Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: AGK ( Talk) & MBK004 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren ( Talk) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 6 |
1–2 | 5 |
3–4 | 4 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the
/Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
1) {text of proposed motion}
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
2) Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
3) The use of primary sources to cite article content is generally not allowable. While some limited use is permissible in very specific circumstances, their use to support or rebut a position in an article is generally original research. In particular, alternative points of views in a topic area must be already expressed in reliable, independent sources to be included in an article.
3.1) Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
4) Self-published sources, including books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs, are largely not acceptable. While they may occasionally be used as source of information on themselves, they do not constitute reliable sources as required by our policies on verifiability and original research.
5) Mediation — whether formal or informal — is a voluntary process to help editors who are having a dispute. While it serves the valuable function of facilitating agreement between good faith participants, it cannot make binding decisions on contents or sanction users.
6) Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
7) 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 encyclopedia.
7.1) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
8) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
9) Longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion is that editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the case closes, the sub-pages should be courtesy-blanked or deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Evidence should properly be submitted only on arbitration pages as it is impossible to ensure that all the parties are aware of all the sub-pages that might have a bearing on them. If the evidence runs over the permitted length, it should not be continued on sub-pages but instead permission should be sought from the drafting arbitrator for an over-length submission.
10) Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies ( neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.
Note: findings on individual editors to be added as findings 5 onwards. 02:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Background findings now removed in favour of specific conduct findings. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
1) The dispute is based around a significant disagreement about the content of the Race and intelligence article, as well as a number of related or similar articles discussing a genetic basis for significant social disparity between different ethnic groups. The related articles also include biographies of researchers investigating the topic.
1.1) The dispute is focused on articles within the Race and intelligence controversy category. The core issue is whether Intelligence quotient varies significantly between different races and, if so, whether this may be attributed to genetic or environmental factors. The dispute may be characterised as comprising: (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; (ii) persistent edit-warring; and (iii) incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources.
2) 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) are 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, while editors rejecting those sources claim that they give undue prominence to a minority or "fringe" position that is not reflected in the literature.
2.1) At its core, the dispute centers on disagreements over the correct use of primary and secondary sources, as well as claims that editors are giving undue prominence to aspects of the debate covered in the race and intelligence article beyond that which is reflected in the literature.
3) Editor behavior on all sides of the issue has often been less than optimal, and the tone of discussion has occasionally strayed into incivility. Given the emotional and controversial nature of the underlying dispute, this is undesirable but understandable and generally does not raise to the level where sanctions are necessary.
4) During the dispute, some (but not all) of the participants have engaged in informal mediation [1] with the Mediation Cabal. While well-intended, that attempt at mediation was fundamentally flawed because it purported to create a binding decision and proceeded despite major participants having refused mediation.
5) Mathsci ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed to a wide range of articles, many focusing on Baroque music, since they first edited Wikipedia in February 2006. Their interest in race and intelligence appears to have started last autumn. Since then, within the area of dispute, the user has engaged in incivility and personal attacks in text, [2] [3] [4] and in edit summaries; [5] [6] once went so far as to accuse one editor of being a "holocaust denier"; [7] routinely threatens other editors with blocks, [8] [9] [10] and has made other, veiled threats. [11] The editor has also engaged in edit-warring with long series of reverts in short periods, notably in May 2010, [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] and again in June 2010. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] This editor was also formally reminded not to edit war in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration.
5.1) Mathsci ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed to a wide range of articles, many focusing on mathematics and baroque music, since he first edited Wikipedia in February 2006. His interest in articles related to race and intelligence appears to have started in autumn 2007. Almost all his content edits to these articles began in April 2010 following a mediation process. Since then, within the area of dispute, the user has acted in good faith in what he perceived as an attempt to protect articles from being skewed by what he perceived as a group of editors pushing a point of view with troubling overtones. In the area of dispute, however, he has engaged in incivility and personal attacks in text, [26] [27] [28] and in edit summaries; [29] [30] once went so far as to accuse one editor of being a "holocaust denier"; [31] routinely threatens other editors with blocks, [32] [33] [34] and has made other, veiled threats. [35] His editing of articles and their talk pages has been unduly aggressive and combative, with borderline edit warring in May [36] [37] [38] [39] and June. [40] [41] [42] [43] This editor was also formally reminded not to edit war in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration.
6) David.Kane ( talk · contribs) has edited since June 2006 but has effectively been operating as a single-purpose account in the disputed topic area since October 2009. In essence, this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view. In pursuit of his agenda, he has disruptively removed sourced material (sometimes spuriously claiming BLP violation), [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] has engaged in disruptive forum shopping at the Biographies of Living People Noticeboard, [52] [53] [54] has tag-teamed with users Mikemikev and Captain Occam. [55] [56] [57] and has gamed the system with a spurious outing complaint at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents [58]
7) Captain Occam ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first edited in November 2006, started contributing regularly in July 2009, and has race and intelligence-related articles as his almost exclusive focus. Of the 306 edits made to date to his ten most-edited articles, only 17 (6%) do not relate to race and intelligence. [59] His disruptive behaviour (primarily edit-warring and wholesale reversion) [60] first attracted sysop attention in October 2009, since when he has been blocked on four occasions. [61] Controversy surrounds the fourth block and associated editing restrictions, which were later rescinded. [62] Nevertheless, this user edit-warred on 9 June 2010, [63] [64] [65] and returned, on 17 June 2010, to reinstate substantially the same material. [66] [67] In addition to the long-term edit-warring, this editor has also tag-team edit-warred alongside Mikemikev and David.Kane, [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] and has gamed the system by claiming consensus for article versions which support his point of view. [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]
8) Mikemikev ( talk · contribs) has edited as a single-purpose account in the disputed topic area since December 2009. Mikemikev has made less than 700 edits in this time, and has treated the disputed topic area as a battleground, [78] [79] [80] has imported an "us vs. them" mentality, [81] [82] and has repeatedly directed incivility and personal attacks upon those who disagree with him, both in posts [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] and in edit summaries. [89] In this time, Mikemikev has also disrupted Wikipedia with frivolous personality-directed requests, [90] [91] and has edit-warred in the topic on at least two occasions: in April 2010 [92] [93] [94] [95] and in August 2010 [96] [97] [98], which is especially remarkable as Mikemikev has only about 100 mainspace edits total. [99]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Articles in the topic area of Race and Intelligence, broadly construed, are put on source probation. All sources used in all articles of the topic area must be independent, secondary sources that meets the guidelines of reliable sources. Disagreement about whether a source does or does not meet the guideline should be brought to the reliable sources noticeboard for evaluation by uninvolved editors.
2) All editors are reminded that using primary sources or sources that are not considered reliable to "rebut" secondary sources constitute original research and is not appropriate for Wikipedia.
3) All named parties to this case are subject to the following restriction for one year: edits to the topic area of race and intelligence, broadly construed, including talk pages must constitute no more than one half of their total edits outside project space.
3.1) All named parties to this case are topic banned from articles in the topic area of race and intelligence, broadly construed for a mininum of three months. During this timeframe, editors will need to show that they can edit in other areas without issues. At the expiration of this restriction, parties can petition the Committee to lift this sanction.
4) Editors engaged in long-term tendentious editing, on their own or in concert with other editors, to push a point of view on race-related articles, may be topic-banned from articles and talk pages related to race, broadly interpreted, by any uninvolved administrator. The administrator may determine the period of the topic ban at their discretion. All such topic bans shall be logged on the arbitration case pages.
5) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for " race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
5.1) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles within the Category:Race and intelligence controversy are cautioned that this topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics, it is crucial that they adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, and avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments.
To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for " race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
6) Mathsci ( talk · contribs) has consented [103] to a binding topic ban from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed.
6.1) Mathsci ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed, for a period of 60 days, it being the committee's hope that in the interim these articles will gain attention from editors who have not been part of the editing disputes giving rise to this case. Thereafter, Mathsci is urged to voluntarily refrain from editing in this topic area, or any other controversial topic area, unless and until he is satisfied that he can do so without violating Wikipedia's conduct policies and guidelines, even in the face of serious actual or perceived provocation.
7) David.Kane ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed.
8) Captain Occam ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed.
9) Mikemikev ( talk · contribs) is site-banned for twelve months, and thereafter topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed, and may edit only from one account.
10) Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either (i) courtesy blank any sub-pages they have created relating to this case or (ii) request deletion of them using the {{ db-author}} or {{ db-self}} templates. Nothing in this remedy prevents at any time any other editor from requesting deletion of the subpages via the Miscellany for deletion process nor any uninvolved adminstrator from deleting them under the applicable Criteria for speedy deletion.
1) Should any editor subject to a restriction under the terms of this decision violate the restriction, then the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block period shall increase to one year.
2) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently arbitration enforcement), or the Committee.
3) Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favourably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and further reviews will take place no more frequently than every six months thereafter.
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: AGK ( Talk) & MBK004 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren ( Talk) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 6 |
1–2 | 5 |
3–4 | 4 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the
/Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
1) {text of proposed motion}
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
2) Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
3) The use of primary sources to cite article content is generally not allowable. While some limited use is permissible in very specific circumstances, their use to support or rebut a position in an article is generally original research. In particular, alternative points of views in a topic area must be already expressed in reliable, independent sources to be included in an article.
3.1) Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
4) Self-published sources, including books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs, are largely not acceptable. While they may occasionally be used as source of information on themselves, they do not constitute reliable sources as required by our policies on verifiability and original research.
5) Mediation — whether formal or informal — is a voluntary process to help editors who are having a dispute. While it serves the valuable function of facilitating agreement between good faith participants, it cannot make binding decisions on contents or sanction users.
6) Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
7) 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 encyclopedia.
7.1) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
8) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
9) Longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion is that editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the case closes, the sub-pages should be courtesy-blanked or deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Evidence should properly be submitted only on arbitration pages as it is impossible to ensure that all the parties are aware of all the sub-pages that might have a bearing on them. If the evidence runs over the permitted length, it should not be continued on sub-pages but instead permission should be sought from the drafting arbitrator for an over-length submission.
10) Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies ( neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.
Note: findings on individual editors to be added as findings 5 onwards. 02:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Background findings now removed in favour of specific conduct findings. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
1) The dispute is based around a significant disagreement about the content of the Race and intelligence article, as well as a number of related or similar articles discussing a genetic basis for significant social disparity between different ethnic groups. The related articles also include biographies of researchers investigating the topic.
1.1) The dispute is focused on articles within the Race and intelligence controversy category. The core issue is whether Intelligence quotient varies significantly between different races and, if so, whether this may be attributed to genetic or environmental factors. The dispute may be characterised as comprising: (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; (ii) persistent edit-warring; and (iii) incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources.
2) 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) are 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, while editors rejecting those sources claim that they give undue prominence to a minority or "fringe" position that is not reflected in the literature.
2.1) At its core, the dispute centers on disagreements over the correct use of primary and secondary sources, as well as claims that editors are giving undue prominence to aspects of the debate covered in the race and intelligence article beyond that which is reflected in the literature.
3) Editor behavior on all sides of the issue has often been less than optimal, and the tone of discussion has occasionally strayed into incivility. Given the emotional and controversial nature of the underlying dispute, this is undesirable but understandable and generally does not raise to the level where sanctions are necessary.
4) During the dispute, some (but not all) of the participants have engaged in informal mediation [1] with the Mediation Cabal. While well-intended, that attempt at mediation was fundamentally flawed because it purported to create a binding decision and proceeded despite major participants having refused mediation.
5) Mathsci ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed to a wide range of articles, many focusing on Baroque music, since they first edited Wikipedia in February 2006. Their interest in race and intelligence appears to have started last autumn. Since then, within the area of dispute, the user has engaged in incivility and personal attacks in text, [2] [3] [4] and in edit summaries; [5] [6] once went so far as to accuse one editor of being a "holocaust denier"; [7] routinely threatens other editors with blocks, [8] [9] [10] and has made other, veiled threats. [11] The editor has also engaged in edit-warring with long series of reverts in short periods, notably in May 2010, [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] and again in June 2010. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] This editor was also formally reminded not to edit war in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration.
5.1) Mathsci ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed to a wide range of articles, many focusing on mathematics and baroque music, since he first edited Wikipedia in February 2006. His interest in articles related to race and intelligence appears to have started in autumn 2007. Almost all his content edits to these articles began in April 2010 following a mediation process. Since then, within the area of dispute, the user has acted in good faith in what he perceived as an attempt to protect articles from being skewed by what he perceived as a group of editors pushing a point of view with troubling overtones. In the area of dispute, however, he has engaged in incivility and personal attacks in text, [26] [27] [28] and in edit summaries; [29] [30] once went so far as to accuse one editor of being a "holocaust denier"; [31] routinely threatens other editors with blocks, [32] [33] [34] and has made other, veiled threats. [35] His editing of articles and their talk pages has been unduly aggressive and combative, with borderline edit warring in May [36] [37] [38] [39] and June. [40] [41] [42] [43] This editor was also formally reminded not to edit war in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration.
6) David.Kane ( talk · contribs) has edited since June 2006 but has effectively been operating as a single-purpose account in the disputed topic area since October 2009. In essence, this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view. In pursuit of his agenda, he has disruptively removed sourced material (sometimes spuriously claiming BLP violation), [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] has engaged in disruptive forum shopping at the Biographies of Living People Noticeboard, [52] [53] [54] has tag-teamed with users Mikemikev and Captain Occam. [55] [56] [57] and has gamed the system with a spurious outing complaint at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents [58]
7) Captain Occam ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first edited in November 2006, started contributing regularly in July 2009, and has race and intelligence-related articles as his almost exclusive focus. Of the 306 edits made to date to his ten most-edited articles, only 17 (6%) do not relate to race and intelligence. [59] His disruptive behaviour (primarily edit-warring and wholesale reversion) [60] first attracted sysop attention in October 2009, since when he has been blocked on four occasions. [61] Controversy surrounds the fourth block and associated editing restrictions, which were later rescinded. [62] Nevertheless, this user edit-warred on 9 June 2010, [63] [64] [65] and returned, on 17 June 2010, to reinstate substantially the same material. [66] [67] In addition to the long-term edit-warring, this editor has also tag-team edit-warred alongside Mikemikev and David.Kane, [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] and has gamed the system by claiming consensus for article versions which support his point of view. [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]
8) Mikemikev ( talk · contribs) has edited as a single-purpose account in the disputed topic area since December 2009. Mikemikev has made less than 700 edits in this time, and has treated the disputed topic area as a battleground, [78] [79] [80] has imported an "us vs. them" mentality, [81] [82] and has repeatedly directed incivility and personal attacks upon those who disagree with him, both in posts [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] and in edit summaries. [89] In this time, Mikemikev has also disrupted Wikipedia with frivolous personality-directed requests, [90] [91] and has edit-warred in the topic on at least two occasions: in April 2010 [92] [93] [94] [95] and in August 2010 [96] [97] [98], which is especially remarkable as Mikemikev has only about 100 mainspace edits total. [99]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Articles in the topic area of Race and Intelligence, broadly construed, are put on source probation. All sources used in all articles of the topic area must be independent, secondary sources that meets the guidelines of reliable sources. Disagreement about whether a source does or does not meet the guideline should be brought to the reliable sources noticeboard for evaluation by uninvolved editors.
2) All editors are reminded that using primary sources or sources that are not considered reliable to "rebut" secondary sources constitute original research and is not appropriate for Wikipedia.
3) All named parties to this case are subject to the following restriction for one year: edits to the topic area of race and intelligence, broadly construed, including talk pages must constitute no more than one half of their total edits outside project space.
3.1) All named parties to this case are topic banned from articles in the topic area of race and intelligence, broadly construed for a mininum of three months. During this timeframe, editors will need to show that they can edit in other areas without issues. At the expiration of this restriction, parties can petition the Committee to lift this sanction.
4) Editors engaged in long-term tendentious editing, on their own or in concert with other editors, to push a point of view on race-related articles, may be topic-banned from articles and talk pages related to race, broadly interpreted, by any uninvolved administrator. The administrator may determine the period of the topic ban at their discretion. All such topic bans shall be logged on the arbitration case pages.
5) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for " race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
5.1) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles within the Category:Race and intelligence controversy are cautioned that this topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics, it is crucial that they adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, and avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments.
To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for " race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
6) Mathsci ( talk · contribs) has consented [103] to a binding topic ban from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed.
6.1) Mathsci ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed, for a period of 60 days, it being the committee's hope that in the interim these articles will gain attention from editors who have not been part of the editing disputes giving rise to this case. Thereafter, Mathsci is urged to voluntarily refrain from editing in this topic area, or any other controversial topic area, unless and until he is satisfied that he can do so without violating Wikipedia's conduct policies and guidelines, even in the face of serious actual or perceived provocation.
7) David.Kane ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed.
8) Captain Occam ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed.
9) Mikemikev ( talk · contribs) is site-banned for twelve months, and thereafter topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed, and may edit only from one account.
10) Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either (i) courtesy blank any sub-pages they have created relating to this case or (ii) request deletion of them using the {{ db-author}} or {{ db-self}} templates. Nothing in this remedy prevents at any time any other editor from requesting deletion of the subpages via the Miscellany for deletion process nor any uninvolved adminstrator from deleting them under the applicable Criteria for speedy deletion.
1) Should any editor subject to a restriction under the terms of this decision violate the restriction, then the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block period shall increase to one year.
2) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently arbitration enforcement), or the Committee.
3) Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favourably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and further reviews will take place no more frequently than every six months thereafter.
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.