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 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 6 |
2–3 | 5 |
4–5 | 4 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.
Proposed motions
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.
Template
1) {text of proposed motion}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed temporary injunctions
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.
Template
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
Pillars
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.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Original research
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.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Primary sources
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.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Self-published sources
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.
- Support:
- In other words, a self-published source that makes a claim can at most be cited to support that that source makes that claim; not as support for the claim itself. Even then it's only generally appropriate to do so when the topic of the article is the source itself. — Coren (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
Mediation
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.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Advocacy
6) Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing an 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.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Single issue editors
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.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Focus of the dispute
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 and biographies of researchers investigating that topic.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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) 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, while editors rejecting those sources claim that they give undue prominence to a minority or "fringe" position that is not reflected in the literature.
- Support:
- 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 remain unconvinced that a significant viewpoint, no matter how unpolitical, would remain uncovered by reliable secondary sources. — Coren (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- I don't think this is a wholly accurate summary. The content argument is more nuanced than this, and the state of the sources is less clear-cut. Moreover, I don't think that the apparent SPA accounts confine their pushing to primary sources. At any rate, I do not think such a finding is desirable or necessary; it's all but a content ruling. Imagine a similar finding for the now-pending Global Warming case. Cool Hand Luke 14:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Editor behavior
3) Editor behavior on all sides of the issue have 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.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Informal mediation
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.
- Support:
- It seems clear that, no matter how well intended, the results of that flawed mediation cannot be used as a show of consensus given the limited involvement of some of the main parties and the unorthodox manner in which it proceeded. — Coren (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Involuntary binding mediation is a ship that sailed in 2004, for better or for worse. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Source probation
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.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Well, RSN regulars cannot reach consensus about one of these attributes, and even the author of this remedy seems unsure about the meaning. I'm also uncomfortable that the author admits that the proposed decision is all but a content ruling, which—worse in my view—doesn't seem resolve the dispute. For example, this remedy instead simply pushes the dispute onto RSN where it will continue to churn without a reasonable chance of resolution. Similarly, the edit counting remedy doesn't do anything to improve the quality of R/I edits, and instead promotes a edit-counting game. I am convinced that the cause of this case is agenda pushing. I wish the remedies that treat the cause rather than the symptoms. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Editors reminded
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.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Topic restrictions
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.
- Support:
- With a note that the exact list of parties will be revised before the case closes to ensure it is correct. This is an admittedly novel remedy; but the attempt is worth it in my opinion; focusing exclusively on a topic area in unhealthy at best, and often leads to a biased perspective. — Coren (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- I prefer remedies that prevent gaming. Edit counts are misleading in RFA, and they are triply bizarre as a measurement for involvement from an RFAR decision. In other words: If the editors involved install Huggle and run it occasionally, are we really better off? Cool Hand Luke 15:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Proposed enforcement
Enforcement
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.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Discussion by Arbitrators
General
Motion to close
Implementation notes
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.
- Proposals which pass
- {Passing principles}
- {Passing findings}
- {Passing remedies}
- {Passing enforcement provisions}
- Proposals which do not pass
- {Failing principles}
- {Failing findings}
- {Failing remedies}
- {Failing enforcement provisions}
Vote
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.
- Support
-
- Oppose
-
- Comment
-