictions with which the block had been replaced, Georgewilliamherbert overturned them, stating “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.” Judging by both 2over0’s failure to provide a specific justification for the block, even when multiple users were asking them about it on their userpage, as well GWH’s comments while revoking the editing restrictions with which it was replaced, the block in June appears to have been a mistake.

I think it would be more accurate to state that I was blocked three times in a four-month period from October 2009 until January 2010, and if the block in June is to be mentioned, some comment should be included to indicate that it was the mistake it appears to have been. I also think it should be mentioned that I did not become consistently active at Wikipedia until summer of 2009. The reason I think both of these things are important is because all of my blocks which weren’t subsequently overturned were during my first few months of consistent activity here, when I did not yet have an accurate grasp of what sort of behavior was and wasn’t acceptable, and also was making my first attempt at editing an article where a large number of other editors were disagreeing with me. It’s important to make a distinction between the problems which resulted from my lack of experience as a newbie, and my more recent behavior over the past six months now that I have an accurate grasp of proper Wikipedia conduct.

2: I think it’s a mistake that the only four specific editors being mentioned here are me, Mikemikev, David.Kane, and Mathsci. Mathsci has been at the heart of this dispute, and the three other editors mentioned are the three whom he has the biggest problem with, but there are several other editors who are equally involved and whose behavior also ought to be examined: Muntuwandi, Ramdrake, Aprock, and Slrubenstein. user:Verbal has also been involved in the disputes over this article on and off for several years; when this arbitration case began he hadn’t participated in the article for the past few months, so he was not included on the list of involved parties, but during the time that the case has been open he’s resumed his participation there. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting on the specifics here, but if you (or anyone else) would like to put together outline Findings of Fact strictly in the following format:

• Username1

1. Misconduct1 (Incivilty, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]
2. Misconduct2 (Edit-warring, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]
3. Misconduct3 (POV-pushing, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]

• Username2

1. Misconduct1 (Incivilty, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]
2. Misconduct2 (Edit-warring, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]
3. Misconduct3 (POV-pushing, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]
4. Misconduct4 (POV-pushing, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]

• Username3

1. Misconduct1 (Edit-warring, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]
2. Misconduct2 (Misusing sources, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]

• etc

I'd find it very useful and it will probably help move this case closer to its conclusion,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies is asking for a convenient summary of the evidence, backed up by a few key diffs, and I think (as an uninvolved, rather new, editor) what he is asking for would be very helpful to ArbCom in at length deciding this case. I encourage involved editors carefully to choose out the most important few diffs that can document the editor conduct issues you think are most important to well considered decision of this case. Please apply your ability to research and to write concisely to move the case forward. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Captain Occam, I've reviewed what you said above and made changes to the background finding about you. Please remember that it is background only, and the more important findings are ones of the sort proposed by Roger above. Those are the ones that would lead to remedies and sanctions, unlike the background findings which are intended to set the scene. Regarding your second point, it is not uncommon for an arbitration case to not examine the behaviour of everyone editing in a topic area, but behaviour that is of concern can be brought up by other editors following the conclusion of the case, either at arbitration enforcement or by bringing a new case. It is not uncommon for the first case in an area to only make a start at resolving the problems with the editing in a particular topic area, and to do so by focusing on the main parties to the dispute. Please note that any editors topic banned will not be able to file or participate in arbitration enforcement requests or any form of dispute resolution concerning other editors and the topic area in question. They will be expected to avoid the topic area in question completely during the period of the topic ban, will the exception of appeals that would still need to be made in the correct venue. Carcharoth (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the background finding about me; I appreciate it.

The main problem I have with this case considering only the behavior of myself, David.Kane, Mikemikev and Mathsci is that it seems to introduces a bias into the proceedings before specific behavior has been examined at all. David.Kane, Mikemikev and I agree with one another on these articles more often than we disagree, while Mathsci has generally opposed all three of us. So if this dispute is described as one “side” against another, sanctions are going to be considered for three of the editors on one side of the dispute and only one editor on the other side. There are an approximately equal number of editors on both sides here, several other editors on Mathsci’s side have also been accused of disruptive behavior, and several of these editors (particularly Ramdrake, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi) have been involved in the dispute at least as actively as Mikemikev has been. ArbCom also has not yet reached any sort of conclusion that one side in this dispute is more at fault than the other. In light of this, I don’t think the current lack of balance in the group of editors for whom sanctions will be considered is justified. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've included background on the editors that I see causing the most problems in the editing environment, but for different reasons (this should become clearer as specific findings are proposed). ArbCom cases are not about dealing equally with "sides" but about dealing with disruption caused by editors within the scope of the dispute being arbitrated. Content disputes need a calm and non-disrupted editing environment to be restored if they are to be resolved, and that is what this arbitration case should end up providing eventually. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth: I greatly appreciate the time you take to respond to and incorporate comments. I have a request: Would you mind finishing (and publishing) at least one editor first? (Feel free to choose me, or not.) This would allow the rest of us to understand the standard you are setting. If we felt that other editors had acted similarly, we could update our evidence pages accordingly. (I took the 1,000 word limit seriously.) If, however, you wait till you have everyone done, then there may not be enough time for us to bring any issues associated with other editors to your/Arb Com's attention. David.Kane (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What sort of editing behavior do Arb Com members want to encourage?

Although getting blocked because of edits in Race (classification of humans) during an Arb Com proceeding is probably not a wise idea, I think that the blocking experience I just went through highlights the sort of problems that arise in this article and, therefore, provides a perfect example for Arb Com to consider as it votes on various proposals, especially this one. The heart of the issue: What sort of editing behavior does Arb Com want to see more of at Wikipedia? and Does giving more power to admins make good editing more or less likely?

• I am engaged in a good faith attempt, often with editors that I disagree with, to improve Race (classification of humans). The current sequence of events began when Professor marginalia, an editor with whom I often disagree, noted a problem with the lead. I fixed the problem. This led Enric Naval, another editor with whom I often disagree, to fix a related problem in the lead. This is exactly the way that editors of diverse views ought to work together.
• I then announced my intentions on the article talk page: "I am going to try to clean up the lead a bit. Comments, suggestions and requests welcome. I may also take out the pruning shears by moving much of the history material into the various sub articles. Time for some boldness!" On contentious articles, I think that announcing what you plan to do (even in rough outline) is highly desirable.

• Although my main motivation was to fix the article, I also knew that many editors involved in the Arb Com had recommended that I (and others) learn to edit outside of Race and intelligence. (How "outside" Race (classification of humans) is from Race and intelligence is a separate question.) So, I was eager to demonstrate just what a good Wikipedia editor I was. In other words, I was on my very best behavior.

• I then made a series of edits (here and here, there was one edit in an unrelated portion of the article in the middle of my string of edits). Note the edit summaries that I provided.

---

1. remove two low quality sources. What secondary source(s) should be used instead?
2. History: get rid of other stuff, which is mostly (?) already in the historical article and clearly belongs there. This article definately needs to be smaller
3. History: steal lead from Historical definitions of race. Looks high quality
4. See also: clean up
5. move around items in lead paragraph; ought to change the whole article to inline style citations with a bibliography, as done in History of Race and Intelligence
6. better wording
7. getting rid of some lower quality citations. I have no objection to bringing these back, but they ought to go lower in the article.
8. better link for classification
9. lead sentence should focus on article title. If we want to use categorization, then that should be in the title as well. I am neutral between classification and categorization
10. format. Do we really need/want so many citations in the lead?
11. first sentence should be short and direct. mention problematic issues later in the lead
12. again, no reason to use italics for race in the lead, after the initial bolding
13. why use italics for Race
14. less wordy. only bold article topic first time it is used
15. move aapa reference. probably belongs lower down
16. first sentence should start with article topic, if possible
17. usually is wordy and unnecessary

---

• (Note that these summaries are in reverse order.) First, note that these summaries are thorough, or at least more thorough than 99.9% of the edit summaries on Wikipedia. Second, note how I have broken all my edits into a series of small chunks, thereby making it easier for other editors to understand what I have done and, if necessary, revert it. Third, note how I ask for comments in my summaries and make it clear which edits I am neutral about. Aren't these all behaviors that the members of Arb Com wish to encourage at Wikipedia, especially on contentious articles?

• Note that all these edits were "new." I had not edited these portions of the article in months, if ever. None of the changes I made were part of an edit war. I think that most of the material I changed had been part of the article for months if not years.

• Two other editors (mikemikev and WeijiBaikeBianji) expressed approval of (at least some aspects of) my changes. Needless to say, this does not mean that my edits were wonderful, but it is prima facie evidence that they were not disruptive.

• Mathsci complains about these edits at the Arb Com case, without bringing up any of these issues at the article Talk page. This is a typical MathSci wall of text complaint. Study it closely. Does he really have any substantive issues with the actual edits I made? Note how the main conflict that I can see --- use, and linkage, for "classification" versus "categorization" in the first sentence --- is something that I specifically mentioned in my edit summaries and which I was, and am, "neutral" about. If MathSci had simply changed that (either back to what it was or to something he preferred, as he eventually did), there would be no conflict whatsoever.

• But the important thing is not MathSci's complaint. (I can provide a point-by-point rebuttal, should anyone care.) Note what happens next. Georgewilliamherbert blocks me for "disruptive editing." Isn't that just completely wrong? Isn't my actual editing here --- working closely with other editors (including those I often disagree with); announcing proposed changes on the Talk page first; breaking up the edits into small chunks; providing thorough edit summaries; actively seeking feedback --- exactly the opposite of "disruptive?"

• To be clear, I am not accusing Georgewilliamherbert of bad faith or being a bad admin. I am happy to believe that he is the best admin on Wikipedia. He saw (I assume) MathSci's complaint. He looked at my edits --- for 30 seconds? 2 minutes? 5 minutes? He concluded, again in good faith, that I should be blocked. I just want to highlight how easy it is for even the very best admins to, in good faith, accuse another editor of being "dispruptive" even when the facts, carefully considered, show the exact opposite. Note how 98% of the edits I made are still in the article! Not only were they not "disruptive," they almost certainly represent a consensus improvement in the article. And, again, I am happy to see the 2% that don't represent a consensus improvement changed into something better. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

What does that mean for Arb Com? Two things. First, Arb Com should think about exactly what sort of editing behavior it wants to encourage. I think that my actions in these edits adhere to the very highest of Wikipedia standards. I wish that someone would acknowledge that and encourage me to continue editing in this fashion. Second, Arb Com should be wary of giving too much power to sometimes fallible admins. (See this proposal.) Admins already have X amount of power to block. I think that X is enough. I would not want to see admins encouraged/empowered to block even more because, in this complex area, they are likely (at least sometimes) to make the same mistake that Georgewilliamherbert made, to, in good faith, see an editor as "disruptive" when, in fact, he is the opposite. If this proposal had already passed, then Georgewilliamherbert might have topic banned me for a month, or even a year. Comments welcome. David.Kane (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to add: I've gotten a number of blocks in precisely this kind of situation: the most recent because Mathsci wheedled a sysop into a giving specious block (which was undone 10 minutes later), and others because of similar behavior from other editors. sometimes I suspect the sysops in question are party to the problem - e.g., they were lurking, intentionally looking for an excuse to block while the complaining editor plays a BAIT game - other times I think it's just a pressure ploy - e.g., an editor builds a horrifyingly exaggerated set of complaints to try to trick a sysop into thinking there's an emergency that needs to be dealt with now. It's a very common and very disgusting tactic, and it's probably the main tactic that Mathsci has used throughout this entire discussion (which is what I have been complaining about since the beginning of this debacle). Just so you know you're not alone in having this kind of crap pulled on you. --Ludwigs2 18:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have suspected for a long time that conduct of this sort goes on. I was involved in the AfD of a BLP of a scientist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Dunning-Davies who had published work in both mainstream and fringe science. I was told by one editor, Mathsci as it happens, that I was "unhelpful", "uninformed", "trolling", "no familiarity at all", "out of your depth". After the closure of the AfD, an administrator appeared out of the blue and belabored me for using those phrases, when it was not me who used them. The story is told on my talk page at the section titled June 2009. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

Re to David Kane. Welcome to "discretionary sanctions", please see here. A typical administrator knows little on the subject, and he does not want to know because he is not going to rule on content (I do not mean anyone specific). He reacts mostly on behavior. One of common situations looks as follows. Someone "A", who is an expert, tend to revert an editor "B" who knows little on the subject. "A" knows that "B" is completely wrong and therefore behave more aggressively. The decision by an administrator: "A" is the WP:TIGER and must be blocked or topic banned. What should you do? Leave this article to editor "B" and edit something else. There are no effective dispute resolution procedures in this project, except arbitration and discretionary sanctions, which means shooting the horses (an administrator also takes the side of editor "B" because they read about the subject in the same newspapers, unlike "A" who really studied the subject).Biophys (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

General reply... Admins who are seen as "involved" are criticized for taking sides; those who are seen as "uninvolved" are seen as not being sufficiently educated in the subject to judge content issues from a sufficiently educated neutral background.

This is the nature of administrator involvement. You get what you get. Ideally, admins are willing to engage constructively, who understand the underlying topic, but are still neutral on the particular nature of the dispute. That's hard to find. What we actually enforce is admins not acting with a conflict of interest. But you can't ask for better. If a problem has reached the point that you have multiple administrators involved, or Arbcom, you get attention. I can guarantee that in large cases the attention that is gotten is not perfect or optimal - it can't be.

Biophys indicated some history on this. For other conflicts, see for example the Israeli / Palestinian conflict Arbcom case.

Taking a step back and addressing David Kane's meta-questions -

The problem in a large conflict, such as this one, is that we get sets of people whose world views are fundamentally incompatible to the point that they don't have a mutually agreeable definition of "neutral and reasonable" in the middle to work with. If those people are truly not willing to collaboratively cooperate, as we've seen here, then there's essentially nothing that can be done outside of getting independent oversight involved. And as Biophys points out and I reinforced above, that's imperfect.

This is why we end up with topic bans. If either behavior or content issues (or both) are bad enough, we can't have that editor participate in that area, in any way, because their participation is too disruptive to the articles and community.

The specific point here is that no matter how good intentioned you are, if you're getting into this level of conflict over articles (and an active Arbcom case is very significantly across the border line here) then you have to be significantly more extra-careful than was shown here.

Even perfectly "reasonable" concepts such as cleaning up syntax or sources from what you feel is completely neutral or reasonable standpoints can be seen by opponents as an unreasonable attempt to bias the articles. It gets to the point that any significant rewrites of articles need to be discussed completely and over a long time period on talk pages, to ensure that changes that are proposed are not going to cause conflict with the other parties in the dispute.

Essentially, we're here now. Nobody involved in this case can be trusted to make solo major rewrites (no matter how innocently or well intentioned) to any article in this topic. That type of activity, given the conflict, has to be handled delicately. If this was not clear to anyone involved here, please take the message with you now. Arbcom cases mean that you're under the very careful watchful eye of the entire community. Being a named party in an arbcom case means that you specifically are felt by at least a large portion of the community to have done something unreasonable, or be contentiously involved in an area which has something badly unreasonable going on. Any activity which might be interpreted as further disruptive or combative activity in the area of conflict really solidly needs to stop, immediately, and for the duration of the case. Content disputes should be frozen, article edits should be minimized or abandoned in the conflict area, any changes you do want to make should be done very carefully and discussed on talk until there's consensus first.

DK stepped across this line. Others have played with it; others might have been sanctioned earlier had admins been more proactively involved. There's a two-edged sword in play during the case - if you're a party, admins are generally asked not to step in over areas Arbcom is ruling on while the case is going. But the other side of that is that parties are expected not to cause extra problems in that area during the case, either.

Many if you haven't been up on Arbcom cases before. Some of you have. If you're not familiar with precedent and expected behavior here now, please ask. I hope I've clarified the situation. I will happily work with anyone who isn't sure what's expected (and would have earlier over the weekend had I not been travelling).

(Disclaimer - I am just an admin who is paying attention here, not anyone Arbcom or anyone else has authorized to do anything in particular.)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, George, I certainly did no mean to criticize you or anyone personally. It just happened that some of the previous Arbcom rulings remind me the final scene from this movie, when Robert shoot Gloria because she was so exhausted and needed him to alleviate her suffering.Biophys (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert: I agree with almost everything your write above. Yet I am confused by this: "DK stepped across this line." I think it would help me and other editors (note the questions on your talk page) if you could specify precisely which edit(s) are problematic. That will allow all of us to learn from this experience. If the Arb Com case ended tomorrow, not only would I edit exactly as I did in this example, but I would teach new editors to do the same. Which specific edits should I have done differently. (I continue to note that 98% of my edits have been "accepted" --- or, at least, not reverted.) David.Kane (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above - Anything that anyone does in the midst of an arbcom case is under higher scrutiny. Initiating a "major cleanup" on a related article, in the middle of a related Arbcom case, is a highly suspect move even if you have no intention to do anything to enhance your position, only do cleanups you believe are entirely legitimate and policy supported.

As I indicated above, you and Mathsci share no common ground on a definition of "reasonable". Items you feel are entirely innocent source cleanups and rephrasing of poorly written articles may be seen as disruptive by the other side (and, to be clear, visa versa).

When Arbcom is considering the case, everything you do is under heightened suspicion and scrutiny. Every action other than the most trivial must be seen to be neutral and reasonable by all parties. If not, someone will scream foul, as happened here. If one particular article is under arbitration and there are a number of closely related articles in terms of content area, the scrutiny applies there as well.

If you start changes on the talk page, announce it, say "I propose we fix sourcing X Y and Z, and rephrase the second paragraph because it's written in a clumsy manner", give it a day or two, then say "I propose we change sourcing on X to Q, add P to Z, and change Y to D and Q," give it another day, address any criticism with discussion until there's universal agreement, and then make the change. If you propose to fix grammar, indicate what you think is bad and a proposed rewrite, give it a couple of days for discussion, then make the change if it's not controversial or adjust per discussion, etc.

If changes can't be agreed upon, during the Arbcom case, don't make them. If an uninvolved editor sees the discussion and decides to go ahead and make a change that you suggested, after due consideration, that's one thing. But being in the Arbcom case automatically indicates that others on Wikipedia have challenged your ability to edit neutrally, fairness in interpreting sources or policy, or some related problem. If it's controversial in any way, someone who's not involved, not a party in the Arbcom case, should make the call on whether it happens or not.

A change can both be disruptive (in the sense, no consensus among the disagreeing parties under Arbcom investigation/case) and reasonable (something that uninvolved editors end up agreeing with and leaving in the article). It's disruptive because of who made it and how it was done, even if it's a good change.

I know that sounds unfair. But that's the issue at play. Knowing if a change was good or not often takes a lot of discussion by other uninvolved editors, or involved editors eventually coming to consensus. It often takes more sources, more time, etc.

To specifically answer your question - Before I blocked I did a quick scan to determine if I could easily prove either set of claims regarding the reasonableness of the complaint about the series of edits. They were not obviously wrong (and time has supported much of them). But they were also not obviously right, and were not supported by a unanimous agreement or consensus on talk. You kept making them despite the lack of consensus on the article talk page.

In the sense of "are these good quality edits improving Wikipedia content", I don't see them as particularly problematic, especially as they seem to be largely holding up under increased scrutiny afterwards.

In the sense of "Which of these were bad edits that got you blocked", the answer is any and all of them. At this time, you are not the right person to be making those edits. I believe you that you had good intentions - had I believed otherwise this would have been much more drastic of an intervention. But those edits are of the type that have to stop until the Arbcom case is settled out. No participant should be making changes on any related article which generate any significant controversy during the duration of the case. If you propose something and everyone agrees, ok. If you propose something and nobody objects, make it, and then they object, self revert and discuss it again.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have one question: can I simply topic ban myself from R&I and remove myself from this arbitration? I have been holding out the faint hope that the worst offenders on this page would get sanctioned and something more like normal editing would resume on the article - in which case I would step in and do some decent work on it - but since that seems unlikely at this point, and since I have no interest editing the article if every damned revision is going to turn in to a siege no matter how innocuous it is, I would just as soon take this page off my watchlist and leave the POV-warriors to duke it out. My only real interest in this arbitration was to try to straighten out Mathsci's (to my mind) perverted approach to editing, but since that's not going to happen either, I can't do anything more here except throw spitballs. What's the point in that?

Don't get me wrong: I'm one of the few editors in this mess who has never made a controversial edit to the article and has no vested interest in either side of the debate. I'd like to work on this article, and I'm both knowledgable and neutral on the topic, but writing a good article here just not important enough to me to be worth putting up with the bullshit. Is there a simple way to do that, or do I need to make the request to the arbiters, or what? --Ludwigs2 22:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can. It is unlikely that there will be any sanctions against you (at most you would be topic banned anyway) so you can choose to drop out of this case by not posting on these pages. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's consider that the case, as of this posting. please keep me informed if there are any developments that require my involvement or attention, and if anyone wants to continue any current discussion with me, please take it up in my talk.

Georgewilliamherbert: You claims that I "kept making them despite the lack of consensus on the article talk page." Whoa! This is clearly false. I request that you strike it from the above. No editor complained about the changes at the Talk page or reverted them in between when I started and when I finished. These changes began life as a conversation (and collaboration) with two editors with whom I often disagree. If it were true that I "kept making them" after an editor complained on talk, or after someone had reverted some of those changes, you would be correct. But I did not. In fact almost 24 hours passed and then you blocked me. I had not edited the article during that time. No editor on the Talk page had complained. In fact, several editors had commented on Talk without complaining! Now, obviously, the fact that Slrubenstein or Professor marginalia (a very experienced admin and an editor who have clashed with me in the past) commented without complaining does not demonstrate that they approved of my changes, but it certainly proves that I am not guilty of making changes "despite the lack of consensus on the article talk page." No editor involved in the article had (meaningfully) reverted any of the changes I made before you blocked me. (Tiny changes were made that, were I a bad editor involved in edit warring, I might have tried to revert, but I specifically left them alone because I knew that I needed to be on my best behavior.)

Again, my point is not to claim that you acted in bad faith or that you are anything less than an excellent admin. My point is to understand exactly why you blocked me so that I do not do things to get blocked in the future. If it were true that I "kept making them despite the lack of consensus on the article talk page," then I would agree that the block was reasonable. But, given that this is not true, do you think that the block was still reasonable or, in retrospect, was it a mistake? David.Kane (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

David Kane keeps on complaining that he is an innocent editor who is just trying to improve articles he edits. After DK had written the draft, in this section I complained about DK's draft stating

Most of the section headings in DK's version were taken directly from Rushton's 30 years of research and are therefore biased towards the hereditarian position. About 7 out of 10 subsections appear in Rushton's article and Occam and Co. are looking to add the rest of the sections from Rushton's article.[1]

DK assured us that this was not the case stating

This is a misunderstanding. As was pointed out numerous times during the mediation, the current structure of the article are based on the structure of Nesbitt [8]. In other words, we took the leading environmentalist in the world and structured the article the same way that he structured his article.[2]

In light of the links Mathsci posted in which DK explicitly states he would like to add material from Rushton's 30 years etc, it would appear that DK was being a bit disingenuous. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic bans on race-related articles

I'm concerned by #" 4) Editors engaged in long-term tendentious editing, ..." An uninvolved admin whether topic-knowledgeable or not should not be placed in the position of determining what is "tendentious" editing. In areas of conflict, "tendentious" is often a code word for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My own experiences with admins making content decisions is that such decisions have further degraded the editorial environment. This may sound counter-intuitive, but conflict is sometimes better left to the combatants, whichever "side" they are on, they know the subject matter better; the focus should be on maintaining collegial conduct promoting meaningful dialog on content. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This also does not address a core issue. Despite the fact that the American Psychological Association finds that the reason for the experimentally found Race-Intelligence correlations is not determined, a tag team from the environmentist faction is attempting to ensure that no views except its own will appear in R&I articles. The team does this by declaring those with differing views to be SPA's and deserving of topic banning. As I see it, the positions of the factions are not symmetric. The environmentists want the views of the hereditists totally banished but the hereditists just want some shelf space, to invoke the rather apt supermarket metaphor used elsewhere on this page. Both factions have valid points to make but they need to discipline themselves to make their points in a spirit of collegiality. Arbcom should address issues of behavior, not content. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

Vecrumba, the concern you’ve expressed is a concern of mine also. More specifically, I’m concerned about how this power will be used by administrators who consider themselves uninvolved in these articles, but still have strong opinions about one side being “right” and the other being “wrong”. Can administrators in a situation like this be counted on to implement discretionary sanctions in a neutral manner?

Going with a recent example of something similar, RegentsPark is an administrator who’s stated here that he has strong opinions about this, as well as that something needs to be done to punish the “wrong” side. "Unless some action is taken to deal with these purpose driven accounts, once the narrowness of their interests is apparent, I fear that we will continue to present a view to the world which indicates that black people are genetically less intelligent than most other people and that it is a generally accepted view that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States was an act of state terrorism. Whether these are true or not, neither view is accepted by their respective academic communities as anything other than minor or fringe, but that is not what wikipedia presents to the world." Yet despite his strong opinion about this topic, it was also decided in this thread at the administrators’ noticeboard that RegentsPark was uninvolved enough in these articles to use his sysop powers to revert the race and intelligence article through page protection. I don’t consider RegentsPark reverting the article through page protection to have been all that big of a deal, since I don’t have much of an opinion either way about the content that he removed, but I’m terrified of what it would lead to if he were given the power to implement discretionary sanctions against any editor whom he considers to be engaged in “tendentious editing”. He’s already essentially stated in his evidence how he would use this power: that because of his content opinion that the hereditarian hypothesis is “fringe”, he believes that attempting to portray it as something other than this is in itself something that warrants sanctions.

I doubt that RegentsPark is the only administrator for whom this problem is likely to arise; I only used him as an example because he’s already stated that he thinks editing the article in a manner contrary to his content opinions is something that warrants sanctions, and because it’s been determined that he would be considered “uninvolved” as far as this proposal is concerned. There are probably plenty of other administrators for whom this is likely to also be the case, and for whom it just hasn’t been made quite so obvious.

Captain Occam, you have misunderstood (or misstated) my concern. While I do believe that the view that black people are less intelligent than white people is a fringe view that is not generally accepted in academia, I have no intention to force that belief on articles through admin action. My main concern, as I have repeatedly said, is the determined focus, energy, and numbers that you and the other single purpose accounts are bringing to these articles and, possibly, skewing the content to fit your world view. As to your concern that I, or some other admin, will use their buttons to push their views on content, note that you would be entitled to seek redress regardless of an arbcom decision. (May I also add that you will be hard-pressed to find a human being, let alone an administrator, who satisfies your definition of uninvolved on a topic such as this.) Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If discretionary sanctions are to be allowed on this article, I am very strongly of the opinion that ArbCom should not give this authority to “any uninvolved administrator”. Instead, they should give it to a small group of administrators, who have been selected based on strict criteria of both responsibility and neutrality. (Or perhaps the discretionary sanctions could be handled by the arbitrators themselves.) Do other people think this proposal is a good idea, or that I should add it to the workshop pages? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I’ve gone ahead and added a workshop proposal about this. Comments there are welcome. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Occam: I share your concerns and think that this is a better approach than the current proposal. But I also think that the whole proposal should be junked. Admins already have X power. How will giving them more help things? Any editor or admin that thinks that I, for example, am guilty of "tendentious editing" can already bring me up at ANI. If I am, then it will/should be obvious to all. Consensus will quickly be reached and I will be punished appropriately. No one has explained why this standard process is inadequate. David.Kane (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a good remedy, this is what uninvolved admins are for: to lay down the ban-hammer on disruptive users. If uninvolved admins had applied this power in Talk:Cold fusion, then we would have saved ourselves a lot of disruption and drama. Giving explicit permission for this power should do a lot towards improving the situation. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Admins can already block "disruptive user". If you see me (or others) being disruptive, then a simple note at ANI will get me blocked. If I keep it up, I will be banned. This is already Wikipedia policy. No new findings by Arb Com are required. The problem, I suspect, for Enric Naval is that discussions at ANI have rarely/never reached the consensus he wants them to reach. So, he wants to make it easier for admins (perhaps especially the admins that he has contact with on other issues) to ban me. If I am really being "disruptive," then that should be obvious to everyoe at ANI. No need to empower lone admins any further than they are already empowered. David.Kane (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And what about your disruptive attack on MathSci, when you just recently accused him of outing you, at AN/I? You know people have been banned for outing others, and yet Mathsci did not out you. So this was purely disruptive. Are you saying that I should block you now? Okay, why not tell mw what you would consider a reasonable amount of time for a block? I want to block you only for as much time as you ntted to contemplate what led you to make this false accusation against Mathsci, and abuse AN/I, and hopefully achieve whatever insight will help you control yourself from such disruptive behavior in the future. A week? Three days? Two weeks? I am open to suggestions. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec?) This would be where, Slrubenstein, you would defer to an uninvolved admin regarding David.Kane as you're demonstrably too flummoxed to type well. This is just more unhelpful shouting across the trenches. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: 1) I did not realize/recall that you were an administrator. Given comments like this from you, perhaps member of Arb Com can understand why I (and others) worry that providing more power to admins, beyond what they already have, is not the best approach. 2) I believe, in good faith, that MathSci is guilty of outing me (defined as linking to a website that (he thinks) is written by me even though I have never linked to that website from Wikipedia). But the discussion at ANI demonstrates both that I may be wrong and that WP:OUTING may be more subtle than it currently appears, or is intended, to be. In either case, I have chosen (and been advised to) not to pursue that topic now. 3) Just curious: Have you ever communicated with fellow admins about behavior in this collection of articles that you have found problematic but which, because you are involved, you have felt that you should not act on? David.Kane (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hum, the ANI about outing was marked resolved as "There is no outing here. (...)". --Enric Naval (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

yeah, the reason it was closed was that - and get this logic, I haven't read anything this hilariously perverse in years - because there was no proof that the DK at the other site was the same person as the DK at this site, therefore Mathsci's attempt to equate the two couldn't be considered outing. Perfect Catch-22: you cannot prove that someone is trying to out you unless you out yourself, which defeats the entire purpose of having rules against outing.

The fact that Mathsci failed to succeed in his attempt to out DK does not imply that Mathsci did not try to out DK, and the penalty should be for trying to do it, not for succeeding at doing it (the same way that you can have someone arrested for trying to break into your house - they don't actually have to succeed for it to be a crime).

Using this logic, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that I suspect Mathsci might actually be the unibomber: He's admitted to being a mathematician, he has a dislike of new technology (which I know because of his resistance to using IRC), he certainly has a sufficient degree of hostility towards others, and elements of the unibomber manifesto reflect the same kind of ideation that Mathsci habitually uses. That's not outing, of course, unless Mathsci wants to confess that he's the unibomber. --Ludwigs2 20:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, you are incorrectly characterizing the result of the ANI report. The report was considered disruptive because the David Kane on the external website had self-identified as the David Kane on wikipedia and the general conclusion was that he could scarcely call foul when he edits under his own name and self identifies himself. If mathsci self-identifies himself as the unabomber on an external site, then perhaps your analogy may work but your current characterization of the 'outing' is incorrect. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition of 'outing' means that one tries to drag someone's off-wiki life onto the wiki, against their wishes. There's no gray area here: DK did not announce (and still has not announced) his identity on wiki. Mathsci went hunting for him over the web and dragged this here for everyone's inspection, with no confirmation that it was DK. Now whereas I can see that a sysop might want to do that in the course of (say) a sockpuppet investigation, for a normal editor to do it for no other reason than to try to prove that another editor is biased is outing by definition and intent. Or are you suggesting that Mathsci had some other purpose in doing this, aside from trying to dig up off-wiki dirt on DK? --Ludwigs2 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I generally find that hypothesizing about the motives of others is pointless (and often results in a misattribution of motives anyway) so what Mathsci's purpose is or was is not, afaic, not the issue. The bald facts are that the association was made by David Kane and therefore it is not outing (which, apparently, is also the consensus at ANI). My comment was solely because I don't see much point in bringing this issue up and then in mischaracterizing the discussion on ANI in this manner. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't outing because it didn't "drag his off-wiki life onto the wiki". His activities on that site showed us no more about his life than what we already knew: that he is a person who goes by the screenname of D.K. (which may or may not be his real name), and that he has an interest in race and intelligence. That's exactly the same information people had from his WP activities. And he provided the connection of his own free will, the connection was relevant to an assessment of his role here, so discussing it was and still is appropriate. Please let this matter rest now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FP, I know you have good intentions, but you're just wrong here. I'm not trying to say that the two DK's are different, nor am I trying to say that I approve of the off-site activities of that other DK. But Mathsci should not have gone hunting for dirt; that's inappropriate. For comparison, Mathsci actually sent me his name and personal information in an email, but no matter how annoyed I might get at him I would never use that information to stalk him over the web and see what activities he's been engaged in elsewhere.

do you really want to encourage these kinds of games? Except in clearcut cases of abuse, Wikipedia allows editors to be anonymous - it does this for very sound philosophical reasons, and that should be respected. In this case, however, you're allowing one editor who had the bad grace to ignore the principle to get away with it, because... why? I can't really see a clear reason for that's consistent with a rational application of policy. maybe you can enlighten me. --Ludwigs2 21:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I cannot really make it any clearer than I did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that's too bad, because the explanation you gave is not convincing. --Ludwigs2 21:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The unabomber never claimed to be mathsci, and he never asked people to ask with mathsci's work.... --Enric Naval (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is true, but irrelevant - that was irony, not a serious claim. --Ludwigs2 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, what are you thinking, making a post like that, and on an ArbCom page? Are you trying to ensure you get sanctioned? Even if there were no flaws in your outing allegation, comparing an editor to a triple-murderer who terrorised people for decades is way out of line. EdChem (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

are you asking me to strike it? I have no problem with that, if so, but I don't think it's particularly meaningful either way. --Ludwigs2 21:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking how you thought that was either helpful or appropriate, let alone acceptable. What you choose to do is up to you. How your actions will be perceived by others is out of your control, and I suspect you have done your reputation no good at all... EdChem (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point, EdChem. Before, I was just on record supporting an admonishment of Ludwigs for incivility and a ban from further participation in Wikipedia-process mediation as mediator, but now I also support a topic ban of Ludwigs with as broad a topic scope and as long a time period as imposed on any other editor here. I'm sick and tired of his wasting ArbCom's time with stunts like that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I really didn't think it was anything more than sarcasm, and I have absolutely no concern about my reputation. I learned a loooong time ago that once someone sets their mind on maligning you on wikipedia, there's not a damn thing to be done about it, so you might as well just ignore it and let whatever happens happen. You guys go ahead and throw all the dirt you want.

Now, if someone requests that I strike the paragraph, I will. if no one does, then I won't (because I still happen to think it's amusing). It makes no difference either way, anyway, because it's in the page history (though if Mathsci wants to ask for oversight for some personal reason, I will happily give permission so there will be no question of the propriety of the act. don't know how - or if - it works that way). are we on the same page now? --Ludwigs2 21:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I do ask you to strike it. For the sake of clarity (obviously not everyone read it as ironic at first glance) and for the sake of focus (further discussion of your Unabomber joke hardly helps this case) and for the sake of a bit of editorial peace (I don't think this needs a parenthetical). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I would really really strongly urge you to strike it immediately.

Having made it in the first place puts in front of us a further question about judgement and character. Thinking that it was amusing is not helping in any way.

You can't exactly undo that question, but at the very least please start by striking it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

as I said, not a problem. It's struck. And you are welcome to think whatever you like about my judgement and character. I don't know how to impress upon you the extent to which I simply do not care. No offense, but when people have said unpleasant things about me in the past I got told to suck it up. Suck it up I did, which is fine, but as a result you have no reason to expect me to play a whole lot of violin music over the hurt feelings of others. I won't generally go out of my way to be unpleasant, but if I say something that strikes a nerve, well... they can suck it up just like I did, or not, as they choose.

It's funny, when I first started editing wikipedia I had a very genial, relaxed, good-natured approach to the project. anything you don't like about my behavior, you can be sure that I learned it from the editors I've had to cope interact with. fine project we have here... --Ludwigs2 23:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Regents Park and Future Perfect are quite good at providing an accurate account of why David's complaint against Mathsci was quickly shot down. Ludwigs2, why can't you provide as accurate an account? You write, "For comparison, Mathsci actually sent me his name and personal information in an email, but no matter how annoyed I might get at him I would never use that information to stalk him over the web and see what activities he's been engaged in elsewhere." And of course "for comparison" Mathsci did nothing like this. Even assuming Mathsci had David kane's real name and personal information, MathSci has never shared that on-Wiki. Two different websites have a user named (and we assume this is a pseudonym) David Kane; one of them says he is the same as the David Kane on the other site, both express similar views. MathSci did not out anyone, he simply refered to information that is in the public domain, there are no privacy or confidentiality issues. This is NOTHING like revealing someone's real name and personal information. Ludwigs2 I know you feel MathSci has treated you unfairly so this may predispose you to treat him unfairly in return. All I can say is, it does not make you look good.

And we come back to Dvid kane's disruptive behavior, unjustified attacks against Mathsci that only serve to divert attention from real issues. SOmeone else has suggested I would be an inappropriate admin for blocking David Kane. Fair enough. I won't do it. But how much disruptive behavior will we let him get away with.

My point was that David Kane is obviously wrong that if he acts disruptively an admin will quickly block him. Wp is far more forgiving and its processes far slower, and frankly I am glad. But that is precisely why at this point we need ArbCom action. That is of course what this discussion is about - David Kane's lame argument as to why there is no need for ArbCom to step up here. My point is, obviously he is wrong about this. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My point was that Mathsci had to go looking for this other David.Kane account (which is not a Wikipedia account, and has no bearing on wikipedia except that it has an editor of the same name). My own belief is "what happens off-wiki stays off wiki", unless there's a clear reason that it needs to be addressed on wiki. Mathsci apparently wants to make the case that DK is a bad editor because of something someone named D.K did somewhere else on the internet. He did the same thing to Captain Occam, and BPesta, and to Ferrago the assassin, and to ... this would be a very long list, since I saw a diff of him doing the same behavior all the way back in 2008. what he's doing is nothing more than pure, mindless character assassination, for no other reason (I suspect) than that he cannot win his arguments using reason. Mathsci's goal here was to out D.K. as best he could, as evidenced by by the same effort around multiple other editors. He simply found a technicality that let him claim it wasn't actually an outing, and had a decent amount of assistance from other editors wikilawyering his way through the loophole.

Don't think I'm on D.K's side: he'll get to sleep in whatever bed he makes for himself here. I'll give him the grace of noting that he's a relative newcomer and probably doesn't grok the rules yet. Mathsci has no such excuse. He should know better, he does know better, and yet he consistently ignores policies he's capable of quoting in his sleep. that's just sad. --Ludwigs2 23:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Should editors be free to falsely accuse others of "disruption" with impunity?

Mathsci's recent complaint resulting in David's block.[3]

WeijiBaikeBianji takes up the chant.[4]

It's clear that there is a POV dispute, essentially "Race is biological" vs. "Race is not biological". Which position is "mainstream" has not been demonstrated, as is known to the accusers. Therefore any accusation of "disruption" is unsubstantiated. This appears to be an appeal to authority in lieu of arguing content, and an attempt to intimidate the "opposition". Disruption is a serious charge which needs to be substantiated. False or unsubstantiated accusations should, in my opinion, result in sanctions. mikemikev (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I invite anyone who is interested to take a look at what I actually said in my diff that mikemikev just linked to. What I politely request is that before editors who are involved in this arbitration case edit article space in articles closely related to the article topic (that is, articles that are likely to be subjects of a topic ban imposed on some editors), that they first discuss on the article talk page what their sources are, and what those sources say. I go to lavish academic libraries and look those sources up, and I urge all other editors to do the same. Let's look at what sources actually say, and let's discuss what they mean before making contentious edits in the ledes of highly controversial articles. That's what article talk pages are for, and that is the difference between editing an encyclopedia and posting comments on a blog. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The part I changed was unsourced in the first place, and I changed it to something that simple common sense would indicate. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that it was reverted. If you're so hot on sources, Weiji, with access to such "lavish" libraries, why don't you provide some sourcing for the sentence you appear to support?

Anyway, all this is besides the point. My action was not disruptive. You're jumping on the "unjustified behavioural accusation because I can't argue content which supports my bias" bandwagon. Pretty sad, and sanctionable in my opinion. Still, you are pretty new here. mikemikev (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to move this on ....

There is an endless amount of accusation, counter-accusation, bickering and flummery in this case. Most of it has very little to do with helping ArbCom arrive at an equitable decision. What the arbitrators need to do this is sensible diff-based evidence. Diffs - not rhetoric - are the bricks and mortar of an arbitration case. Please get them posted so we can look at the hard facts regarding conduct. I therefore repeat what I said above. These should be in following format and posted on /Evidence page, preferably with the word "NEW" in the heading:

• Username1

1. Misconduct1 (Incivilty, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]
2. Misconduct2 (Edit-warring, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]
3. Misconduct3 (POV-pushing, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]

• Username2

1. Misconduct1 (Incivilty, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]
2. Misconduct2 (Edit-warring, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]
3. Misconduct3 (POV-pushing, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]
4. Misconduct4 (POV-pushing, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]

• Username3

1. Misconduct1 (Edit-warring, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]
2. Misconduct2 (Misusing sources, for example) [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]

Please now all focus on presenting actual evidence.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Is what I've included on my evidence subpages here and here structured in an acceptable way? I've provided diffs and links for all of the accusations I've made against other editors, but I think most of these require some explanation in addition to the diffs, so I'm not sure it would be sufficient for me to just provide a list of diffs in the exact format you're suggesting. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

To be candid, I'd much prefer you vigorously edited your evidence and sub-pages and consolidated the pertinant bits into proposed findings of fact for those editors who are named parties. If the diffs are good, the misconduct is usually obvious. If they aren't good, it's probably a waste of time making the allegation.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger, I hate to say it, but this is not an good way of giving evidence; it works for some issues as a matter of happy accident, but for other issues it is simply ineffective. Every scientist and every lawyer knows that evidence is meaningless without interpretation. With things like extreme incivility - calling someone a goddamned, scum-sucking, mother-f#cking pig, for instance - the interpretation is implicit in the evidence (that's the happy accident I was talking about) and all one needs to do is provide a diff of the behavior to get the point across clearly. But for more subtle and pervasive problems, this does not work. For instance, calling someone a POV-pushing SPA is not terribly uncivil in and of itself, done once, but doing it several hundred times in various ways over the course of a dispute is terribly oppressive and defamatory, and posting diffs of all the hundreds of times in which it happens does not properly convey the problem without further explanation. Moreover, diffs can lie - Mathsci has presented at least sixty overt lies just about me using specious diffs (which means he's probably entered several hundred lies into evidence about various editors by this point): how can you show that something is a lie without explaining how what the diff says and what the editor implies about the diff simply don't jibe?

I understand your desire for clarity, but this is not the correct way to achieve it. The proper solution is actually present (if ignored) in the format for arbitrations: you need to restrict editors stringently to the limited word count for their evidence, and so force them to be concise in their arguments. let them make their point, add a couple of diffs to get the point across, and then get them to shut up unless they are asked for specific details. several editors have run extensive end-runs around the thousand-word limit for evidence by subpaging (Mathsci, again, has written a small novel in his user subpages - I suspect there's close to a hundred thousand words he's entered into evidence on this case) and that encourages other editors to vent as well so that things escalate. That makes the evidence impossible to evaluate without superhuman effort, which reduces arbiters to judging the issue according to their perceptions of the arguments involved, which creates an unfortunate opening for bias (one which is easily exploited by experienced editors who know how to frame issues properly to generate the kind of perceptions they want). What should be a simple process of examination and evaluation has turned into a political cesspool merely because no editor is willing to rein themselves in and no clerk/arbiter is willing to rein people in by demand. Don't ask people to restrict themselves to mere presentation of evidence; ask people to restrict themselves to short, cogent statements with the minimum evidence needed to make their point. decimate the volume of language used, and clarity will follow. --Ludwigs2 14:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Having some experience with diffs, more than one editor has (unsuccessfully) portrayed me as edit warring by providing a sequence of diffs which pointedly omits their being the originators of editorial strife as represented by subsequent actions of editors. This will only come back as more diffs of activities prior to the diffs provided, shifting blame. Such diff-oriented presentations of evidence are far more prone to (blatant) misrepresentation of events than cogent narrative with some supporting diffs. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn it, and I just went to the trouble of editing my evidence subpages to provide more diffs and less explanation, based on Roger Davies’ advice…

I agree that a lot of these behavioral problems require explanation, though, so I haven’t removed the explanations for those of them where I think it’s necessary. (Although as Ludwigs2 mentioned, there are some diffs that pretty much speak for themselves, such as [5] and [6].) I guess it’s up to arbitrators to let me know how my evidence ought to be presented. I’ve already gathered most of the diffs that I think I are necessary to support my points, and I can put them into whatever format will be most convenient for arbitrators. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam provides no context for the second diff: Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had just been unblocked from a block for harassment / personal attacks on me on the condition that he would behave himself. Instead he resumed his normal behaviour patterns. I was asked to refactor this diff and did so as soon as I read the request. Perhaps in his over-zealous haste Captain Occam forgot the refactoring edit.[7] Captain Occam is a single purpose account, devoted to race-related articles. The account has been blocked four times in the last year, with the last block (for disruptive editing) lifted so that he could participate in this ArbCom case. David.Kane used the same argument to have a recent block lifted. Captain Occam is playing the same type of game / stunt as David.Kane. What is at issue are his long term editing patterns, which are evidently problematic (hence the blocks). Mathsci (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that chains of diffs start at what the compiler of evidence deems as the last appropriate editorial action (whether theirs or someone else's), then followed by the sequence of diffs documenting the alleged inappropriate behavior. Mathsci has already provided diffs of my activities alleging I refused to participate in article talk before reverting when it was in fact himself that did not engage in dialog before reverting mine when I had explained my basis for removing some tags. Unfortunately, every list of diffs provided as evidence is bound to be responded to with another list of diffs in defense. I suggest ArbCom be prepared. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The evidence page is replete with diffs. To repeat them here only adds to Arbcoms's labors. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

Ludwigs2's personal attacks and his striking himself from list of parties

Ludwigs2 appears to have misinterpreted a remark by RegentsPark by striking his name off the list of involved parties. Prior to and during this case, Ludiwgs2 has engaged in inflammatory remarks and personal attacks which have resulted in a block and in warnings from multiple administrators. Even after being warned about the nature of his remarks, he continued adding inflammatory statements, designed to cause offense, on this page and on his talk page. He referred to my "perverted editng patterns": the word "perverted" has only meaning, unlike "perverse", and it is not nice. Ludiwigs2 has spent a lot of time making vitriolic comments about my editing which cannot be justified by my editing history. Here are some examples:

1. [8] ( When are you people going to realize that Mathsci - no matter how much support he has from certain editors and admins - is 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. So long as you all allow Mathsci to turn every page he touches into a full-scale cockfight, Wikipedia will not be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and it won't be a pleasant place to edit at all, at least not for anyone who doesn't kiss Mathsci's a$$.)
2. [9] (July 29, jeez, you're just figuring that out now? They (and a few others) have been playing this same game for ages. that's why I keep telling you not to take it so seriously - they don't take it seriously, and making the assumption that they do just lets them set you up.) [Statement that confirms doubts on Ludiwgs2's attitude towards those initially signed up for mediation]
3. [10] ( Using this logic, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that I suspect Mathsci might actually be the unibomber: He's admitted to being a mathematician, he has a dislike of new technology (which I know because of his resistance to using IRC), he certainly has a sufficient degree of hostility towards others, and elements of the unibomber manifesto reflect the same kind of ideation that Mathsci habitually uses. That's not outing, of course, unless Mathsci wants to confess that he's the unibomber. )
4. [11]
5. [12]
6. [13]
7. [14]
8. [15]
9. [16](I have one question: can I simply topic ban myself from R&I and remove myself from this arbitration? I have been holding out the faint hope that the worst offenders on this page would get sanctioned and something more like normal editing would resume on the article - in which case I would step in and do some decent work on it - but since that seems unlikely at this point, and since I have no interest editing the article if every damned revision is going to turn in to a siege no matter how innocuous it is, I would just as soon take this page off my watchlist and leave the POV-warriors to duke it out. My only real interest in this arbitration was to try to straighten out Mathsci's (to my mind) perverted approach to editing, but since that's not going to happen either, I can't do anything more here except throw spitballs. What's the point in that? Don't get me wrong: I'm one of the few editors in this mess who has never made a controversial edit to the article and has no vested interest in either side of the debate. I'd like to work on this article, and I'm both knowledgable and neutral on the topic, but writing a good article here just not important enough to me to be worth putting up with the bullshit. Is there a simple way to do that, or do I need to make the request to the arbiters, or what?) [Ludwigs2 made 2 major unsolicited edits to Race and intelligence on April 12: [17][18] ]
10. [19]
11. [20]

• Other personal attacks are recorded on User:Mathsci/subpage7.

Normally when users like ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) have come out with similar streams of unjustified and hyperbolic invective that consistently misrepresent other users, they have been sanctioned. Since Ludwigs2 has shown no contrition, and continued to add inflammatory remarks after having been warned by multiple administrators, only some kind of block (1 week or more) will send the message that this kind of behaviour and language, particularly during an ArbCom case, is not acceptable. Unlike CoM and OR, Ludwigs2's case is not mitigated by a long content editing history. Most of his time on wikipedia is spent inserting himself into areas of drama (at the moment this includes for example the talk page of Messianic Judaism) or in making wise-cracks on various reference desks. Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, it's your choice but, if Ludwigs2 wishes to voluntarily drop out of editing Race and intelligence and duck out of this arbcom case, I'd suggest letting it go, at least as far as the arbcom case is concerned. Ludwigs2 and the failure of the mediation effort are a distraction as far as this case is concerned. Of course, if you find that personal attacks on you continue in other forums, you would be entitled to take whatever action you think appropriate. But, like I first said, it's up to you. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's up to ArbCom and has very little to do with me. Ludwigs2 must take responsibility for his own actions. If he has broken wikipedia rules, insulted and intemperately misrepresented editors over a period of 4 months, he has to be held to account. The stuff that I've read from his pen, either about himself or about other users, bears little or no relation to reality. He has now spent one third of a year doing that without making positive contributions to wikipedia. He has in addition been advocating and facilitating the editing of single purpose accounts while denigrating regular editors of long standing in an unprecedented way. He joined the article during mediation as an editor, knowing full well that he had been in conflict already with most of the regular watchers of the article in 2008, mostly about WP:TAGTEAM and this very article. He seems at present to be intervening on wikipedia purely as if it were some form of social experiment, rather than an encyclopedia aiming at high quality content. The two edits he made above to Race and intelligence in April were POV-pushing and unsourced. Mediation at that stage had ended. Ludwigs2 was more concerned that these edits conformed to the bizarre rules he had established during mediation than the core editing policies of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk)

Mathsci, to this point I have seen very little evidence you assume good faith on the part of anyone once you've decided they are not on your side, for example, I've already been "clueless" and most recently you accused me of "wikilawyering." Stop stirring the pot, stop treating everyone as an adversary unless proven otherwise (most unlikely as you've already treated them as an adversary), and your own experience and perspective may improve. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I comment on edits. You did make an utterly clueless edit recently. You confused a primary source (a one page open letter in the WSJ) and its later version, also a primary source (a reprint of exactly the same article as an editorial). The edit you made presented the one page article in the WSJ as an acceptable secondary source. Actually I'm not sure what the purpose of your edit was; it has been removed long ago and replaced by properly sourced content. At no stage did you check two of the secondary sources used to write the section: explicit page numbers were provided. Normal editing or queries involves making checks like that. Professor marginalia made that check later and corrected a typing error in the page number the second time the reference was used. Mathsci (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The clerk notes that the withdrawal has not yet been authorized by ArbCom, so it remains to be seen what effect Ludwigs's action will have. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He's been informed by a clerk that he cannot withdraw. Mathsci (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The problems of incivility with Ludwigs2's edits in interactions with other editors seem to recur fairly often. At the moment he seems to be having problems when interacting with ex-arbitrator Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Talk:Messianic Judaism. [21] Discussions rapidly become personalized and rarely involve sources. Mathsci (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It might be noted that I approve of his proposed result on Messianic Judaism, in case anyone thinks that I oppose everything he says. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Focus of the Dispute

I think that the current proposals for the Focus of the Dispute do not get to the heart of the issue. This is, obviously, not that important to the larger course of Arb Com's work, but I thought it might be useful to provide a better answer. I added this to the workshop but wanted to mention it here, both to seek comments from others and to provide further background discussion.

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.

1) I think it is very useful to specifically mention and define the hereditarian hypothesis. This is the absolute core of the dispute. Anyone who does not know that can't possibly understand the situation.

2) Consider this statement by Slrubenstein, a skilled and experienced admin.

"We all know that the claim that average differences in IQ are genetic in origin is fringe science. . . . I have merely pointed out that to claim that people of a certain race are on average innately less intelligent (meaning, g, general inelligence) is to make a racist claim. This to me is obvious on its face and needs no further evidence or justification."

Again, Slrubenstein is not some random, inexperienced editor. He is a respected admin. In many ways, his work at Wikipedia represents a quality and committment that I, and other editors, aim to emulate. Yet, in good faith, he thinks that I (and editors who agree with me) are "racist," or at least insistent that racist claims receive thorough coverage on Wikipedia. Needless to say, this makes a productive working relationship difficult.

3) I would be interested to see if other editors agree with my description of the focus on the dispute. I hope/think they will, including editors like MathSci and admins like Slrubenstein who are, shall we say, not my biggest fans.

Getting the focus of the dispute correct is not the most important thing in this dispute, but it can only help matters. David.Kane (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Per correspondence I received from Dr. Audrey Smedley over the weekend inquiring regarding her articles in Encyclopedia Britannica, regarding the debate, she states:

A more updated discussion of the "debate" is found in my textbook, Race in North America......, in the third edition which appeared in 2007. But my sense is that the "debate" has somewhat diminished in the scientific literature, and this will be reflected in the fourth edition which I am working on now.

with best wishes,

Whether we like it or not, there still is debate, "diminished" is not "resolved" or "eliminated." I've already had my pointed exchange with Slrubenstein on his accusations of racism—Slrubenstein is entitled to his personal opinion that race is a purely social construct and that any contentions of racial differences are "scientific" if not outright racism. That his opinion is the only correct one (indeed, any alternate opinion is immoral) represents advocacy no different from the kind that other editors find themselves accused of. Slrubenstein is far more likely to gain supporters of his editorial position by sticking to sources like Smedley and staying away from demonizing individuals.

   I regret that the same admirable passion for social and intellectual integrity that serves Slrubenstein so well elsewhere appears to have added to the conflict here. Unfortunately, this is what is likely to happen when there are other seeds of discord fueled by gross disrespect by others for others. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, "regardless of whether or not the hereditarian hypothesis is true" should be "regardless of whether or not the hereditarian hypothesis ultimately proves untenable." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm immediately suspicious when someone begins a statement about a controversial subject with "we all know that..." That said, I think the first part of Coren's "focus of case" finding is correct. The debate is broadly about the cause of the observed mean difference on intelligence tests.

You (David.Kane) have cast this in terms of the "other side" trying to completely eliminate the hereditarian hypothesis entirely from articles. I understand your argument, but I am less than convinced by your presented evidence. Cool Hand Luke 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen WP:FRINGE invoked enough to tell (my perception, of course) advocacy for elimination from support for inclusion as a minority view. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke: Apologies. I did not make myself clear. I do not think that most editors on the "other side" want to "completely eliminate the hereditarian hypothesis." They have no problem with including this information in, say, Scientific racism or in an article devoted to a specific researcher like J. Philippe Rushton. Consider Slrubenstein's proposal offered during mediation last year. (Again, I don't mean to pick on Slrubenstein. He is extremely experienced, almost always civil, very intelligent and so on.) Slrubenstein clearly prefers a Wikipedia in which there is not a thorough, centralized, explanation/discussion of the hereditarian hypothesis. And that is a perfectly reasonable position, offered in good faith! I just think that seeing this dispute as the focus of the debate can only help Arb Com in its deliberations. If I have inaccurately described the opinions of Slrubenstein, MathSci, Ramdrake and others, I apologize. But I am pretty sure that I have not . . . Corrections welcome! David.Kane (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

David, I think it would be great to improve the article about the studies of monozygotic twins who grew up in different families That's most convincing evidence of importance of hereditary factors for general public. This page is terrible. It simply does not describe the results of the studies and describes instead the siblings, which is a totally different thing. Biophys (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• CHL is correct when he says that the topic is the debate over the causes of the gap in average IQ scores between population groups in the US.

• David.Kane's statements are unreliable in assessing the motives of others. What he has written about me (and others I suppose) are just what he imagines himself, his own ceaseless attempts at lobbying, a last minute minute effort at face-saving. Taking a quote out of context by Slrubenstein and putting it agressively in capitals is a way of continuing the lobbying but not particularly helpful. David.Kane is misrepresenting the way other wikipedians edit this encyclopedia. The content editing history is often far more informative than random comments on talk pages (which can be off the cuff, like Carcharoth's comments on race-related articles above).

• The first sentence of the lede of Race and intelligence as inserted by Ludwigs2 on April 12 starts with " Race and intelligence research", a phrase I believe that was crafted by David.Kane. As the first sentence it suggests that university departments encourage and fund such research and that there is a significant amount of it. All these statements are wholly incorrect and unsourced. In other words the first sentence of the article is misleading.

• The few academics that do write about the topic, such as Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton, are not government funded, have had their scholarship and scientific methodology queried in peer-reviewed journals and publicize their work in often problematic ways (VDARE, The Occidental Quarterly, American Renaissance (magazine)). Wikipedia cannot present their work as if it has been accepted by mainstream science. David.Kane presumably wants to present "the facts" so that readers can decide for themselves. I haven't personally edited content on wikipedia which deals with the "science" that may or may not be involved here. (The nearest I got to that was including a fairly precise summary, quoted directly from the 2010 book of Richard Nisbett, of the main points in the 2005 paper of Rushton and Jensen.) To me it has about the same status as claims about cold fusion, except that there are separate ethical issues involved. David.Kane, Captain Occam and Mikemikev have spent a lot of their time adding content on that "science", using primary sources.

• David.Kane conveniently chooses to lump together editors that disagree with his edits. But there are many: Maunus, Professor marginalia, WeijiBaikiBianji, Aprock, etc. As I see it, David.Kane is trying to modify wikipedia so that his extreme point of view looks reasonable and has tried a number of different strategies. It is, however, David.Kane, Captain Occam and Mikemikev that seem to have become fixated on race-related articles (in David.Kane's case this seems to be connected with his interest in elite colleges and their admissions policies). He is now trying to misrepresent everybody that disagrees with his approach. It is after all David.Kane who tried to divide all commentators in this subject into "hereditarian and environmentalist researchers into race and intelligence", pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The rest of us regular editors of wikipedia, who insist on secondary sources and careful scholarship, are left to pick up the pieces.

• Even as I write, Mikemikev, Captain Occam and David.Kane are agitating in concert for more changes to the lede of Race (classification of humans) on its talk page. Why are they doing this during an ArbCom case and why are they doing so together? (Note that Race and intelligence is locked at the moment.)

Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the locus of the dispute is that accusations have replaced discourse, let alone any form of thoughtful discussion. I suggest that the constant stream of accusations of editors resorting to warping the time-space continuum to bend WP to their will is what is at fault. Slrubenstein and I have had pointed words over "racism" yet we are currently holding quite a collegial, engaging and productive discussion away from this mishegoss regarding an interesting source in my possession. (I hope Slrubenstein concurs with my assessment.) Any finding that there is some pure content dispute that presents an insurmountable obstacle does nothing to quell the conflict; it only (incorrectly) "confirms" there is some content issue that good faith conduct cannot resolve. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And on Mathsci David.Kane quoting Slrubenstein, "We all know that the claim...," it would be best to stick to what sources say, not to what editors, even respected admins, state regarding a topic. Note also the misdirection that admins have superior knowledge to mere editors. That only fuels the perception that this is about personal conflict. Wait, hold on, you think maybe that's the problem here? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba, David.Kane mentioned Slrubenstein, mentioned that Slrubenstein was an administrator and David.Kane quoted Slrubenstein. Please address your homilies to him and try to read more carefully before submitting passages like the above. It is essentially a piece of gibberish. Mathsci (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies and many thanks, I've apparently lost track of who is accusing whom. Stricken and corrected. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not reading everything above... I think the initial description of the problem by David (second paragraph in the beginning of this thread) is actually fair description. But the matter is really controversial. In particular, James D. Watson (the discoverer of the double helix) made a politically incorrect statement about race and intelligence, and ... lost his job.Biophys (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... by "politically incorrect" you don't mean "racist," do you?

Be that as it may, one could just as well (and in fact should rather) say that James Watson made a scientifically incorrect statement about race and intelligence. Watson discovered the double helix through years of painstaking research. That is a monumental achievement that requires a great deal of knowledge of and imaginative skill not only in biology but in chemistry, math, and topography. It does not require one to have comparable knowledge or skill in the theory of evolution, and it requires no knowledge of human evolution at all. Now, in fact I assume Watson knows the basics of evolutionary theory as I hope any biologist does. But he certainly has not done any serious research on human evolution.

This is what he said: that he is

inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa. All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really .... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

Now, this actually flies in the face of a great deal of research on human evolution. It shows either profound ignorance of or contempt for research on human evolution that is as painstaking and rigorous as Watson's work in molecular chemistry. As Director of the Cold Spring Harbor laboratory, Watson was responsible for encouraging and cultivating a wide range of scientific research, and it should surprise no one that a man this ignorant of an adjunct field (human evolution) and this contemptuous of research that has been done on human evolution is ill-suited to provide leadership of a laboratory that sponsors and is a home for researchers working on a range of problems.

There are two points I wish to make. First, it only shows ignorance of science to think that just because one is an expert on the structure of DNA, one is therefore also an expert - or even particularly knowledgable - about human evolution. Indeed, the facts should lead one to the opposite inference. If Watson had to work for years to figure out the structure of DNA, it is reasonable to infer that to acheive scientific expertise on any particular topic requires years of often challenging research on that topic.

Second, Watson's having been fired does not need one to turn to politics to come up with an explanation. He was misrepresenting evolutionary science, and the Director of a prestigious research laboratory that sponsors a wide range of research cannot have a director who is contemptuous of or for whatever other reason misrepresents an entire branch of science - it is the mark of a terrible leader and suggest a poisonous arather than supportive research environment for those working under him. If the Attorney General said something like "The Constitution gives us no right to regulate interstate commerce" I would hope he would be fired, and I wouldn't say he was fired for making a political mistake, he would be fired for misrepresenting basic law his Department is responsible for. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein continues to assume the environmentalist hypothesis to be both true and mainstream in academia. He continues to pretend to be an expert in evolutionary science. He dares to disparage James Watson, who was pilloried by the media and the hysterical left wing mob. I thoroughly recommend topic banning him from race related articles. mikemikev (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In other words, if James D. Watson started editing wikipedia, he would be sanctioned together with David and Mikemikev.Biophys (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite. mikemikev (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

POV-pushing by Captain Occam et al

During this ArbCom case the three SPAs David.Kane, Mikemikev and Captain Occam have resumed their problematic behaviour. Mikemikev's contributions on Talk:Race (classification of humans) are easy enough to find.[22][23][24] (threatens to change lede) [25] (changes lede) [26] (self-revert) [27][28][29][30][31][32] After Professor marginalia had discussed secondary sources with Mikemikev, his short response was "Utter crap".[33] Mikemikev usually gives his own point of wikipedia without backing it up with proper secondary sources. Captain Occam has nevertheless been supporting some of Mikemikev's arguments on that talk page.[34]

As I have already mentioned in the workshop, Captain Occam did a whitewashing job on Race, Evolution, and Behavior, a highly controversial book by J. Philippe Rushton [35]. I have mentioned in my evidence that other users not involved in this ArbCom case have recently noticed the huge chunks of content that Captain Occam removed. Some of that has now been restored. David.Kane attempted to edit the article recently and was blocked for making contentious edits. The shorter abridged version of the book has been referred to as a form of racist propaganda. Recently Captain Occam has been trying to defend his edits on the talk page [36] [37] [38][39][40][41][42] and has objected to re-insertion of book reviews, which are almost all negative. This is a further piece of evidence of what this group of editors have been up to in their attempt to create a little walled garden of race-related articles with a very particular slant. Varoon Arya whitewashed Mainstream Science on Intelligence and Snyderman and Rothman (study) in a similar way, as I've already mentioned. (Note: I have not edited this article or its talk page.)

I understand that, following Rvcx's RfAr, it has been convenient for these SPAs to use me as some kind of scapegoat. But it is their content ediitng and POV-pushing that it is problematic. One rather damning fact against them is that all my edits to these race related articles (all a direct consequence of the way mediation went and most of them related to history) have stayed in place, because they were properly sourced and neutral (well all except Ludwigs2's POV edits to the lede on April 12). That is not the case for almost all the material Mikemikev, Captain Occam and David.Kane have added. As I have said, I won't touch the "science" because much of it seems very dubious and not in any way encyclopedic. I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that Captain Occam is trying to paint my talk page comments in the worst possible light and is attempting to play the unfortunate victim (not at all convincingly). He is not a victim at all: he is a user who has quite consciously gone out of his way to blank content on this encyclopedia to push the racialist point of view of Rushton. His comments on Talk:Race, Evolution, and Behavior speak for themselves. That David.Kane and he have chosen to edit that article and its talk page during arbitration shows that they have a fundamental lack of awareness of the purposes of this encyclopedia, aimed at high quality reliable content.

From the start Captain Occam has viewed this case solely as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mathsci, despite the indisputable fact that my brief period of sustained editing in this area resulted from an attempt in the last stages of mediation to help neutralise David.Kane's highly problematic rewrite of Race and intelligence. On Europe periodically disruptive editors appear (often sockpuppets of banned users) pushing a nationalistic point of view, usually about countries on the borders. That behaviour is far easier to deal with than that of a tag team of POV-pushers on History of the race and intelligence controversy determined to use force of numbers to create a false consensus that primary sources be used to rewrite a history article. That article is very carefully sourced: when Victor Chmara attempted to change large parts recently, claiming bias, his modifications were reversed by a whole series of editors, either because they contradicted WP:RS or because they were his own WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of primary sources. Mathsci (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

After Professor marginalia had discussed secondary sources with Mikemikev, his short response was "Utter crap"

If you actually read the discussion, Marginalia is stating unsourced opinion throughout, mostly divorced from any given sources. And yes, his opinion (such as: "If scientists are studying genome differences it is in a sense irrelevant what the genome is "doing"") is, in my opinion, utter crap. mikemikev (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

??? In my comment I presented you a source. In my preceding comment I pointed you to where the issues were already discussed in the article complete with inline sources. (Scientists haven't held off from building these waiting until they have fully mapped all the genomes to phenotypes.[43]) Professor marginalia (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised they haven't stopped building cladistic trees, because they are based on parts of the genome known to be selectively neutral. In this case it is relevant what the parts of the genome in question are doing, in this case nothing. However, cladistics is entirely irrelevant to the question of racial taxonomy, and I wonder why you bring it up. You brought up naive genetic diversity measurement, and said "In other words, in biology race and subspecies are the same, but the diversity in humans today don't qualify as having any", and I was making the point that genetic diversity cannot be used to decide whether or not race is of taxonomic significance. Taxonomy is based on phenotypic characteristics. Until we know what the genome is doing we cannot reason (Lewontin style) from genotypic to phenotypic diversity. So If scientists are studying genome differences it is in a sense irrelevant what the genome is "doing" is wrong except for a naive and valueless genome comparison, and it's certainly irrelevant to this discussion (ironically).

Concerning your point about skin color not correlating with anything, I agree. However race does correlate with things so I wonder why you throw in this red herring.

And I know that your sources don't support what you're saying.

Hence: "Utter crap." mikemikev (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Lewontin style". Ah-ha. And yet Dawkins writes in the text you previously misrepresented The Ancestor's Tale, that Lewontin's view had become "near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles." The point of wikipedia is to write content based on the claims found in the sources--and not those you come up with. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that if we have a source saying "most scientists think X because professor Y made mistake Z" we should write X in wikipedia? mikemikev (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I’d wondered when I was next going to be in the title of another round of your accusations against everyone you dislike. You’ve already posted threads like this named after David.Kane, Mikemikev and Ludwigs2 within the past week, so I knew it had to be my turn again sometime soon.

I believe that in my evidence here I already addressed your claim about my involvement in the article about Rushton’s book. I was given instructions to rewrite the article at the NPOV noticeboard, before following these instructions I asked on the article talk page whether anyone had any objections to them, and there were no objections to this either there or anywhere else until more than a year later. If this really were “an extreme example of POV-pushing”, as you called it in your evidence, isn’t it likely that at least one person would have offered something other than encouragement about these changes during the year between when I made them and when you began making a big deal about them?

Other than that, I’m not going to bother responding to anything you’ve said here, both because I don’t think it deserves a response and because I’m concerned about how these long rants of yours are affecting the arbitration case. Every one of these threads from you is mostly just rehashing things you’ve already complained about before, either in previous rants or on the evidence page. But on the other hand, arbitrators aren’t going to be aware of this until after they’ve read it and looked at all of the diffs. So every time you start another one of these threads, you pretty much guarantee that you’re wasting another hour or so of the arbitrators’ time, by getting them to read your newest complaints about things you’ve already described to them before.

I don’t want to encourage this, which is what I’d be doing by giving you a detailed point-by-point response. Apart from not wanting to waste arbitrators’ time, I’m concerned that you might be producing text faster than they can read it, which would cause this case to get dragged out indefinitely if the arbitrators aren’t able to keep up with everything that’s being posted. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Mathsci and: "...Race, Evolution, and Behavior, a highly controversial book by J. Philippe Rushton... The shorter abridged version of the book has been referred to as a form of racist propaganda."

   One of the impediments to discussion is that any talk of race is "racist;" anything which postulates racial differences is "racist." This sort of denounciation of Rushton is more of the same. I'll just add to the diatribes here by actually quoting what Rushton says about allegations against the abridged edition (2000):

   Preface to 2nd Special Abridged Edition

   The first printing of this Special Abridged Edition appeared in 1999 by Transaction Publishers. It followed up on their successful 1995 and 1997 publications of the1st and 2nd unabridged editions and a Japanese translation published by Hakuhin-sha in 1996.

   However, when Transaction distributed thousands of copies of the Special Abridged Edition in a mass mailing to academics, a firestorm of controversy engulfed them. Although the Abridged Edition presented the same research in a condensed and popularly written style, similar to that used for articles in Discover Magazine, Reader’s Digest, and Scientific American, the Progressive Sociologists, and some other self-styled “anti-racists,” threatened Transaction with loss of a booth at annual meetings, advertising space in journals, and access to mailing lists if they continued to send it out.

   Transaction caved in to this pressure, withdrew from publishing the book, and even apologized. Transaction’s letter of apology appeared on the inside front cover of their flagship journal Society (January/February, 2000). Accounts of the affair appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education (January 14, 2000), Canada’s National Post (January 31, 2000), the National Report (February 28, 2000), and elsewhere.

   Why the attempt to trash or suppress this booklet? Because there is no stronger taboo today than talking about race. In many cases, just being accused of “racism” can get you fired. Yet, teachers in America know the races differ in school achievement; policemen know the races differ in crime rates; social workers know the races differ in rates of welfare dependency or getting infected with AIDS. And sports fans know that Blacks excel at boxing, basketball, and running. They all wonder why. Some blame poverty, White racism, and the legacy of slavery. Although many doubt that “White racism” really tells the whole story, few dare share their doubts. When it comes to race, do you really dare to say what you think?

   Racial groups differ much more widely than many people realize. Yet vocal groups in academia and the media simply forbid letting the public in on an open discussion. Many worry that just mentioning that the races differ creates stereotypes and limits opportunities. But looking at race does not mean ignoring individuals. It may even help us become more aware of each person’s special needs. This book presents the scientific evidence that race is a biological reality that has both scientific and everyday meaning. Other recent books on the issue are: The Bell Curve (the 1994 best seller by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray), Why Race Matters (a 1997 book by philosopher Michael Levin), The g Factor (a 1998 book by psychologist Arthur Jensen), and TABOO: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It (a recent book by award winning journalist Jon Entine).

   For more detailed information on any of the topics in this Special Abridged Edition, please read the corresponding sections in one of the unabridged editions, which contain over 1,000 references to the scholarly literature, a glossary, complete name and subject indexes, and 65 tables and figures. You can also point and click to the www.charlesdarwinresearch.org which published this booklet for more information.

   May, 2000

   J. Philippe Rushton

   Department of Psychology

   University of Western Ontario,

   London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2..

I'll leave out the reviews of Rushton that paint an alternate picture, i.e., other than "racist propaganda." The point is, charges of "racism" have no place in reasoned discussions of content at R&I. WP is not a court which tries authors according to editor's personal beliefs. I've been called a fascist and a Nazi, doesn't mean I'm either. If editors got off their high moral ground and engaged in discourse they might find editing at R&I a much more pleasurable and informative experience regardless of differences in editorial viewpoints.

   Since we are once again discussing content and not behavior, link to the above (the entirety of the abridged edition) is here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Short version The strongest societies are those which support a diversity of views and open discourse regarding them. WP might look to learn something from that. With regard to Rushton, the solution is to represent him without our personal judgements, only the judgement of subsequent scholarship, without the appelations of "racist." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The salient point here I think is that there was such widespread antipathy to Rushton's book on the part of scholars. Bear in mind that this book was sent out free of charge, meaning Rushton or the publisher bore the cost, so they must have thought that they were reaching a desired audience (the alternative is that the were deliberately provoking controversy to get attention. I point this out as the only other reason I can imagine; I am not cynical enough to believe it ... I think Rushton or Transaction's marketing teacm genuinely thought that the membership of the AAA and ASA and perhaps other professional organizations really would like the book and perhaps assign it to classes. Note: this implies that at the start they respected or wanted the respect of sociologists and anthropologists.

Now, a little perk of being an academic is free books, and most professors welcome this. On the other hand, as offices shrink, so does shelf space and some books inevitably get thrown out. But what is salient here is not the huge number of scholars who threw a free book into the recycling bin, but the fact that they protested to their professional organizations (which had provided Transaction with mailing lists of their members for the free distribution). Protesting actually takes time and energy i.e. has costs, yet, people with little free time on their hands were so pissed off they actually protested.

So a pretty sizable number of scholars, whom Transaction (or even Rushton) thought would be interested in the book, turned out to hate it. Now, Rushton comes up with one possible explanation: he broke the taboo against talking about race. Do I really have to provide you guys with the evidence that there is no such taboo on talking about race? At most, one could plausibly say there is a taboo against talking about race in a particular way. I have argued that this way is called "racist" and my purpose is not to be inflamatory but to address a very real issue that reliable secondary sources have addressed. Following NPOV I gladly acknowledge that this is not the only point of view but it is one significant view and it cannot be ignored (to be clear: i am NOT right now referring to any comment I or others have made about other editors, but rather comments I and others have made about Rushton and others, and my point is that when we do so we are calling attention to views that can be found in verifiable sources. Another possible explanation for why recipients of the free gift actually complained is that they view it as junk science (without having to make any accusations of racism).

Vecrumba introduced this event into the discussion and I think it is reasonable to refer to it in an article on the Race & IQ controversy, but if we are going to refer to it it will be pretty hard to keep out of any article people accusing Rushton of either racism or junk science. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rushton's book being described for what it contains, its influences on subsequent work (also including the influence of Rushton's research, as summarized in the book, on the antecedent The Bell Curve), and reactions to it, initially and over time. My point was that we, as editors, however, cannot sit in judgement of it as "racist" nor should we use it as a pawn to in waging conflicts with editors participating at the article with the implication they, too, are somehow racist because they lobby for inclusion in some form of a work accused of being racist. That just gets in the way of any reasoned discussion of sources. There are tertiary sources out there (not speaking of generalist EB) which discuss Rushton's scholarship (or not) and data impartially. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

<= I have been writing specifically about POV-pushing on a race-related WP article, the article on Rushton's 1995 book Race, Evolution, and Behavior. This book is recommended by American Renaissance president Jared Taylor at their meetings (e.g. in this video of an address by Rushton at their 2008 biennial meeting). The abridged 106 page version is sold on the National Vanguard and American Renaissance websites. In the 2004 book Race in Mind: Race, IQ, and Other Racisms by Alexander Alland, the book is discussed in detail. Similarly in Concepts and theories of human development, the 2002 book by Richard M. Lerner. In 2009, the following description appeared in the Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, referring specifically to Rushton's book Race, Evolution, and Behavior,[44]

A significant and unwholesome element of academic psychology has been the various attempts to ‘scientifically’ assert the superiority of white races over black. This body of work, notably associated with Charles Murray in the USA, Jean Philippe Rushton in Canada and Richard Lynn in the UK typically and controversially claims genetic differences in intelligence between races (see Herrnstein & Murray 1994, Lynn 1997, Rushton 1997). These usually focus on studies of IQ, but occasionally include a bizarre interest in cranial measurement, sexual activity and penis size (Younge 1999, Lieberman 2001). Authors such as Rushton have been guilty of inadequate scholarly methods and dubious associations with right-wing pressure groups and funding sources, yet they retain the protection of academic posts. Their numerous publications furnish fascist politicians with spurious ammunition for their racist arguments. Theories and views about race and human difference are not merely abstract or neutral in their effects; they can and are put to use in the service of political extremism, discrimination and abuse.

Many references to the book in journals or academic books refer to Rushton making the abridged version available to extreme right-wing pressure groups (such as White Supremacist groups) who have used it as a tool to justify their political agendas. On the other hand, when he strays outside the narrow topic of psychometrics and IQ testing, Rushton's statements about evolution, genetics, and reproductive patterns have been questioned due to dubious scholarship. A lot of people have received, bought or downloaded this booklet by Rushton; despite its acknowledged shortcomings, it is not surprising that some people, swayed by Rushton's writing, should want to spread his word. Probably the wikipedia page about the book/booklet is not the appropriate place for that. (That might not be the explanation behind Captain Occam's extensive blanking of criticism a year ago.[45])

@Vecrumba: Most commentators carefully distinguish between "racialist" and "racist". We can only use secondary sources in interpreting parts of this book, essentially a historical document. I don't see how we can interpret the meaning of Rushton's preface to the abridged edition of the book/booklet, particularly in the light of other related events, well recorded in secondary sources. Similarly we can't discuss Rushton's statement in later parts of the 2008 AmRen video above that the Republic of China is capable of sending a man to the moon but that the Indian subcontinent is not. Mathsci (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re to Mathsci. You repeat my mistakes (the beginning of the thread). Calling others "SPAs" is not really helpful. Please see Wikipedia:No vested contributors. Biophys (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, this arbitration is in part, possibly in large part, about SPAs. I'm not sure how it can proceed without suggestions that this account or that is an SPA. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware about the WP:SPAs and believe they should be topic banned if behave disruptively. But it would be good to have a consistent official policy about this. So far, we have none. In particular, there were several SPAs involved in my (Russavia-Biophys) case, but this fact seems to be disregarded [46]. Thus, I strongly doubt if SPAs are relevant here.Biophys (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci: Please correct me if you were not holding that Rushton's abridged edition in particular had been accused of being "racist" against editors who contend Rushton's POV is significant. After all, Rushton's research did spawn the Bell Curve, which lifted him out of obscurity. That his scholarship has been later deemed dubious is irrelevant to the impact of his work on the "debate." And, as I have indicated, the "debate" is not quite settled (per Smedley). All that has to be done is to represent what has been said by whom and when and have the article arrive at current scholarship. R&I and the history of R&I are inseparable, it is only what gets covered at what depth that is different between the two WP articles regarding R&I. As I already stated, there are objective accounts of Rushton's work in tertiary sources, e.g., encyclopedias related to psychology, which can be quoted to provide an assessment without all the sturm und drang over accusations of racism. Did you use "racialist" regarding commentaries on the work? No, you used "racist propaganda." This sort of bringing up something you didn't say as suddenly relevant and "the point" so to speak is part of the frustration in discussing anything with you. This dialog would go far better if you and everyone else stayed away from playing the racist card.

@RegentsPark: The overabundant well-spring of bad faith on the part of some sorely needs to be addressed and is more important than SPA or not. Content can be debated collegially with anyone willing to do the same, regardless of single interest or not. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your contention that the 'overabundant well-spring of bad faith' is the main issue that needs to be addressed. The way I see it, perhaps mistakenly, is that the main issue is whether or not a group of SPAs are skewing the neutrality of articles on race and intelligence. That cannot be addressed without specifically referring to perceived single purpose accounts as SPAs. It is hardly surprising that 'collegiality' has broken down given that this is an arbcom case but arbitration is designed to get at and address the issues that underlie that breakdown. The underlying issues could be 'mathsci is single-handedly attempting to remove an importan view on race and intelligence, aided by a few others' or it could be 'captain occam, david.kane, and mikemikev, and possibly other editors, are here with no other purpose than to, possibly in concert, push a fringe view of race and intelligence". In the former case, the issue is about mathsci's motivations and behavior. In the latter, the issue is about a set of single purpose accounts. I don't see how mathsci can make the latter case without specifically talking about single purpose accounts. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark, you wrote, "The way I see it, perhaps mistakenly, is that the main issue is whether or not a group of SPAs are skewing the neutrality of articles on race and intelligence." I don't think there is any mistake at all in your analysis. That is the current problem with articles on this topic: they badly represent the actual published scientific literature on the issues and constitute a walled garden of POV-pushing articles. Any attempt by genuinely well read editors to edit articles on these issues to reflect reliable secondary sources is soon reverted by the POV-pushing SPAs. It will take serious action by ArbCom to restore Wikipedia's integrity in this area. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba, it seems as if you consider tertiary sources "more objective" because they do not characterize Ruchton's work as "racist." This way if identifying who is objective frankly strikes me as subjective. Also, I do not think our job is to find "objective" sources fo rthe exact same reasons that our job is not to find "the truth." We instead provide accounts of all significant views from verifiable sources. We can use primary sources, but since they are often open to interpretation, it is often better to use secondary sources because they are explicitly offering interpretations (or analysis, or argument). But Vecrumba, I realy know of no precedent in Wikipedia for favoring a tertiary source simply because we do not like what the secondary sources say. And I think it would be a very bad idea to start doing so now. MatchSci has offered a number of very well-regarded secondary sources; Alland's book was widely well-reviewed and well-respected, for example. No one has argued that we should present only their views, but your suggestion - maybe I misinterpret?? - that we not use them is unacceptable. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ak vai, I hate it when we're in violent agreement. I suggest a (psychology-specific) tertiary source in this particular case so that the assessment of Rushton's work is devoid of "reactions to"; "reactions to" Rushton in turn are portrayed as they are relevant article content, whether coming from first-person support or invective (primary) and reviews by other scholars (really, primary or secondary depending on their role in the debate and nature of their work, honestly we argue too much over such fine points). I don't "mind" some scholar or community spokesperson calling Rushton's postulations "racist"—whatever I think is irrelevant in any event. However, I think readers will be able to put more stock in an objective assessment of Rushton's methods and conclusions when it comes from a source which is not also engaged in applying labels to Rushton's work. That is all—it's not at all a matter of "not liking" secondary sources, it's the benefit of having one more (encyclopedic) layer which presents the consensus of secondary sources without the shouting. Content wise, this can be "Rushton's work is generally taken to be X" per tertiary (that protects the "generally taken to be X" statement from accusations of being a biased synthesis of cherry-picked primary and/or secondary sources), then followed by specifics from secondary sources. I think we can agree there's been too much shouting, yes? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Short version Looking to tertiary sources for summary statements as opposed to editors creating summary statements from secondary sources—either explicitly stated or implicitly through the mere selection of a set of sources—promotes unbiased content because it eliminates accusations of "agendas" in selecting and representing sources. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not discount your method of using tertiery sources out of hand, but neither do I endorse it. Tertiary sources - san an EB article - have authors you know. The author on the article on Rushton could just be a former graduate student or colleague of a member of the EB's Editorial Board. That scholar may be a respected scholar (or not; I wrote articles for the Columbia Encyclopedia when I was a graduate student. I am still proud of what I wrote, but believe me, I was not then and even now am not a recognized authority on the topics about which I wrote. I was just knowledgeable enough to find the major sources and provide my own synthesis) but ultimately it is still her view. If writing for an encyclopedia she will strive for a kind of neutral tone WP aspires to, yes, this is a reasonable assumption. But these articles are NOT unbiased (or, they are unbiased only in relation to sa small portion of the article that provides "agreed upon facts" like the dates for someone's presidence of the 2000 US Census figure for the US population); it is just that, only a real expert on the topic can see where the bias is. But it is still her POV and if EB asked someone else to write the article, it could have a different slant. And encyclopedia articles, the paper kind, I mean, are seriously restricted by size issues which means someone writing an article on Rushton may not be able to go into detail on the controversy or if she does, an EB editor may well edit it to make it as concise as possible. These guys REALLY are aware of "the bottom line." I would use encyclopedias and other tertiary sources as rusty weather-vains, they are good indicaters of the prevailing winds although they do not always point in the precise direction of the wind. But they are always superficial or incomplete. These are in my experience objective limits to any encyclopedia. This applies to their accounts of debates or trends in the secondary literature.

I think Wikipedia aspires to do to the encyclopedia what the OED did to your Websters or American Heritage dictionaries. Or even the two volume Oxford "shorter" English dictionary. (And more, since we are constantly being updated.) I do not think that the makers of OED looked to Websters as a source, except perhaps as a resource for learning about other possible sources the OED editors didn't know about (sources for exemplary quotes or first usage). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Rushton appears anywhere in the EB. EB doesn't cite him or write about him. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a hypothetical. My comments apply to EBs articles on race and psychology. Unless you are using Vercrumba's suggestion to make a point about Rushton's notability? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If anything, it may suggest his work is not exactly the most notable on the subject. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I had hoped I was clear, for our Rushton example, in specifying a psychology-specific tertiary source. The editor(s) of topic-specific encyclopedias are generally known as to editor (compiler) and specific contributors.

   As to POV regardless of being a tertiary source, it's not difficult, for example, to see Smedley in her EB contributions; however, it's more restrained and absent of the stronger advocacy one finds in her personal statements. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

From the "Encyclopedia of Multicultural Psychology" article on The Bell Curve:

   "One of the primary proponents of related concepts [heritability of intelligence et al.] is J. Philippe Rushton. Rushton made the argument that the three main racial groups are at different stages of evolution. ... Rushton's research is seen as being of questionable quality (relying on inadequate source data) and is widely ignored, if not ridiculed, by social scientists.

   "Hernestein and Murray explicitly credited Rushton and cited his work in support of their contentions. The most significant aspect of The Bell Curve was its widespread acceptance among journalists and politicians of the political Right, as compared to Rushton's relative obscurity."

So, ours is not to agree or disagree, such accounts are what they are. Weltschmerz over how we'd like to see sources portrayed versus how they are portrayed is wasted effort.

I have to add, on the whole false consensus thing (Mathsci, but others as well), I've been in a position of arguing against paid propaganda pushers with multiple socks. If the dialog sticks to fair and accurate representation of reliable sources, it's a moot point as to who has more numbers on their side. Numbers don't trump fair and accurate. This all goes back to: if editors stuck to discussing the content and stopped accusing editors of being SPAs and all the other garbage being strewn around here, the article would be much better off and, god forbid, might even attract interested parties who currently are more likely to retch at the spectacle and move on.

Corrolary Whether you're right or wrong in painting an editor as an SPA and as pushing a biased view not representative of mainstream scholarship, once you stop talking about the content and start attacking the editor, you're controlling content by block shopping. The ends don't justify the means. If you're not prepared to argue content based on sources regardless of your personal perceptions of another editor, you need to edit elsewhere. Period. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Vecrumba started his comments here with the assumption that the book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995) was published before The Bell Curve (1994) and in addition quoted there. That seems to be incorrect. After those comments, I was unable to follow very much of what he wrote here. Could Vecrumba please clarify why he confused the chronology of these two books? Is there something I'm missing? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Response Hernstein and Murray cite Rushton extensively going as far back as 1985. Their 1996 edition, new afterword by Charles Murray, describes Rushton as "a serious scholar who has assembled serious data", footnoted to: "For a recent and comprehensive presentation of Rushton's argument and evidence, see J.P. Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior (New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction, 1994)." So, in order...

1. Rushton's research
2. Rushton's research cited in The Bell Curve
3. Rushton summarizes his research in his own book
4. Rushton's research characterized as serious scholarship and Rushton's book recommended in an updated The Bell Curve

The relationship I was focusing on was Rushton being a significant source for, and precursor to, The Bell Curve. Sorry for the implication about the order of publication (#2, #3). My "spawning" reference was with regard to Rushton's seminal influence on The Bell Curve (and as per the encyclopedia extract further down), not that Rushton's book was the seminal influence on The Bell Curve, which you will note is not what I said. I've updated "Rushton spawned" to "Rushton's research spawned" above. Fixed the other reference as well, that definitely implied Rushton's book before Hernstein and Murray. Thanks. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I'd be interested in your thoughts on topic-specific tertiary sources as useful summaries (in areas of content conflict) of the current view of past scholarship and if that would be helpful in not having to task editors to create an NPOV summary, whether written as article content or implied through a choice of sources. I think it would go some way toward alleviating the contentiousness regarding weight and characterization of sources. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You made a mistake which you seem unwilling to admit to. Do you think that's a helpful way to contribute here? The discussion here is about the editing of one particular wikipedia article. It is not an open-ended discussion on the validity of Rushton's research. Any such discussion would be an inappropriate use of this talk page as a WP:FORUM.

In addition the previous statements by Biophys and you about single purpose accounts seem not to take into account arbitrators' comments when accepting this case. The problem with editing by SPAs is at the centre of this ArbCom case as others have said. Surely you were aware of that when you started participating in this case? Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci would like this case to be focused on SPAs. I get the feeling that baseless personal attacks in lieu of arguing content is a more pressing issue which seems closer to home. Could Mathsci clarify exactly how Peters "made a mistake which [he seems] unwilling to admit to."? mikemikev (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I based this on what arbitrators have written when accepting this case and during it. It was significant that the three main single purpose accounts under discussion, once prevented from editing Race and intelligence, started making or suggesting contentious edits to what should normally be a neutral article, Race (classification of humans). David.Kane has subsequently described that article as contentious, which I find odd. If Mikemikev cannot tell the disfference between 1994 and 1995, there is not much I can do to help him. I don't "argue content", I find good secondary sources. Judging from his editing history, for Mikemikev "arguing content" has so far meant either misrepresenting several sources or just stating to other users what he thinks is obvious.[47] That is a disruptive misuse of wikipedia talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci: When I was writing regarding Rushton's influence on The Bell Curve, I was thinking of that relationship and not of the order of the publishing of the book. I've corrected (and that is too strong a word, but I'll use it so you don't continue to harp on it) what I stated to make it clear it was Rushton's research, not his book summarizing it, which was the major influence on The Bell Curve. I've thanked you for pointing it out the lack of crispness in what I stated. You brought up Rushton.

   Meanwhile, I've responded with an objective method, using a psychology-specific tertiary source, to put Rushton et al. in his place. You, however, would rather get back to attacking editors as disruptive SPAs pushing their agendas instead of answering my simple question as to whether I've suggested something that would be acceptable for representing sources where there is some dispute, i.e., between you and the editors you attack as SPAs. I want to figure out how to work together; you, however, have made quite a point here of not answering my question on tertiary sources and instead now accuse me of using the proceedings as a forum. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This particular section was concerned with POV-pushing by Captain Occam following his extensive blanking a year ago of a single article Race, Evolution, and Behavior on a book by Rushton. Yet here you are talking about all things under the sun, telling us your personal thoughts on unrelated topics. Even on an article which I never edited you have started to make remarks about my content editing. Your own edits here seem wholly unconstructive, seemed aimed at being antagonistic and at burying a valid point on the editing patterns of single purpose accounts. I have no idea why you mention tertiary sources: an article on a book is written using book reviews and commentaries/descriptions in reliable secondary sources, when available. There's no need to cloud the issue. If you personally think this ArbCom case is not concerned with SPAs, then may I suggest that you take this up directly with arbitrators? Please could you also tone down your language: the word "comments" could have been used instead of "attacks" and would have conveyed the same sense. That would already be one step in the right direction. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci, more WP:ALPHABETSOUP. Since you've already insulted me (and even uninvolved editors) numerous times, called me an editor not good standing, and entered EEML in evidence for no purpose whatsoever other than to provide innuendo that I'm lying about my interest in R&I, I suggest holding up a mirror to your own conduct. The arbitration is about resolving a conflict in R&I by addressing issues of editor conduct. You purport it is solely about disruptive SPAs (that would be you not included). I contend it's about not working together constructively. My WP experience is that "SPAs" are irrelevant if everyone discusses content in a collegial manner and debates content respectfully. I see you took it upon yourself to unilaterally delete a large segment of the conversation here with not even an edit comment. Anything you don't agree with you label unconstructive—I think I'll stick to interacting with other editors. They don't appear to have any problems with me.

   Also, as you are not ArbCom, the next time you feel a thread has digressed, please feel free to ask a clerk or Arb to remove or archive. These are proceedings, not your personal talk page. Can we have a ruling on involved editors deleting content from arbitration proceedings? [unintended deletion restored, thanks for that] PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. How relevant is something from a year ago? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Vercrumba, it seems as if you are trying to mediate the dispute, or trying to improve the article. If you are trying to do something else can you say what? Because the fact is, this is not the place either for discussions on how to improve the article, or to mediate a dispute. Mediation is distinct from arbitration and if you wish formally to mediate, you should propose that at the article talk page. Surely you know our mediation policy requires involved partis to agre to mediationff. If your intent is to work constructively to improving the article page, surely you know that this is precisely what the talk page of the article is for.

ArbCom addresses violations of personal behavior policies. I know I am guilty of this too, but really, this is not the appropriate place to discuss article content. Also, attempts to mediate th dispute belong on a separate mediation page. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agenda account

Just stumbled on [[this essay, which argues,

An agenda account is a particular type of single purpose account whose purpose is advocacy of a particular point of view to an extent which, were it reflected in mainspace, would violate WP:NPOV and especially WP:UNDUE.

All editors have a point of view and all articles require all significant points of view to be reflected. But some editors do not accept the real-world consensus view on what constitutes the proper weight to attach to a given view. At their worst, agenda accounts seek to use Wikipedia to "correct" the real-world perspective on a given subject. The problem is most evident in areas where there is a dominant orthodox view and a small but vociferous opposing minority – examples include the September 11 attacks, global warming and many pseudoscience topics.

Agenda accounts may be very civil and pleasant people, but wear others down to the point of exasperation by tireless advocacy of a position which has been rejected. Long-term civil POV-pushing is very hard to counter within Wikipedia's existing structures because each individual comment is neither uncivil nor aggressive; it is the cumulative effect of months of such comments which constitutes the problem.

Wapondaponda (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No one ever said sticking to fair and accurate representation of reliable and reputable sources was going to be easy. WP is not a nirvana. That is all the more reason to stick to sources no matter the long road ahead. All the rest (agenda account or not, WP:ACRONYMS as a proxy for thoughtful discussion, etc.) reinforces polarization and heightens drama while, at least in my experience, materially improving neither circumstances nor content. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an essay. That's the policy: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Biophys (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, thanks for reminding me about this. There’s a new section I’d been meaning to add to my evidence for a little while, and I’ve now gone ahead and done so. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I have already mentioned that it is an essay which would imply that it is not a policy. WP:SPA is also an essay. However just because essays are not policies does not imply that they are inherently useless to the community. There are hundreds of pages that are linked to single purpose account which means that the subject is discussed quite frequently enough for it to be important. While acronyms such as SPA tend to simplify complex situations, they do allow us to relate to situations that have occurred in the past. IOW history tends to repeat itself on Wikipedia, and when a pattern is repeated often enough, usually someone will draft an essay and a new acronym will be born. The WP:Agenda account is interesting in that some of the very issues discussed in this case are independently discussed in the essay. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

@Captain Occam, regarding this section, you have saved me the trouble of researching my own involvement in this article, something which I have been planning to do, but never got around to. According to your evidence I have made 9 edits to the race and intelligence article this year, something like one edit per month, which I would argue is not as active as you or David Kane. Seeing that current version of the article is still largely based on the controversial mediation, which I objected to, it shouldn't be a surprise that I disagree with the current content or many of your suggestions. Disagreeing with you or others isn't a crime. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

According this section of the “disruptive editing” policy page that Biophys linked to, one of the characteristic ways that disruptive editors attempt to evade detection is “their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive”. So the infrequency with which you edit the article isn’t an argument that you haven’t been an example of this. You’ve brought up the topic of advocacy here, and as I demonstrated on my evidence subpage, the only thing you ever do on this article is remove information about the hereditarian perspective, and revert other people’s edits that involved adding more information about it. Are you not able to see how your own edits are a better example of advocacy than those of any of the other editors you’re accusing of this? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are trying too hard to match a problematic editing pattern with my edits. I have made no secret that I believe the so called "hereditarian position" is at the very least a minority position, possible even fringe in certain contexts, and that the article should reflect its minority status. I had made numerous suggestions during the mediation and on the talk page, but you threatened on numerous occasions to steamroll over them, because at the time there were only a few voices of dissent. Here you state

So I can pretty much guarantee that as long as Varoon Arya’s proposed outline includes this line of data, and Muntuwandi’s doesn’t, mikemikev, VA, DJ, David.Kane and I are all going to prefer VA’s outline over Muntuwandi’s

I don’t think there’s any way that I or any of the other four editors I mentioned will accept an outline that doesn’t include this line of data. So you and Muntuwandi can leave it out of your outline if you want, and by doing so you’ll be more or less making it certain that we’ll be using Varoon Arya’s outline instead. Since we definitely won’t be using Muntuwandi’s outline if it doesn’t include this line of data, it actually doesn’t matter to me whether it’s included in his outline or not.

So I don't see how you can accuse me of being a POV pusher when my suggestions had very little success due to the fact that you and your wikibuddies, with the assistance of a somewhat unorthodox mediator, were up until recently, able to dominate the mediation. Another thread to nowhere I guess, no more from me on this. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We’ve been over this before. During the mediation, you refused to compromise on your principles about what you thought the article should be like, even going so far as refusing to offer any suggestions about the article outline that everyone else was working on. Instead, you created your own alternate version of the outline that represented what you thought the article should be like, which had no support from anyone other than you, mostly because you consistently refused to modify it based on anyone else’s suggestions. The purpose of mediation is to reach consensus, which requires compromise. So if you’re going to participate in mediation while outright rejecting any possibility of compromise, which is what you did, you can’t blame anyone other than yourself for the fact that you weren’t satisfied with the outcome.

I would like everyone else who reads this thread to pay attention to what a perfect mirror image Muntuwandi’s attitude is to the attitude he accuses others of having. That attitude is “I’m right and others are wrong, therefore I will refuse to compromise, and therefore I will do nothing on the article except remove and revert the content and edits that go against my point of view.” Perhaps Muntuwandi really does believe in good faith that he’s right and that others are wrong, but when this is what someone’s conduct and edits amount to, it’s still POV-pushing. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This concerns the new proposed remedy. On numerous occasions there were threads posted on WP:ANI concerning this dispute. In almost every case that was taken to ANI, the Administrators monitoring ANI did not take any action. Very often there were suggestions that the dispute be escalated to ARBCOM as the administrators did not feel comfortable about taking any action or did not feel that they had the authority to do so. Many seemed concerned that this dispute had many elements of a content dispute and thus was out of their league. Basically the folks at ANI were unwilling to impose any administrative actions and passed the buck to Arbcom. My concern is that the authorization of discretionary sanctions for the R/I article may be passing the buck back to the administrators. Without any clear guidelines on how these discretionary sanctions are to be applied, I see the administrators would once again stay clear of this dispute. Alternatively this remedy may be fertile ground for wheel warring if there are no clear guidelines. We have already seen two users get blocked only to have their blocks reversed by other administrators. Maybe more details will be revealed as time goes by, as understandably Arbcom works in a cloak and dagger manner. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's how it works in practice: [48]. The complaints would appear mostly at WP:AE (not ANI) and "wheel warring" would not happen.Biophys (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by Varoon Arya (continued wikihounding using anonymous IP)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Varoon Arya

Further to my evidence about Varoon Arya following around my edits on Bach organ music (on Orgelbüchlein), an anonymous IP from Zurich started making edits today to Clavier-Übung III that did not match the three sources (even where page numbers were provided). Then, very shortly afterwards, Varoon Arya made an edit, having declared that he had retired in July. I asked him to confirm whether or not he was the same editor as the anon IP. There was no reply, but the IP made further edits shortly afterwards to another Bach article that I have not edited but which is cited several times in the article (Well-Tempered Clavier, presumed to have been composed at the same time). Clavier-Übung III is the main article I am creating on the moment, helped by a number of other music editors, including Graham87 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Jashiin (talk · contribs) (one of the few expert WP editors on early music). Even as an IP, Varoon Arya's disruptive edits made me suspect it was him. I have no idea why he is following my edits: it seems to be a case of wikihounding. Surely he can find something more constructive to do than incorrectly tagging or blanking sourced edits while the article is in the process of having difficult content added to it? (At the moment the analysis of BWV 803 from three different sources: Williams (2003), Charru & Theobald (2002) and Yearsley (2002).) Are there not indeed many articles out there to edit or create on wikipedia? Surely Varoon Arya must be aware that wikihounding is frowned upon, particularly during an ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice your SPI request has been rejected, and one of the uninvolved editors who commented on it called it “absolutely ridiculous”. Per his own comment there, not even Muntuwandi thinks your accusation of sockpuppetry is justified. I think it’s incredibly ironic that the person who’s making such obviously frivolous sockpuppetry accusations would be accusing someone else of wikihounding him. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me, I stated that since Varoon Arya has acknowledged using an IP address then we can assume good faith, editors are not bound to one wikipedia account for infinity. However, I suggest that Varoon Arya familiarizes himself with the policy on sockpuppetry, particularly WP:ILLEGIT and WP:CLEANSTART. Aryaman needs to decide whether he will continue to use his account or whether he has retired it. If he has retired it, he shouldn't edit the same articles he used to edit or edit them in the same way. The policy states "Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people."

I have also stated that Mathsci's concerns about wikihounding are justified, because it seems that Aryaman decided to edit the articles in question after going through Mathsci's recent contributions. Overall I would say that Aryaman's conduct has been questionable, certainly less than ideal, but nothing actionable at this point. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully request that topic-banning of Mikemikev happen sooner rather than later.

I am still accumulating diffs to add to the evidence page, as requested by Roger Davies. New diffs showing POV-pushing, disruptive editing, and incivility by Mikemikev are still being posted today, as can be seen from his contributions list. I hope the busy volunteer members of ArbCom will act soon to help the other busy Wikipedians who are trying to edit articles up to encyclopedic standards get past the disruption caused by Mikemikev. A topic ban of broad scope and long duration is definitely in order, in my opinion as an apprentice editor, and it may be that this repeated misconduct during an ArbCom case calls for a ban from Wikipedia altogether. Most editors do not behave at all like that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

False allegations of vandalism are sanctionable. This is a clear case of baiting. mikemikev (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain yourself here: [49] mikemikev (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also I suspect this to be a sock of Mathsci. mikemikev (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm a sock of Mathsci? (Sorry, it took me a while to figure out what you might be saying, since the suggestion is almost too silly to address and your wording is less than clear--what is the antecedent of "this"?). Mathsci, maybe we're split personalities--you know Bach and math, and I know bacon and Stevie Ray Vaughan's guitars. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That suspicion would not be for you to address even if it were concerning you and not Weiji. I would like to hear your explanation of this: [50] mikemikev (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Item 1. You are suspecting me of being a sock, or not? Or Weiji is a sock? of Mathsci, or of me? And given your grammatical vagueness, why can't I address this odd and unclear suspicion that might have me for a subject? Item 2. Well, the best way that I can explain that, though I am no mind reader, is that you wanted to type something in Wikipedia. You clicked on "edit" and then put your fingers on the keyboard. Need I go on? You're asking me to explain a section you typed yourself? Drmies (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why I should dignify such idiocy. mikemikev (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Mikemikev seems to have broken 3RR on Race (classification of humans), unless I'm very mistaken.

• 4th revert: [51]
• 3rd revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 1st revert: [54]

Mikemikev claims of sockpuppetry are usually meritless, e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adhan24/Archive. Mathsci (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC) However, there are elements of bacon in my wiki-past: I have a distant memory of discussing endives au jambon with CoM.

• Hmm, I'm sure those were delicious. I add cheese to mine. Perhaps, Mathsci, we are socks of CoM? (No: I use reference templates.) I saw those allegations. How many baseless allegations are necessary before a stern warning comes down not to engage in such behavior anymore? And mike, the idiocy is due entirely to you yourself: you asked me to explain your edit. Duh. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In the bistro from which I am currently editing I watched Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) eat foie gras of WP:DUCK. All very suspicious. But I digress. Mathsci (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have applied full protection for 24 hrs to Race (classification of humans) - admins can edit, nobody else can, for the next day.

There is enough misbehavior on that article now, and in the above discussion, for weeklong blocks of a number of you. I would like to indicate that the fact that the Arbcom case is ongoing is the only thing that's kept several of you on both sides from sitting out the next few days without any editing privileges. If you continue making personal attacks on each other, or find yet another article to extend this dispute to, you will be blocked unless an arbcom member choses to unblock you for participation in the remainder of the case.

This is the final warning. The next warning will be pour encorager les autres. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2010 (U

It might have been wise to have insisted on a moratorium on edits to this set of race-related articles during mediation. When a student is probably contravening the terms of their university account, the university is probably empowered to close down that account if it is bringing the university into disrepute. Somewhat more permanent than a wikipedia topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh? A university would definitely be empowered to close down an account if a student contravened the terms. What relevance does this have to the Arbcom case? mikemikev (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection, GWH. Cool Hand Luke 21:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have closed my presentation of evidence on the evidence page. There were more diffs where those came from, but Roger Davies implied a desire for a compact list of diffs. I see Slrubenstein has has provided other evidence. It's important for the continued growth and success of Wikipedia to build teams of editors who submit themselves to the sources and collaborate with one another to build an encyclopedia with reliable sourcing and neutral point of view. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m not sure if anyone’s noticed this, but I’ve updated my own evidence for this case also. I’ve changed the formatting of most of it to put it in something closer to the form that Roger Davies requested (adding a few diffs here and there while I was at it), so I can’t easily divide it into “old evidence” and “new evidence” the way WeijiBaikeBianji has. However, I would like arbitrators to notice the new section I’ve added here, about the fact that Muntuwandi does absolutely nothing on the race and intelligence article other that revert and remove edits and content about the hereditarian perspective. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for contributing to evidence. Cool Hand Luke 16:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

@Occam, this concerns your statement "Muntuwandi does absolutely nothing on the race and intelligence article other that revert and remove edits and content about the hereditarian perspective". Your claim that I do absolutely nothing on this article is unfair and inaccurate. To start with, I would describe the content in the article race and intelligence as being mature. This is because this article has been through many a dispute, and as result the core issues have been debated ad nauseam. Apart from periodic maintenance and issues of style, I don't see the need for any radical changes to the article. There isn't a lot of new material that isn't already in the current article or that has never been in any of the previous versions. I can understand the enthusiasm of some newbies who would like to get their feet wet in the controversy, they are entitled to experience a race and intelligence dispute. Consequently, I admit that I don't have much to add in terms of new material, because I believe most the core issues are addressed in most of the articles previous versions.

However over the years I have made some content contributions to the article. For example here I added a section on the "human genome and intelligence" which was the precursor to the current molecular genetics section. David Kane cut and paste into race and intelligence some material I added to the neuroscience and intelligence. I have also added a discussions on the controversial assertions by some scholars that certain populations have IQs in the "mentally retarded" range and the criticism of these assertions. Basically I suggest you do more research before accusing editors of doing "absolutely nothing". Wapondaponda (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I have just blocked Mikemikev for 72 hrs for a series of disruptive source deletions on Race (classification of humans). Edit summaries didn't help his case. The edits were:

• edit, after article protection expires
• revert
• 2nd revert

I am considering reprotecting the article, but have not yet done so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert: Sorry to be a bother, but I asked you above and at your Talk page for some clarification about your block of me last month. Do you have time to answer that question? I am not here to defend Mikemikev's behavior, but it is awfully hard for inexperienced editors (like me and him) to learn the ropes if admins won't take the time to explain their blocks. Any clarification you could offer for my case would be much appreciated. David.Kane (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit [55] by Mikemikev during his block seems highly problematic. Mathsci (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci. Perhaps you should quit stirring the pot and find something more productive to do with your spare time. 213.91.247.90 (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous IP from Bulgaria? [56] [57]Mathsci (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert: No need to protect the article in question. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

On the highly problematic edit

Anyone interested can read the entire thread at my talk. That said, as the target of the "highly problematic" edit, I'd like to state that I do not support Mathsci's ban hammer lobbying, per my observations here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor comments concerned focus of the dispute

I have some minor comments concerning the focus of the dispute. This doesn't really matter much in the big picture, but, if I were an Arb Com member, I would like to get these details correct.

Consider Focus 1: "The dispute is based around a significant disagreement about the content of the Race and intelligence article, as well as a number of related or similar articles discussing a genetic basis for significant social disparity between different ethnic groups. The related articles also include biographies of researchers investigating the topic."

1) The only reason that there has been any meaningful fighting over any biographies involves a very subtle dispute over WP:BLP policy. My thoughts on that here. But this is a complete sideline to the main focus. Even if we solved this (and we mostly have, mainly because we have since discovered secondary sources that cover both sides), the main dispute would rage on.

2) The dispute has nothing to do with "social disparity." The dispute is about "intelligence" as measured by IQ tests.

3) The dispute has nothing to do with "ethnic groups." It is centered on races. Now, of course, on the margin, one editors race is another's ethnic group, but I can't understand why the Arb Com members wouldn't want to, at least, get the focus of the dispute correct.

Consider Focus 2.2: "At its core, the dispute centers on disagreements over the correct use of primary and secondary sources, as well as claims that editors are giving undue prominence to aspects of the debate covered in the race and intelligence article beyond that which is reflected in the literature."

1) This is so wrong it is embarrassing to read. Even if, magically, all involved editors agreed "over the correct use of primary and secondary sources," the debate would rage on. Debate over what is primary and what is secondary is a symptom not a cause. However, one useful result of the Arb Com case is that we now know for sure that, even experienced and uninvolved editors disagree about whether a given source is primary or secondary.

2) "aspects of the debate?" Come on! It is not as if we are arguing over the role of lead exposure and breast-feeding in differential mean test scores among races. Even if we all agreed on every single other aspect of the debate, the fight would rage on because we disagree about how Wikipedia should portray the hereditarian hypothesis. That is the central issue. Why not make it clear in the focus?

Recall the suggestions I made above about what a good focus of the dispute would read like. Again, getting this right is hardly the most important thing, but I do think it would help. David.Kane (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The new version of the focus of the dispute by Roger Davies is much better. Kudos! Minor quibbles:

1.1) The dispute is focused on articles within the Race and intelligence controversy category. The core issue is whether Intelligence quotient varies significantly between different ethnic groups and, if so, whether this may be attributed to hereditary or environmental factors. The dispute may be characterised by consistent point-of-view pushing, persistent edit-warring and editors repeatedly placing undue weight on certain controversial sources.

The first two sentences are almost perfect. ("ethnic groups" should be "race" and "hereditary" should be "genetic.") The last sentence is somewhat awkward. There has been persistent edit-warring on all sides. All agree on that. There have been accusations of point-of-view pushing but some, like me, think that those accusations are overblown. "editors repeatedly placing undue weight on certain controversial sources" is suspect because it comes (perhaps by mistake) very close to a content ruling. MathSci, for example, thinks that I put undue weight on certain controversial sources but I, unsurprisingly, disagree. So, I would rephrase the last sentence as:

"Persistent edit-warring, accusations about consistent point-of-view pushing and violations of proper weighting for certain controversial sources have plagued the dispute for years."

But again, these are minor quibbles. The new focus of the dispute is a vast improvement. David.Kane (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Renewed editing of deleted POV-fork by David.Kane and Captain Occam

It is somewhat disheartening that, during the period up to September 1 while Race and intelligence has been locked, the single issue accounts have not found new subjects on which to concentrate their efforts. Currently David.Kane has gone back to the POV-fork that was already deleted User:David.Kane/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? and in one single edit [58] has copy pasted almost half its current content from History of the race and intelligence controversy without any kind of link to the edit history of the original content. What these two users are yet again creating is an article on a highly controversial paper outside its historical context. It gives a very one-sided view of the events that followed the publication of this paper. It is unlikely that this POV-fork, already deleted recently, will be allowed to enter namespace. If they intend to waste other wikipedians' time in discussing their one-sided POV-fork, then this would be a reasonable signal for a topic ban of six months for both of them. They are attempting to abuse this encyclopedia by expanding the walled garden of articles related to biological differences between races. The net effect of such long term strategies is a proliferation of articles on wikipedia that make it look in some respects like a mirror site of VDARE or The Occidental Quarterly. While these users may be very sensitive on issues related to Arthur Jensen or his coauthor J. Philippe Rushton, their POV writing on other, probably more eminent, psychologists effectively amounts to BLP violations. That was the case with David.Kane's attempt to mischaracterize the research interests of Richard Nisbett and others in R&I (now removed); and currently both these users seem determined to misrepresent Robert Sternberg and his colleagues in Snyderman and Rothman (study). They have turned wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, where they will devote weeks arguing over single sentences, to the exclusion of all other articles, employing a large array of tactics that include forum shopping at various noticeboards. They have by chance been given a six week window in which to show whether they can edit wikipedia in a more balanced way while Race and intelligence is locked (largely due to Mikemikev's edit warring). Instead of primarily editing non race-related articles, however, they have gravitated to other articles in their little walled garden to push their point of view on individual sentences. On the one hand David.Kane has been pleading inexperience; on the other hand, even after being told my multiple users that copy-pasting between articles is not permitted, he continues to do so in a cavalier way. He requests to be unblocked to participate in this case; but then makes frivolous requests on WP:ANI to have his perceived opponents blocked. Captain Occam has also engaged in forum shopping against his perceived opponents, the most recent example being this posting [59] on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein during the recent block of Mikemikev. These users obviously see wikipeda as a place to fight to express their minoritarian point of view by any means at their disposal, fair or foul. In these circumstances, it seems unreasonable to expect other volunteer wikipedians to spend their time dealing with the disruption these users create. Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank-you for that summary. As you can see, findings of fact are now being posted (apologies to all for the delay). There is a placeholder for one about your conduct as well. At this stage, I would suggest that those editors who have findings of fact proposed about them concentrate on defending themselves against the findings about themselves, rather than hammering home points that have already been made about others. Hopefully the placeholder findings of fact will be updated soon to contain the proposed findings, and the case will be able to move forward again from that point. One final point, if I may: the editing you do on other articles is appreciated, but while it is certainly valid to point out that other editors are focused on single issues, it is disconcerting to see people waving around their work on other articles as some sort of defense for conduct issues. Content work is usually done quietly without the need to advertise it, other than through formal review processes. Conduct issues should always be addressed, regardless of standing elsewhere (including outside Wikipedia) or work done in other articles. Carcharoth (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, thank you for the reminder that conduct rules apply to all editors all the time. In light of your helpful comment here, and especially in light of the information you discovered earlier Carcharoth reply under Category problem? section, I will open up one new section here to draw administrator attention to a clean-up issue I expect to arise after the case is decided. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, are you aware that the purpose of my involvement in the article about Jensen’s 1969 paper is to make it no longer a POV fork? WeijiBaikeBianji has suggested that this article ought to be recreated, and if it’s going to be recreated, someone will need to work on it in order to fix the problems that it had previously. You’re trying to blow the fact that I’m editing the draft of this article up into some sort of grand conclusion that this can prove about my motives, when in reality it’s nothing but trying to work towards following WeijiBaikeBianji’s suggestion.

The same goes for my commenting in the RFC/U. (Which I did not initiate; can it even be considered “forum shopping” for me to comment in an RFC started by someone else?) I’ve complained several times in the past about Slrubenstein’s tendency to make personal attacks, and in an RFC/U input from other editors who have experience on the issue in question is being specifically requested. There’s a completely obvious good-faith reason for me to be commenting there, but you’re choosing to assume otherwise about me.

What I find disconcerting is that in at least some cases, the arbitrators seem to be taking Mathsci’s word for all of this. Carcharoth, that’s how I’m interpreting your comment. Am I correct to interpret it that way? And if so, do you think it’s prudent to assume that Mathsci’s personal pronouncements about others’ motives are correct, when he has only provided two diffs to support his various claims in this rather long block of text, both of which are of edits that have much simpler good-faith explanations? --Captain Occam (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would take anything Mathsci contends (per his blatant innuendo attempting to smear me, et al.) with a whole pile of salt. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Weeding the walled garden after this case is decided.

Sufficient arbitrator votes have now been cast to show what some of the principles deciding this case will be (subject to arbitrators changing their votes before the case is closed). Findings of fact are also beginning to take shape. As an uninvolved editor, perhaps still the newest editor here, I'd like to draw the attention of administrators visiting this case file to an issue that will still persist after this case is decided and findings of fact about editor conduct are fixed.

Arbitrator Carcharoth has discovered links to articles and categories showing that there are many articles on Wikipedia more or less related to the article under arbitration. During the course of arbitration, not only has Race and intelligence (now under full protection) been an ongoing subject of dispute, but also History of the race and intelligence controversy and Race (classification of humans) have been subject to editor disputes, and Race (classification of humans) has also been subject to edit-warring and put under protection just since the proposed decision here began to be posted. Carcharoth's discovery of dozens of related articles may not be exhaustive. As part of my own efforts to share a source list with other editors and to ask for their suggestions of additional sources, I began my Wikipedia editing in May 2010 by surfing around Wikipedia articles looking for links to other articles and by doing focused, site-restricted Google searches into Wikipedia to look for key sources. What I have found is something like a walled garden of articles to push a minority point of view on related subjects throughout Wikipedia. Today, there is a huge undue weight problem in many (most, really) of the Wikipedia articles on intelligence or on race, and especially in all the articles on both. (That there are so many articles on both intelligence and race is itself an undue weight problem.) My friendly suggestion to Wikipedia administrators and to all other Wikipedians who care about Wikipedia fundamental principles is to be on the lookout for PRODs and AfDs related to some of those articles, and extensive, sourced efforts to merge or to clean up many of the others.

I note for the record that I actually agree with David Kane's suggestion that the 1969 article by Arthur Jensen, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" is a very high-impact article that deserves, as a rare case, a separate Wikipedia article of its own. Having a separate Wikipedia article on that Harvard Educational Review lengthy paper, of which I have two reprinted copies in my office in published books from an academic library, would simplify and shorten the length of several other Wikipedia articles, which could then wikilink to that article for in-depth discussion of that paper's methodology, subsequent impact, criticism, and credibility. But for the most part, right now Wikipedia has at least a couple dozen articles on quite obscure studies (rarely treated with separate articles on Wikipedia), journal articles (again, rarely given separate Wikipedia articles), books (several of which probably don't meet Wikipedia criteria for book articles), and researchers (some of doubtful notablity) that are mostly tended to protect one point of view and to provide wikilinks to prop up undue weight in other Wikipedia articles. I hardly know where to begin to fix all those problems, so I mention the issue here, so that administrators know why I will seem to keep revisiting the same topic over and over again in PRODs and in AfDs and in NPOV or OR tagging of articles and so on. I encourage all Wikipedians who have sources at hand to carefully examine articles like that for due weight and other aspects of neutral point of view, and to 1) add more Wikipedia articles on more notable books and journal articles and authors where appropriate and 2) to call for deletion or merger of nonnotable or POV-pushing Wikipedia articles where that will fix the problem. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in Category:Journal articles and Category:Magazine articles for examples of how others have approached the idea that some articles are notable enough to have articles. Some journals are notable enough to have more than just a stub-length article, and where journals are notable for controversy, that can (with care) be covered in an article. See Category:Academic journals. Finally, I'd like to thank you for posting this section, as too often arbitration cases get bogged down in conduct issues with too little thought about content issues following the close of the case. The Socionics case ended up that way, and it is good that other editors have got involved in the content issues during this case. Arbitration is about conduct issues, but the aim is still to improve the editing environment so that the editorial community can deal collegially (and not confrontationally) with the articles, as Wikipedia is ultimately about the content. Please do remember though that the best and most appropriate place to continue a discussion like this would be an article talk page or wikiproject talk page (with notifications at article talk pages) after the case has closed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth, for so much specific helpful advice to a newbie editor while this case fills pages and pages and hours of your schedule. Collaborative editing among many editors to clean up the mess will be most welcome after the case is decided. I have been trying to detox from this case today by reading more books and articles to add to the Intelligence Citations bibliography, and soon I will put a link to that over on WikiProject Libraries so that Phoebe Ayers and her colleagues who are both professional bibliographers and experienced Wikipedians can give me more advice on how to make source lists more professional and more useful for other editors. Yesterday, I surfed by Cool Hand Luke's user page and saw the statement that once upon a time an article could become a featured article with no inline citations at all. I remember those days, although only as a reader of Wikipedia, not as an editor. I didn't become a Wikipedian until Phoebe Ayers and her co-authors (and then John Broughton and now Andrew Lih too) convinced me through their books that Wikipedia is entering a new era, when articles with personally recalled facts and blog-like content turn into properly sourced, encyclopedic treatments of important subjects in human knowledge. Any editor who wants to help that transition along is a friend of Wikipedia and a friend of mine, and I hope we enjoy plenty of mutual help and team encouragement as we clean up the on Wikipedia that need immediate and lasting improvement. Cool Hand Luke says, "Actually, don't forgive it, just fix it," about such articles. Mathsci today, in a valedictory message to these topics that shows he is both a gentleman and a scholar, said, "My advice to other regular users is never to attempt to make substantial changes to these articles: it is wiki-suicide." Knowing how controversial these topics have been online for as long as I have been in online discussion (since 1992), I was in no hurry to become a Wikipedian and begin fixing the articles on these topics, which I have observed with dismay for years, because I have no suicidal tendencies. Phoebe Ayres et al., John Broughton, and Andrew Lih have emboldened me to try to fix the mess. All editors of whatever personal point of view who cherish Wikipedia principles and enjoy looking up reliable sources are welcome to guide me in how to weed the garden correctly. Again I announce that administrators will be seeing from me, courtesy of an automated tool a new admin told me about recently, plenty of PRODs and AfDs and article merger proposals and other attempts to pluck out the weeds and let the fragrant, beautiful, and nourishing plants grow in the garden. I hope readers will enjoy the harvest for years to come. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

How do Arb Com members want us to use WP:BLPN?

In the findings of fact about me, Carcharoth writes "I hope this does not discourage use of the BLP noticeboard." Isn't it obvious that this is exactly the lesson that I (and others) will draw from these findings? I have used WP:BLPN in exactly the way that it ought to be used and yet, despite that praise-worthy behavior, am being sanctioned for it. Let's go through the three diffs in detail. To quote the finding, I have "engaged in disruptive forum shopping at the Biographies of Living People Noticeboard,[60][61][62]"

1) The first edit begins:

I would like some comments from more experienced editors about the interaction between WP:BLP and (potentially) false claims made in reliable sources. Full discussion is here. Summary: Don Campbell is a famous psychologist who does not like Arthur Jensen. He claims that Jensen "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." This is, obviously, an extremely serious accusation. I also believe that the accusation is false. Neither Campbell (nor any Wikipedia editor involved in the dispute) has been able to provide a citation to any of Jensen's (voluminous) writings where Jensen actually says this.

Read the whole thing and the discussion which follows. Isn't that good stuff? Isn't bringing a tricky issue to WP:BLPN exactly what an inexperienced editor ought to do? Shouldn't we encourage other editors to do the same? Note Jimbo Wales comment:

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.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be one thing if I had bought an obviously stupid question to WP:BLPN. But Jimbo Wales agrees with me! Of course, Jimbo and I could be wrong, but it is hardly fair to call my behavior "disruptive forum shopping" in that case.

2) If you read the whole discussion, you will see that reasonable editors disagree about exactly what WP:BLP requires in this context. There is no clearly right answer. So, in my second post to WP:BLPN, I try to abstract away from Jensen and consider the issue more broadly.

Above, I discuss a specific case involving Arthur Jensen, but I want to abstract from that and ask a more general question. Assume that we have a reliable source (RS) which makes a claim like "Person X wanted to kill all left-handers." (Or insert some other extreme opinion.) If person X is dead, then I have no problem with this sentence going into an article about person X, either exactly as is (with a reference to RS) or, perhaps more neutrally, as "RS claims that person X wanted to kill all left-handers."

The discussion that follows is, alas, fairly useless. But, again, is my behavior disruptive? I am honestly trying to figure out what BLP means. Several uninvolved editors, including Jimbo Wales, have suggested that my interpretation is correct. Do Arb Com members really want to discourage me from exploring subtle points of Wikipedia policy?

3) The third and final edit offered as evidence begins:

I had thought that our previous two discussions about this ([63] and [64]) had made some progress. That is sort of true in that the absurd claim about Jensen seeking separate curriculum for blacks and whites has been removed and, so far, stayed removed. But the issue has come up again.

Again, isn't this exactly the sort of behavior that Arb Com members want to encourage? An unresolved issue related to WP:BLP has come up. Instead of just fighting about it on the article talk page, I seek the opinions of uninvolved and more experienced editors. I provide thorough links to previous discussions. Wouldn't Wikipedia be better off if more such disputes were handled in that way?

Summary: I have behaved poorly during various parts of this dispute. But my edits to WP:BLPN have been the very opposite of "disruptive forum shopping." By sanctioning me for this behavior, Arb Com is going to encourage me (and others) to never bring a question to WP:BLPN ever again. A bad faith editor can always slap on a "forum shopping" accusation when I do that. If Arb Com can't be bothered to evaluate which posts to WP:BLPN are truly disruptive and which are not, then the only safe course of action is to never post there again. David.Kane (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Two points. (1) My comment about use of the BLP noticeboard was directed at others, not at you. It is not clear yet whether you should be encouraged to bring such disputes to the BLP noticeboard - that is part of what this case will probably end up deciding, but certainly others should use the BLP noticeboard to raise concerns. (2) You say "But Jimbo Wales agrees with me!" - please see Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Jimbo was speaking there as any other editor, and his comments should be accorded no more or less weight than any other valid comments. Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth: Thanks for these comments. Allow me to clarify. 1) Do you want other editors to go to BLPN when questions arise in articles about living people? If you do, then sanctioning me for doing so is unhelpful. 2) I meant to invoke Jimbo, not as somehow special, but as an experienced Wikipedia editor. If any experienced editor/admin agrees with my concerns at BLPN, then that fact alone proves that my post to BLPN was not "disruptive forum shopping." Again, the issue is not: Was I wrong to delete that information? (Something I plan to discuss later.) The issue is: Was I wrong to bring the question to BLPN? David.Kane (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, the Wikipedia essay Argumentum ad Jimbonem you just linked to is a good example of Wikipedia making serious points with good humor and graciousness, both in the parenthetical link to the Latin grammar article to correct the form of the title and in the prominently displayed quotation from Jimmy Wales himself about what he finds convincing in editorial discussion. Thanks for sharing the link. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Mathsci on Roger Davies' statements

I have been watching Race and Intelligence and have contributed on the talk page since 2007. Prior to April 5 2010 I made 31 edits to that article, mosty adding sources. I have made 357 contributions on the talk page starting in October 2007. My first edit to the article was in December 2007.

The main articles I have edited have been mostly in mathematics. My contributions to baroque music have been more recent. The other areas I have edited in include French and European culture, in particular the articles Aix-en-Provence, Marseille, Ethnic groups of Europe and Europe, where I am the top contributor, havng helped Hemlock Nartinis rewrite most of the history section. I have also written articles on the history of art and BLPs. Links to my mathematics lecture notes under my real name have been added by other editors on several wikipedia pages. Until Roger Davies made his own anaylsis, I thought that I was one of the more senior mathematics editors.

I will go through Roger's statement point by point. This post is just about my content editing.

First here are the articles I have created in my time on wikipedia.

articles created with number of edits

Hanover Square Rooms (music, history, 2010) 126 Clavier-Übung III (baroque music, 2010) 619 Robert M. Hauser (BLP, 2010) 4 Otto Klineberg (bio, 2010) 11 Pietro Castrucci (bio, 2010) 6 John Clegg (violinist) (bio, 2010) 5 Basil Lam (bio, 2010) 14 History of the race and intelligence controversy (spin off of mediation, 2010) 430 Christopher Jencks (BLP, 2010) 15 Handel concerti grossi Op.6 (baroque music, 2010) 254 Charles Sanford Terry (historian) (bio, 2009) 51 Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" (barqoue music, 2009) 128 Nicholas Mackintosh (BLP, 2009) 7 Caroline Elam (BLP, 2009) 13 Handel organ concertos Op.7 (baroque music, 2009) 72 The Four Seasons (Poussin) (art history, 2009) 160 Handel organ concertos Op.4 (baroque music, 2009) 154 Janet Trotter (BLP, 2009) 26 Butcher group (mathematics, 2009) 93 Château of Vauvenargues (history, art history, 2009) 198 Kostant polynomial (mathematics, 2009) 37 Hadamard's method of descent (mathematics, 2009) 7 Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory (fringe science, 2009) 6 Guy of Ibelin, seneschal of Cyprus (medieval history, 2008) 17 Guy of Ibelin, bishop of Limassol (medeval history, 2008) 37 Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes (baroque music, 2008) 149 Robert Hall, Baron Roberthall (bio, 2008) 13 Weakly symmetric space (mathematics, 2008) 2 Riemannian connection on a surface (mathematics, 2008) 9 La Couronne, Bouches-du-Rhône (French history, 2008) 24 La Vieille Charité (French history. 2008) 35 La cheminée du roi René (twentieth century French music, 2008) 24 Plancherel theorem for spherical functions (mathematics, 2008) 231 Zonal spherical function (mathematics, 2008) 247 FBI transform (mathematics, 2008) 46 Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht, BWV 105 (baroque music, 2008) 39 Spectral theory of ordinary differential equations (mathematics, 2008) 189 Octacube (mathematics) (mathematical art, 2007) 12

Here are the top 100 content edits.

Top 100 edits to articles

619 - Clavier-Übung III (baroque music) 600 - Differential geometry of surfaces (mathematics) 430 - History of the race and intelligence controversy (history of psychology) 335 - Marseille (French culture) 265 - Europe (mostly history) 254 - Handel concerti grossi Op.6 (barqoue music) 247 - Zonal spherical function (mathematcs) 231 - Plancherel theorem for spherical functions (mathematics) 226 - Aix-en-Provence (French culture) 201 - Orbifold (mathematics) 198 - Château of Vauvenargues (history, history of art) 189 - Spectral theory of ordinary differential equations (mathematics) 160 - The Four Seasons (Poussin) (history of art) 154 - Handel organ concertos Op.4 (mathematics) 154 - Race and intelligence 147 - Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes (barqoue music) 143 - Ethnic groups in Europe (European culture) 128 - Canonic Variations (baroque music) 126 - Hanover Square Rooms (history) 118 - Snyderman and Rothman (study) (book) 102 - Auguste Pavie (bio) 93 - Butcher group (mathematics) 88 - Commutation theorem (mathematics) 80 - Building (mathematics) (mathematics) 80 - Surface (mathematics) 79 - Handel House Museum (history) 72 - Handel organ concertos Op.7 (barqoue music) 71 - Triumphs of Caesar (history of art) 69 - Littelmann path model (mathematics) 66 - Porte d'Aix (history) 65 - Hethumids (medieval history) 65 - Phèdre (French theatre) 57 - Iphigénie (French theatre) 54 - Prime number (mathematics) 54 - Mainstream Science on Intelligence (newspaper article) 53 - Boundedly generated group (mathematics) 51 - Charles Sanford Terry (historian) (biography) 47 - Restricted representation (mathematics) 46 - FBI transform (mathematics) 46 - Clavichord (musical instruments) 45 - Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56 (barqoue music) 44 - Orgelbüchlein (baroque music) 44 - Philippe Solari (bio) 41 - Franco-Siamese War (history) 39 - Witchcraft (folklore) 39 - Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht, BWV 105 (baroque music) 39 - Kazhdan's property (T) (mathematics) 37 - Fundamental group (mathematics) 37 - Kostant polynomial (mathematics) 36 - Assassination of Inspector Grosgurin (history) 35 - La Vieille Charité (history) 34 - Michael Atiyah (BLP) 34 - Criticism of non-standard analysis (mathematics) 33 - Sheffield incest case (current affairs) 33 - Guy of Ibelin, bishop of Limassol (medieval history) 31 - Von Neumann algebra (mathematics) 31 - Representation theory of the Lorentz group (mathematics) 30 - Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov equations (mathematics) 29 - Triangulation (topology) (mathematics) 29 - Guy of Ibelin (died 1304) (mathematics) 29 - Florentin Smarandache (BLP) 26 - Alexander R. Todd, Baron Todd (BLP) 26 - Janet Trotter (BLP) 26 - Great Plague of Marseille (history) 25 - Hethum II, King of Armenia (medieval history) 25 - Abington Park (medieval history) 24 - La cheminée du roi René (20th century music) 24 - Jacques Hadamard (bio) 24 - Guy of Ibelin, constable of Cyprus (medieval history) 24 - La Couronne, Bouches-du-Rhône (French history) 24 - Mathematical Association of America (mathematics) 24 - Andromaque (French theatre) 23 - Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul (history) 22 - Diffeomorphism (mathematics) 22 - Guy of Ibelin (1286–1308) (medieval history) 21 - Paul Mellars (BLP) 21 - Smarandache function (mathematics) 19 - Cauchy–Kowalevski theorem (mathematics) 19 - Old Port of Marseille (France) 18 - John Christopher Smith (bio) 17 - Guy of Ibelin, seneschal of Cyprus (medieval history) 17 - French Academy of Sciences (french culture) 17 - Isothermal coordinates (mathematics) 17 - Victor d'Hupay (bio) 16 - Isospectral (mathematics) 16 - Fredholm determinant (mathematics) 16 - Gaulish language (French culture) 16 - Graph of groups (mathematics) 16 - Amenable group (mathematics) 16 - Gábor Szegő (bio) 15 - Affiliated operator (mathematics) 15 - Christopher Jencks (BLP) 14 - Alwyn Van der Merwe (BLP) 14 - Basil Lam (bio) 13 - Race (classification of humans) 13 - Ibelin (medieval history) 13 - Caroline Elam (BLP) 13 - Richard Overy (BLP) 13 - Hilbert space (mathematics) 13 - Ruggero Santilli (BLP)

Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific comments on Roger Davies' statements: I

• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed to a wide range of articles, many focusing on Baroque music, since they first edited Wikipedia in February 2006.

Comment My main edits have been in mathematics, France and French culture, history, music (more recently), history of art and BLPs. I think apart from 2010, the largest part of my contributions have been in mathematics (see above). 2010 is not typical because of my wikibreak in January-March 2010, which happens every year. Could Roger Davies please give a more accurate description of the subjects that I edit in, adding as a priority mathematics?

• Their interest in race and intelligence appears to have started last autumn.

Comment This statement is two years out in its chronology, I have been active on Talk:Race and intelligence since October 2007 and made my first edit to race and intelligence in December 2007. Prior to 5 April 2010 I had made 31 edits to the article, mostly adding sources. This problematic article has been on my watchlist for a long time.The wikibreak ended at the end of March when I discovered what had happened wth the mediation process I had agreed to in November as a regular participant. Could Roger Davies please correct the two year error in his chronology? Mathsci (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Noting here that I think the finding does need tweaking in light of what Mathsci posted above. Other arbitrators have stated they are waiting for the complete case to be available for voting, so there should be ample time to make changes. I will likely support any changes Roger makes, though I will update my vote with a new timestamp to support the changes. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I haven't finished reading and commenting on the diffs which I will do in the next few hours. Just for the moment I'll say that the first "outing" diff was from August 2006 when I was a complete newbie. I suspect it was part of the bizarre editing of Myron Evans, which eventually became a stub and was deleted at my request last year.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Myron_Evans_(2nd_nomination) I don't think at that I stage I knew any of the wikipedia rules; I certainly only found out about ANI in January 2007. It was clear that I didn't know what WP email was when User:Hillman asked me to communicate with him. As for the outing allegation on this page, Roger sent me an email which I read the next day. He seems to have misinterpreted what I wrote. I have absolutely no idea who Mikemikev is in real life, nor do I have any interest. I am still sorting through the rest of the diffs. One is a reversion of an edit by User:120 Volt monkey, who was identified as User:Jagz, a user banned indefinitely by ArbCom. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments will be forthcoming In view of edit conflicts with the running commentary below, I will add my comments here later after carefully editing them to be as succinct as possible for ease of readership by ArbCom. Since it involves looking at several different wikipedia pages at once to determine the correct context, e.g. banned editors or BLP violations or just genuine mistakes, that will take a little while. I'll do my best to be as quick as possible. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it’s important to link to the discussions which accompanied Mathsci’s edit warring over the race and intelligence article in May, which are here and here. The problem with Mathsci’s edits was not that they necessarily violated NPOV, but that he was attempting to make a major change to the article with absolutely no prior discussion, while in the process blanking a large piece of content which had previously been established by consensus. When he was reverted, rather than making an effort to obtain a consensus for his change on the article talk page, he continued to reinstate his changes multiple times.

I’m guessing that his claim that the content he was removing contained a BLP violation was so that he could consider himself entitled to disregard 3RR while removing it, but nobody else involved in the article agreed with him that this was a BLP issue. What Mathsci was claiming to be a BLP violation was to describe researchers such as Richard Lewontin, James Flynn and Richard Nisbett as “scientists actively engaged in research in race and intelligence”—Mathsci wanted this term to be used for researchers such as Arthur Jensen who publish in this area from a hereditarian perspective, but not for those who disagree with this perspective. I’m going to quote a comment from Maunus, who’s fairly neutral in this dispute, about what Mathsci was doing here:

Mathsci - tone down the drama please. You are escalating the dispute with those tags which you could have simply dealt with by improving the wordings and added the material you find missing. Quite possibly we will have to discuss how best to describe the debates different sides, but this display isn't helping very much. Be constructive. It is obviously not a BLP issue just like the Jensen drama wasn't a BLP issue that is just nonsense. I agree that the debate assumptions section should improved and while I did give David Kane input on how to improve it I never expressed that I was content with the way it turned out - it was merely an improvement to what was already there - not a perfect piece of prose not to be touched. Lets get to work and improve the article, not just play "tag and remove".

I don’t think anyone who commented on Mathsci’s behavior in this discussion disagreed with the statement that he was being disruptive. He was repeatedly removing material which had been previously established by consensus while making no attempt to obtain a consensus for his change, violating 3RR in the process, and making spurious claims about a BLP violation in order to justify this. If arbitrators look at the discussions in question and Mathsci’s editing behavior during them, I think they’ll probably come to the same conclusion about this that Maunus did. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahem; Mathsci: Have you ever considered not being a dick? --81.196.74.156 (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think this finding of fact is pretty accurate overall, but I find it a little unusual that certain things have been left out of it. Here are the main examples of what I’m thinking of:

• There’s no mention of the fact that when Mathsci has been in conflict with other editors, his immediate reaction has often been to seek sanctions for them at AN/I, without first making any attempt at dispute resolution. Since he began doing this in March, there have been six examples of it, three of which involved hijacking AN/I threads started by other editors; it’s seven if you include the newest AN/I complaint about Ludwigs2 that he made during this arbitration case. All of these are described and linked to in my evidence here. Mathsci’s AN/I threads include multiple successive attempts to obtain sanctions against the same editor, initiating new attempts after his earlier attempts have failed. (That is, forum shopping.)

• Even though I obviously agree with the statement about Mathsci’s personal attacks, are the diffs that Roger Davies provided the best examples of this? Not that the diffs he provided don’t demonstrate Mathsci’s tendency to make personal attacks, but I think clearer examples of it might be [65], [66] (bringing up irrelevant information from David.Kane’s blog), and [67]. (Although Mathsci claims to have later refactored the third comment; I haven’t checked whether that’s the case.)

• Should the findings of fact about Mathsci include the fact that a few other editors have stated that his conduct has driven them away from these articles? This is discussed in my evidence here. In Varoon Arya and DJ’s case, they’ve ended up leaving the project entirely. Even though this isn’t specifically an example of Mathsci’s conduct, I think it helps to demonstrate the way in which his conduct has been harmful to the project.

• It might also be worth mentioning Mathsci’s frivolous sockpuppetry accusation against Varoon Arya, made while this arbitration case was in progress. I know this was just a single example of misconduct, but the findings of fact about David.Kane mention his apparently unjustified AN/I complaint about Mathsci trying to out him, and I think Mathsci’s frivolous SPI falls into the same category. If the findings of fact are going to include one of these, it seems like they should include the other also.

If arbitrators think that the things I mentioned aren’t significant enough to be included in the findings of fact about Mathsci, then I guess that’s okay; I’m fairly satisfied with the findings of fact about him in their current state. But I’d like to make sure that in the large volume of evidence being presented about Mathsci, ArbCom hasn’t overlooked information about him that deserves to be included. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on proposed findings of fact about Captain Occam

This actually isn’t as bad as I was worried it would be, but there are still some things I think I should point out about it.

1: As Carcharoth pointed out his original background finding about me, I’ve only been consistently involved in Wikipedia since July of 2009. Carcharoth’s background finding also correctly pointed out that July of 2009 is when I first became involved in the disputed topic area. Therefore, it’s inaccurate to say that I have “been editing since November 2006 with an almost-exclusive focus on race and intelligence-related articles.”

2: I’ve admitted that I used to have a problem with edit warring when I was a newbie here, but I haven’t violated 3RR on anything since January. As I pointed out here, the only time that I’ve been blocked at any point in the past six months was the block from 2over0 in June. The editing restrictions with which this block was replaced were overturned by Georgewilliamherbert on the grounds that the block was unwarranted. Stating that I’ve been blocked four times for “persistent solo edit-warring” gives the impression that I’ve been continuing to engage in this behavior more recently than January, which is inaccurate as per Georgewilliamherbert’s decision about this. When this case still included “background findings” about editors, Carcharoth modified his background finding about me in order to make note of this, and I think he was correct to decide that this is something which needs to be pointed out.

3: Both of the examples which have been presented of me “tag-team edit-warring with users Mikemikev and David.Kane” involved “tag teams” on both sides of the edit war. In the first case the tag team consisted of Mathsci and Hipocrite: Mathsci Mathsci Hipocrite Hipocrite Hipocrite, and in the second case it consisted of Muntuwand, Ramdrake and Wobble: Muntuwandi Anonymous IP Ramdrake Wobble Ramdrake Muntuwandi Wobble Ramdrake Muntuwandi Muntuwandi Muntuwandi. Everyone involved in these edit wars was somewhat at fault for them, but the underlying problem was that groups of editors (Mathsci and Hipocrite in the first case; Ramdrake, Muntuwandi and Wobble in the second) were trying to implement a large change to the article—trying to add new content to the History of the race and intelligence controversy article and trying to remove an image from the Race and genetics article that had been in it for several months—when there was obviously no consensus for these changes. As I pointed out in my evidence here, in the second case Muntuwandi’s reason for removing the image also was based primarily on what he assumed to be my motives for adding it, which pretty much ruled out the possibility of resolving this dispute with him on the talk page, because it meant that there was nothing that could be changed about the image in terms of content that could ever make him satisfied with it. It isn’t reasonable to single out me, Mikemikev and David.Kane as having been the disruptive ones in these disputes, when the tag-team that was edit warring against us was engaging in behavior that was just as disruptive, if not more so.

4: The proposed finding of fact about me states that I have “disingenuously and disruptively gamed the system by claiming consensus for versions which support his point of view.” However, none of the diffs that Roger Davies has provided actually demonstrate this. The first is a comment from me pointing out that other editors weren’t presenting a valid argument against the inclusion of an image in the Race and genetics article, which does contain a statement from me either way about what the consensus is. The second assumes the existence of a consensus, but not for any specific version of the article; only for a general idea for what the structure of the article should be like. And the third is a statement that we agreed during mediation that the article should include a section about a general aspect of this topic, without claiming that a consensus existed for any specific version of this section. I presented my own proposal about this section’s content, but did not claim that my proposal itself had consensus.

Have arbitrators considered the possibility that some of my claims about prior agreements might have actually been correct? The article outline which was agreed on during mediation is here. The section that I claimed was part of this outline is around 2/3 of the way down on the outline. It’s titled “Significance of group IQ differences”, and the summary of this section’s content in the outline is “The scope and depth of this section is yet to be finalized. It's inclusion is pending review of a proposed outline describing it's content and scope.” And this is what I stated to be the case in the diff that Roger Davies posted: that we had agreed to include this section in the article outline at the end of mediation, meaning that it would presumably eventually go in the article itself, but that there was not yet a consensus about what specific content it should include. Roger Davies’ finding of fact about me seems to assume that claiming the existence of a past consensus is inherently disruptive, but in some cases it may just be an accurate description. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My Finding of Fact is predicted on the assumption that anyone who has edit-warred so consistently and persistently as you have is causing great disruption irrespective of whether they are right or wrong on the facts. The oil that makes the cogs of Wikipedia run smoothly is consensus and anyone who edit-wars is throwing a spanner in the consentual works (to spectacularly mix a metaphor) by unnecessarily polarising and dramatising the issue.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don’t dispute that edit warring is inherently disruptive, and that therefore I was somewhat disruptive during the period of October to January when I had a problem with edit warring. But the salient point here is that I haven’t edit warred in the past six months. And consequently, I also don’t think I’ve been disruptive in the past six months. The period of time when I had this problem was the period when I was first learning what it’s like to be involved in a highly contentious article, and how one should respond when one’s edits are sometimes reverted less then ten minutes later. Isn’t it somewhat common for editors to go through rough periods like this as newbies, especially when one of the first articles they became involved in is one that’s this controversial?

I really can’t understand what the assumption that I’m edit warring “consistently and persistently” is based on. Examples of me edit warring more recently than January simply don’t exist, unless you’re referring to my having been part of a “tag team”. And if that’s what you’re referring to, this applies to nearly every editor involved in this case just as much as it does to me. In many cases more so, when the opposing “tag team” was trying to introduce contentious changes without making any effort to seek consensus for them, and the effect of my own reverts was only to keep the article in its pre-existing state until the changes had been discussed adequately.

Are you not willing to change any of your proposed findings of fact about me, not even things that are clearly factually false, such as the statement that I’ve been exclusively focused on articles about race since 2006? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The focus is easy to fix. I didn't say "exclusively" by the way, I said "almost exclusively". I've though just tweaked the FoF from "almost-exclusive focus" to "increasing focus", which probably more accurately reflects it.
On the broader issue, this topic hasn't got the way it has by accident and sooner or later people have to accept responsibility for their part in the mess. If people are unwilling to disengage, which is the best thing to do in these circumstances, then I'm afraid we have to require them to do so.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think it’s necessary that I be forced to disengage, which I assume is a euphemism for a topic ban, then that can be discussed when we’re discussing proposed remedies. But in order to be effective, proposed remedies have to be based on accurate findings of fact, and in my first post here I’ve pointed out several ways that your proposed findings of fact aren’t accurate. (If you’ve read the post in question, you’ll know that I have a lot more objections to this than the one word you’ve changed.) Carcharoth’s preliminary finding of fact about me contained several of the same inaccuracies that are present in your own FoF, and when I pointed them out to him, he updated his FoF in order to fix them. But the attitude you’re expressing in your comments here seems to be that it doesn’t really matter whether the details are accurate, as long as the overall “gist” of it is. Well, maybe the gist is accurate and maybe it isn’t, but in order for the other arbitrators to evaluate whether or not it is, don’t they need to be given an accurate summary of the details? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly true that the FoF does not present you in the best possible light but then that is not its purpose. In this instance, it's to provide an overview of your contribution to the controversy raging on these pages.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You really aren’t addressing or understanding the point I’m trying to make. I don’t care whether I’m presented in a positive light or not, I’m just talking about specific statements in your FoF which are factually incorrect. If the goal is for it to provide an overview of my contribution to the controversy over these articles, and it does so by making statements about me which aren’t supported by my history of contributions or by the diffs being presented, then it isn’t going to be useful to the other arbitrators as an overview.

If this doesn’t matter to you enough for you to address what I’m saying about it, I hope it will at least matter to some of the other arbitrators. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the statments "I’ve admitted that I used to have a problem with edit warring when I was a newbie here, but I haven’t violated 3RR on anything since January." and "the only time that I’ve been blocked at any point in the past six months was the block from 2over0 in June".This should be placed in context. From January to April, there was very little editing of race and intelligence articles because mediation was in progress.

I would also like to point out that the absence of sanctions does not imply the absence of sanctionable conduct. As has been pointed out, since the arbitration proceedings started, there has been a moratorium on blocks. Then of course Captain Occam has edit warred [68], [69], [70]. These edits occurred just prior to Captain Occam's most recent block, though it has never been confirmed or denied that they were the reason for the block. After Captain Occam had his editing restrictions vacated, within less than 24 hours he was edit warring on the same Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ page as per this ANI discussion. Captain Occam argued that "Georgewilliamherbert’s 1-revert restriction applies only to article space rather than to extensions of the talk page" per his evidence submission. IMHO this seems like wikilawyering and gaming to find an excuse to justify edit warring on a separate but related article. It would appear that Captain Occam was selectively interpreting a rule, then observed it, all the while violating the spirit of the rule, which was basically not to edit war during arbitration proceedings. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert decided that Captain Occam's behavior leading up to the block was not sanctionable, which is why the block got overturned. Given that this has already been decided, there isn't really anything else that needs to be discussed about it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue has never been resolved, 2over0 never gave a detailed explanation for his block. But regardless, Captain Occam was involved in an edit war prior to his block, including a 1RR violation which GWH has acknowledged here when he states, "A number of parties violated the original 1RR. That calmed down and had not acted up again when the block occurred." So just because editors were not sanctioned, does not mean that they could not have been sanctioned. In isolation, the specific incident is not a big deal, but was only brought up to address Captain Occam's claim that he stopped edit warring in January, which this incident shows is inaccurate. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@Captain Occam: I've just carefully reviewed the FoF, in the light of your comments, and I don't see anything that is factually inaccurate. It is true that the context of some of your actions is absent but, as CHL says, we can only base our findings on the evidence put before us. Nevertheless I will revise your FoF shortly.

I've also had an opportunity to look at the diffs you supplied above. The 16 October 2009 tag-teaming you mention is a bit stale to use on its own as a finding of fact but is obviously useful if it is part of an on-going pattern involving the same editors. Of the editors involved in that incident, Mathsci is already subject to a separate FoF. There is though probably enough for a fresh FoF on another editor and I'll post that shortly too.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your update. This change is an improvement, but the diffs you’ve provided still don’t support your claim that I have “gamed the system by claiming consensus for article versions which support my point of view.” None of the diffs you’ve presented involve me claiming consensus for a specific version of the article. The first of them does not involve me claiming the existence of a consensus at all, and the only claim I made about past agreements in the fifth diff is verifiably accurate. In my initial post in this thread, I linked to the page on which it’s possible to verify the accuracy of what I claimed in that diff about the outcome of mediation.

I also have an issue with your claim about me tag-teaming with David.Kane and Mikemikev. (And this also applies to your accusations of tag-teaming in your findings of fact about them). Wikipedia:Tag_team is currently an essay that enjoys no consensus; is it a sanctionable offense for someone to engage in behavior that’s discouraged by an essay, rather than by an actual policy? If your proposed principle involving tag-team editing ends up passing, then this will become a sanctionable offense, but it doesn’t seem reasonable that this principle should apply retroactively to violations of this principle that occurred before the principle was adopted. I also have some more general concerns about whether this proposed principle will be workable as a policy, which I described in my new section below. Your comments there would be appreciated. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a review of Captain Occam's suggestion of Tag-Teaming in which I am a named party. The diffs are accurate, but there is little context. Firstly, I have been involved in several disputes, some directly related to race, but other disputes have been related to other subjects such as religion or molecular genetics,for example). In many of these disputes, I have not formed a "tag team" with some of the other named editors. I think we all have fairly independent editing patterns. The situation is somewhat different for Captain Occam and friends because much of their time on wikipedia has been devoted to this one topic, so I guess tag-teams may appear to be more central for Captain Occam and others.

I have edited alongside Alun and Ramdrake for a number of years now, at least on some race related articles. From my experience they are knowledgeable of the subject matter and are also quite familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Alun, I gather is a molecular biologist by profession, so I find his input valuable. There are times when I do agree with Ramdrake or Alun( and them with me) but there are also times when we don't agree. For example in this discussion, Alun is openly critical of some of my contributions to the race and genetics article, (the article which Captain Occam has alleged tag-taming), and Ramdrake has some content concerns. While we sometimes agree on edits, I think that the named editors are fairly independent of each other such that I don't see much in terms of coordinated tag-teaming between the three of us. The particular race and genetics dispute is discussed in this ANI thread. While Ramdrake and Wobble were initially involved, the were not active in the later stages of this particular sub-dispute. Captain Occam states in the thread,

" Ramdrake, I’m not sure why you’re getting involved in this issue, since you’re no longer participating in the discussion about this article. Probably because of your unfamiliarity with it, most of what you’re claiming here is simply false."

and later an uninvolved administrator, RegentsPark commented,

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.

In short I think Captain Occam's diff are taken out of context. I pretty much prefer to edit independently and my block log should testify to that( if I were coordinating, I would probably have been able to bypass some blocks). I do not coordinate activities with other editors, on or off-wiki. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies, are you going to respond to what I said above about the remaining problems with your finding of fact about me, or my explanation below about the possible problems with your proposed principle about tag-teaming? The latter is especially important, I think, because if ArbCom turns the Wikipedia:TAGTEAM essay into an actual policy, it will affect editors throughout the project rather than just on these articles. It seems kind of hasty to be already posting proposed remedies before all of the findings of fact are finished being discussed—especially in my own case, when no arbitrators other than you have even voted yet on whether your proposed finding of fact about me is accurate. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether we've published a principle specifically about tag-teaming before but it is certainly well-established and sanctionable. The expression gets 60+ hits on RfAr and WP:ANI170+ at AN/I. Additionally, it's probably been used dozens, if not hundreds, of time in block logs. ArbCom principles aren't policy, so mentioning it doesn't make it so. 11:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

“Additionally, it's probably been used dozens, if not hundreds, of time in block logs.”

Is it possible to be blocked or sanctioned for violating the recommendations of an essay that isn’t a policy and doesn’t have consensus? This essay has barely survived a deletion attempt (there was no consensus to keep or delete), and there does not appear to be a majority of the community that supports it. I thought that essays represented only recommendations about editing practices, which editors are encouraged to consider with discretion. That’s what’s stated in the “essay” header at the top of essay pages. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't be blocked for violating an essay, no. It just so happens with this essay, however, that editors who are violating it are often (but not always) also violating policies (which they can be blocked for). Ale_Jrb^talk 18:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If that’s the case, it seems problematic that the findings of fact are listing violations of this essay themselves as examples of sanctionable conduct, and one of the proposed principles states that violating this essay is explicitly disallowed. Wouldn’t it be better for the findings of fact and proposed principles to be based on actual policies, rather than an essay? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sub-page remedy

The wording of the evidence sub-pages remedy could be read as precluding deletion in favour of mandatory blanking. If this is not the intent (and I suspect it is not), I suggest some re-drafting might be appropriate. EdChem (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not the intention to exclude mandatory blanking and is, of course, without prejudice to the stuff being MFd'd. Yes, I should clarify that.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the redrafted version is both clearer and markedly more comprehensive. Unless CHL's suggestion to prevent user-space sub-pages being used for overflow evidence in future is implemented, making a remedy like this a standard part of case management seems wise. EdChem (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It needs a further minor revision for further comprehensiveness, which I'll add this morning.

How to deal with this is a bit of a work in progress. Where I'm up to on this is a standard quota of 500 words/50 diffs for general evidence OR, for evidence in depth about individual editors, 250 words/50 diffs per individual, which would probably have the effect of flipping the focus onto specific conduct instead of general musings. We'd probably need to allow 200 words/20 diffs per rebuttal. Or something like it ....  Roger Davies ^talk 05:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev on findings of fact

I don't disagree with or object to any of the findings about me. However, since I feel that they were largely a reaction to worse of the same behaviour by Mathsci, Slrubenstein and Ramdrake (among others), I feel dismay that not all of these editors are being considered.

I'm also concerned by "In essence, this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view" in David's conduct findings. I wonder if Arbcom's content opinions have influenced their decision at all. mikemikev (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We've considered what's before us. If you have evidence about the others, feel free to post it, but there's not much there now. No one, for example, appears to have presented any evidence against Ramdrake whatsoever. Cool Hand Luke 17:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I assumed you would read all relevant archives to get an idea of the situation. mikemikev (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look at some talk pages. If there were problems about Ramdrake, I didn't notice any serious ones. Evidence pages are meant for parties to concisely present their case; the parties have probably spent thousands of hours on these disputes, and we do not have the resources to examine the complete editing histories of a dozen or more editors. But you were involved in these disputes, and you should be able to remember at least a few examples of allegedly worse behavior. We may have missed something; feel free to draw it to our attention. Cool Hand Luke 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really too much to bother with. Well, guilotine away. mikemikev (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

One great thing about the current ArbCom procedures is that giving each party the responsibility to state his or case shows which parties have the willingness to work, the attention to detail, and the editorial skills of concise and clear writing to contribute well to Wikipedia. The procedures combine the best features of ancient trial by battle and modern trial by neutral fact-finders after presentation of evidence by advocates. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What a tool. mikemikev (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Now this, on the other hand is a simple personal attack. In the Arbcom proceedings.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke: Ramdrake hasn’t been uncivil, but I think there have been some examples of POV-pushing from him. He’s also recently edit warred against an anonymous IP: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] (The fourth diff was a revert of Mikemikev rather than the IP, adding back a tag that Mikemikev had removed, but it’s still a revert.) There was a pretty strong consensus that the IP’s edits were unhelpful, though, which I guess is probably why when I reported both of them for violating 3RR here, only the IP was blocked and Ramdrake just got a warning.

If I can demonstrate that he’s engaged in POV-pushing in addition to the aforementioned 3RR violation, is that significant enough that it’s worth adding to the evidence pages? I’m kind of discouraged by the fact that even though I’ve presented some evidence about Muntuwandi and Slrubenstein making personal attacks and assuming bad faith (and Slrubenstein has an RFC/U about this here), nothing about either of them has been included in the proposed findings of fact. If I were to present evidence against Ramdrake, it would require my evidence sub-pages to grow even longer, which I’m not sure is a good idea while this remedy is being considered. It’s definitely true that Ramdrake, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi haven’t been as disruptive as Mathsci, and if the opinion of arbitrators is that the sort of behavior that the other three have engaged in hasn’t crossed the threshold of what needs arbitrators’ attention, then I probably shouldn’t make my subpages any longer in order to cover it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke: I thought we were supposed to keep our evidence to 1,000 words. Is that not true? I could have offered evidence against, say, Slrubenstein and Ramdrake, but wanted to use my thousand words for more productive topics. MathSci, on the other hand, offered tens of thousands of words of evidence. His strategy seems to be paying off, in that three of the editors being examined closely are ones that he provided most (all?) the evidence against. David.Kane (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane: I appreciate that you stayed under the word limit. That said, your 650 or so words consist mostly of praising the mediation process, which left me with the impression that there wasn't much to be said about other users. If you need another 1000 words to discuss actual user conduct issues by Slrubenstein, Ramdrake, or whoever, please post them. You can cite my post here as permission to exceed the limit for this purpose. Cool Hand Luke 03:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you’ll go ahead with this, David. I do think there are some additional user conduct issues from others that ought to be addressed, but in terms of length my evidence is probably already at the upper limit of what’s acceptable, so I probably shouldn’t add any more to it myself. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have any further material to add, please do so. As CHL has made clear, over-length submissions are fine with arbitrator consent and you can take this as post as your authorisation. Best to further submissions concise and well-supported by clear evidence in the form of diffs. The diffs should really speak for themselves and if they require loads of explanatory narrative to make the point they probably aren't clear-cut.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies, was this comment of yours directed at me or at David.Kane? I was under the impression that I was already pushing the length limitations as it is, and I’d like to know if you’re making an exception in my case also. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

At you :) So go for it.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Diff-gathering is still a pretty time-consuming process, though, so I’d prefer to only do it for users whose behavior I think ArbCom is likely to examine.

In one of your replies to my comments on your FoF about me, you said “There is though probably enough for a fresh FoF on another editor and I'll post that shortly too.” Would it be acceptable for you to say what other editor you’re referring to? Depending on who it is, I might have some diffs to present about them also, but I’d prefer to know who it is so I won’t waste a lot of time finding diffs from editors who are never going to have FoFs about them anyway. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's understandable. Mikemikev said that some of their behavior is worse than his own. If that's true, it would merit a finding. You can get an idea about what we would sanction by looking at the findings drafted to date. Cool Hand Luke 15:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly worse. Not recently maybe, I'm venting a little after my "side" (it's a reaction to the real tag-team who own these articles) is taking the worst of it. The disingenuous mudslinging really paid off for these guys. It seems the more you sling at Arbcom, the more likely the other side gets blocked. An independent review of the situation would have been more fair. mikemikev (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at this.[76] Does it seem reasonable? mikemikev (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, I’ve added some new evidence about other editors here. I hope it isn’t too late for ArbCom to propose and vote on findings of fact about these editors also.

The same page also contains some other evidence pertaining to editors about whom no findings of fact have yet been proposed. Roger Davies said above that he thinks there’s sufficient evidence for findings of fact about at least one other editor, but he hasn’t yet posted it or said who he was referring to. I would appreciate it if arbitrators could look through this sub-page of my evidence, and see if there’s sufficient evidence for findings of fact about any of the editors discussed there. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci's last subpage

After a lot of soul-searching, I've written my comments and reactions to Roger's findings on this last subpage User:Mathsci/AC24. Mathsci (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to a sub-page again. I expect too others may wish to comment. That is easiest done here. I suggest you add a rule (----) to the existing #Comments by Mathsci on Roger Davies' statements above and post it there. Then tag User:Mathsci/AC24 with either the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template. Thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mathsci. I could sense that last subpage was from the heart. mikemikev (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sub-pages round-up

I'd be very grateful if all sub-pages referenced in this case could be listed below, in the form, or similar:

• User:Example: User:Example/R&I01, User:Example/R&I02 etc

Thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As stated before on the workshop page, exactly as in the Abd-Willam M. Connolley, I intend to list all those pages for deletion the day the result is announced, provided I have access to those pages then. Posted by Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not really the point. I want them all linked here so everyone gets a chance to review them. These pages are scattered all over the place and it's impossible for people to keep track of what is being said where. So please do this. Thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, see below. (They are all linked to the evidence page.) Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please reply to my comments on your findings here User:Mathsci/AC24? The first case of 3RR brought by Captain Occam was not approved previously. Discounting two BLP violations, there were three reverts of unsourced images and one much later revert of a highly contentious edit by a returning Belgian IP who had by that stage already broken 5RR together with Mustihussain (talk · contribs) and who had been blocked under a different Belgian IP for exactly the same behaviour on May 23. The second case involved only 4 reverts which do not fall within a 24 hour period. The 2006 oversighted edit that Roger Davies used in this ArbCom case was brought up by Ludwigs2.[77] I don't know why the rules are being bent to make a case: using an edit from 2006 would be a new departure on wikipedia. I acknowledge again the problematic newbie behaviour in 2006 on my first talk archive but cannot see why that should become a focus for this case. Normally on wikipedia that kind of evidence would be termed stale. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry no, the evidence/discussion is fragmented badly enough as it is.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have copied the comments in a new section below. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

<= Mathsci subpages linked to the evidence page, as requested: User:Mathsci/AC1 User:Mathsci/AC3 User:Mathsci/AC4 User:Mathsci/AC5 User:Mathsci/AC6 User:Mathsci/AC9 User:Mathsci/AC10 User:Mathsci/AC11 User:Mathsci/AC12 User:Mathsci/AC14 User:Mathsci/AC15 User:Mathsci/AC16 User:Mathsci/AC17 User:Mathsci/AC18 User:Mathsci/AC19 User:Mathsci/AC2 User:Mathsci/AC20 User:Mathsci/AC21 User:Mathsci/point1 User:Mathsci/point2 User:Mathsci/point3 User:Mathsci/point4 User:Mathsci/point5 User:Mathsci/subpage3 User:Mathsci/subpage5 (template for evidence) User:Mathsci/subpage6 User:Mathsci/subpage7 User:Mathsci/subpage8 User:Mathsci/subpage9 Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is about time that these pages were removed. It is disgraceful that Arbcom has allowed filth like this [78], which has used against me elsewhere in Wikipedia [79], to remain in the public domain for so long. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC).

Not until the decision is final, in my opinion. Your "filth" seems adequately sourced, even for Wikipedia _articles_. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What sources? There aren't any sources that apply to me. The statement [80] is an implied attribution of racist sentiments to the editors mentioned in it including myself. In all cases involved in the current Arbcom debate such attribution is unjustified, particularly in my case as my edits to R&I articles in Wikipedia have been insignificant. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

I wrote in the first paragraph of that part of the evidence: For some time now a group of single purpose editors has acted in concert to add material to wikipedia articles overrepresenting the minority point of view that it is a proven scientific fact that the negroid (black) "race" has lower "general intelligence" on average than the caucasoid (white) "race" for genetic reasons connected with "race". A precise list of users is given there of which Xxanthippe is not one. She is listed separately much lower down as a problematic user with a precise link: that was simply a convenient place to add the link and nothing more should be read into it. Clicking on the link for her name, I seem to be expressing consternation at some of her written statements on wikipedia, particularly about fringe science, almost all unsourced. I wrote: What I find particularly frustrating perhaps is that, if it were not for the disruption caused by sockpuppet accounts and SPAs, Xxanthippe and I have more in common than many other editors. A shared interest in science (perhaps she might not be on the same academic level as me), an interest in British culture (my views on Ann Widdicombe are similar to those on the Queen Mother, although neither has been a role model, at least not consciously) and her interest in early music (I am a huge Buxtehude fan). Is this what Xxanthippe is referring to as "filth"? I don't understand why Xxanthippe uses the word "racist sentiments" to describe the first sentence I quoted, probably the single most significant phrase on which this ArbCom case has centred. I have not suggested at any time that Xxanthippe has been adding content to wikipedia to support that statement. Mathsci (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes tag-teaming?

I have some concerns about this proposed principle, which disallows “tag-team editing”. Not that I think it’s necessarily a bad policy in general, but I don’t think under its current wording it will be possible to determine what should be considered a “tag team” and what shouldn’t. To demonstrate why I think the applications of this principle will be ambiguous, I’m going to present three examples of past situations on these articles where a group of editors could possibly have been considered a “tag team”. The first is one that I think clearly wasn’t a tag team, but the other two are more borderline cases.

The first example (although it’s actually the most recent) happened in May when an anonymous IP attempted to add a large amount of content about differences in average brain size between races to the race and intelligence article, which was reverted in turns by four different users: Ramdrake, Mathsci, Mikemikev, and Multihussain. Here are the reverts of the IP in the other that they occurred: Ramdrake, Ramdrake, Ramdrake, Mathsci, Ramdrake, Mikemikev. Since Ramdrake and the IP were both violating 3RR, I reported them for edit warring, which resulted in Ramdrake being warned and the IP being blocked for 31 hours. After the IP’s block expired, it resumed trying to add the same material, which was reverted by users in this order: Multihussain, Multihussain, Multihussain, Multihussain, Multihussain, Mathsci, Multihussain. This time both Multihussain and the IP were violating 3RR, but at that point there had been so much edit warring happening on the article recently that the result was just for the article to be protected.

This is the only time I’m aware of that the same material has been reverted by both Mikemikev and Mathsci, who almost never agree about anything. This should give an idea of how strongly consensus opposed the IP’s edits. The IP was also ignoring 3RR, so if the rest of us were to avoid violating 3RR, it would have required more than one of us working together to keep the article in the state that was supported by consensus. (And as it was, some of the people who were reverting the IP ended up violating 3RR anyway.) For this reason, whatever principle ArbCom passes to disallow tag-teaming, it shouldn’t disallow cooperative efforts to enforce consensus when a lone editor is edit warring against it like this.

Here’s the second example, which happened on the History of the race and intelligence controversy article over a period of around nine days in April. Almost immediately after Mathsci created this article, several users pointed out that it had a distinct anti-Jensen slant, and Mathsci was the only editor who believed its NPOV was adequate. He was opposed about this by six users: Me, DistributiveJustce, Varoon Arya, Mikemikev, David.Kane, and Bpesta22. (It’s seven if you include 120 Volt Monkey, but I’m not including him because he later turned out to be a sock of a banned user.) Over a period of around two weeks, all of us tried to explain the article’s NPOV problems to Mathsci, but he basically stonewalled the entire discussion, repeating his claims again and again without acknowledging what anyone had said in response to him, or sometimes just responding to us with insults like this. Eventually, we decided that consensus opposed Mathsci strongly enough that David.Kane, DJ and I went ahead and edited the article over his objections. Here are the reverts that occurred over this content:

• [81] Mathsci reverts changes made by DistributiveJustice
• [82] I reinstate DJ’s changes, while fixing the one thing about them that Mathsci specifically objected to
• [83] Mathsci restores his previous revert, with some slight differences
• [84] I revert Mathsci again
• [85] Mathsci reverts me again
• [86] DJ restores some of his earlier changes that Mathsci had removed
• [87] Mathsci reverts DJ
• [88] David.Kane reverts Mathsci, restoring DJ’s most recent version
• [89] Mathsci reverts David.Kane, threatening him, me and DJ with ANI and ArbCom
• [90] I revert Mathsci, stating that consensus clearly opposes him
• [91] Mathsci reverts me
• [92] I revert Mathsci

In response to this, Mathsci posted an AN/I thread claiming that the users reverting him were “tag-teaming” on this article. There was no consensus in this thread that any of our conduct was sanctionable, but several other editors there agreed with Mathsci that we were tag-teaming, so this was apparently a borderline case. The important issue about this is that as far as I can tell, what David.Kane, DJ and I were doing here was not any different from when Mathsci, Ramdrake, and Multihussain were reverting the IP’s unhelpful edits in my first example. In both cases, a lone user was edit warring against a clear consensus, and failing to meaningfully justify his preferred version of the article on the talk page. If this case will be considered tag-teaming but reverting the IP’s edits won’t be, what objective standard will be uses to determine why this case involved tag-teaming but the other did not?

The third example happened in January, when Ramdrake decided on the spur of the moment (without any prior discussion) to revert the race and intelligence article to a version from around two months earlier. I attempted to challenge him about this here, and his justification for doing this was that the article was under mediation, and he believed that the previous two months’ worth of changes didn’t have consensus, so he did not think any discussion or consensus was necessary in order to make such a major rollback. Ramdrake, Wobble, Verbal and Aprock subsequently worked together to preserve Ramdrake’s rollback, even though none of them other than Ramdrake even commented in the discussion about it—the rest of them just silently and rapidly reverted the article. Here are their reverts, in order: Ramdrake Wobble Verbal Ramdrake Ramdrake Aprock Aprock. Incidentally, my effort to stop this rollback is what resulted in my being blocked for a 3RR violation in January. I know I shouldn’t have edit warred against a group of four users, but I think it’s understandable how frustrated I was that two months of (in my opinion valuable) changes to the article were being undone with no consensus and almost no discussion.

Was this tag-teaming? I certainly thought so at the time, but on the other hand I suppose it could be argued that mediation presents a special situation where any large changes to the article shouldn’t be allowed, and no consensus is required even to undo two months’ worth of them. Our current policy regarding edit warring is very easy to understand—no user can revert the same page more than three times in a day, except in the case of obvious vandalism and BLP violations. But if this policy is going to be extended to “tag teaming”, the boundaries of what constitutes a “tag team” are so hazy that I predict most editors will have a difficult time determining what is and isn’t a violation of this policy.

Wikipedia:Tag_team is currently an essay that enjoys no consensus, and it has a footnote specifically pointing this out. Obviously, an ArbCom finding that specifically disallows tag-teaming would change this. But I think it’s essential that if this essay is turned into something that’s explicitly disallowed by an ArbCom finding, ArbCom should address the issues with this essay that have prevented it from ever achieving consensus, especially the fact that it can so easily be applied to groups of editors who are editing in accordance to policy. As far as I’m aware, every situation where I’ve been accused of tag-teaming has either been a situation where a single user was edit warring against a clear consensus (as in the R & I history article), or where there was no consensus either way, and a user or users were repeatedly reinstating contentious changes without adequate discussion. (As in the examples in Roger Davies’ finding of fact about me.) In its current state, the “tag teaming” essay doesn’t make it clear whether or not either of these situations are examples of tag teaming. And considering that this essay currently enjoys no consensus, it also isn’t clear whether it should matter if they are. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If arbitrators are going to vote in favor of this proposed principle, I would really appreciate them commenting here about in what situations it does and doesn’t apply. This isn’t specifically for my sake. Almost every user involved in this article has at least once engaged in something that could be considered “tag-teaming”, and if we’re going to have both a decision that specifically disallows this as well as discretionary sanctions, I predict that there’s going to be a lot of uncertainty among admins about what examples of possible tag-teaming are and aren’t sanctionable. It really seems like the responsible thing to do here would be to make sure this proposed principle is more specific than the essay it’s based on. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The essay isn't important here. The principle refers to precise examples of misconduct, all of which are core policy. A reasonable test would be whether it appears, to an outsider, that a core policy would have been breached if the edits were carried out by one person and, if so, then consider whether in all probability the team participants were acting with a common agenda. In most cases, the common agenda is easy enough to establish from editing patterns, edit-warring etc. Incidentally, there's a terrible meme here that it's okay to edit-war to enforce consensus: it isn't okay, and never has been. The correct route is to invite adminstrative action, either to protect the page or to block the participants.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

“Incidentally, there's a terrible meme here that it's okay to edit-war to enforce consensus: it isn't okay, and never has been.”

So by this standard, when the IP was edit warring to introduce unhelpful material in my first example, it wasn’t acceptable for multiple editors to work together to remove it, even though its edits were being unanimously opposed? That’s definitely a surprising answer, since the reason I mentioned this case was specifically as an example of something that I thought did not constitute tag-teaming.

By this standard, it looks like the example I mentioned from January involving Ramdrake, Wobble, Verbal and Aprock was definitely tag-teaming also. Should I add this to my evidence, or is it sufficient that I’ve posted it here? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Detailed comments on Roger Davies' findings by Mathsci

Copied from User:Mathsci/AC24

My main content edits have been in mathematics, music, French culture, history and BLPs. I do not have a history of edit warring on articles. During the Abd-WMC ArbCom case I removed my name from the involved parties list twice during the RfAr and was reminded not to edit war on wikipedia, particulalry on ArbCom pages. I have been watching the article Race and intelligence since October 2007, wth many edits on the talk page. Prior to 5 April 2010, starting in December 2007 I had made 31 edits to the article, mostly adding sources. At the end of March 2010, after a wikibreak, I rejoined mediation, for the first time generating substantial new sourced content to the article, almost entirely on its history. This resulted in a new article History of the race and intelligence controversy.

I would agree with Roger Davies on the spirit if not the detail of his comments. The controversial topic of race and intelligence can polarise users and create a spirit of mistrust. My own failing has probably been in insisting in too abrasive a way on the use of secondary sources. Certainly both Maunus and Slrubenstein have both privately cautioned me by email on the way I have interacted with others while making edits in this area. I particularly regret the comment on Captain Occam's off-wiki writings on holocaust revisionism, once linked to his user page. I am grateful to Maunus for removing the comment quite promptly and leaving an email message for me. I also apologize for the comments about university computer accounts which were not connected with any ideas of outing. When I looked at the first page of my talk archive, essentially related to the shennanigans around the now deleted BLP of Myron Evans, I was horrified at my newbie behaviour there from 2006. That was my first reaction: on checking more carefully on what is recorded even now on wikipedia, I see that at that time there were in fact off-wiki attempts to discover my identity, to break the fixed IP 82.66.163.12 I use in France (then and now) and to contact my employer.

Regarding specific diffs, on conduct, in the first I made a good faith suggestion to Varoon Arya on new content, only to be told that I had been towiing the line of a Marxist historian. My reply was far too abrupt. The second comment to Captain Occam was overly patronising. The spirit in the third diff was correct (about not being able to interpret primary directly on wikpedia, particularly controversial ones) but it too was overly patronising. One diff provided [93] concerned the sockpuppet 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs) of ArbCom banned Jagz (talk · contribs). If I understand him correctly, Roger Davies main point is to avoid rubbing people up the wrong way even if you disagree with them.

As for the claims of reverting or edit warring, the diffs for these seem to have been taken directly from the evidence page of Captain Occam Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Evidence/COpage1#Mathsci_has_edit_warred_and_ignored_3RR. An administrator Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), involved in semi-locking the page and blocking an IP warrior with 7RR, dismissed Captain Occam's claim at the time. Captain Occam chose not to report the IP warrior at the time on WP:AN3. The other claim of edit warring and reverting was never reported on AN3 and has not been verified by an administrator. My analysis of Captain Occam's diffs shows that there were only 4 actual reverts which do not fall within a space of 24 hours. Perhaps an arbitrator should check this more carefully.

Detailed account of Captain Occam's claimed edit warring

May reverts provided by Roger Davies (cf Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive131#User:Mathsci_reported_by_User:Captain_Occam_.28Result:_No_action.2C_page_semi.27d.29) Between May 24 and 25 there were three separate types of content being added to race and intelligence. The account of R.O.C (talk · contribs) was adding lmages illustrating SAT scores, claiming that these were equivalent to IQ scores with no source for the claim. It is known that there is a correlation between the two. The second strand of content was the removal of BLP-violating material on psychologists who were incorrectly described as researchers into race and intelligence, without any source. In particular this applied to the scientists Nisbett, Ceci and Williams. During this period I had made the worries of BLP violations clear on the talk page and had added rags to the article. In a large edit I chnaged the offending section "debate assumptions" to "current debate", incorporating and adapting most of the previous material in the correct context, restoring WP:NPOV and adding for the first time a summary from secondary sources of the 2005 paper of Rushton and Jensen. In adding that material by copy pasting [94] I made a careless mistake in duplicating old and new material, so that Nisbett and Ceci & Williams are mentioned twice. Once spotted the old material, that had been rewritten, was removed. The third strand was a returning Belgian IP who had already been blocked on May 23 by Asterion for edit warring and adding highly contentious material to the article. I reverted the fifth revert of this editor, having identified him from his behaviour on the talk page. He was subsequently blocked for 31 hours by Black Kite. (I am using the French time stamp below.) 23:04 May 24 [95] revert unsourced SAT images of R.O.C 04:26 May 25 [96] revert unsourced SAT images of R.O.C 05:35 May 25 [97] revert unsourced SAT images of R.O.C 06:12 May 25 [98] remove BLP violating material as per discussion on article talk page [99] and later BLP tags 18:02 May 25 [100] correction to complete rewrite of section by removing BLP violating that had accidently been left in place 19:56 May 25 [101] reverting Belgian IP edit warrior (19:37 [102] 19:25 [103] 19:27 [104] 19:33 [105] 19:36 [106] 19:40 [107] 19:48 [108]) recognized as returning previously blocked disruptive user (discussion on article talk page preceding this edit 19:23 [109] [IP explains edit] 19:28 [110] [I ask IP if he is the same as the editor from May 23] 19:32 [111] [I say page should probably be semiprotected] 19:39 [112] [IP says Mustihussain disagrees with him because he is an arab] 19:44 [113] [IP makes remarks about Marxists] 19:48 [114] [Mustihussain calls IP a "racist turd"])) Warning to editor at 19:42 on talk page about edit-warring; blocked by Black Kite at 20:14 ([115]); Captain Occam reports me for edit warring at 20:02, apparently unconcerned with the Belgian IP warrior's 7 reverts by that stage. June reverts provided by Roger Davies Image blanking A user using within three different related IPs became active on History of the race and intelligence controversy in early June. The three accounts were 99.141.254.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 99.141.250.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (first account 99.142.7.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Their edts were devoted to removing images of individuals on the grounds that they were not notable, They removed all but four images in their first edit, which I reverted. A week later the user returned and continued blanking images, were reported on ANI where they became uncivil calling me a "lying scumbag Troll". They were blocked by Black Kite on June 11 for disruptive editing (for more details please see User:Mathsci/subpage9). (a) 16:34 June 1 [116] restore images blanked by IP (revert) (b) 18:04 June 2 [117] Diff between (a) and (b) [118] (not a revert) (c) 19:53 June 2 [119] (simple revert to (b)) (revert) Three paraphrases with quotation of Webster's summary all different from each other 17:39 June 1 [120] (not a revert) 13:25 June 2 [121] (not a revert) 13;37 June 2 [122] (not a revert) Victor Chmara adds his own selection of quotes from a primary source (WSJ) 15:09 June 2 [123] (revert) 15:15 June 2 [124] (revert) There are four reverts but they are not within a consecutive 24 hour period.

Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

FURTHER COMMENTS

• I have requested clarification of whom I am supposed to have outed in 2006 from Carcharoth by email, since probably they only edited a now deleted article and its talk pages, where they probably outed themselves.

• I was a regular contributor to Race and intelligence and its talk page from October 2007 onwards. Up to December 2009 I made 31 edits to the article [125] and 173 edits to the talk page.[126] It is incorrect to say that I became interested in the article in autumn 2009. It is correct to say that my serious edits after April 5 in this area were a consequence of mediation and I am happy to cease ant further edits there forthwith (see below).

• Even if the proposed topic ban on me does not pass (I hope it does and encourage all arbitrators to vote for it just for my own sanity), I will voluntarily agree not to tangle myself in any race-related articles on wikpedia in perpetuity. I believe that my content contributions have been good, but as arbitrators quite correctly comment, my approach since April 5 was far too agressive, even if my primary intent was to add neutral well sourced content and to impose wikipedia editing policy. I welcome the institution of topic bans in this area, even if I am not a single issue user, as it will create a much much healthier atmosphere for editing in a diffcult area. My advice to other regular users is never to attempt to make substantial changes to these articles: it is wiki-suicide. Mathsci (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on David.Kane as SPA account

The findings of fact about me begins: "David.Kane (talk · contribs) has edited since June 2006 but has effectively been operating as a single-purpose account in the disputed topic area since October 2009. In essence, this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view."

1) Quibble. It is fair to say that I have insisted that Wikipedia place due weight on the heredetarian hypothesis. Jensen is certainly the leading scholar behind this view, but there are many others. The center of the dispute is precisely what amount of Wikipedia space, in total and in various article, should be given over to this hypothesis. Needless to say, I don't think that I have sought to give undue weight to it. This is a claim about content, not about policy. Has Arb Com decided precisely how much weight should be given to Jensen? No evidence has been provided on that topic.

2) A "single-purpose account" has a fairly clear definition. Do I meet it? Key phase is an editor "whose editing is broadly limited to one very narrow area or set of articles." Since October 1, 2009, I have edited many articles, including: Hockey stick controversy, Williams Record, Robert Gaudino, Rubin Causal Model, Matching (statistics), Moodle, Heritability, Stephen McIntyre, Williams College, George William Hunter, Political correctness, Casualties of the Iraq War, William Ruddiman, James MacGregor Burns, Ed Case, The Fires of Heaven, Adam Falk, Myles C. Fox and Handel concerti grossi Op.6. I worked on all of these articles before the Arb Com case started. (I mention this so no one accuses me of "gaming" the system by working on a bunch of articles after Arb Com started to examine my behavior.) I have worked on a score more articles since then. Should I list them all? Many of my edits are minor, but some are quite substantive. If I, someone whose has edited dozens of articles across a wide range of topics at Wikipedia, am an SPA, then everyone is. David.Kane (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Without speaking to what constitutes an SPA, toolservers can be used to for objective data presentations of editors. Looking at articles where you've edited at least twice [127], 63.4% of edits are R&I related, and 28.5% are Williams College related (presumably your alma matter). aprock (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is that since last autumn you have only made a trivially small number of edits that are not related to race and intelligence, or to this case, or to the associated disputes.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no experience with tool servers, but aprock (no fan of mine!) claims that more than 1/3 of my edits have been outside race and intelligence. Is he wrong? How is that a "trivially small number of edits?" I have no problem with a finding of fact that accurately describes my edit history. I strongly object to the use of SPA since, according to Wikipedia, I am not a SPA. (Thanks to aprock for his analysis.) David.Kane (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Roger. Your primary focus on Wikipedia in the last year or so has been this disputed area, and has contributed to the battleground nature of this topic. SirFozzie (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! My "primary focus on Wikipedia in the last year or so has been this disputed area." If that is what the finding of fact said, I would have no objection. But the SPA language implies that my "editing is broadly limited to one very narrow area or set of articles." I have edited more than two dozen articles having nothing to do with Race and Intelligence. I spent 2+ years on Wikipedia without touching race and intelligence. David.Kane (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is incidentally more or less what the FoF says: has edited since June 2006 but has effectively been operating as a single-purpose account in the disputed topic area since October 2009. To repeat what I said above, since last October, you have not many edits at all that are unrelated to race and intelligence, or are unrelated to this case, or are unrelated to the associated disputes.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on David.Kane as "spuriously claiming BLP violation"

The findings about my conduct claim I have "disruptively removed sourced material (sometimes spuriously claiming BLP violation),[128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135]" This is highly misleading on several dimensions.

1) All these diffs refer to the same specific conflict: Should certain false (in my view) claims about Arthur Jensen be allowed in Wikipedia? But not making this clear, the finding implies that I am removing all sorts of different sourced content. That is not true.

2) I claim a BLP violation on all these diffs. It would be one thing if I removed sourced content X and gave reason NPOV, and then removed sourced content Y, and gave reason UNDUE and then removed source content Z for some other reason. But, as the diffs in context make clear, every single edit is related to the same BLP violation. At the very least, "sometimes" should be changed to "always" in the above.

3) The BLP violation is not spurious. Consider the very first diff [136]. It led to this BLPN discussion, focusing on the claim that "Arthur R. Jensen, one of the cosigners of the article, has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." Consider some of the opinions of uninvolved editors.

A claim like that attributed to his opponent that has not been cited to any other location and is appearing to be an isolated opinion unsupported at any other reliable locations in independent reports, yes I would say without looking under those conditions it would be a WP:BLP violation, as in, contentious claims require exceptional citations. Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

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.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I think the issue is mainly one of notability to Mainstream Science on Intelligence. I have access to Campbell's publication in full, and this ad hominem attack on Jensen is one unreferenced sentence in a six-page double-column paper which addresses all the other points directly and with extensive citations to published research. Picking out that one attack as a major point is agenda-pushing. Seems like an obvious no for this article unless there are plenty of other reliable sources that pick out one (possible) view of one of the 52 signatories far more prominently. Rvcx (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a blp issue to me, here it is...He claims that Jensen "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." please provide a reliable quality citation that supports this claim. Where does the subject claim it himself in his work, please link me to the content from the subject ? 17:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, the original question is this. Smith said X, and we have references where he says it. Jones, Robinson, etc said that Smith said Y and we have references where Jones, Robinson etc say that. Statement Y is more controversial than statement X and might be held to reflect badly on Smith. No-one can point to a reference where Smith actually says Y, although it might be implicit in the way he said X. Should we write "Smith said Y" and cite Jones, Robinson etc? Should we write "Jones said that Smith said Y" and cite Jones? Should we write nothing? And finally, the question relevant to this board: does it make a difference that Smith is still alive and the subject of a BLP? Zarboublian (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Are we seriously debating whether we can say that Jensen wrote pieces advocating different education based on race without bothering to find the place where he said it? 212.183.140.36 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

@reply to all above. Please review the BLPN discussion linked to above. Most of these issues are covered in (agonising) detail there. The question is one of who gets to interpret what Jensen wrote:

various lines of evidence, no one of which is definitive alone, but which, viewed all together, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference. The preponderance of the evidence is, in my opinion, less consistent with a strictly environmental hypothesis than with a genetic hypothesis, which, of course, does not exclude the influence of environment or its interaction with genetic factors

Is there a danger that current welfare policies, unaided by eugenic foresight, could lead to the genetic enslavement of a substantial segment of our population? The fuller consequences of our failure seriously to study these questions may well be judged by future generations as our society's greatest injustice to Negro America

It may well be true that many children today are confronted in our schools with an educational philosophy and methodology which were mainly shaped in the past, entirely without any roots in these children's genetic and cultural heritage. The educational system was never allowed to evolve in such way as to maximize the actual potential for learning that is latent in these children's patterns of abilities. If a child cannot show that he "understands" the meaning of 1 + 1 = 2 in some abstract, verbal, cognitive sense, he is, in effect, not allowed to go on to learn 2 + 2 = 4. I am reasonably convinced that all the basic scholastic skills can be learned by children with normal Level I learning ability, provided the instructional techniques do not make g (i.e., Level II) the sine qua non of being able to learn. Educational researchers must discover and devise teaching methods that capitalize on existing abilities for the acquisition of those basic skills which students will need in order to get good jobs when they leave school.

What does this statement convey? I think different wikipedia editors might come up with different interpretations. But that's not our place. That is why secondary sources are used to parse jargon laden statements like this. Yes, there is synthesis, but it is the secondary sources who are doing it, not wikipedia editors. That's the way it should be. This BLP controversy is a clear example of the dangers of using primary sources in lieu of secondary sources. aprock (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If several uninvolved editors (at least some of whom are, I think, very experienced about BLP issues) agree with me (or, at least, do not think my worries is obviously ridiculous) then, by definition, my concerns are not "spurious." I (and Off2riorob and Jimbo Wales and . . .) might be wrong, but we are wrong in a good faith manner. Given that several uninvolved editors agreed with me that these were potential BLP violations, I had an affirmative obligation to remove them (and then discuss them on the Talk page). That is what BLP requires of me.

4) No consensus has been reached. It would be one thing if a clear consensus was reached that I (and Off2riorob and Jimbo Wales and others) was wrong, but no consensus was reached. The issue of how to handle this subtle point is unresolved. Indeed, I asked Arb Com to look into it. It would be one thing if consensus had been reached that there were no BLP concerns here. But that is not the case.

5) I have worked cooperatively with other editors to resolved these issues. Read my edit summaries from these diffs. Consider just the first three:

removed potentially libelous claim about Jensen because it violated WP:BLP. Do not add back before reaching consensus on Talk page. "

MathSci: By refusing to discuss this on the Talk page with me, you are violating WP:BLP. Your previous discussion with Chmara are not relevant to my concerns.

WP:BLP requires the removal of contentious claims until consensus is reached about them on the Talk page. Please add your comments there

This is exactly how an editor with concerns about BLP should behave.

If you read to the end of that BLPN discussion, it ends with:

MathSci: Kudos to you. This version is much better. Why not post it at the History of R&I talk page and seek feedback? That is probably the best place to continue the discussion. I only have two minor quibbles with the phrasing that you have above. David.Kane (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have started a conversation about MathSci's new version here. I would say that content discussions should continue there. David.Kane (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words, we were able to solve this specific problem via discussion. There are no BLP violations in regard to Arthur Jensen and yet, as far as I am aware, most editors are satisfied with discussion of his work that Wikipedia provides in various locations.

Summary: All these diffs concerns a single topic. They are all (potential) BLP violations, according to other uninvolved editors. No consensus on whether these are or or not BLP violations was ever reached. I was able (with others) to work around these disputes and help to create thorough, balanced discussions of Jensen's work. Arb Com wants to topic ban me for that? Wikipedia needs more editors like me involved in controversial topics, not fewer. David.Kane (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane's own account here of his concern with and invoking of the BLP is a significant distortion the facts that I witnessed. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How so? mikemikev (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm gathering relevant diffs. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(od) With respect, you probably need to make your mind up. A couple of hours ago, you posted on my talk page, about the finding of fact, saying: "I think your latest version is much better. In fact, the only quibble I have is with this phrase: "incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources".[137]  Roger Davies ^talk 21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies: I meant the finding of fact with regard to the focus of the dispute. That is much better now! The finding of fact with regard to my conduct has numerous flaws, as outlined above. David.Kane (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Professor Marginalia's new material is compelling.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Compelling?" Professor Marginalia does not directly address a single one of the complaints I raise above. He does not dispute that (to quote my summary above) "all these diffs concerns a single topic. They are all (potential) BLP violations, according to other uninvolved editors. No consensus on whether these are or or not BLP violations was ever reached. I was able (with others) to work around these disputes and help to create thorough, balanced discussions of Jensen's work." He makes all sorts of other accusations. Maybe they have merit. Maybe they don't. But since none (I think) of that material has been offered into evidence before and none is included in the findings of fact, it does not seem useful to rebut it point by point. David.Kane (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• - Comment - from Off2riorob - I was involved in the discussion at the BLP noticeboard and have been asked to comment by User:David Kane. There was a problem with the content and as I remember and have reviewed, David Kane was right to dispute the content as a BLP problem, the subject was being misrepresented through OR and combination of citations. The text was rewritten to remove the problem. IMO David Kane put his case calmly and fairly with citations to support his claims and was eventually correct in his position. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it was reasonable for David.Kane to pose the question to the BLPN aside, I take strong issue with the claim that the subject was misrepresented through OR and citations, nor that he was eventually demonstrated to be correct in his position. This couldn't be further from the truth. The disputed material was accurately quoted, and accurately sourced-and both references remain in the article. What has happened since is that quote was replaced with a watered down version that says nothing about any different education for blacks and whites, and this is inconsistent with what was written in the secondary source: "To illustrate his point, Campbell reminds us that on the basis of research findings by A. R. Jensen--one of the signers of the WSJ article--emanated the recommendation to establish separate curricula for Black and White students, rote learning for one, conceptual problem solving for the other (Jensen 1972)." This was published in the Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, its author was a senior researcher at the Educational Testing Service, and Donald T. Campbell was the president of the American Psychological Association. This was soundly referenced claim, no original research and no inappropriate "combining" of sources. And what this series of snapshots shows is how the constant disputations sometimes force more and more specificity just to allow a simple claim to "stick", imo a game of hoop-jumping (enlarging a simple statement into a several sentence long quote) that often results in a totally unnecessary overstressing of a claim simply to satisfy complainers.[138][139][140][141][142][143][144] Professor marginalia (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it was an inaccuracy. The fact that the same crap is repeated in multiple secondary sources doesn't make it true. A check of the primary source shows this without doubt. Mathsci and Marginalia are spreading lies. I can only guess as to their motives. mikemikev (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This response from user Professor Marginalia is simply spouting and bombarding and confusing through the posting of multiple diffs. As I said, in the BLP issue User David Kane was right and I fully support him in his report and in the way he dealt with it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said in my opening statement: "What I've witnessed on the one involved article that I've edited is a lot of very odd editing behaviors and policy interpretations. I've edited many controversial topics where a lot of hot rhetoric, button pushing, finger-pointing and the rest goes on. But what stands out to me in this case isn't the trash-talking on the talk-page so much as it is the content disputes, which are often so strangely formulated as to be in a league all their own. Any real problem with content, claims, sources or policy is so deeply buried under mischaracterizations of the content, claim, source or policy objection that it's exhaustive work penetrating through the nonsense to find it." And over the past few months I've seen this pattern repeated in the articles that I wasn't involved in. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to echo this sentiment. The tactics used by some of the editors are particularly subtle and devious to the point that casual observers may be confused by what's actually going on. I've tried to illustrate this in the evidence I've recently included, but it can be difficult. The behavior is, in a sense, evolutionary. If one approach to inserting preferred content does not work, another is tried, then another, then another. At each iteration, policy becomes better understood, and tactics refined to the point that it becomes very difficult to see the POV pushing from outside. It's probably worth noting that no one group of editors is using these tactics exclusively. In fact, I think it's clear to those who've been following (or a part of) the dispute for a long time that tactics are copied and learned across all editors. To that extent, it does become a bit difficult to disentangle the behavior from the content. At the core, this is a content/POV issue, and the behavioral aspect relates to whether or not certain tactics are being used for "legitimate" purposes. In that sense, determining when particular tactics are "legitimate" ultimately boils down to making a content ruling. aprock (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

From looking at R&I and HR&IC, it seems to have been on May 25 that I brought up a specific BLP violation—the only context in which I used that term—about describing scientists as "researchers in race and intelligence". That happened here. [145] As explained there, wikipedians shouldn't dream up labels to attach to living scientists, unless they are used in WP:RS. In this case, as explained in the link, the university homepage of Richard Nisbett gives a complete description of his research interests. He is a cognitive psychologist. Right at the end of his research summary [146], he writes, "Finally, for the last several years I have been involved in the debate over the heritability of the black-white differences in IQ.I have argued that the voluminous evidence points strongly to an absence of any genetic contribution at all to the difference." David.Kane starting using BLP policy himself two days later in a totally unrelated way. Mathsci (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on proposed remedies

I may have more to say about this later, but for the moment there are three things I’d like to ask about the remedies that Roger Davies has proposed.

1: I’m not going to argue against a topic ban for Mikemikev, because even though I’ve never found him especially disruptive, I can understand why other people feel this way about his recent incivility. But considering his incivility (and most of his edits, for that matter) has been completely confined to race-related articles, isn’t an entire site-ban excessive? At this point, I don’t think anyone knows whether he would be incapable of being civil in an unrelated topic area. Vecrumba, who’s been one of the targets of Mikemikev’s personal attacks, has suggested here that he suspects most of Mikemikev’s uncivil behavior has been the result of the “poisoned atmosphere” on these articles. If that’s the case, then Mikemikev could still be a valuable editor in other parts of the project.

2: A topic ban is being proposed in my own case, but nearly all of the objectionable behavior described in the finding of fact about me has involved edit warring, either alone or as part of a “tag team”. If ArbCom decides that even in the past six months I’ve had enough of a problem with edit warring that I need to be sanctioned for it, isn’t the most appropriate solution for that a heightened revert restriction in this topic area (such as 1RR on race related articles), rather than a topic ban? No evidence has been presented that my overall pattern of contributions to these articles has been non-neutral, and I’ve presented several examples in my evidence here of my adding information in favor of the environmental hypothesis, or removing pro-hereditarian information that I thought was excessive. I also pointed this out in response to WeijiBaikeBianji here, and nobody tried to dispute the explanation I gave there for my overall neutrality. If I’ve stepped out of line, it’s because I’ve been overly aggressive about removing and reverting content that I considered contrary to NPOV and other policies; not because I’ve been trying to contravene these policies.

If ArbCom were to decide that this necessitates a revert restriction, I would still think my past problem with edit warring has improved enough that this solution isn’t necessary, but I could at least see the logic in it. But a topic ban seems like an excessively heavy-handed solution for someone who has no problem with incivility, and whose contributions are overall neutral in substance, but who’s had a problem with edit warring over them. Sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and the sanctions being suggested for both me and Mikemikev go well beyond what’s necessary to prevent the behavior described in the findings of fact about us.

3: None of the proposed remedies specify a length of time. Isn’t it standard for arbitration remedies to be for specific amounts of time, rather than being open-ended like this? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Briefly, and in your order:

1. The incivility and personal attacks, which are still continuing, is the main problem.
2. It's a bit late for 1RR. It'll probably be best for the topic if the principle protagonists disengage altogether to allow the dust to settle and normal editing to resume. I disagree that it's heavy-handed. Edit-warring is horribly corrosive, emotionally destructive, and drives good editors away in droves.
3. No, it's pretty much standard in cases like this. If you read the topic ban in conjunction with the enforcement provisions, you'll see it is appealable every six months.

 Roger Davies ^talk 06:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Could you move your evidence from /COpage1 and /COpage2 to the /Evidence page please? It'll reduce fragmentation. The sub-pages can then be deleted.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think the best solution is for the “principle protagonists” to disengage, I hope you’ll consider the evidence I’ve presented that the “principle protagonists” include more than just me, David.Kane, Mikemikev and Mathsci. The extent of Ramdrake’s, Slrubenstein’s and Muntuwandi’s involvement in these articles is especially apparent if you look at their involvement over the past several years. For example, if you look at Ramdrake’s edit history, he has more than twice as many edits to the Race and intelligence article as I do, and all ten of Muntuwandi’s most edited articles involve either race or Afrocentrism. My impression was that evidence from more than around eight months ago is considered “stale”, but if this sort of information is useful to you in order to identify the major players in the disputes over these articles, I can provide some more of it.

Also, I’ve moved the content of those sub-pages back to the main evidence page. Would you prefer that I do the same with COpage3 also, or does it only matter for the first two? --Captain Occam (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please move it. And the tag the /CO pages {{db-author}} so they get deleted. Updating any links to them would also be appreciated.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I’ve linked to these pages in too many places to be able to update all of the links, but what I’ve done instead is replace each of the subpages with a redirect to the appropriate part of my evidence. Is that an acceptable solution? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the statement "all ten of Muntuwandi’s most edited articles involve either race or Afrocentrism. The statement is true, but I would once again advise you to analyze such data more carefully. It is important to understand some of the limitations of the toolserver edit counter before making such generalizations. Firstly the edit counter lists only the top 100 articles edited, in this case, since my account has contributed to over 1300 pages, it means that data from the other 1200 pages is omitted from the toolserver report. This was less of an issue with your case because you had only contributed to a few articles. At the start of this arbitration, you had contributed to only 36 unique articles, so no data was omitted from toolserver's top 100 report.

Secondly the toolserver edit counter currently does not have a provision to provide data for different time periods. So if I made 200 edits to an article three or four years ago and not much since, it will remain in the top 100 if I have not made more than 200 edits to at least ten different articles in the last three or four years. The toolserver will be factually correct but it won't give trends in editing over time. You can go through my article contributions, [147], [148], that go back to 2007, and you will find very little edits done to the top ten articles you mention. It isn't healthy to be involved in a small set of controversial articles for an extended period, and I realized this in my early days of editing and have since tried to diversify my interests. Unfortunately the toolserver isn't yet able to reflect such trends.

Lastly, contributing to race related articles by itself does not mean that the contributions in question are necessarily problematic. For example, many could be reverting vandalism because race related articles tend to be plagued by vandals. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you're the biggest fraud here. I think the only reason people don't call you on your bull is because they feel sorry for you. The most cursory look at your edit history shows that your absolutely obsessed with pushing a pro-black POV. Why do you insult our intelligence trying to deny this with some lame statistical argument? mikemikev (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi's edits to the articles show more evidence of actual reading of books on the subject, and more thought about clear writing and neutral point of view, than many of the edits he has reverted. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI - Mikemikev indefinitely blocked

SarekOfVulcan indefblocked Mikemikev a little while ago for ongoing personal attacks. Mikemikev's edits since the last block I imposed had some real gems including [149] [150] [151] (more on WP:ANI). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that it especially matters at this stage, but I suspect that this was the Wikipedia equivalent of suicide by cop. I think Mikemikev could see from the way this arbitration case was going that he was likely to be site-banned sometime soon, so he decided he might as well go out with a bang, and get in a last few kicks while he was at it. His comment here is consistent with this idea: “I would rather die than be unblocked.”

Well, if he actually wants to be blocked, I’m in no position to argue with that. But it’s too bad that Wikipedia has to be set up in a way that encourages people with a flair from drama to do this sort of thing. If there had been the option for Mikemikev’s penalty to be appealed or lessened based on good behavior, then he might not have done this, but once a person knows they’re going to be site-banned by ArbCom, they’ve really got nothing to lose. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Coordinated POV-pushing on the Snyderman and Rothman (study) article.

I’m posting this here because I think it’s both an example of disruptive editing that Georgewilliamherbert might want to take action about, and a fairly good (and recent) example of the particular brand of POV-pushing that some of the “pro-environmental” editors engage in. (Although definitely not all of them; I don’t think I’ve ever seen this problem from Ludwigs2, ImperfectlyInformed, or Maunus.)

In late May and early June of this year, shortly before the beginning of this arbitration case, Victor Chmara made several edits to the Snyderman and Rothman (study) article to remove material that he considered to violate WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV, explaining his justifications for these changes in his edit summaries. Shortly afterwards Ramdrake reverted the changes, stating that he considered them POV-pushing. In response, Victor Chmara reinstated his changes, asking Ramdrake to explain himself in talk before undoing around a week’s worth of changes. Ramdrake didn’t, and this time he allowed Victor Chmara’s changes to stand. After that, they remained unchallenged for around two months.

Fast forward to mid-August, at which point Ramdrake decided rather suddenly that he disagreed with Victor Chmara’s edits after all, and reverted the article back to the state it had had in mid-May. He added a brief comment on the talk page explaining why he was doing this, stating “I've also reverted gthe article one notch to a version which seemed less POVish to me”. Rolling an article back two months is a slightly unusual thing to do, but nothing that on its own could be considered extremely disruptive.

The place where things began to get problematic was when we began to discuss Ramdrake’s revert. Victor Chmara explained in detail why he had made the changes that he had (in this comment and this one.) David.Kane agreed with him and me that his changes were appropriate, while Maunus expressed agreement with some changes and disagreement with others [152] [153]. The changes that Maunus was expressing agreement with were not being opposed by anyone on the article talk page, so I reinstated them in this edit and this one. Mathsci immediately reverted my edit, leaving this comment which listed six policies that he claimed my edit had violated, although not explaining specifically how it had violated any of them. After I made an attempt to add back just one of Victor Chmara's changes (one of the changes which Maunus had approved of) Mathsci reverted me again, and then dropped out of the discussion on the talk page. He hasn’t commented there since August 14th.

I summarized Victor Chmara’s explanation of the problems with this article, which neither Mathsci nor Ramdrake had yet addressed, and asked whether there was any disagreement with them. After a little over two days, the only response I had received was from Vecrumba, asking me to clarify what I intended to change and why, which I did. After that, there were no more responses at all.

As of today, there has been no dispute of the changes I’m suggesting (which are some, but not all, of Victor Chmara’s changes) for the past five days. So today I went ahead and changed them, pointing out in this comment why I was doing so. I was immediately reverted by WeijiBaikeBianji, with an edit summary stating “this still needs more discussion before a revert.” He did not leave any response on the talk page to the explanation I provided for my change, although he left a comment in my user talk asking me to make an “elaborate, detailed case with citations” (that’s an exact quote) for my revert. Remember, the version to which I’m reverting was the version that existed for two months, nobody other than Mathsci has presented an argument that there was anything wrong with this version, and Victor Chmara had already linked to and quoted the relevant parts of the articles being cited in order to explain what was wrong with Ramdrake’s and Mathsci’s version. Eight minutes after WeijiBaikeBianji reinstated their version of the article, he nominated the article for deletion.

The pattern here is a fairly typical one. It begins with a somewhat contentious change—in this case Ramdrake’s decision to undo edits that had been in the article for the past two months—which is opposed by a large group of editors. The change is subsequently reinstated several times (in this case by Mathsci), with progressively less and less effort to justify it on the talk page. At the same time an editor who opposes the change (Victor Chmara) is providing a detailed explanation of why the changes in question either violates policies or misrepresents sources, which includes linking to and/or quoting all of the relevant articles being cited. Finally, the discussion reaches its natural conclusion when the people who tried to make these changes (Ramdrake and Mathsci) drop out of the discussion entirely, and there is no dispute over subsequent explanations (from me) about why their changes need to be undone. Yet even after this, the changes are still reinstated every time they’re reverted, this time with no explanation on the talk page, and no justification whatsoever except that the revert has not yet been discussed enough. No effort is made to address the rationale for these changes that’s already been provided, or even to explain why it’s insufficient. And in this case, the sequence of events has concluded with WeijiBaikeBianji’s AFD, which is an effective way for him to cut off future discussion about the changes he’s reinstating.

This appears to be an absolute no-win situation every time it arises. When someone reverts my edit while refusing to engage in discussion about it, should I reinstate it and be accused of edit warring? Should someone else reinstate it, which will result in us both being accused of tag-teaming? Or should everyone just allow the content of the article to be dictated by whichever editors are unwilling to engage in discussion, which makes any dispute over their edits inherently impossible?

Despite having dealt with this pattern of behavior for the better part of a year, I still have no idea what the appropriate way of handling it is. In addition to the three possibilities that I mentioned, I’ve tried bringing it up somewhere that I hoped it could have the attention of an admin. A recent example of this was when Ramdrake, Verbal and Aprock were doing the same thing on the Race and Intelligence talk page FAQ (described in my evidence here), and I brought it up on the Arbitration workshop page in this thread, but the discussion there was merely a repeat of what had occurred on the race and intelligence talk page, and no administrators or arbitrators participated in it. Most of the examples of tag-teamaing or edit warring described in the findings of fact about me are examples that occurred in situations like these, so it looks as though I’m about to be sanctioned for having handled situations like these the wrong way, but even now I still don’t know what the right way would have been. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I invite the attention of onlookers to the article talk page and to the history of the article to see what is really going on here. I have written a personal message to the editor who created the page, on her talk page, to see what her current view is, after the nomination for deletion put an automated message on her page. It appears that the creating editor, in good faith, thought it was important for the integrity of Wikipedia to have an article criticizing the POV-pushing writings of Snyderman and Rothman, who received funding from advocacy organizations to produce their book. But, alas, other editors who want to push the same POV as that pushed in the book have asserted ownership over the article, and recent attempts to edit it to reflect the facts about Snyderman's and Rothman's political affiliations and to emphasize how little the book is regarded by serious scholars of the issues discussed in the book have been frustrated by Captain Occam and his fellow travelers. I wasn't going to rush into dealing with that article, but I call the ArbCom's attention to Captain Occam's persistence in asserting "consensus" (his favorite word, here sweeping in Maunus) to ensure his favored point of view is most prominent in articles. I would be delighted if other editors who participated in the last deletion discussion about that article, and especially the article's creating editor, join the discussion here while I go on an out-of-town trip to visit another library to do research. I will be away from Wikipedia for much of tomorrow (19 August 2010), so here I will just thank Captain Occam for bringing this specifically to ArbCom's attention while the case is being decided (as I think is proper) and then invite all interested persons to read the article, read its talk page, read the article's history, and read reliable secondary sources about the subject of the article to decide what neutral point of view would be here, and what would best effectuate Wikipedia policy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

“It appears that the creating editor, in good faith, thought it was important for the integrity of Wikipedia to have an article criticizing the POV-pushing writings of Snyderman and Rothman, who received funding from advocacy organizations to produce their book. But, alas, other editors who want to push the same POV as that pushed in the book have asserted ownership over the article, and recent attempts to edit it to reflect the facts about Snyderman's and Rothman's political affiliations and to emphasize how little the book is regarded by serious scholars of the issues discussed in the book have been frustrated by Captain Occam and his fellow travelers.”

Does this interpretation have anything in common with what’s been discussed on the talk page for this article—the discussion in which you’re refusing to participate? The content that you, Mathsci, and Ramdrake have been reinstating includes content which is cited to an article that does not mention this study, and does not even mention its two authors in the same sentence. It also includes a paragraph describing a correspondence between two researchers who are both discussing the study, yet the paragraph describes the view of only one author and not the other. I don’t believe that you have any content-based justification for the content that you keep reinstating—if you did, you would have made an attempt to justify it on the talk page any of the numerous times that I’ve asked you to. Instead, you’re just reverting the article while making general pronouncements about how Victor Chmara and I are POV-pushing, while refusing to ever discuss specifics.

The version of the article which existed prior to Victor Chmara’s changes in May and June, which is the version which you keep reinstating, was written almost entirely by Mathsci. Mathsci’s version of the article did not describe this study as “POV-pushing writings funded by advocacy organizations”, because that is not how this study is described in the secondary sources which discuss it. Does Mathsci’s failure to turn the article into a coatrack of criticism, which you’ve stated in your comment above is what you think it should be, make him just as much a pro-hereditarian POV-pusher as you apparently think Victor Chmara and I are? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I’m a little put off by your labeling of Victor Chmara and David.Kane as my fellow travelers, which is the term that was used for Communist sympathizers in the U.S. during the Cold War. It was also used in post-WWII Germany for followers of the Nazi party. Was that how you intended it? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition to Georgewilliamherbert, I’d appreciate it if arbitrators could comment on this. Not just on this specific situation involving the Snyderman and Rothman article, but also on the more general principle of what it’s appropriate to do when users reverting an article aren’t willing to discuss their edits, particularly in situations where I’ve tried unsuccessfully to get an admin’s attention, such as the one involving the Race and intelligence talk page FAQ in June. As I said above, this is something I’ve never known the answer to, but if there’s anyone who can answer this question it’s probably ArbCom. And if I’m going to be sanctioned for having reacted the wrong way in these situations, I think it’s my right to know what the correct reaction would have been, especially since not knowing the answer to this will make it extremely difficult for me to make sure that I react the correct way whenever I’m in similar situations in the future. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Without pretending to understand the disputes in that article yet at all, can I just point out that Georgeherbertwilliam's concern is with those continuing to make controversial changes and edit warring while the arbitration decision is pending. And it looks to me like his asking you, Captain Occam, to let him know of any further such behaviors was posted on 23:34, 14 August 2010. Yet you are the only the only involved editor who has since then made any article edit there, period?[154][155] So it's important to mention this since here the comments would lead one to assume the responsibility for any current "disruption" were the involved editors who've actually been leaving it alone. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven’t been following this situation closely enough. The underlying problem here is that starting on August 11th, Ramdrake, Mathsci, and WeijiBaikeBianji have been trying to undo edits that have been in the article since May, in some cases with no attempt to justify this on the talk page. I admit that I’ve made a few attempts to put the article back in the state that it was in from the beginning of June until August 11th, and have been immediately reverted every time I tried this. But the reason I’ve been attempting this is because (among other reasons) their rollback should not have been made in the first place, especially while the article is under arbitration. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well...I think that's misunderstanding the spirit here. I think the intention was to put on hold all controversial editing, including yours, and without respect to any one editor or faction being granted rollback rights to some "default" version of the article. Again, I'm only pointing this out in the context of your appeal to GHW because he's concerned here with arresting a current problem, and not judging past actions. Those are two separate things. The arb committee would address prior behaviors.Professor marginalia (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I am a new editor, perhaps the newest who visits this case file, and it may be that I make mistakes from time to time. I have been reading the arbitrator comments carefully and now have been counting the arbitrator votes on the proposed decision, as a reality check on what is considered proper editor behavior on Wikipedia. I had a fruitful trip out of town today to a library where I found new sources on the subject(s) of the article(s) involved in this dispute. I will put all my comments about my nomination for deletion of the Snyderman and Rothman (study) article (the second such nomination) on the talk page of that article and on the AfD file for that article, where those comments belong. Best wishes to everyone here who wants to learn from reliable sources and collaborate with other editors to build a quality, free English-language encyclopedia with neutral point of view. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record - I am concerned about this and have had simply not enough time since initially being notified to sort out what is going on.

I see the diffs and claims; but it takes hours and hours to review history on something like this and make a concrete response. I asked for anything like this to get posted here in part because I am busy at work and not able to focus on complicated WP issues every day at the moment.

I would appreciate it if anyone reading here stopped any further changes to the article for now. I may protect the article, but haven't yet. Other admin review would also be helpful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

GWH, I won’t revert the article again without your permission. As you examine this situation, though, if you reach the same conclusion I did (that the rollback from Ramdrake, Mathsci and WeijiBaikeBianji was disruptive and introduced obvious synth and NPOV violations) I would really appreciate you putting the article back in the state it was in before this rollback was made. This is doubly the case if you intend to protect the article, since it would be especially unfortunate for the article to be protected in a version containing the same disruptive edits that made protection necessary. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article and several discussions on the talk page. This seems to be a pretty standard disagreement of the kind that have characterized this case, including the accusations of POV pushing and false claims of "consensus". These kinds of content decisions are precisely what dispute resolution is for and, given my review, an excellent example of why several editors are being banned from the topic area. When an editor has lost a sense of proportion and clearly is here to advocate a specific viewpoint across a large number of articles, they've missed the point of Wikipedia entirely. Working in areas you know and enjoy is all well and good if you can put aside your own biases and work towards presenting a well-rounded overview of the subject. Head counting to claim consensus, forcing editors to respond repeatedly to the same argument (and reverting when they don't) and an inability to work with other editors in the topic area are all signs that the topic is simply one you feel too strongly about to handle properly. Shell ^babelfish 06:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think the evidence supports the idea that the purpose of my involvement here is to engage in advocacy. This isn’t mentioned in the finding of fact about me, and I’ve presented a few counterexamples to this claim in my own evidence here.

Regarding the claim that I’ve been unnecessarily combative: I think this was an unavoidable result of what the editing atmosphere on these articles has been like over the past few months, after dispute resolution (in the form of mediation) had already been tried and failed to produce any long-term improvement to this problem. However, I can understand the sense in your wanting to remove all of the editors who have intentionally or unintentionally helped sustain this atmosphere, so I’m not going to argue against that idea. What doesn’t seem reasonable here is that there are several other editors who’ve contributed to this atmosphere about as much as David.Kane, Mathsci and I have, but it seems to be being overlooked in their case. I’m especially thinking of Ramdrake, Aprock, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi. I brought this up with Roger Davies earlier, and in response he said here that there was enough evidence of this for an additional FoF about another editor, and that he would post it shortly. But it’s been three days since then, and he hasn’t posted it. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether you call it advocacy or simply bias, the result is the same. You've been terminally incapable of working productively in the topic area and don't seem to be interested in the project otherwise. Whether or not you think your editing is unbiased, at some point you have to consider that the variety of editors who are telling you otherwise must have some point.

Nothing is unavoidable; we routinely have to sort issues where topic areas have become difficult to work in and there are always examples of editors who handled themselves well along with those who didn't. Given that there's a case in progress with a decision pretty much settled, it boggles my mind that any editor continued with their problematic behavior. Clearly some time out is needed.

As far as sorting other editors, perhaps if they'd had more than a passing mention in evidence they'd have been given a harder look. We can only do our best with what's presented to us and we're unlikely to tack on additional remedies based on evidence that should have been presented at the proper time. The idea is to get some closure here, not draw these disputes out further and if further problem occur, discretionary sanctions appear to be passing. Shell ^babelfish 08:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Those of us who feel that Ramdrake, Aprock, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi have been disruptive didn’t have the opportunity to present more evidence against them at the proper time. Everyone who’s felt this way about them has also felt that Mathsci was even more disruptive, so when our evidence was constrained to 1,000 words, presenting evidence against Mathsci had to be our top priority. It’s only within the past week that Roger Davies lifted the 1,000 word limit, with the stated intention that this was so everyone could present evidence against additional editors also. And after we’d expanded our evidence based on this, he clearly also though there was enough of it for an additional FoF.

If ArbCom wouldn’t be able to examine evidence that was presented this late in the case, why did Roger Davies ask us within the past week to present more of it, and then tell us that he would be basing an additional FoF on it? And after he’d already told us this, and we’d gone to the trouble of gathering additional evidence at his request, isn’t it kind of unfair for ArbCom to decide that this evidence was presented too late in the case for it to be considered? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, it's really sad that you didn't pay attention to arbitrator Shell's repeated reminders to you to have some perspective on what is important to the Wikipedia project and to focus your comments on important issues rather than on sideshows. I see that the arbitrator votes say what the arbitrators (who are experienced editors) think is the problem here. You had opportunity at the very beginning of the ArbCom case, which was initiated by an editor who shared your POV about the alleged BLP issue, to present diffs clearly, succinctly, and with focus on what editor conduct was most disruptive to the worldwide effort to turn Wikipedia into a superb encyclopedia. How you focused your time and effort during the case was your decision and yours alone. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, other editors manage to stick to the limit all the time without an issue (less editorializing does wonders). Those who do have concerns generally speak up and ask questions or ask for an extension of the limit during the evidence phase, neither of which you appear to have done. It just seems a bit odd to bring up these issues at the close of the case as if there hadn't been ample time to address any concerns about the process.

As far as Roger, I certainly can't speak for him. Personally, I don't see anything particularly compelling in the additional evidence. As I said though, further problems can be addressed using discretionary sanctions being put in place for the topic area. Shell ^babelfish 13:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, you did ask for extra space for your evidence, were given it, and used it: here, here and here. The extra space was not to my mind used particularly productively and there comes a point in every case when it is in the best interests of all concerned to close. Remedies are essentially preventative rather than punitive so if the editors are as tendentious as you now claim, and if they continue to engage in conduct which appears disruptive to uninvolved editors/administrators, discretionary sanctions will take care of it.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I know I was given permission to create subpages, but until your comment a few days ago I was under the impression that length was still an issue. As I told you previously, I figured that with my subpages I was already pushing the length limit, so I shouldn’t present anything else even if I had more to say about other editors. You didn’t tell me otherwise until a few days ago.

There’s a really basic problem here that you aren’t addressing. You told me to present new evidence, that you would examine it when I did, and after I’d presented it you told me you would post a new FoF based on it. Now, you’ve changed your mind about all of this, meaning that when I was following your request to present new evidence I was apparently wasting my time. As an arbitrator, don’t you have an obligation to follow through with what you tell the involved parties about how you’re going to handle the case, especially after they’ve already devoted a lot of time to following your instructions based on that prior agreement? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no agreement that I'd convert whatever anyone wrote into FoFs. I did look at working up new FoFs a few days ago and the evidence, once you set aside the rhetoric, simply wasn't comprehensive enough nor compelling enough.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent for sanity) Oddly enough, Arbiters, just like normal people, can change their mind. You act as if Roger deliberately led you on and got joy out of wasting your time. We get it, you're not happy that your final "evidence" didn't result in sanctions (due to a lack of anything truly actionable presented) and apparently don't feel the comments about discretionary sanctions will address the problem - we can disagree on those points. However, this is yet another time where you've not realized that you need to put down the stick and back away from the horse - it's deceased I tell you.Shell ^babelfish 14:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies, you did agree to make an FoF based on the additional evidence I presented. This is what you said: “There is though probably enough for a fresh FoF on another editor and I'll post that shortly too.”

I don’t think either of you (you or Shell) really understand what I’m bothered by here. It’s not that I’m convinced the discretionary sanctions won’t be capable of preventing further POV-pushing on these articles—I’m definitely hoping they will be. What bothers me here is just the sense I’m getting that ArbCom doesn’t appreciate the fact that some of us don’t particularly enjoy searching through months-old diffs, and that our time is actually worth something to us.

Try to imagine yourself in an equivalent situation. Imagine that someone in a position of authority asked you to do something for them which you don’t particularly enjoy, and which would take you several hours, but you did it anyway because they made it clear it’s what they wanted from you. And when you presented it to them, they acted like they appreciated it and that it would be useful to them. Then a few days later, the same person who requested it from you told you “Actually, what you gave me won’t be useful to me, because I don’t have the time to use it.” How would you feel? This is the sort of thing that I could image happening in a Dilbert-esque bureaucracy, but I’d really hoped it wasn’t something that would happen at Wikipedia. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You are completely twisting what I said. I didn't use it because on closer examination it didn't do the job. End of thread.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What I was told initially was that my additional evidence wasn’t being considered because it was presented too late in the case. If the actual reason was just that it was insufficient, I wish I could’ve been told that initially. It would’ve saved me a lot of irritation, and this whole argument could have been avoided. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time in two posts you've substantially misdescribed what I said. I described the incident as "stale": it is, it took place last October. I didn't say that I was rejecting the evidence because it was out of time.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn’t referring to you in either of my previous two comments. The person who initially told me my evidence was being rejected because I’d submitted it too late was Shell Kinney.

Edited to add: I think I see why you assumed I was referring to you. Is it because in my analogy two posts ago, I referred to the person rejecting someone else’s work as “the same person who requested it”? That person was intended to just represent ArbCom in general, not you specifically. I didn’t think this analogy was something that would be likely to be taken as a personal comment, but I guess maybe it was.--Captain Occam (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And you've twisted what I said too. I said your concerns were more likely to be heeded if they were presented at the proper time and I followed up in just the next post to explain that I didn't think you'd provided anything substantive but I couldn't speak to Rogers thoughts specifically. Perhaps you would waste less time if you read what others wrote rather than arguing by reflex. Shell ^babelfish 18:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreliability of Captain Occam's diffs used as evidence of edit warring

My evidence section has been replaced by a single entry discussing Captain Occam's claims of editing warring. (There is a link to the previous version, for convenience.) Both sets of diffs have been included in the proposed decision. As explained in my evidence, the first set of diffs was rejected by Black Kite at WP:AN3. The second set was never presented. The second, third and fourth edits there are not reverts at all, indeed the first is the addition of completely new material. It would be an unprecedented departure for ArbCom to label the insertion of new material (presented on the talk page by Professor marginalia and commented on there by Slrubenstein and me) as a revert or any form of edit warring. I don't attach very much importance to this; it's simply a question of setting the record straight. Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice if we got all the right diffs lined up in a row here, but the underlying point remains the same. You have edit warred in the topic area from time to time, though it's often slow moving. Your inability to remain civil during disputes has been brought up before and seems to be at issue here as well. So, for the record, lets not miss the forest for the trees. Shell ^babelfish 06:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Shell. I agree entirely with your statement about my "inability to remain civil during disputes", which I think is spot on. I immediately acknowledged that above: it was a major failing on my part and I regret it now. I don't disagree with anything arbitrators have written either here or privately on civility matters.

I would probably like to discuss some individual diffs originating in the evidence of Captain Occam, but that is not a high priority. At the moment, following Roger Davies' privately offered advice, which I found very kind, I am back to contemplating the perplexing ambiguities of the phrygian mode of E in Bach's chorale fughettas BWV 672–674. I guess the inclusion of the "–" here is a signal of "back to work" ... and the influence of Michael Hardy in mathematics articles :-)

Within all this, there are thankfully some touches of humour. Jagz's reappearance as 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs) is quite funny. As a sort of irony he added several see alsos to HR&IC that were exceedingly constructive hints of things to add to the early history and kept me busy for a few days. Jagz and I had quite a lot of discussion on Talk:Race and intelligence in early 2008, before he was blocked indefinitely (later confirmed by ArbCom). However, these contributions of his are a reminder, as Rlevse will remember, that Jagz was a skilled editor on scouting articles. After 120 Volt monkey's later comments, I made a wiki-email report of suspected sockpuppetry to Nishkid64 on 1 May and the sockpuppet was blocked on 4 May. Mathsci (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification request on Review of topic-bans

The Review of topic-bans section states that "The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favourably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews."

1) Is participation in "the featured content process" a requirement for getting the topic ban removed? I assume it is not but would like to clarify that point.

2) Is there a reason that this participation is favored over all other sorts of productive Wikipedia engagement? I have no problem with language like "demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors" or anything else along those lines. But there are many ways to demonstrate this. In my case, the most natural fit for my interests and abilities is participating in articles that have nothing to do with Race and Intelligence.

I would request that, unless there is a specific reason for Arb Com to want us to participate in this one area of Wikipedia in preference to other areas, that the Review language either not mention the featured content process at all or that its status relative to other Wikipedia work be made more clear. David.Kane (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Any article on any topic can become a featured article, if it is well sourced, neutral in point of view, and well written. I read that part of the proposed decision (which looks slated soon to become a final decision) to indicate that editors should work thoroughly on topics they know well, improve articles on topics that they can work on collaboratively, and learn the Wikipedia Manual of Style and (especially) sourcing rules well to improve those articles up to featured article status. I'm working on an article right now (over the last month or so) that I hope gets there someday. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The featured content process is mentioned because frankly, featured content is the end goal of Wikipedia. Participating in the process requires the ability to research properly, follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines and collaberate well with other editors - all things that were particularly lacking here. Choosing to improve articles certainly isn't a requirement and you can find other ways to show that you've developed the necessary skills. Frankly, the fact that you think this is "one area" of Wikipedia is a glaring indication that you haven't a clue what this project is really about. Shell ^babelfish 13:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There are over 3.3 million articles on English language Wikipedia. No more than a tiny fraction ever become featured content. If describing these 3,006 articles as ""one area of Wikipedia" is not reasonable . . . David.Kane (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Then look at the featured article process this way: it's doing what's required to get the remaining 3,296,994 articles to the same FA status. Looking at it this way, you can see it's a "pretty big" area of Wikipedia.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The way I look at this is that the “featured article” process is pretty lengthy one, which starts with a recently-created stub and ends with a featured article, and we’re encouraged to participate in any part of that process. Even if we don’t get an article all the way to FA status, if we bring it a little closer to that status than it was before (by adding sources, improving NPOV, etc.) we’re still participating in that process. Arbitrators, is that an accurate way of understanding this? --Captain Occam (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you guys are getting overly hung up on this. The spirit of the thing is that you (and the other topic banned editors) show that you subscribe to the broader encyclopedic mission of the project by participating in a civil, non-tendentious manner in other, unconnected with race, areas of the project. Bringing articles to featured status is one clear way of demonstrating that (because it requires civil and non-tendentious editing). There are many other ways of doing the same thing - participating in move discussions, bringing many articles to GA status, wiki-gnoming, etc. etc. If, for example, at the end of six months, you've done a stellar job of cleaning up articles in the Burma wikiproject, become a leader in the novels wikiproject, or written and cooperatively edited a set of articles on Malawi, I think arbcom will look upon all that activity favorably, featured articles or not. Wikipedians can be a fairly forgiving bunch but endlessly arguing on the exact meaning of this point or that is less likely to get you back in the fold. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Subpage for deletion

I have submitted User talk:Muntuwandi/Arbitration responses for deletion. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Shell ^babelfish 18:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeat of my statement on race-related articles

I agree with Kirill and Roger that it is in my own best interests and that of the project to desist in editing articles in this area and I have already written that above. I didn't do so before 5 April 2010. At that point I carried out what could be seen as an experiment that proved altogether too much for me to handle, given my temperament. Voluntary or enforced makes no difference to me. In this ArbCom case what matters most is that measures are in place to create a better editing environment in articles that will always be problematic (e.g. at least one new controversial book is due to appear this year). My presence there is wholly dispensable and my absence highly desirable. I apologize if I requested my subpages to be deleted too soon. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your very clear statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m actually looking forward to having some time off from these articles also. My involvement in them has been more stressful for me than I think anyone realizes, although the way I’ve reacted to that stress has been different than what it’s been in Mathsci’s case. (I don’t need think I need to point out how I’ve reacted badly to this stress, since arbitrators have pointed that out already.)

There are several non-race-related articles that I’ve been wanting to work on for the past several months, but I never felt like I had much opportunity for that because there was always something happening on R & I related articles that would suck up all of the time I was willing to devote to Wikipedia. Hopefully discretionary sanctions will solve the problems with the editing environment that resulted in this, though. It’s better for everyone involved if the neutrality of these articles can become the responsibility of admins, instead of it being up to people like me and David.Kane to patrol the recent changes to them and try to undo any changes that look like us to POV-pushing. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read your userpage. I look forward to future edits from you that will be for the birds. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Question from Captain Occam

Split off into separate thread and indentation adjusted. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The first article outside of this topic area that I’m hoping to create is the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case article, which is currently a redirect. I’ve discussed this with other editors here and here, and other people seem to agree that this news story is notable enough to have its own article. I’ve also been working on assembling refs for this article in my userspace: User_talk:Captain_Occam/Voter_intimidation_case_references

Would creating that article be okay? I guess it marginally involves race because the Obama administration’s Department of Justice is being accused of anti-white bias, but in terms of content it’s just a politics topic, and it has nothing to do with IQ. I’m interpreting being topic banned from “race and intelligence related articles” as meaning I’m topic banned from everything in this category, not that I’m topic banned from every article that involves either race or intelligence independently of the other. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other arbitrators, but from my point of view, this wouldn't be a violation of the remedies in this case. On the other hand, if you want my personal opinion, if you are looking for a change of pace to a less controversial topic area, this may be a situation of "out of the frying pan...." In other words, even if this is not a technical violation of the remedy, I'm not at all convinced it's a wise place for you to be moving to at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a kind of strong desire to prove to myself, and to others, that I’m capable of editing an article about a controversial topic without being accused of POV-pushing. I’m hoping that at some point in the future I’ll be able to appeal my topic ban, and resume participating in the race and intelligence article, and I want to make sure by that point I’ve learned how to edit contentious articles in a neutral and non-provocative way. I’ll never be able to improve my skill in this area if I don’t make any attempt to get practice at it. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's disconcerting to hear that a topic like that is considered (by just one arbitrator?) outside the scope of the topic ban. With 6,826,810 articles to edit, I would have expected a topic much more remote from what Captain Occam has been involved in recently. And with the conduct findings, I would have expected an attempt first of all to look for a topic that is very uncontroversial indeed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WeijiBaikeBianji in that New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is a poor choice. IMO, Captain Occam's fixation, is not on race broadly construed, but rather on only certain aspects of race. If we consider some of Captain Occam's most edited subjects, they include race and crime in the United States, race and intelligence and Rushton's book, Race, Evolution and Behavior. In all these subjects, the most controversial claims, which Captain Occam seems to have focused on, concern the so called "Black/African/Negroid races". I really haven't observed Captain Occam contribute much to subjects concerning other ethnic or racial groups (Darwin famously noted that ambiguous classification criteria resulted in between 2 and 63 races of man). Captain Occam's fixation on these aspects of race is what has lead to an unhealthy editing environment. It might even be possible that Captain Occam could work successfully on race-related articles that don't involve sub-topics that he seemingly has a strong personal attachment to. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is obvious, but my question about this was directed at Newyorkbrad (and any other arbitrators who care to comment), not at all of the editors who’ve been trying to get me topic-banned throughout this case. It doesn’t particularly matter to me whether the rest of you want to continue to venting your negative assumptions about my motives, or your frustration that my topic ban isn’t covering a wider range of articles. And the reason it doesn’t matter to me is because I probably won’t be interacting with the rest of you for at least another six months, unless you choose to follow me to whatever articles I become involved in after this, which would be wikihounding.

So in other words: just let it go, okay? You got most of what you wanted as far as I’m concerned: I’m being topic banned. And complaining about the fact I’m not being disallowed from editing a wider range of articles isn’t going to change anything, just like it didn’t change anything for me to complain about Roger Davies’ deciding against posting a finding of fact about Muntuwandi. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'm going to ask if any other arbitrators want to comment here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I see where both Brad and WeijiBaikeBianji are coming from. Let's look at the locus of the case. Without reading the findings, especially the ones one locus, and case history, one could read it as being about "race and intelligence" or "race" and "intelligence". But if you read the findings on locus and case history, they clearly center on "race and intelligence". The proposed article by Captain Occam seems, from what I can tell to lack the "intelligence" aspect as it's about voting. That being said, as WeijiBaikeBianji stated, Captain Occam is clearly interested in race articles, which is fine, but it's also what is about to get him topic banned here. In other words, this article and similar articles are probably a very slippery slope for Captain Occam to venture down. So, my strong advice to Captain Occam is stay clear of these sorts of topics for the foreseeable future. And if and when he does work in race related articles again, to be very careful. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the thread above and I don't like the way Captain Occam has threatened others with accusations of wikihounding if they follow him to this article. If he had said nothing about his intentions, then he might have had a point, but by publicly declaring his intent to edit this article, anyone participating in the case will have become aware of this article. My view is that anyone who has become aware of this article through Captain Occam's posting shouldn't feel constrained from editing the article (that would be akin to ownership) - given this, I would urge Captain Occam to find another article to work on and to use his own judgment as to whether it is suitable or not (see below for more on parties exercising their own judgment). I will make a further point, which is that David.Kane and Captain Occam should not end up working together on the same article. Possibly this should have been made clearer in the case itself, but we can't cover all possibilities. Precisely because we can't cover all possibilities, administrators at arbitration enforcement (AE) have wide latitude to interpret the topic ban and some admins at AE will probably take a different view here to that of Newyorkbrad. My view is that arbitrators shouldn't be in the business of pre-emptively approving or disapproving which articles topic-banned people can end up editing. Those who have been topic-banned need to show their own judgment following the close of a case. The correct sequence is as follows: (1) Case closes; (2) Topic-banned editors consider why they were topic banned and consider how to improve their editing and discuss this with others as needed; (3) Topic-banned editors look for a new interest but don't try and get it pre-emptively approved; (4) If anyone thinks a topic-banned editor made a poor choice of a new area to edit in, take it to arbitration enforcement; (5) If either the party or the filer disagree with the decision taken at arbitration enforcement, bring it to the clarifications page for ArbCom to comment on (the final court of appeal). But remember that if this case returns to the clarifications page within a few months of the case closing, we may well adjust the remedies as needed. For this reason, my advice to parties as a case is closing or after it has closed, is to steer well clear of any controversy for a few months and to try and change their editing habits, in particular the ones that got them sanctioned. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not surprised by this. Captain Occam has shown himself to be exclusively interested in matters of race and, as I expressed at a couple of ANI threads, the sensible thing to do would be to ban him from all articles to do with race (broadly construed). I understand that the arbitration process focuses on narrow, identifiable issues as a matter of fairness but I remain convinced that the encyclopedia would be better off with a ban that reaches further. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is always tricky when matters like this come up just as a case is closing. Pragmatically, I would suggest observing for a while and if you are still concerned at what you see, then make a case at requests for amendment or ask the community for a wider topic ban. It is unlikely that we will amend the case further at this point. Carcharoth (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would have been possible anyway because arbitration should be evidence based and almost all available evidence is in R&I. Personally, I think this has been a very well conducted arbitration case, a textbook example of what arbitration should be like if you will, and the result fair. I note a flurry of last minute 'agenda setting' activity on the part of Captain Occam, the direction he intends editing in, and fear we haven't seen the end of this.--RegentsPark (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m just going to say I’m pretty disappointed that everyone here (including some of the arbitrators) is assuming that the reason I want to create this article is because it involves race. I mentioned that it does because I wanted to make sure arbitrators weren’t going to think that I’m violating the terms of my topic ban, but as far as I’m concerned this is a politics topic. It’s also, as far as I know, the only recent political controversy in the United States that doesn’t have its own article here.

Isn’t it possible that the reason for my desire to create this article is the result of an unrelated interest of mine? Several of my interests and opinions are listed in the userboxes on my userpage. Can’t anyone think of any others there that might be my reason for being interested in this case, such as the userbox that’s the second from the bottom? --Captain Occam (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It really comes down to how one parses the banning language: "Captain Occam (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed." Is he banned from "race and intelligence" related articles, or "race" and "intelligence" related articles. The modifier "broadly construed" at the end might indicate the latter, but it's certainly not clear from the wording. Given the questions that Occam and other raise, I think this wording should be clarified to be explicit about what the category ban is, possibly by listing the actual categories in question. aprock (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The locus findings make clear this case is narrowly about race and intelligence (the category is linked there). One of the reasons the locus is so narrow is because the editors in question had a very narrow focus and the further questions arise because these editors are expanding this focus. I did propose a remedy that was purely race-related, see remedy 4, but that failed to pass. Carcharoth (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to finding 1.1. I don't really understand arbitration all that well, but I take it what you are saying is that remedies are all implemented in terms of the findings. That's not clear from the page, but it sounds like a reasonable way of handling things. aprock (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

When the article race and intelligence was fully protected in July, many editors shifted their efforts to Race (classification of humans)‎. This article had relatively low levels of activity until race and intelligence was protected. It was because of edit warring on Race (classification of humans)‎, not on race and intelligence, that resulted in David.Kane receiving a block, and it was Mikemikev's edit warring and incivility on Race (classification of humans)‎ that contributed to his indefinite block. Race and intelligence is a fuzzy subject that overlaps with various other subjects, sometimes in quite indirect ways.

Another issue that I have previously discussed is that certain editors tend to exploit any ambiguity in a decision by wikilawyering, eg any article not listed in the category race and intelligence is fair game when an article may still be related to race and intelligence but not listed in the category. Maybe this will be covered under discretionary sanctions. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree - see this statement by Captain Occam. We are seeing the same players and same agenda on the Race (classification of humans)‎ article. Clarification is needed. --Snowded ^TALK 08:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Haven’t the three arbitrators who’ve commented about this clarified it already? I don’t think the answer they’ve given is likely to change at this point, especially when the case is about to close. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on what Captain Occam has announced, I will ask the Arbitration Committee, before the case closes, to make clear that the scope of the topic bans is articles about intelligence, articles about race, or articles about both, broadly construed in all cases. (This is my friendly suggestion for what would be helpful to the project.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the the article has been one of the battlefields during this arbitration[156] [157] [158] and the fact that issues of "biology" and "race" are inextricably linked with the hereditarian pov in the race and intelligence controversy, I'd argue it should definitely be within the scope here, even as narrowly defined. I also suspect we've got a banned user disruptively IP socking over there. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Professor marginalia, I should say that my suggestion above to make the scope of the topic ban very clear is without prejudice to an interpretation of the current wording of the topic ban to have the same effect. And I agree that there seems to be sock-puppet activity by I.P. editors on some of the related articles as this case closes. We will have to discuss, among the editors not subject to topic bans, what level of article protection or pending changes review might help maintain a constructive editing environment. I noticed dramatic differences in atmosphere in editing the main article in this dispute when it was exposed to immediate I.P. edits, when it was semiprotected, and when it was full protected. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree. When editing was suspended the debate and main players transferred intact, its the same issue and best handled now. I would have thought "broadly construed" included Race (classification of humans)‎ as we see the same hereditarian position, the same editors and some of the same behaviour. We also had IP socks of Mikemikev this morning and need long term semi-protection, or the article put under review. --Snowded ^TALK 18:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it’s problematic that after three arbitrators have already stated that the topic bans do not apply to race or intelligence independently of the other, and explained that this is both because there have been no findings of fact related to articles outside the “race and intelligence” topic area and because no proposed remedy addressing the topic of race on its own is being passed, people are still pressuring ArbCom to try and change this.

As RegentsPark stated above, remedies have to be evidence-based, and almost all of the evidence submitted to this case concerns the topics of race and intelligence together. In order for remedies to apply to articles outside of the race and intelligence area, this case would have to go all the way back to the evidence phase, and new findings of fact would have to be proposed. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you just made my point for me. I suspect we will see the same agenda popping up on a range of articles on race that do not specifically include intelligence. Personally I think its not a new finding of fact in respect of the behaviour of editors concerned but that is for Arbcom to decide. I not that you are not repeating the advice to you to steer away from race related issues in general at least for a period. I would be less concerned if there was any sign you were listening to that advice. --Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What “agenda” do you think I’m displaying there? I’ve only made a single edit to that article in the past three months, trying to remove the Joseph Graves quote; once it was clear that consensus opposed me about this quote, I didn’t make a second attempt to remove it. All I’ve done other than that is comment on the talk page, and I’ve also said (in a comment that you linked to yourself) that I probably will steer clear of this article for a little while after my topic ban happens.

There’s a good reason why there was no finding of fact related to this article, and none of the proposed remedies involving it have passed. Although Mikemikev could be considered to have caused disruption there, especially if he’s the IP who’s been edit warring there recently, I don’t think there’s any standard by which I could be considered to have caused disruption there myself. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on phrasing of findings

Per email with Newyorkbrad and comments of Rlevse, Carcharoth and Newyorkbrad on User talk:Newyorkbrad I am copying over the contents of my message there to this page and the ArbCom mailing list. I have included the copyediting suggestion of Newyorkbrad.

Following the statement that Newyorkbrad made on the proposed decision page, I have prepared the following tentative suggestion for a minor modification of the proposed conduct finding on me for possible discussion. I have made 3 amendments at the beginning: mathematics as the single subject to which I have contributed most; autumn (or Fall) 2007 as the time I became active on R&I; and April 2010 when I started making content edits at the end of mediation. I included one of your phrases almost verbatim, as it seemed to me to be an accurate appraisal. I slightly changed the statement about edit warring, incorporating the words "aggressive" (Carcharoth) and "combative" (Shell Kinney). Amongst the diffs for edit warring, seemingly copied from the evidence of Captain Occam, I removed diffs of evident IP edit warriors, who were subsequently blocked, and diffs that were not reverts, but just the addition of new material. I have left the final sentence, despite Newyorkbrad's stated misgivings.

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed to a wide range of articles, many focusing on mathematics and baroque music, since he first edited Wikipedia in February 2006. His interest in articles related to race and intelligence appears to have started in autumn 2007. Almost all his content edits to these articles began in April 2010 following a mediation process. Since then, within the area of dispute, the user has acted in good faith in what he perceived as an attempt to protect articles from being skewed by what he perceived as a group of editors pushing a point of view with troubling overtones. In the area of dispute, however, he has engaged in incivility and personal attacks in text, [159][160][161] and in edit summaries;[162][163] once went so far as to accuse one editor of being a "holocaust denier";[164] routinely threatens other editors with blocks,[165][166][167] and has made other, veiled threats.[168] His editing of articles and their talk pages has been unduly aggressive and combative, with borderline edit warring in May [169][170][171][172] and June.[173][174][175][176] This editor was also formally reminded not to edit war in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration.

Thanks to everyone for their cooperation and patience. Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than delay the close of the case or open an amendment request after the case closes, I suggest an informal vote be taken here to modify this finding, and that the case clerk be instructed to modify the case accordingly. I have no problem with the above wording of the finding, though I am usually wary of letting parties write or rewrite the findings about themselves and don't want to see this setting too much of a precedent. Carcharoth (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to this modification if it is approved by the other arbitrators. (Note: In a short while I must go offline until tonight, so my silence on this or any other point for the rest of the day means nothing one way or the other.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable for me to suggest a similar modification to my FoF? If this is going to be allowed in Mathsci’s case, I think the fair thing would be to the same thing from me and David.Kane. Although I’m not going to try and alter the overall substance of my FoF, there are some things that I think could be made more accurate about it, and I suspect that David.Kane feels similarly. I’ve made requests earlier in the case that what I see as inaccuracies in my FoF be corrected, but as I said on Cool Hand Luke’s talk page here, I don’t feel that Roger Davies has been sufficiently responsive when I tried to bring them up with him. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, but as I said above, this is why I am wary of going too far in substituting what parties write for what we write. It is too much of a slippery slope to go down. In larger cases, it very quickly becomes unworkable. In this case, wordsmithing the findings is not necessary. Ultimately, the remedies are what matters, and if the substance of the finding is not being changed or challenged, then the remedies won't change. Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

All right, thanks. If you give me a day or so, I’ll post my suggested revision.

It would be helpful if one of the arbitrators or clerks could contact David.Kane about this also, since he may have stopped reading this page now that the outcome of the case is mostly decided. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. When I said "It sounds reasonable", the "but" bit following it was meant to make clear that although it sounds reasonable it is not reasonable in your case and is not needed in your case. I've reviewed both your finding and David.Kane's finding, and the discussion you had with Roger Davies, and I see no reason to make any changes there. Carcharoth (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have no objections to changing the finding to the language suggested by Mathsci. Shell ^babelfish 21:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it pretty strange that Mathsci is being given the opportunity to sugar-coat his finding of fact by adding that he “has acted in good faith” in an attempt to protect the article from what he perceived as POV-pushing, but the same privilege isn’t being extended to me or David.Kane. I would say that David.Kane and I also acted in good faith in an effort to protect the article from what looked to us like POV-pushing, although what this resulted in from us was tag-teaming, rather than personal attacks as it has in Mathsci’s case. Since David.Kane, Mathsci and I are all being given the exact same sanctions, I would assume that ArbCom has decided we’ve all been about as disruptive as one another on these articles. So why is this privilege being extended to Mathsci and no one else? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't feel everyone has been equally disruptive and I think the FoF are fairly clear about that. There's also the fact that Mathsci has acknowledged the concerns we had about his behavior and decided how best to avoid similar problems going forward while you have argued tooth and nail at every turn and are now borderline canvassing for meat puppets. The behavior is no where near the same. Shell ^babelfish 01:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow up actions after case closes

It is probable that the case will close without the above discussions being resolved. If that is the case, can the parties and others please not continue to post here after the case closes, but instead consider other options. If any of the parties feel that amendments or clarifications to the case are needed, there is a page available for that purpose. Minor amendments, such as the one proposed above by Mathsci, could be considered there, though an e-mail to the committee before any immediate postings are made there would avoid time being wasted on either side. More generally, a minimum period of time should pass before substantial appeals or requests for changes are made. The period given for the topic ban review is a good guide here: "Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and further reviews will take place no more frequently than every six months thereafter." Carcharoth (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad suggested waiting 48 hours and mentioned that he would be off-line for a period. The email that he requested be sent to ArbCom has not yet been circulated as far as I can tell. So it would be kind if you could wait for responses to this last step in the process that Newyorkbrad suggested. There seems to be no rush. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a slight problem with the e-mail. It has been circulated now (though this was being discussed already). I will oppose the closing of the case for another 24 hours to allow this to be resolved, though it is unlikely that other arbitrators will support a delay longer than that. Carcharoth (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so promptly and for putting things temporarily on hold. Mathsci (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between a site ban and a block?

The case is wrapping up. I'm wondering if there is some significant difference between a site ban and a block such that one broadly supported remedy[177] would or would not be implemented immediately. I'm trying to figure out, as a newbie Wikipedian, what the implications are of different enforcement approaches. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The block was indefinite for the reasons stated in the block log, but like any block applied by an administrator can be appealed. An arbitration case site ban is carried out by a clerk using a block for the duration of the ban, but in this case will be done by an annotation of the block log. When the one-year site ban expires, the indefinite block can still be appealed as before. For more on the differences between a block and a ban (a block is a technical means used to enforce a ban, which is a social construct), please see WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to put a template on all articles in the category with remedy 5.1 quoted and linked?

As a newbie Wikipedian, who came upon articles in the Category:Race and intelligence controversy just as the mediation had broken down, I'm wondering how notice can be given to future newbie Wikipedians that all articles in that category are subject to an ArbCom case decision? You may recall that there was some confusion during the case about whether or not the main article Race and intelligence was or was not subject to a 1RR restriction by an uninvolved administrator. Especially for newbies like me, the more notice of special circumstances and specific rules related to some articles and not others, the better.

I like the language of Remedy 5.1, which I see now enjoys strong arbitrator consensus.

"Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions

"5.1) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles within the Category:Race and intelligence controversy are cautioned that this topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics, it is crucial that they adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, and avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments.

"To enforce the foregoing, [s]tandard discretionary sanctions are authorized for '[R]ace and intelligence' and all closely related articles."

I think a template that could be transcluded onto the talk page of every article in the category (83 articles at current count) would be very helpful to veteran editors and to new editors during the period of enforcement of this remedy. If it's not out of turn to do so, I would even be happy to transclude the template onto each of those pages, if someone more experienced than I would kindly make the template. It's helpful especially for beginning editors like me when editing conditions make clear what is allowed, and what not is allowed, and help editors know what dispute-resolution channels are available. Thank for your thought about this issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at some of the templates here to see how this has been handled previously. There are other places you can ask as well to get advice on this, such as the administrators noticeboard, or the arbitration enforcement noticeboard talk page (which appears to have been redirected, oh well). Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to examples. I've read the templates themselves and the talk pages for some of the templates. I'll try to draft up something that would be a gentle general reminder for all the articles in the category, and another that could be used by admins for talk page postings to specific editors. Those drafts, of course, can be edited by anyone else who has suggestions. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have written a template for article talk pages and a template to remind editors, inviting comments about and edits to those templates from more experienced editors, so that all members of the community will have notice of the ArbCom decision and its topic scope. I have given the individual findings of fact on editor conduct in the ArbCom case a close reading to determine which articles are subject to the topic ban, and will attempt to post the article talk page template on as many articles within the scope of the topic ban as can be determined from the final ArbCom decision. I will add specific links to the final ArbCom decision as soon as that is published, and then begin transcluding the article talk page templates broadly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Meat

It is a little disappointing that while this case is supposed to be winding up, a few issues keep cropping up. This concerns this edit by Ferahgo the Assassin in which the user states

Even though this is a topic that interests me, for a long time I was reluctant to get involved in this article because of what the editing atmosphere has been like. But if the new changes and discretionary sanctions cause as much improvement as everyone is hoping they will, I might finally feel differently about participating here.

Had this been any other newbie editor, it wouldn't have raised any concerns per WP:BITE. Unfortunately this user has been implicated in some allegations of meatpuppetry based on off-wiki evidence which was submitted to arbcom in private. There is no FoF concerning meatpuppetry in the current proceedings so it remains one of the unresolved matters. Nonetheless it seems like terrible timing for this particular user to get involved in race and intelligence issues immediately after topic bans have been voted for. The policy on [[Wikipedia:Meat#Meatpuppetry states

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.

and

A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.

It might be necessary to take this issue to WP:SPI if it becomes a problem or alternatively to clear this user of any impropriety. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.

Have you actually looked at this user’s edit history? Although it’s possible this will change at some point in the future, at the moment almost all of their edits concern either paleontology or neurology. The only article that they and I have both contributed to is the Marquand Park article. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt here: given your relationship, if this doesn't smell like meatpuppetry I don't know what does. On the NPOV noticeboard, on race and intelligence, on AN/I, and even earlier canvassing with Race and crime even though Ferahgo has no editing history there,[178] [179]. So messages like this and this (posted less than an hour) after out-of-nowhere fresh "reinforcement" arrives at the scene aren't enough to make the case this isn't meatpuppetry the least bit convincing.

Now there's sock puppetry to deal with as well as post after post pushing against the boundaries and spirit of the sanctions, imo another giant time sink. If would be unfortunate if the decision in this arbitration accomplished little except inspire the editors involved to wikilawyer endlessly to create confusion with the loop-holes, and continue these disruptive games for another six months. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This sort of coast is clear message leads me to wonder if this arbitration effort may end up having the opposite effect of what was intended. Add the extensive wikilawyering about what the sanctions mean, it would appear that Captain Occam prefers to adhere to the letter of the sanctions, rather than its spirit. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And what “intended effect” is that? As far as I know, the purpose of this arbitration case was to determine which users involved in these articles have been being disruptive, and the answer they came up with was me, David.Kane, Mikemikev, and Mathsci. If that answer is accurate, which it probably is, then this case has accomplished its purpose.

Are all of you folks upset that this case hasn’t resulted in a victory for your “side” of the content dispute? Well, too bad. Even if you consider that to have been the intended effect of this case, ArbCom doesn’t. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

One assumes that the intended effect is to create a neutral environment for editing these pages. That will not happen if involved editors who had 'retired' during the course of this arbcom process return. Or, if topic banned editors use meat puppets. I don't know if either of these will happen, but things don't look particularly promising at this point. (I note that you persist in believing that there are 'sides' on wikipedia.) --RegentsPark (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

“I note that you persist in believing that there are 'sides' on wikipedia.”

No, that’s only my interpretation of your own viewpoint. And I still think that’s probably an accurate interpretation, although I know you wouldn’t admit to it. Why else would it matter to you if the editors who left the article due to Mathsci’s behavior were to return? Since there was no evidence presented that they’ve ever been disruptive, the only thing there is for you to have a problem with about them returning is the fact that their content opinions differ from yours. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that evidence was not presented here about them because they had 'retired' but, if you recall, they have been involved in previous ANI discussions. If they stay retired, and if there are no meat puppets, then there is no particular issue. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Accused of being a meatpuppet despite having never edited a race and intelligence-related article in my life? This does not bode well for the supposedly improved editing climate of these articles due to the recent topic-bans and sanctions.

I'm pretty sure that 'guilty until proven innocent' is not part of Wikipedia policy. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ferahgo, given your clear relationship with Captain Occam, I would strongly suggest that you don't suddenly develop an interest in race and intelligence articles. Captain Occam, the notes you've been posting to various talk pages encouraging editors to take up your cause on these articles is really skirting the line; you need to drop the topic entirely rather than try to continue influencing it from behind a topic ban. Shell ^babelfish 01:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion above is unwise and unwarranted. Any person should be able to edit Wikipedia if they do so in a responsible manner consistent with the rules. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC).

It is part of the rules here that some users can be subject to topic bans. (For that matter, some users can be sitebanned, and sitebanned users are no longer part of the community at all.) If the users who will now edit under topic bans in this case learn how to edit collaboratively and how to use sources effectively according to Wikipedia rules while they work on other articles, I will be the first to welcome them back to articles in the topic when the topic ban expires. Learning new skills takes practice, and Wikipedia provides various degrees of structure to help editors learn their skills. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be apparent, even to a frequently confessed newbie, that sanctions are not applied until an offence has been committed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC).

Is it necessary that I comply with my topic ban when it hasn’t actually taken effect yet? The reason I’ve been contacting these people over the past few days is because I’m assuming that I won’t be able to contact them about anything related to these articles after the case has closed. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Shell: But I've always had some interest in this topic and the articles about it. I've made that clear in some of my earlier comments, too. But I have a lot less tolerance for drama than Occam does, so I've often been content to follow the developments behind the scenes, choosing to avoid getting involved because the discussions often deteriorate into mudslinging. When the discretionary sanctions were proposed in this case, I was looking forward to them being implemented because I was hoping it would fix this problem. I would have started participating sooner if they had been implemented before now.

Unlike Occam, I don't intend to make this article my area of focus. I'm more interested in contributing to paleontology articles on Wikipedia. But it seems really unfair that after being interested in this topic for a long time, and not getting involved until something could be done about the civility problems, I'm being disallowed from participating right when that's finally happening. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

The case is due to close, so it would be better if discussions on this talk page wound down now, and did not escalate any further. Any issues arising after this case closes should be brought to the appropriate venues (arbitration enforcement, and the clarifications and amendment pages of the requests page), and not raised here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the pages you linked to seem to be appropriate, so I'll post this here. I asked for clarification on this before, but the clarification was not clear, so I'll ask again. Could the language "topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed." be clarified on the Proposed decision page? Does it refer to articles about "race and intelligence" or does it refer to articles about "race" and articles on "intelligence". Your response seemed to be that this "broadly construed" remedy was related to the "narrow locus" of findings in some way, this was never fully clarified. We already have a growing conflict over that issue, with accusations of wikilawyering, and statements that this has been clarified. [180], [181], etc... [182]. aprock (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of topic ban in this case is mostly to prevent the topic-banned editor from (i) continuing the same disputes (ii) starting new parallel disputes covering much the same ground and (ii) generally pushing the same POV by proxy. As the remedy is broadly construed, it can apply to any article with a significant race and/or intelligence component.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

When this was discussed previously, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, and Carcharoth all stated that the topic ban applies only to articles that discuss race and intelligence together. And the reason they gave was that there was no finding of fact pertaining to articles outside of this category, and the only remedy which was proposed involving race in general (rather than race and intelligence in combination with one another) failed to pass.

Do the arbitrators need to vote on this? You’re the first arbitrator who’s expressed disagreement with what was stated by Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, and Carcharoth in the above thread. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, my close reading of the specific findings of fact about your editing conduct, particularly the finding that links out to a list of the articles you have edited, suggests a broader way to interpret the topic ban (which appears to have unanimous support of the arbitrators, as they have all agreed to the findings about you) and leads to the names of specific articles that will be within the scope of the topic ban as soon as the ban takes effect. User aprock has done you the favor of asking for clarification of this issue in the appropriate place, and you have the opportunity to decide how to respond there, if you think that will help make the issue more clear. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the comment from Carcharoth that I quoted below? He’s already addressed this question, and made it clear that he doesn’t agree with what you’re saying. For you to say that your interpretation of the scope of my topic ban has the “unanimous support of the arbitrators” implies that you know their opinions better than what they’ve stated themselves.

This is really irritating. After we discussed this exact issue a few days ago, and Newyorkbrad, Rlevse and Carcharoth all gave their opinions, I thought it was resolved. And based on that, I said on the talk page of the Race (classification of humans) article that although I probably wouldn’t edit this article, this was a voluntary decision on my part. But for some reason, the mere possibility of my editing this article again was so intolerable to you that you weren’t willing to accept what the arbitrators had said about it already, to the point of re-interpreting their earlier comments to say the opposite of what they’d said. Why does it even matter whether or not my topic ban covers an article that I’ve already stated I don't intend to edit?

By asking the arbitrators about this again and again after they’ve already provided an answer, all of you are beating a dead horse, and I’m being dragged along with it into an argument I never wanted to be part of. Can’t any of you just accept what they’ve said already, and let this case finally close? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:RFAR#Requests_for_clarification, this is the section on clarification. I think the procedure would first involve seeking clarification, which could then be followed by either an amendment or a request for enforcement. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, I don’t understand why you’re stating that the clarification you got when you asked about this previously wasn’t clear. I’m going to quote Carcharoth’s reply to you:

“The locus findings make clear this case is narrowly about race and intelligence (the category is linked there). One of the reasons the locus is so narrow is because the editors in question had a very narrow focus and the further questions arise because these editors are expanding this focus. I did propose a remedy that was purely race-related, see remedy 4, but that failed to pass.”

And you replied to Carcharoth, stating that you took this to mean the remedies are implemented in terms of the findings (which only discussed articles about race and intelligence in combination with one another), and that this seemed reasonable. So it was clear that you knew what he meant. Given that it’s clear from your reply that you understood him, what is the purpose of your claiming now that you have to ask about this again because his explanation wasn’t clear?

It looks to me like you aren’t happy with the answer you got from Carcharoth, so you’re asking about this a second time in hope that arbitrators who didn’t participate in the earlier discussion (such as Roger Davies) will give a different answer this time around. Is “asking the other parent” like this appropriate in an arbitration case? --Captain Occam (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I said '"I take it what you are saying is that remedies are all implemented in terms of the findings"'. My take is not actual policy, and I was hoping that a member of ArbCom would verify that interpretation, or clarify if necessary. It's not about whether or not I'm happy with the interpretation, it's about what the correct interpretation is. I'm happy with any interpretation so long as everyone is operating with the same understanding. It seems that currently not everyone has the same understanding. That said, I think I now have a better idea of how to use the requests page, so I'll file the request for clarification there.aprock (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I really thought that requests for clarification about an arbitration case weren’t supposed to happen until after the case is closed. Before I post a statement there, we should make sure that it’s acceptable to be doing this while the case is still open. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's tolerance

Apologies in advance for posting this thread here when the case is supposed to be winding up. This is because while the case is winding down, the post-arbitration era doesn't feel any different from the pre-arbitration era due to a variety of problems. The wiki community is generally a tolerant community and is generally wary of taking strong sides in any dispute. As an editor who has been indefinitely blocked at least twice but have been given an opportunity to return, I fully appreciate the tolerance of the community and is willing to extend this tolerance to others. At the same time, there are some editors who have no qualms about abusing and exploiting the community's tolerance.

Back in November 2009 in this ANI thread, I had hinted that there was a potential problem of single issue editing and advocacy. Fast-forward to the present, the observations of Arbcom, though more nuanced, are not too dissimilar. In retrospect, I am just wondering, had this problem been taken seriously a lot earlier, much of this drama could have been avoided. I believe a group of editors have brought a lot of stress to many editors and caused a lot of emotional damage. Mikemikev's statement tops the list.

However, I also believe that this group of editors have caused a lot of damage to themselves as well. David.Kane, Mikemikev and Captain Occam all entered this dispute with clean records only to come out with blocks, indefs and topic bans. David.Kane seems quite upset with his block as he continued discussing it weeks after it expired. Mikemikev stated that he "would rather die than be unblocked". As for Captain Occam, in addition to his four blocks and topic ban, there was the whole nastiness about holocaust denial. Others such as Varoon Arya have decided to retire from Wikipedia. I am just wondering whether there is anything that could have been done earlier to prevent all this nastiness and ugliness.

Even though the case is about to close, there is still drama aplenty going on. Captain Occam is waiting for the "final whistle" to start observing his topic ban. He is also trying his best to be as close as he can to race and intelligence without appearing to get into race and intelligence. He has canvassed other wikipedians, and may be flirting with meatpuppetry or worst case scenario sockpuppetry. There is endless metacommentary on Talk:Race (classification of humans). Contrast this with Mathsci's post arbitration conduct and you will notice a clear and distinct difference.

The whole point of this thread is that at present the arbcom rulings appear to have had little effect on some editor(s). Looking at the history of this dispute, we know the sort of damage that can occur if this dispute proceeds completely unsupervised. It might be a good time to consider nipping it in the bud before it festers anymore. There are measures available that can put an end to some of the drama. I think it would be a good idea to at least put them on the table for consideration. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well put them on the table then, but don't you think it is time to give the matter a rest? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC).

I tend to agree somewhat, Muntuwandi, but remember, if you do put them on the table, to be sure to mind the pile of rope sitting there. Steveozone (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Contrast this with Mathsci's post arbitration conduct and you will notice a clear and distinct difference." Yes, Mathsci has shown himself to be a scholar (as he always was) and a gentleman (by how he took responsibility for his mistakes) and that is the one refreshing example in this case. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

“I am just wondering whether there is anything that could have been done earlier to prevent all this nastiness and ugliness.”

The easiest way would be for all of you to just let it go. As far as I’m concerned, you’re all making a big deal about nothing. I’ve already stated multiple times that I’m not planning to continue editing the Race (classification of humans) article, and the current argument over this is just because my saying that I’m making a voluntary decision about this apparently isn’t enough for you, Aprock and WeijiBaikeBianji. And if there are instances of POV-pushing on race and intelligence related articles in the future, they can be handled by the discretionary sanctions.

As far as I’m concerned, every bit of the current drama is the result of you and the rest of these people constantly harping on how you don’t think the arbitration ruling goes far enough, and bringing up stuff from the past that’s already been discussed to death. How is “the whole nastiness about holocaust denial” even relevant here? The only context in which Mathsci’s claim about this has mattered in this case was as an example of his incivility, and it’s the only example of his incivility that’s specifically referred to in his finding of fact. How does bringing up this personal attack from Mathsci have anything to do with claiming that ArbCom is showing too much tolerance towards me? --Captain Occam (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The clarification is up and being discussed. This is a good time for everyone to let it go. Shell ^babelfish 09:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see the arbitrator requests on the clarification request, including mine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m having some trouble reconciling the opinions of arbitrators expressed there with what Rlevse and Carcharoth said earlier about the proposed remedies only applying to the topic area covered by the locus of dispute. It isn’t a big deal for me to be unable to edit the race article anymore, but it would be helpful to me if arbitrators could clarify how what was stated in these earlier comments, and what’s being stated in the request for clarification, can both be the case.

Also, in response to Newyorkbrad’s comment there: there are a lot of articles outside of the race and intelligence topic area that I’ve been intending to work on, and the Black Panther case is only one of them. If arbitrators would prefer that I save this article for a little later, rather than getting started on it right away, I can do that. Per Newyorkbrad’s suggestion, my current plan is to finish (or at least mostly finish) my planned expansion of the William Beebe article before I get involved in anything else. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Race_and_Intelligence. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, um, thanks for the link. Considering I’ve already made a statement there, and my previous comment was specifically referring to what the arbitrators are saying there, did you really think linking me to this would help resolve anything? --Captain Occam (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)