Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mikemikev (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 21 July 2010 (→A bit late, but a suggestion anyway.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

About the proposed decision

This was surprisingly hard. I spent dozens of hours reading diffs to support specific behavior findings about the parties, and the same problem came up repeatedly: this is, in the end, a content dispute where behavior plays a relatively minor role. In fact, much of the delay in my posting this decision came from having to try to rewrite it several times to help solve the problem while shying away from a content ruling.

In the end, it's futile to try to frame a content problem as a behavior problem. While none of the parties' behavior has been ideal during the dispute, there is little there that raise to the level of an arbitration remedy or finding. But the problem remains that the articles are a battleground of points of views and there is no sign that the dispute will abate or resolve itself with time or gentle prompting.

Hence, this relatively novel approach. Focusing on our content pillars (NOR in particular, which has been badly bruised and battered by the dispute), by enforcing a very strict application of our policies on sources; and a remedy designed to prevent the parties from focusing exclusively on this controversial area to their (and the project's) detriment. — Coren  13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Coren, about the remedy, a bit of guidance may be needed here: short of manually counting all edits and keeping a running tally of "R&I" vs "other" edits, what would be a good way to ensure not to run afoul of the remedy? I don't see a simple process to achieve a proper check; while it is possible to do, it sounds rather time-consuming.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, this may sound a little trite, but the best way I expect would be to stay well away from the line. I think everyone involved in this would do well to focus their efforts on other areas for a while — there is no lack of articles that need work — and not worry overmuch. The point isn't the exact count of edits but rather to dissuade focusing exclusively on one contentious area; and "one half" really is an upper bound it would be better to shy well away from. — Coren  14:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(ecx2)Congratulations, an excellent proposal that addresses the problem in an intelligent way and may actually improve the situation. Thanks for restoring my lost faith that the committee really does "get" it that the encyclopedia is ultimately about content and that behavior that disrupts the creation of neutral content is a conduct problem that needs to be dealt with in order to restore a productive editing environment on articles where advocates of fringe views are continually working to bias the content. Woonpton (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Woonpton, you clearly have more faith than I do in both ArbCom as an institution and the present membership to be keen for them to get more involved in resolving content disputes. There are good reasons why there has never been much support for a panel charged with deciding content issues, starting with no panel having expertise in even most areas, the developing nature of knowledge at the 'cutting edge', and the damage done to the encyclopedia when such a panel gets a decision wrong (as would inevitably occur eventually). Do you really not only want such a panel, but also want it to be ArbCom? Surely if ArbCom wanted to recognise that behavior that disrupts the creation of neutral content is a conduct problem that needs to be dealt with in order to restore a productive editing environment then it would say so directly and construct a decision that explicitly sanctions those disruptive editors? To me, a conduct decision like that would be more in keeping with typical ArbCom action than this de facto content decision which leaves no individual editors sanctioned. EdChem (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're not understanding me. As I've said below, my observations have convinced me that almost every decision ArbCom makes is a de facto content decision, so whether I "want" ArbCom to be a panel that decides content is irrelevant; it already is. Until now, the effect of ArbCom decisions on the quality of content has been almost invariably negative, with some few exceptions (Speed of Light, for example). Since the quality of content in Misplaced Pages is my main concern, for ArbCom to even propose a decision that could enable a positive effect on content, I can only see as an improvement. And no, I don't really see this as a de facto content decision in the way you see it, as a big change and an ominous one; I simply see it as a de facto content decision in the same way that ArbCom decisions have always been de facto content decisions, only this time with a positive potential outcome for the quality of content. The proposed decision isn't really a content decision; it just makes clear, for once, that content is important and that content policies should be followed, and no, I can't see that as something to be dismayed about.Woonpton (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not even a gentle slap on the wrist for Mathsci, and a proposed resolution clearly designed to punish everyone but him. The proposed decision enshrines as policy the notion that entrenched editors have free reign to play by different rules. Ironic that the case endorsing the right to drive away occasional editing by real experts is based on defense of an uncivil full-time editor who happens to hold an academic position. Very disappointing. Rvcx (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm uncertain what you refer to, given that the only two remedies (the reminder is exactly just that) apply to everyone equally. If you are referring to the source requirement, that was already the case but simply misapplied. If you are referring to the "half time" remedy, then you're missing the point: editors who contribute strictly to one topic for a particular purpose may very well not be interested in working on the rest of the project, but then they are here for the wrong reason. — Coren  14:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed decision is entirely consistent with your contention that those who only wish to contribute to one subject aren't valued members of the community. The statistics, of course, demonstrate that most of the Misplaced Pages's content was originally contributed by such editors. I don't intend to get into a fight here—you have all the bullets—but I think this proposed decision would be detrimental to the long-term health of the project. Rvcx (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Not even a gentle slap on the wrist for " is itself the kind of comment that I hope will vanish from our midst now that all the editors have been reminded to be civil. From my point of view as a new Wikipedian putting myself in the place of university-educated, English-speaking adults who may want to begin editing Misplaced Pages, the previous atmosphere for editing the article looked toxic and very off-putting. There are a lot of civil, thoughtful places online for factual, calm discussion of contentious issues, and Misplaced Pages should be one of those places if it hopes to attract and keep capable volunteer editors. For the good of the whole project, I hope everyone here tones down the personal invective and agrees to work cooperatively to edit a high-quality encyclopedia. Once the ArbCom decision is decided by vote of the arbitrators, I intend to let bygones be bygones and to assume good faith on the part of all the editors. Anyone who is willing to seek out quality sources and to follow all Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines while editing the article is someone I will be happy to work with. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, apparently I'm having my own wrist slapped just as hard as an editor who has been previously reminded to adhere to civility by ArbCom, but whose conduct—even when interacting with editors he has never before encountered—has remained beyond any reasonable standards of civility. The refusal to condemn a member of the favorite few for such blatant violations of policy (whether on the right or wrong side of a content dispute) is a great reminder that trying to collaborate on Misplaced Pages is just not worth it. Obviously the project can survive without me...and without however many other editors don't have the patience for inveterate trolls like Mathsci. Rvcx (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with this aspect of the decision isn’t specifically that Mathsci isn’t being sanctioned, but that I don’t think any of the proposed decisions will result in a change in his behavior. The question of whether we can use primary sources is only one of several elements in the disputes over these articles (although it’s the one that Mathsci has been focusing on most recently), and he’s been equally uncivil in disputes with other users over anything else, including disputes about articles about topics as unrelated as Bach’s music. (As pointed out in Varoon Arya’s original statement for this case.) If arbitrators are under the impression that resolving the question of primary sources will resolve all of Mathsci’s conflicts with other users, that’s a rather naïve assumption.

And as for why changing Mathsci’s behavior should matter, the main reason is because it’s driven away at least three other editors: Varoon Arya, DJ, and Ludwigs2 have all stated that they stopped participating in the article because they couldn’t tolerate how Mathsci was treating them. These three editors also happen to have been among the most helpful editors in writing a neutral and reliably sourced article, and many of the article’s current content issues probably wouldn’t exist if these editors hadn’t been driven off. Generally speaking, I think the editors who are most neutral also tend to be the most easily driven away, because people who have less emotional investment in a topic are less likely to think their involvement in it is important enough to endure repeated personal attacks. For that reason, if this problem is allowed to continue, I would imagine that the article’s content issues are likely to persist, because most of the editors who are willing to stick around will be those who are especially strongly entrenched in their positions.

Leaving aside the question of whether this problem is something ArbCom should tolerate from a behavior perspective, shouldn’t they at least be concerned about it because of how it exacerbates the article’s content issues? If ArbCom doesn’t address this issue at all, I imagine that very little of the conflict over these articles is likely to change, and we may end up needing another arbitration case about it within a year. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

de facto content ruling?

I am a complete outsider to this dispute, but have been following along. I am curious as to whether I am the only one who sees the proposed decision as the content ruling you have when you are not having a content ruling. I can sympathise with the difficulty Coren had in crafting a suitable decision, and I accept that he has endeavoured to avoiding making definitive content findings - but I think that a de facto content ruling follows from the decision.

For example, the question was raised about if the wording used by an author in relation to a topic differ from the description of the author's view in secondary sources. This regularly occurs in a variety of areas - misrepresentation of Charles Darwin's writings in creationist sources being one obvious example. Now, in an area like evolution there are many sources available and plenty of secondary sources available that document such misrepresentations. In a narrow and minor area where there are few writers, the availability of secondary sources to correct any such misrepresentations that might occur seems less certain. In reading the evidence, this seemed to me to be a contentious question. In the proposed decision, there is no direct answer to the question but in emphasising the importance of secondary sources and criticising original research (both of which in isolation are reasonable policy-based statements for the proposed decision to include), it seems to me that the question is effectively being answered... and the answer is, a secondary source statement of an author's view of topic X outweighs the author's own words on topic X. Similarly, the finding relating to the mediation effectively rules against all the content conclusions that flowed from it, though without an explicit statement to that effect. Correct me if I am wrong, but the cumulative content implications of this decision appear to me to be an endorsement of the content position advocated by MathSci.

I do not have any view of what the content should be - I don't know enough about the specifics of the area - and thus take no view of whether a content ruling should reflect what this proposed decision seems to me to conclude. However, I do think that a content decision should be explicit. If ArbCom is making a content decision, then please be open is saying so... if you are not making any content decision, then I suggest you redraft this decision so it doesn't read as a de facto content ruling. EdChem (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is, I suppose, as little of a content ruling as possible. Strictly speaking, the Committee has no rule against content rulings — though we've always been very clear we try to avoid them as far as possible. This is a case where the content is indeed the problem, and the solution will pretty much inevitably flow from that.

So yes, in effect, it's a content decision because it directly affects what the content of the article will end up being, although the decision imposes a stringent application of existing rules rather than select the content itself. — Coren  15:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What I think the committee has failed to recognize, but that has been very obvious to this outside observer, is that almost every ArbCom decision "affects what the content of the article will end up being," like it or not. So it's better IMO to knowingly make a decision that directly affects content in a good direction, than to blindly make a decision that inadvertently affects content in a bad direction, which is what seems to happen more often than not. Woonpton (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course it does, but the idea is that — in an ideal world — once you remove the disruptive influences the content will shift towards the "baseline" our policies and guidelines imply. So the intent is to remove influences on content rather than impose new ones.

This case is different, IMO, in that this was a case where the content had shifted too much towards original research and a shove back was needed. — Coren  15:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of published sources on topics related to the article topic, and many of those are reliable sources even by the strictest Misplaced Pages source standards for editing the article going forward. Any editor of any current opinion about the underlying facts is welcome to use good-quality sources to edit the article. That decision simply upholds Misplaced Pages core policies and even-handedly invites many hands to make light work. The proposed decision, about which ArbCom as a whole will have the final say, both allows and prompts the article content to develop in a better direction. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of published references. We do not need to resort to establishing some definitive wikipedian interpretation of Darwin as a primary source to handle creationist sourced misinterpretations. For dealing with Darwin as well as race/intelligence articles, policy has determined we use secondary sources as our guide. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Something I’m disappointed by about the proposed ruling regarding primary sources is that it does not address the question of BLP policy. This has been brought up a few times on the workshop and evidence page—what should we do when several reliable secondary sources claim that a living person advocates a certain idea in their writings, yet there is no actual example of this person advocating such an idea in their writings, and in some of their writings they actually deny favoring the idea? This has primarily been an issue with regard to Arthur Jensen, and Jimbo Wales offered his opinion about it on the BLP noticeboard: that in order to claim something like this about a living person, “we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics.”

Should BLP policy simply be ignored in situations like this, contrary to the advice that Jimbo Wales offered about it? That’s what this ruling appears to suggest, but since it does not mention BLP policy or how this policy can be reconciled with the ruling, that isn’t entirely clear. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP policy has always allowed and will continue to allow sourced statements that make clear who said what. So if the source by Professor Smith says, "I think Arthur Jensen wants black and white students to have separate educations," then it's okay in the article--if the source can be verified--to say "Professor Smith wrote that he views Arthur Jensen's proposals as advocating separate education for black and white students." It would not be according to Misplaced Pages policy, in such a case, to write in article text "Arthur Jensen has proposed separate education for black and white students" if the only reference is to Professor Smith's writing.

In general, it should be possible to write the entire article without making any biographical statement about any of the main writers on the issue. Referring simply to the facts and citing sources for the undisputed facts and which facts are still in dispute should be enough, no matter who said what. In the biographical article Arthur Jensen, there has to be broad scope for sourced statements about his life and work, because that's what a biographical article with neutral point of view will have in any encyclopedia. But the article we are most discussing here is not a biography, but perhaps an article that will have wikilinks out to other biographical articles, if it is not to be of excessive length. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation finding of fact

While this is not a major issue, since I actually agree with the thrust of the comment, I am confused by the presentation. Please note:

1. No evidence was presented (to my knowledge) that the mediation purported to create a binding decision
2. There is some evidence (I believe) that a few participants held that opinion, but that was the result of unfamiliarity with the process - they were corrected by myself and others
3. There are multiple instances in evidence where editors were reminded that they may leave the mediation, ask to have the mediation closed, or in other ways terminate the mediation or their involvement with it.

In short, I have no idea whatsoever where you got this "purported to create a binding decision" language.

The crux of this issue is not that the mediation was 'purported as binding', but that a single editor refused to leave the mediation, refused to seek consensus on closure, and dedicated himself to disrupting the discussion. Mathsci had it in his power to end the mediation at any point simply by raising the issue in the mediation, and I explained this point to him several times. He chose not to (for reasons only he can explain) - an editor cannot be said to be 'bound' simply because he refuses to open the door in front of him.

In other words, we are not talking about a 'binding decision', we are talking about whether editors can ignore or subvert the process they themselves agreed to when they sign onto informal mediation (because the top of every mediation page begins with statements of principles that editors agree to when signing on). And yes, in fact, no editor is required to keep his word and participate in the mediation with good faith, but the fact that an editor chooses to violate good faith is not an indication that other editors are trying to impose a binding decision.

As I said, I don't disagree with the principle, and it's no skin off my nose either way. I am concerned, however, that this particular wording will create an incentive towards disruptive behavior in future mediations - e.g. editors signing onto mediations for the single purpose of poleaxing the mediation at a future date, if that becomes necessary for some reason of advocacy. That would effectively render mediation useless in any contentious case.

Since this finding of fact is:

1. (So far as I can tell) unsupported by evidence
2. Seems to misinterpret the actual conditions of the mediation
3. Has potentially broad ranging and damaging consequences

I suggest a rewording. --Ludwigs2 17:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a problem?

Coren has proposed that behavior issues have played only a minor role in this dispute. I have also previously argued that based on our current policies, there have been no obvious policy violations from any editors involved in this dispute , . So it is not a surprise that Coren hasn't come up with any either. I had previously stated "Overall, we have a problem that doesn't fit nicely into any category." Since the dispute is somewhat unique, either no action would be taken (meaning there is no problem at all) or whatever action would set a new precedent. I think the current proposal is between these two extremes.

We cannot determine the nature of this problem by examining existing policies, but by looking at the symptoms. It is like an undocumented illness. We have a prolonged and energy sapping dispute that is in its tenth month. Without any major changes, the dispute can potentially continue indefinitely. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic restrictions

The current proposal suggests a topic restrictions for all involved parties. I understand this is meant to be impartial. There are a number of issues with the 50% race and intelligence editing restriction. Firstly some editors already have editing records that are consistent with this restriction. So some editors don't need the restriction to achieve the same effect, whereas others do. I personally would like to spend 0% of my time editing race and intelligence as I find the subject, in its current state, quite distasteful. I had previously stated that "the fact that some editors have taken interest in only one controversial topic and nothing else for about 7 months is intellectually unhealthy and quite depressing" . In short why should topic restrictions be placed on editors who are already more than happy to volunteer there efforts elsewhere. Secondly, I agree with Cool Hand's concerns about gaming the 50% editing restriction. This is summed up in the humorous essay Misplaced Pages:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you, which states

Start a single-purpose account to push your particular point-of-view, while carefully adhering to all Misplaced Pages policies and making a few token edits to other articles to muddy the issue.

Wapondaponda (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We'll learn to deal with this set of remedies as they are adopted by ArbCom vote. There is always plenty to edit on Misplaced Pages. By the way, thanks for the link to the humor essay Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you, which I had not seen before. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Heh. Cool Hand Luke 03:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

On Using Only Secondary Sources

Does anyone else but me think that this aspect of the proposed solution is potentially a huge deal? Consider the discussion here and note that, according to this footnote: "The Ithaca College Library compares research articles (primary sources) to review articles (secondary sources)." In other words, no more citations to peer-reviewed scientific publications (unless they are review articles). I am not for or against this change, I just want to point out that only 10% (?) of the article is currently cited to secondary sources. Comments? David.Kane (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing perspectives. From the Library's point of view, papers are primary sources. From ours, one step removed, they are secondary sources. — Coren  22:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I see what you mean. Yes, a research paper itself is a primary source even from our perspective. Those would normally be acceptable, but in this topic area they have been used to draw conclusions (hence the new stringent application). There is no argument that this needs or should be extended to other topics. — Coren  22:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Coren, your last comment just ate a comment of mine in an edit conflict in which I thanked David for bringing up this question. I think I get what you mean, but I will ask follow-up questions by way of making sure we are all on the same page as we work amicably together in the future to edit the article. By what is said in your comment immediately above, this secondary-sources preference especially applies to the article under arbitration to avoid original research by the Wikipedians, especially synthesis of primary sources not attested in secondary sources. There are numerous secondary sources on this topic--by any reasonable definition, including review articles published in journals--but what is to be avoided is use of a first research report by a direct researcher on some topic based on bench or field research, right? I'm happy to keep discussing this until I am sure I am doing the right thing, so please correct me if I am incorrectly understanding what you wrote. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a concrete example will help. Consider this sentence from the article: "According to a paper by Hala Elhoweris, Kagendo Mutua, Negmeldin Alsheikh and Pauline Holloway, teachers' referral decisions for students to participate in gifted and talented educational programs was influenced in part by the students’ ethnicity." I have not checked this citation myself, but let us assume it is correct. Should this sentence, and the accompanying citation, be removed from the article if this proposal passes? This article certainly meets WP:RS but, as best I can understand things, it is a primary source. David.Kane (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

David, I appreciate concrete examples whenever people are discussing boundary conditions of policies. Let's see what the arbitrators say, but it seems to me that if the assertion "teachers' referral decisions for students to participate in gifted and talented educational programs was influenced in part by the students’ ethnicity" is sourced solely to the article by Alsheikh, Elhoweris, Holloway, and Mutua (who appear to be the researchers who gathered the data in the field), then for this article the assertion is unsourced, and has to go. But if some Wikipedian finds a similar assertion in a handbook about psychology for psychology graduate students (I am reading such a book today) or in some other reliable, secondary source, the assertion could stay in the article, sourced to the source that fits the proposed decision in this case. You recall that I disagreed with you when you floated the idea of having a defined, limited source list, but I can actually see this sourcing rule doing a lot to help the article be an encyclopedic treatment of the subject (rather than a he-said, she said dialog among quoted experts) and especially to be of reasonable length, as only assertions that meet that sourcing requirement will get into the article. There will still be plenty to discuss among the editors, but this looks like a way to go forward collegially with good verifiability of the article content. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the point of my example was not that Alsheikh et al gathered the data themselves. I just picked this sentence at random as one which illustrated a source to a peer-reviewed academic article. As I understand the rule, this article (and any similar article) would need to go. (Of course, the same information in a secondary source like a review article or handbook would be fine.) David.Kane (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's a data study, it's a primary source. Doesn't matter if they gathered the data, or used raw data somebody else gathered. Based on its ERIC record it appears to be a primary source. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not being clear. My concern is not with this specific study. My question is: What research articles that the article currently cites would still be allowed if this proposal passes? As best I can tell, almost none of them. Am I missing something? David.Kane (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane, that is not the right question to ask, It's the articles you haven't used, possibly because they don't represent the point of view you want to convey. There's the article of Loehlin in Handbook on Intelligence. There is an article by Mike Anderson on "Intelligence and biology - the Race/IQ controversy" in a recent OUP book (Tall tales ...) as well as his forthcoming book Myths of intelligence: mind, race and genes. Most of the "science" part of the article is not properly written and I believe you assembled most of it. You should have used secondary sources and you didn't. At one point you expressed great enthusiam for Mackintosh's book IQ and Human Intelligence but failed to report its main conclusion on "ethnic groups". In this particular area where very little research is done (by current standards), some editors have acted as if there is some new truth that has to be represented on wikipedia, a sort of paradigm shift. Nothing very much seems to have changed since 1998 or 2000. Am I missing something? Mathsci (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Single Issue Editors

I agree with this statement but oppose listing it as a "principle":

"While there is no prohibition against editors focusing exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a single article or topic area, the community has historically been wary of editors who do so: in many cases, editors who contribute to a single narrow topic area do so in order to advance a specific point of view rather than to improve the encyclopaedia."

I oppose the inclusion of this statement because it is not a principle. Rather, it is merely an observation of a mild form of bigotry historically existing within the community. An editor who focuses "exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a single article or topic area" could be a advocate (a slightly frustrating thing), or someone with specialised area of interest and knowledge (a good thing), they could be an expert (a very good thing). Some one who does not focus "exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a single article or topic area" could be a wikignome (very good thing), or an administrator (a good thing), or a vandal (a slightly frustrating thing). Neither group is inherently better or worse than the other, and both are important to the Misplaced Pages community. Misplaced Pages also needs more experts, and experts are also going to happen to be Single Issue Editors. The inclusion of the above statement as a "principle" reenforces this mild form of bigotry based on an unsubstantiated generalisation historically made by the community. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

“The inclusion of the above statement as a "principle" reenforces this mild form of bigotry based on an unsubstantiated generalisation historically made by the community.”

Not only do I agree with this, but I think it’s been a major problem on these articles. When I first became involved in the race and intelligence article, it was tagged as needing attention from an expert, so around the beginning of this year I found a professional cognitive psychologist (Bryan Pesta, aka Bpesta22) who was willing to participate in the discussion here in order to satisfy this requirement. He was the author of several peer-reviewed papers about IQ, including one that discussed race and IQ, but since IQ was his area of expertise he did not participate in any non-IQ-related articles. And as a result, all of the same accusations regarding “single-purpose advocacy accounts” were made against him also, and in May Mathsci tried to get him topic-banned. The topic ban proposal did not succeed, but he specifically commented on the fact that there was a good chance of “the treatment one gets here” dissuading most published experts in these topics from wanting to contribute to articles about them. Bpesta22 quit participating in the articles shortly after this, so it seems as though this may have now happened to him also. Is this hostility towards expert contributors something that Misplaced Pages should encourage? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of us know how to use google. And when "experts" are recruited from the blogosphere, most savvy users will be able to trace the telltale footprints--often a several years long complete package with the extensive history of dissent the "experts" may have (or maybe not) routinely encountered there. So 1) it's a hard sell to pretend this is a wikipedia weirdity if sometimes these "experts" weren't automatically given the red-carpet welcome here and 2) a hard sell to pretend that sometimes "experts" aren't invited here because the internet is a great place to shop for the opinions people want to find. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point here, Professor. The point is that an editor who focuses "exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a single article or topic area" is not inherently more or less valuable than an editor who edits a larger number of articles but with less focus. The inclusion of the above statement reenforces the unsubstantiated generalisation historically made by this institution that more focused editors are somehow inherently less valuable that Wikipedians who edit more broadly with less focus on any particular subject. This belief is a mild form of bigotry which is potentially reenforced by statements such as the one above. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have. The most valuable wikpedian's are unlikely to be those recruited to come here from a blog somewhere to push a pov. When wikipedia is more about what editors want to say than what readers deserve to read, somebody please let me alert me asap because as an editor I'm here as a reader trying to give back to the community. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"When wikipedia is more about what editors want to say than what readers deserve to read, somebody please let me alert me asap because as an editor I'm here as a reader trying to give back to the community." Well said, Professor marginalia; you express my reason for being here. I only stepped into the minefield known as Misplaced Pages editing after being assured by John Broughton and Phoebe Ayers et al. that Misplaced Pages is really intended to be a neutral point of view encyclopedia based on reliable sources. Online forums for advocacy are a dime a dozen--and the content found on most of those forums is worth no more than what readers pay to visit them. An online encyclopedia with multiple editors all bound by Misplaced Pages's core principles can be something much better for learning and for sharing information, but it is especially vital, according to the authors I read before I started editing here, for the principles of NPOV and V to be upheld here if that learning is to occur. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Gregcaletta, I would recommend reading the discussion that Mathsci linked to, including both my and Bpesta22’s explanation there of how we came into contact with one another. As has been stated several times, I did not know what his opinion was about race and intelligence until after inviting him to become involved in Misplaced Pages, because he was not discussing this in any of his blog comments—the blog debate he was involved in was over whether IQ tests could measure mental ability at all, and the only opinion Bpesta22 was expressing there was that they could. (Which is enough of a mainstream position that I don’t think I can be faulted for inviting an expert who held this opinion.) Since Professor Marginalia was involved in the AN/I thread that this discussion was part of, I would assume he’s aware of that this was the only one of Bpesta22’s opinions I knew about when I invited him here. So his claim that Bpesta22 was “recruited to come here from a blog somewhere to push a pov” is a perfect example of the form of bigotry you were talking about. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The statement in question does not define "Single Issue Editors" as "those recruited to come here from a blog somewhere to push a pov". Instead, it defines them as editors who specialise in a particular area, which is much more broad, and includes many constructive editors, including experts in general. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in an AN/I discussion about bpesta22? Uh, no. As far as I know, we hadn't so much as crossed paths in edit disputes. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I said that you were involved in the AN/I thread that the discussion about Bpesta22 was part of, not that you were involved in the discussion about him specifically. Look for yourself. You were one of the main participants in the portion of the thread that was about David.Kane: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Race_and_intelligence#Request_to_topic_ban_David.Kane_from_Race_and_Intelligence_topics --Captain Occam (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, you and other mediation participants had been locking horns for months. You'd invited bpesta off-wiki to come here at the very moment you'd been rigid against any of the parties attempting a rewrite except those editors sharing your POV, such as David.Kane and Distributivejustice. In the link you supplied in this thread, bpesta22 described where he and you first came together. As anyone following his road map will immediately discover, you and he met on a blog where his views on race and IQ differences were a very hot topic, for months, including many threads centered on a published paper of his that he'd urged the bloggers to read--a paper he authored about black and white IQ differences. It's unlikely that anyone reading there could have overlooked all the flames. You say, "I did not know what his opinion was about race and intelligence until after inviting him," but before he'd shown up you announced that it was it was exactly because of his opinions about race/IQ differences he shared with you that you thought he'd be a help here. "I think someone with this type of opinion is exactly who we need in order to edit the article neutrally." Did you invite any of the environmentalist leaning scientists participating in that blog to come here? Or just this one, the single, much besieged hereditarian? So get real. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, now might be a good time to stop misrepresenting me. You were already cautioned on the workshop discussion page for making childish remarks about a typing error. There is a search facility on WP:ANI which allows users to place "Bpesta22" as a search term. This is what comes out: User:Enric Naval suggested a topic ban on Bpesta22 and I did not participate in the discussion. Please refactor your statement. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I’ll refactor it when you refactor the comments that you’ve been asked to refactor, including by the arbitrators themselves, and that you’ve refused to. When you’re unwilling to refactor anything you’ve written even at the request of arbitrators, you have no business requesting this from other editors. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages needs to distinguish single purpose editing from agenda editing. Focusing on one's area of expertise is not usually a problem, especially if the material being worked on is non-controversial. If an editor focused only on say myrmecology related articles, I don't see that as being a problem. This type of expert single issue editing is probably beneficial to wikipedia as such editors are simply trying to share their knowledge with the rest of the world, and such editors usually work on lesser known subjects. The difference is that these expert single issue editors use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle to inform whereas agenda editors try to use wikipedia as a vehicle to persuade.

While the core race and intelligence content on wikipedia isn't perfect, it is somewhat "mature" in that much of the material has been debated several times over. There was a time a few years ago when the race and intelligence article was split into several daughter articles, each was quite informative. So there is not much new information available on the subject. What is pretty much taking place in this dispute is the recycling of old arguments. In short what is taking place is more like attempts to persuade rather than attempts to inform.

Wapondaponda (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agenda editing is really the issue. Misplaced Pages probably needs more good articles from myrmecologists. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to this if I didn’t have the suspicion that “agenda editing” is going to become an umbrella term that’s used for any editor who has a somewhat narrow range of interests and holds a particular viewpoint. Remember that everybody has a point of view, and that having and expressing one isn’t POV-pushing if you’re still able to edit articles in a neutral fashion. POV-pushing also is equally a problem whether it comes from editors whose contributions have a wide or narrow focus.

If agenda accounts are going to be defined in the manner that they’ve been defined up to this point, such as in the scientology arbitration case—that is, as someone whose involvement in Misplaced Pages is solely for the purpose of promoting a particular viewpoint—then very few of the editors who’ve recently been involved in these articles fit the definition of agenda accounts. The only recent contributors to these articles who I think fit this definition are TechnoFaye and T34CH, neither of whom have been consistently active in the past few months. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be recognizable enough that some editors on this issue skew their own definition of a "neutral fashion" of editing heavily in direction of undue weight on a minority point of view, to the degree of deleting sourced content from articles based on secondary sources that meet the highest reliability standards. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources include extensive discussion of the hereditarian position

Coren writes: "In particular, the claim that it is not possible to find many secondary sources is caused by political suppression is often offered as justification to rely on primary sources." I find this confusing:

First, I have read every word of evidence submitted and not a single editor has offered "political suppression" as a "justification to rely on primary sources." Not only has not a word along those lines been mentioned, but I can't recall a single editor claiming that in any of our discussions about the article. Certainly, none of the main participants have ever alleged anything like that.

Second, this isn't even true! Every secondary source that I have consulted (Loehlin, Flynn, Nisbett, Mackintosh, et cetera) discusses the hereditarian position. As a rule, they don't agree with it, but they treat it as a serious scientific position, worthy of pages of discussion. They never "dismiss" it. (They do dismiss the notion that IQ differences are 100% based on genetics.)

Now, I realize that Coren's explanation for why he supports this finding does not have the same standing as the finding itself. But the his explanation makes me concerned about the meaning of the actual finding. The finding claims that:

At its core, the dispute centers on the inclusion of a number of primary sources that advances the hypothesis that differences in a number of social phenomena (primarily intelligence as tested) is explained mostly or in part by genetics and ethnic background while the secondary sources generally dismiss those claims. Editors advancing those sources claim that their use is required to make the articles neutral . . .

I think that this is a fairly complete misunderstanding of the dispute. I (and, I think, most others on the pro-include-hereditarian-position) would be happy if the article just matched secondary sources in their description of the hereditarian position, which is why I made my proposal. I think it would be a good idea to focus the article more on secondary sources, but this is precisely because secondary sources provide extensive discussion of the hereditarian position.

I just wanted to point this out in case there was any confusion. David.Kane (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"secondary sources provide extensive discussion of the hereditarian position" ??? Only if you're focused like a laser beam looking for it. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you consulted the best secondary sources? IQ and Human Intelligence by Mackintosh is a good place to start. (See MathSci's recommendation above.) All of chapter 5 is devoted to group differences, more than 50 pages of excellent discussion. In fact, "Group differences" is the chapter title! (Not all of it related to race, of course.) Check out the author index. Arthur Jensen is the single most cited author. David.Kane (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's probably more correct to say that Mackintosh, Jencks, Nisbett, Flynn, Loehlin, et al spend a while presenting the evidence put forward in favour of the hereditarian case and then, after evaluating various aspects of it, conclude that it is insufficient to make any conclusion along the lines of Jensen, Rushton, et al. Contrary to what David.Kane writes, in the 34 page section on "ethnic groups" in Mackintosh's book (pages 148-182) I see Jensen's 1969 paper inevitably mentioned, but lots of other studies are discussed and many other contributors. The point is that the whole section is a long and careful line of reasoning aimed at reaching the conclusion. Flynn and Loehlin also write in this way. The secondary sources so far don't go into huge detail; Mackintosh also carefully explains why it is not meaningful to apply the IQ tests to certain sub-Saharan population groups or to other pre-industrial communities. None of Mackintosh's discussion or his conclusions seem to have made their way into the article. Elsewhere in the book Mackintosh discusses in a different context Jensen's "theory" (later called "empirical observation") of level I/level II abilities. It's all very well saying how excellent the material of Mackintosh and others is, but these are hollow words if this material is then not used in any serious way: none of the content was either summarised or paraphrased in the WP article. It's not particularly difficult to do. Similarly for Loehlin's 34 page article on "group differences in intelligence". I gave a preliminary summary of Mackintosh's section and a very short summary of Loehlin's on the evidence talk page. Mathsci (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"It's all very well saying how excellent the material of Mackintosh and others is, but these are hollow words if this material is then not used in any serious way." Well said. I have owned (Mackintosh 1998) for more than a decade, and after all this while it is still the best first introduction to IQ testing for any English-speaking reader. There ought to be a lot more statements similar to Mackintosh's nuanced statements in the article, and there ought to be many fewer citations to superseded primary sources that he discusses well in his book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN

The proposal on secondary sources has inspired a discussion at WP:RSN#Is a "typical" article published in a peer-reviewed academic journal a primary source or a secondary source? It appears that there are sharply differing views.   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. That the primary/secondary boundary is not obvious for a common type of source in these articles does not bode well for the remedy. Cool Hand Luke 11:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would rephrase "not obvious" as "completely disputed by uninvolved editors." In other words, the proposal as currently written is completely unworkable because editors at WP:RSN do not agree at all about the definition of a primary source. Some think it includes an academic article if the author is describing her own work. Some think it does not. But, I still think that the proposal we are considering here is potentially useful. I would just rephrase it so that the meaning is clear. Instead of "must be independent, secondary sources that meets the guidelines of reliable sources" perhaps "must be peer-reviewed literature surveys or books". Of course, I don't think that this is perfect, but it is at least workable. David.Kane (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the remedy should be reworded as any source, of any type, where there is any disagreement about reliability, must be taken for review. That it far simpler, takes out any ambiguity, prevents gaming ("Well, does this count as peer-review or not?" "This survey was reviewed by some obscure, very involved body, but hey, it was reviewed so doesn't need checking!"), and forces review by uninvolved editors who are experienced with sources. It also removes any reference to distinctions of whether certain types of source are reliable, which comes a bit too close to unilateraly changing one of our pillars (which states that primary soruces can be used, and can be used well) for my liking. Ale_Jrb 11:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read the discussion at WP:RSN and the threads at WT:NOR, and I am convinced of three things:

1. Cool Hand Luke is correct that the proposed remedy is likely to shift the battle to RSN - if reasonable uninvolved editors can disagree as much as they do on primary v secondary sources as an abstract idea, I shudder to imagine the debate when placed in the context of contentious content.
2. I am amazed that the disparate views expressed in the WP:RSN and WT:NOR discussions have coexisted without clashing in a way that necessitated a resolution. Perhaps a policy RfC would be helpful because a clear answer is needed relating to the status of peer-reviewed academic sources?
3. Speaking as an editor with an academic background, who has authored papers and review articles, acted as a reviewer for conference and journal publications, and been an examiner of theses, I like to believe I have a reasonably thorough understanding of sourcing and referencing... and looking at the content of WP:PSTS and the recent discussions, I have no idea what standards are meant to apply.

EdChem (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Field of inquiry of Race and intelligence

I have read the discussion at RSN but not had time to contribute. I have, like EdChem and other contributors too, been involved in a number of academic peer-reviewing activities. It is hard to know where to start to unravel this. There appears to be quite a different approach in the social and natural sciences, and that happens to be particularly unhelpful in a topic like this that straddles the two. I first came across the idea that "academic papers are primary" in relation to the contentious Cold fusion article. I was taken aback by it, but on reading further I became convinced that in disciplines where it is common to make reviews of the literature, then these are our reliable secondary sources, and it is those who engage in POV-pushing who are likely to want to go back to the original papers. More useful, I think, than trying to rely on a rigid primary-secondary source distinction, is to define what field of enquiry this article belongs to. Only then can we ensure that it reflects the state of knowledge in that field, and that the sources are the best that they can be within that field. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"define what field of enquiry this article belongs to" -- A nice idea in theory, but largely impossible in practice. My proof? Try it! You will find zero consensus. Some editors insist that "intelligence" means psychometrics or psychology more broadly. Some insist that "race" means anthropology. Other insist that genetics is key. Others point out that various social sciences (economics, sociology) are critical for understanding the environmentalists view. All have a point! David.Kane (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was in the history of science? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And some editors would agree with you! And some other editors feel that the whole article should not exist or that it belongs in the "field" of Scientific racism. My point is that defining the field is essentially impossible. history of science is especially wrong, in my view. Consider this key list of key sources. None of them would be classified as history of science in any library or book store. David.Kane (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose some topics are intrinsically interdisciplinary. Actually, I'm not sure that this is one of them, and that debate around which field it belongs to could help to move the article forward. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See the Talk page archives for extensive debates on just this topic. Zero progress was made. Feel free to start a new debate. David.Kane (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Itsmejudith, but it seems that our policies do not currently capture these distinctions, and I don't think ArbCom is well-situated to impose them (assuming, for the sake of argument, that ArbCom would even be competent to draft new sourcing policy). Cool Hand Luke 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this case does seem to have highlighted a largeish policy issue that the community needs to get sorted out. Perhaps the decision might include a call for the discussion at WP:RSN that spilled over to WT:NOR to be noted and addressed in a considered and centralised community-wide discussion? EdChem (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me use this as an excuse to point out my Workshop proposal to require a single, limited set of consensus sources. This was almost universally opposed but a) It would get directly to the issue that Coren is trying to address with his proposal and b) the fact that editors from both sides disagreed with it may sugggest (?) that it is just the sort of solution that has a hope of "breaking the back" of the dispute. Any such solution is almost guaranteed to anger editors on all sides. David.Kane (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall that I also asked for a list of appropriate sources and that one was posted (perhaps by Mathsci?). ArbCom won't want to impose a list of sources, but anything that forces editors to seek consensus about a source before going on to extract info from that source does seem like a workable way forward. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't want ArbCom "to impose a list of sources" on us. I want ArbCom to force us to come up with a list of sources (which, again, is easy for us to do) and then to empower us to prevent other sources from being used on the article. Consider the current debate on the article about brain size data. Back and forth is goes with no end in sight and the (final) result being that the page is now locked. If, however, we had an agree set of secondary sources, this whole debate could have been avoided. Either the brain size data is in those secondary sources (in which case it can go in the article) or it isn't. David.Kane (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are going to allow anyone to be stopped from using sources in the article. It's an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we should all be encouraging new people to come to the article, who may perhaps bring good sources that existing editors weren't aware of. But I completely agree that it can save a lot of time if new sources are vetted on the talk page, and if timely recourse is made to RSN. I also think that we should ask in relation to all potential sub-topics: is this mentioned by the main secondary sources, and if not, then do we have an overriding reason to mention it? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Another reason ArbCom would be unwise to mandate that only certain sources be used (irrespective of how the list was prepared) is there would be a high risk of appeals to modify the list (X is new, can we add it to the list? / Y is too POVvy, it shouldn't have been included in the first place, can it be removed? / Z is allowed but chapter 3 is being misused, can we remove that part of Z from "allowed"? / ...). ArbCom get enough appeals as it is, leaving a hole in a decision that invites more appeals would be unwise. EdChem (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

EdChem: First, I disagree that such complaints are likely. It would not be had to come to agreement on a list of sources. I have already done so! And, although many editors don't like this idea in the first place, no one has argued that my list is meaningfully different from what their own list of the 10 most important sources would be. Second, I do not propose that such complaints go to Arb Com. Instead, Arb Com should make a ruling like: "The Race and Intelligence article will only use a limited set of the highest quality, secondary sources available. The sources to be used will be agreed upon by all involved editors at the Talk page and revised once per year in July, or more often, if dictated by consensus." Arb Com would not be involved in these discussions at all.

Judith, you wrote, "More useful, I think, than trying to rely on a rigid primary-secondary source distinction, is to define what field of enquiry this article belongs to." As my favorite mathematical author once wrote, "Permit me to not completely agree with this opinion." It would be helpful to declare forthrightly that the article relates to the entire subject of psychology (that is, social psychology and cognitive psychology as well as psychometrics), to most aspects of sociology and anthropology, and to most aspects of genetics and neurology. (Right now, the article is poorly sourced to any discipline other than the psychometric subdiscipline of psychology, and it is not even sourced to the best literature in that subdiscipline.) But in general for most Misplaced Pages articles on most subjects, it would be helpful for editors to be much more aware of the distinction between primary sources (one single investigator's or group of investigators' reports on a finding in the lab or in the wild) and secondary sources (review articles in peer-reviewed publications, symposium articles, textbooks, practitioners' handbooks, and the like). In 100 percent of the disciplines and subdisciplines that relate to the topic of race and intelligence, the secondary sources are better sources than are the primary sources. That statement generalizes across hundreds of disciplines related to tens of thousands of articles on Misplaced Pages. An astute researcher will always read some of the most noteworthy primary sources (which for this topic would include Flynn 1987) to get a reality check on how the secondary sources interpret seminal papers, but a responsible editor on this contentious topic will mostly cite and rely on secondary sources, sources that are indisputably not part of the primary literature.

1. Effect of Children's Ethnicity on Teachers' Referral and Recommendation Decisions in Gifted and Talented Programs Journal article by Negmeldin Alsheikh, Hala Elhoweris, Pauline Holloway, Kagendo Mutua; Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 26, 2005
2. Flynn, James R. (1987). "Massive IQ Gains in 14 Nations: What IQ Tests Really Measure". Psychological Bulletin. 101: 171–191.

-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

The article race and intelligence has just been fully protected with the summary "edit warring never ceases on this article". . The most recent report is here.

A number of editors are unclear about the status of the 1RR, discussions are here and

All this is rather disappointing since it is taking place right in the midst of the Arbcom proceedings. My general impression is that many editors are not taking these proceedings seriously. I get the sense that users entrusted with higher responsibilities are passing the buck on this problem, hoping that it will disappear on its own. I don't think this is the type of dispute that will disappear by itself. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll also add that the proposed remedy may be seen as toothless, and not be taken seriously . aprock (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current edit war visible in the article's diffs and on the article talk page suggests that the proposed remedies need to be reconsidered. (The edit war among parties to the arbitration follows semi-protection of the article removing from the fray I.P. editors.) I note that quite a few arbitrators have yet to vote. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else who’s commented here that these proposed decisions are unlikely to resolve the disputes over this article. In fact, the likely ineffectiveness of these remedies is the first thing I’ve seen favored by this strong of a consensus in the past several months, including almost everyone on both “sides” of the dispute.

Is it possible for arbitrators to alter the proposed remedies after they’ve been posted? My understanding of how arbitration works is that since Coren is the drafting arbitrator, he has the singular authority to determine what remedies are proposed, and the other arbitrators can only vote yes or no on them. I don’t have a lot of familiarity with the arbitration process, though, so perhaps I’m overestimating how inflexible it is. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that question. I have no idea about that, although I suppose that it is documented in the general documentation on ArbCom procedures and that the arbitrators can let all the parties know the answer to that question. I am a (not currently actively practicing) lawyer in real life, but I have no particular intention of learning Wikilawyering, so I was just guessing that the items in the proposed decision are still subject to modification. That guess may be mistaken. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess someone probably ought to ask the arbitrators about this, since otherwise they might just vote on Coren’s proposed remedies without paying attention to the discussion here. I’m not sure of what the right place to ask is, though. There are several arbitration-related noticeboards; does anyone know which (if any) of them would be an appropriate place to bring this up? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I trust all the arbitrators to vote very carefully, although there is already no hope of them voting unanimously on the proposed decision before us now, and I commend them for their patience in slogging through the tedious case file here. Whether or not they tell us about standard operating procedure for ArbCom, we can look it up on the ArbCom main page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, your understanding of ArbCom and its processes is in error. Any Arbitrator may propose alternatives to any part of the proposed decision (like a principle 1(A) as an alternative to principle 1), or any additional measures s/he may think are appropriate. The other Arbitrators will vote on these proposals just like any other. Further, until the decision is finalised Arbitrators can and do strike their existing votes and change their minds. I would say that Cool Hand Luke's comments will raise concerns for other Committee members. The drafting arbitrator has no special status beyond writing the initial draft of the proposed decision. It would be inefficient and unreasonable to expect every ArbCom member to craft their own decision, so it makes sense to designate someone to write an initial draft to serve as a basis for the Committee to use to reach a consensus. One piece of advice based on an observation from past cases... when the Committee goes quiet after a decision is posted, it usually means they are either distracted by some other issue or are discussing / debating / negotiating on the private ArbCom mailing list. I won't be surprised if there is a protracted silence about this case in the near future. EdChem (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; it’s good to know.

When involved parties in an arbitration case think that certain proposed remedies are unlikely to be effective, as is the case here, is this talk page the best place to bring that up? Or is there somewhere else we should be mentioning this in order to make sure it has the arbitrators’ attention? --Captain Occam (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Best" place? I don't know. The talk page seems appropriate to me. Since it is almost inevitable that some parties will be concerned about at least some proposed remedies in every case, I think that Arbitrators expect to have their attention sought... it is not clear to me as to what is effective for catching their attention. To be honest, if I were an Arbitrator, I'm not sure I'd want to broadcast what was the best way to get my attention for what would be (in most cases) complaining from sanctioned editors. Of course that is part of an Arbitrator's job, but I suspect a better question for you to be asking is not where to raise concerns but rather how to raise concerns. I advise comments which are heavy on signal and light on noise. EdChem (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I dislike the current proposed remedies, and I will probably propose alternatives if no other arbitrators do.

The PD talk page (this place) is generally the best place to bring up potential problems with anything that's been proposed for voting. I was also very interested in the note posted on RSN—since RSN was supposed to control the application of the proposed remedy, the views on that board were helpful (and I'm glad Will Beback brought it to our attention here). Cool Hand Luke 14:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

3 Strike Rule (Civility)

As an alternative (or perhaps supplement) to the "50% rule", I'd suggest that ArbCom institute a "3 strike rule" for incivility on all race-related topics. The current arbitrators could serve as a panel of neutral, on-call referees for a period of 1 year. The exact criteria as to what constitutes incivility would be best decided here beforehand - and they'd need to be as detailed and as strict as possible*. Those found in violation of the agreed-upon rules 3 times within a 1-year period should receive a permanent topic-ban. That, I think, would go a long way towards weeding out some of the more problematic editors and helping to restore a constructive, collaborative editing environment. --Aryaman (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

*How strict should the rules be? Damned strict, in my opinion. WP:CIVIL needs teeth - might as well make them sharp. To point to a random example from this page, this comment should qualify as a clear case of incivility. Prefacing an insult with "no offence, but...", "it seems to be...", "it would appear...", or "possibly..." does not magically remove the insulting nature of the comment and certainly does not make it civil. Derogatory comments of any kind, be they directed at an editor or at his/her edits, need to be eliminated from this discussion, along with the editors who cannot keep themselves from making them, regardless of their other merits.

This sort of civility parole/probation has an abysmally poor track record on Misplaced Pages. In previous instances, this approach has failed to improve the editing atmosphere and has often actually worsened it, as each borderline brusque comment is rushed to the "referees" by combatants on the other side. It's impossible to be rigidly consistent with something as subjective as civility, so inevitably people start to complain that the enforcement is uneven. Civility cannot be "enforced" like a speeding limit. MastCell  21:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It certainly does not address any problems connected with this set of articles. The problem is not with civility after all, since one of the central issues in this case has been WP:CPUSH. As I've described in my evidence, Varoon Arya himself sanitized the backwater articles Mainstream Science on Intelligence and Snyderman and Rothman (study), removing all criticisms (from what I remember, he claimed that those were for other users to add later). Likewise users have expressed enthusiasm for secondary sources like the book of Nicholas Mackintosh, but have then proceeded to use none of their content when editing. Captain Occam made similar sanitizing edits to Varoon Arya on Race, Evolution and Behavior. This is not a civility problem. It is a problem of civil editing in a highly controversial backwater of wikipedia with edits that contravene wikipedia editing policies. Varoon Arya appears to have decided that criticisms of the content edits of other users constitute personal attacks (cf the diff of my editing he produced above from an edit on this page which he inaccurately summarises). In this case, is what Varoon Arya is suggesting not in fact a thinly disguised proposal to silence valid criticisms of POV-pushing? Mathsci (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a bad idea... firstly, those who "violate" civility rules are not necessarily those who violate editorial policies. Secondly, encyclopedic content is supposed to be of principal importance - it being the purpose of wikipedia and all - so ArbCom further and formally elevating behavioural policy over editorial policy would be a dreadful act on their part. Thirdly, ArbCom are not appointed to play referee on eery petty civility squabble, and frankly they would be justified in each gnawing one of their own legs off as the fun alternative to taking on that task. Fourthly, enforcing superficial and artificial politeness need not lead to genuine consensus; I would predict it spawning new and creatively polite insults. These are just some of the reasons that Mastcell is correct in noting the ineffectiveness of approaches like civility paroles in the past. EdChem (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion about this “three strikes” proposal specifically, I think I should mention that civility is of much more than superficial importance in this case. Mathsci’s incivility over the past few months has in itself amounted to a form of POV-pushing, because intentionally or not, it has had the effect of ridding the articles of perspectives that he disagrees with. In this section of my evidence I’ve quoted three editors who stated that they were driven away from the articles because of Mathsci’s behavior towards them, and Bpesta22 might be a fourth. (Bpesta22 quit the articles at around the same time as the other three editors, but hasn’t explained the reason for his own disappearance.) It’s important for ArbCom to recognize that if they allow the creation of this hostile an editing environment, it is inevitable that it will end up affecting content also. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a rather good example of what Ed Chem calls "new and creatively polite insults": here I am invested with new diabolical powers. It would be fair to say that it is "single issue" editors like Captain Occam, Mikemikev and David.Kane that are the source of the problem. These editors do not adhere to wikipedia editing policies, use article talk pages as forums and write WP:SYNTH and WP:OR on wikipedia as if it were their blog. Captain Occam has for example wasted large amounts of volunteer time by endlessly arguing that he could use a blog as a WP:RS. He has also been blocked 3 times for edit warring, even during mediation. No, the problem here is with WP:CPUSH and WP:SPA, not with regular editors. In general they do not come out with improbable conspiracy theories like the one above. Why is so much time being spent attacking regular editors without just cause and so little time spent adding any kind of useful or properly sourced content to this encyclopedia? Mathsci (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh… more of the same. I know you’re aware this is false, because we’ve been over it so many times before, both in your numerous AN/I threads (both the ones that you’ve started yourself and the ones started by other editors that you’ve hijacked) and in the evidence for this case. Go ahead and see if you can find a diff of where I spent a lot of time trying to cite something to a blog, which is something you’ve been challenged to provide several times before, and have never actually provided. Muntuwandi has provided what he claims to be a diff showing this, but as I pointed out in my response to him, the actual citation in the diff he posted from me is to a New York Times article, which is what I was trying to cite in the discussion you’re referring to.

I don’t see how I can be expected to assume good faith about the fact that whenever the falsehood of one of these claims is pointed out to you, you completely ignore this and continue to repeat the exact same claim unaltered. If it weren’t for the fact that I’m a little worried about you influencing the arbitrators with this, I would not think comments like these warrant a response at all. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages, yet the idea of attempting to enforce a hightened standard of civility on race-related topics is openly ridiculed. Not only that, it's being suggested in all earnest that by requesting users be held accountable for uncivil behaviour, I'm "disguising" my "true intent" of pushing a POV. Ask for civility and get blasted for POV pushing. How exasperatingly Kafkaesque. Carry on. --Aryaman (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Varoon Arya, since civility is so important to you and since Kafka was appreciative of irony, perhaps you might not accuse all the responses you received as openly ridiculing you or blasting you for POV pushing. I, for one, consider that characterisation of my comments intemperate, impolite, and inaccurate. EdChem (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I gave the impression that I took offence at all of the comments. In response to your comments, EdChem: (1) Those who violate civility rules, regardless of whether or not they violate other editorial policies (which is, of course, troublesome behaviour to be dealt with in its own way), need to know that the community will not tolerate such behaviour. The conspicuous absence of WP:CIVIL in the proposed ArbCom decision is a slap in the face to everyone who has been subjected to the offensive behaviour of some of the participants in these discussions and a tacit pat on the back to those who use incivility as a calculated tactic. (2) Misplaced Pages is indeed an encyclopaedia. It is also a collaborative project which requires civility from all of its contributors. Thus, while encyclopaedic content is the goal, civil collaboration is the means, and thus should rank just as high on the priority scale. (3) If ArbCom cannot issue concrete requirements for editor civility - and enforce them - who can? If the answer is "no one", then what's the point of having civility as a pillar at all? (4) I'm not suggesting artificial politeness, and this isn't meant to force consensus. I'm suggesting users be required to focus on content rather than editors. It takes less than a minute to change "Editor X's last edit appears to be utter crap" into "I do not think revision Y improves the article for the following reasons...". That's not asking much from editors, is it? Or are we prepared to tolerate incivility - even condone it in some cases - provided it results in "good content"? I'd hope not. No one should have a problem with requiring editors to remain civil. As for whether or not civility can be enforced, I'm disappointed at the lack of creativity here. But that's not directed at you, EdChem. Cheers, --Aryaman (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for your apology. As regards WP:CIVIL being a pillar, I suspect we disagree fundamentally in that I have seen far too much of the tactic of using the policy as a weapon. A vast amount of effort is wasted in trying to avoid discussion of editorial and content issues by feigning offence and seeking sanctions; worse, in some areas of Misplaced Pages where fringe content is found, WP:CIVIL becomes the altar before which all other policies are prostrated. Another major problem with WP:CIVIL is that there is nothing close to global consensus on what constitutes appropriate standards of civility. Please don't misunderstand, I'm all for civil behaviour and collegial editing, but the sanction-enforced policy is far from an unambiguous good for the encyclopedia. Your initial post in this thread suggests that improving the collaboration and content would follow from eliminating editors from the area for WP:CIVILity violations. In my opinion, that is a classic example of the thinking that leads to the WP:CPUSH problem because it is one step from the tactic of baiting opponents into civility violations to eliminate them. EdChem (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for the even-handed response. While I can imagine the potential misuse of such a policy, particularly as a tactic to eliminate certain editors (though, no more so than other extant policies, really), as well as ArbCom or anyone entrusted with the duty of overseeing its application quickly throwing up their hands in the face of the inevitable squabbles over whether a comment is "actually" offensive or not, I think that a clear list of criteria - determined under the oversight of ArbCom as part of the official decision and specific to this case - would eliminate a great deal of the potential headache. The criteria should be objective and concrete, and should extend into baiting and false reporting. We have some bright folks here, and I'm sure they could identify a fair list of things they have found to be disruptively uncivil during the discussions which have taken place over the last few months.

Though it is an ideal which even I occasionally falter upon when pressed, I think it's possible to diffuse tense editing situations by requiring that people stop directing their critical comments at particular editors and instead focus upon content. Statements such as "Editor X apparently has a racialist agenda" or "Editor Y is apparently quite confused as to the correct interpretation of this passage" or "Editor Z appears to be a POV-pushing SPA fringe-lover who needs to be topic banned" have no place in collegial discourse. They are simple ad hominem attacks designed to provoke, and we would do well to spend some effort in an attempt to reduce them as much as possible.

Is my suggestion designed to give free reign to "trolls" and "aggressive SPA's" to WP:CPUSH their way around as they please? Would we be overrun by POV-hordes if we were not allowed to smack them down with the occasional dash of incivility? No and no. So-called "trolls" and "aggressive SPA's" need to be dealt with in a courteous manner the same as everyone else. Their arguments - provided they have any - need to be evaluated and refuted on their merits (or lack thereof), not on the grounds that "you're a POV-pushing SPA, so we don't need to pay attention to anything you say". If one can't deal with a "troublesome" editor without becoming uncivil towards him or her, the best course of action would be to request the assistance of more editors, and possibly to take a short break from editing the article altogether. The common tactic seen on the R&I pages is to become entrenched to the point of WP:OWN and scour your target's contributions - possibly baiting him or her in the process - until something resembling a policy violation emerges and a complaint can be filed.

Every policy is capable of being misused. Yet, I've seen simple civility go a long way towards solving (not to mention preventing) editor conflicts, and I know it works. Granted, this is a highly controversial and contentious topic. However, I see that as sufficient grounds for raising our standards of behaviour accordingly, not for lowering them so as to excuse certain editors while punishing others.

While I take your concerns seriously, and think they need to be worked into the solution, I think they can be satisfactorily dealt with by the judicious application of common sense in designing the criteria. With that being said, I don't see much support for the idea, so I won't bother the other participants by extending this discussion needlessly. Thanks for the exchange of ideas, EdChem. Cheers, --Aryaman (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@CO, you keep mentioning that Mathsci has driven away "productive editors". Well Misplaced Pages is quite large, with over 3 million articles, so one can easily find other articles to work on if indeed they have been driven away from r&i articles. That is unless, of course, they were SPA agenda accounts. While you may think of them as being productive editors, others may disagree. Some of these editors may in fact have been contributing to the current problems rather than helping to deescalate the dispute. In short, not everyone thinks that the editors you mentioned were "productive", rather that is your own subjective opinion. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

“While you may think of them as being productive editors, others may disagree. Some of these editors may in fact have been contributing to the current problems rather than helping to deescalate the dispute.”

So that makes this acceptable? Reading between the lines, what you’re saying here seems to be that if someone like Mathsci decides that another editor such as Varoon Arya or Ludwigs2 is a “problem editor”, it’s reasonable for them to deal with this by making personal attacks against the editor in question until the editor quits the article out of frustration. Is that your opinion about this tactic? If so, it would be helpful if you could clarify that this is your opinion, and perhaps ArbCom will agree with you, although I hope they won’t. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to make a clear distinction between everyday incivility on the one hand and personal attacks on the other. The internet is a difficult medium. Jokes can be misunderstood, we can reply irritably without thinking etc. etc. The normal response to everyday incivility is to ignore it or to ask the author to refactor. If you think someone has really gone beyond the limit of what is acceptable then you should make a wikiquette alert or user RFC. I know that these things can sometimes seem like escalating, but it is worth taking such issues up in the appropriate places and not allowing disputes about behaviour to run on and on in talk pages. The talk pages are there to discuss content. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of what you’re suggesting has already been tried. The fact that it didn’t lead to any improvement in Mathsci’s behavior is what resulted in Rvcx requesting this Arbitration case. Here’s one example of a failed attempt to resolve this issue at WQA: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive86#User:Mathsci. Mathsci’s personal attacks and battleground attitude were also discussed in this WQA thread and this one, both also without changing anything about his behavior.

I think this issue is pretty clearly beyond what venues like WQA can be expected to solve. Since at this point arbitration appears to be the only remaining option for addressing it, I think the people who have been offended by Mathsci’s personal attacks (of which there are quite a few, as can be seen from this case’s evidence page) will be very disappointed if ArbCom can’t do anything about it either. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean that it shouldn't be taken to ArbCom or that WQA had dealt with it satisfactorily. I just think that these things should be dealt with promptly, through the channels (and WQA-ANI-ArbCom is a recognised channel) and not allowed to fester in the talk pages. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Captain Occam, I think you are putting words in my mouth. I have at no point supported personal attacks against anyone. However, these are some of my observations.

• Have you ever stopped to think, that the most offensive issue in this controversy is the POV you and your comrades have been pushing for the last 9 months. It is more offensive than any of the petty grievances that you and friends have been complaining about. Had you and your comrades considered this in your editing, there would be far less animosity. If you disturb a hornet's nest, don't be surprised if you get stung.
• We use the term "civil POV pushing". But in reality it should be termed superficially civil POV pushing, because civil POV pushing usually involves controversial or emotionally charged edits which are likely to provoke uncivil reactions, even though these edits are made in a superficially civil manner. Civil POV pushing isn't really civil after all.
• I find it ironic that the very person who started this thread, Aryaman, is advocating civility, because I tend to find many of his comments rather unpleasant. Furthermore Captain Occam is complaining that some editors, including Aryaman, have been driven away. Well if he is posting here, has he been driven away? I recall Aryaman had "topic banned himself". One of the beauties of topic banning oneself is that one can unban oneself at will. I guess this means he is now a fully involved party.

In short, I agree that there has been less than ideal behavior from all sides, but I believe that the agenda accounts are tacitly causing this incivility. This is a clear example of the unhealthy effects of single issue agenda editing. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we interested in fixing this problem, or not?

Truth be told, this is one of the things I find most frustrating (but also most interesting, in a professional capacity) about wikipedia: The entire project - through some bizarre misunderstandings of some very good philosophical ideals - has turned itself into a near-perfect replica of your average American high school. Just like a high school, the ostensible purpose of wikipedia is to present and expound upon knowledge structures for the betterment of all. And just like a high school, a huge quantity of Wikipedians' time is spent in more or less hormonal attempts to dominate the social milieu. You have cliques of editors whose main activity is to try to turn other editors into social outcasts. You have rebels who cling to half-baked ideological stances in that typical adolescent style. You have vandals running around making trouble for the sheer fun of it, squealers who run to admins at the first sign of anything they don't like, student council stumpers who love political drama and don't care one whit about (or even understand) political improvement, bullies who try to dominate through intimidation while keeping under the radar, and a vast majority of wall-flower editors who just try to keep out of the way. Granting that there are (just like high school) numerous corners to which people can retreat and behave like adults - having small, quiet, productive discussions amongst themselves - such places are not the norm.

In short, the talk-page side of wikipedia has dumbed itself down to the level of 14 year olds. Why else would someone like Mathsci - by all accounts a rational, reasonable, highly educated academic - think that the best approach to deciding content on an article like this is to scream and shout, to call people names, and to whine to adults admins to self-righteously demand they punish the 'bad people'? I can't read the majority of his posts without picturing him teary-eyed and stamping his feet in frustration, and no adult should feel the need to present himself that way.

Mind you, I'm not at all surprised at how easy it is to reduce an adult to adolescent behavior; I'm not that naïve. I am surprised, however, by how seriously and thoroughly that adolescent behavior is defended on the project. Do you people actually like this kind of crap?

So look, we can use all of the cute policy code-words that we've developed (CIV, CONSENSUS, AGF, and etc.), but as far as I can tell only a distinct minority of the people who use those those terms have any idea (much less care) about what they actually mean. So let's just cut to the chase: Either the project as a whole decides that it's going to grow up and start insisting that editors interact with each other in an adult fashion, or the project as a whole decides that it's going to continue to hide its head in the sand and let things work themselves out. The first case will mean, yes, that we sharply curtail editors' freedoms to express themselves however they like (because that's what adults do), and will involve an extreme amount of short-term drama as an assortment of editors explode with indignation that anyone would deign to tell them to stop behaving like children. However, the second case means we'll all be dealing with this crap until we die of old age or leave the project. I'd prefer the first scenario.

I already know the arguments that are going to be made against this perspective; Make them if you want, I love a philosophical discussion. Just be aware that I'm going to refute such arguments to the extent that they represent or support adolescent thinking (both kinds of arguments will be made, I'm sure). This is not an easy conversation to have, but it's one that we clearly do need to have if we want to put an end to this crapulence. --Ludwigs2 16:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A bit late, but a suggestion anyway.

This might not be very popular, but its a shot.

Lets say we take at face value that:

There was no problematic behavior that reached the level of arbitration. The mediation was flawed somehow (no need for fingerpointing). Arbcom should not be making content decisions. The current policies on sources needs to be more nuanced for this decision.

Then I think it basically means this arbcom was a wash, and with apologies to peoples time and pride, it may be best if people looked past their previous differences and agreed to a new mediation. At the same time there needs to be a discussion on the policy pages about this issue.

That would basically be giving two sets of people an oppertunity to settle this. Either the current parties can manage to make progress in a new mediation or the community can make progress on updating policy. There is the possibility everyone may find themselves right back here for a new round teethgnashing (and yes that would suck), but just about the only thing people can agree on here is that the current decision isn't gonna help and/or shouldn't be implemented. From my point of view, either this situation gets better on its own or it has to get worse before arbcom can make it better. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The mediation was flawed somehow (no need for fingerpointing).

But there is a need to explain how. mikemikev (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that. Consensus, parties, attitudes and mediation methods are all dynamic. Just because this particular method didn't work this time doesn't mean that it was bad, just that things were flawed. Perhaps under different circumstances it may have made a breakthrough that another method would not have. It is possible to accept that it failed and move on without getting bogged down by why it failed or whose fault it was. Right now, you guys are getting nowhere trying to pin the fault on someone. Let go of the baggage, take a deep breath and try to start again with a clean slate. Easier said than done, I admit, but I don't see the value in looking backwards about this. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the mediation was very successful and that the article is now mostly stable. Who are you BTW? mikemikev (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)