Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Slrubenstein

Discussion
User:Slrubenstein has been involved in the race and intelligence article for quite a while, and was pretty civil in his behavior there before the past week, but has rather suddenly began making personal attacks against other users. I attempted to warn him about this behavior here; however he’s ignored my warning and continued to engage in the same behavior. The majority of his personal attacks have been directed at user:Mikemikev, but he’s made several against me also.

(Directed at Mikemikev) “Scientists disagree all the time - it is the whole point of science. But they can do so while respecting one another's contributions to science. That you are not capable of this just shows your ignorance of science (or that you are a crappy scientist). […] Apparently you do not understand even this simple sentence.”

(Directed at Mikemikev) “This is utter and total @#!*%  that simply demonstrates Mikemikev's attempt - conscious or reckless - to destroy this article […] All mikemikev is doing is pushing his own POV even if it makes us the laughing stock of the literate world.”

(Directed at Mikemikev) “The version that I left, after deleting Mike's vandalism, was not "my" version. It was the version we arrived at through mediation, and which David Kane wrote, before mediation ended and Mike came here to sneak back in his ignorant POV.”

(Directed at both me and Mikemikev) “Now, I DO understand regression to the mean, and I DO understand basic population genetics, and I know that what Mikemikev and Captain Occam have written is SO wrong, that they simply do not know what they are talking about. Do you see the problem? When I do not understand something, I do not edit on it. Yet here are two editors who clearly do not understand something, yet they think that they can explain it to others via our encyclopedia. I think that is dishonest, disingenuous, @#!*%  that in a small way makes our encyclopedia an embarassment, the kind of website college professors tell their students not to visit. Do you see my problem now? Because I know these guys are writing encyclopedia content on things they do not understand, I cannot assume good faith on their behalf. I just cannot. They are charlatans. And if this is how I feel about them, I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article, you know how important AGF is.”

(Directed at Mikemikev) “Your trolling, you are just trying to get me to waste my time by repeating what I wrote yesterday, and what was written during mediation, in the hiopes that I will get tired of your trolling and go away.”

(Directed at me) “You know little about science, yet come to this article just to push your racist point of view. Fortunately, there are many other editors who will put science above your racist ideology.”

(Directed at me) “Captain Occam's standard seems to be: any view that does not agree with mine is bad. Well, so what else is new?”

I’m reluctant to recommend a block for Slrubenstein, because he has contributed to this article in a positive way over the past several months, but recently there has been a major change in his behavior. As I’ve reported here, his main activity there lately has been edit warring (also after being warned about this); it ultimately resulted in page protection rather than a block because a few other users were edit warring there also.

As far as how this should be dealt with is concerned, I think Slrubenstein’s most important comment is the fourth one that I quoted (with regard to me and Mikemikev): “I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article”. I’m not making personal attacks against anyone there, and I’ve only reverted the article once during the past two days, so in this case I don’t think Slrubenstein’s inability to interact with me and Mikemikev in a constructive way is my own fault. If by his own admission he is unable to do this, and he is the one who’s edit warring and making personal attacks as a result, I think something needs to be done about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's worth mentioning that temperatures have tended to run high in this article. Some of this is diffused in the very long talk page, which has saved the article from many reverts. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree about temperatures running high, but I think most of us who are debating about this article have managed to avoid making personal attacks against other users involved in it. I also don’t think there’s any evidence of Slrubenstein’s behavior having calmed down; his most recent personal attack that I quoted is his most recent contribution. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein is an admin and has been a user in good standing since 2001, there are very few active users on Wikipedia who have a longer or more respected history. You've been here for under two years, much of it intermittent, and the race and intelligence article has been a focus of yours almost from the outset. I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or judgement of the project's mores, I'll be backing Slrubenstein. I suggest you find a way of working productively with him before you get blocked yet again for edit warring on . Guy (Help!) 22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn’t a discussion about general level of contributions to Wikipedia or my own past conflicts with users unrelated to this report, it’s a discussion about the specific user conduct within the past week that I’ve brought up here. A user’s history of contributions does not excuse them from having to follow rules such as WP:NPA.  In accordance with the rules of this noticeboard, can this discussion please remain focused on its actual topic, instead of straying to unrelated accusations and side-discussions within the discussion?  Thanks.


 * Incidentally, if there is somewhere other than AN/I where I should be posting in order to report disruptive behavior from an administrator, I would appreciate knowing what it is. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) It would be better to base your position on an examination of the circumstances of the event, Guy, rather than on the reputations of the users involved. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:24, 15 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * One of these two has a history of crying foul over the article which has been an obsessive focus of his for some time, the other does not. See how that informs my judgement of the merits of each successive complaint? Guy (Help!) 09:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * *Wow. I have respect for Slrubenstein.  But Guy/JzG, I think your comment is way off-base, though you may well have given voice to a misapprehension that plagues other sysops as well.  The mop does not by any means entitle Slrubenstein to better treatment than Occam is entitled to.  Frankly -- it is precisely the opposite.  The admin rules, and the bases upon which actions can be taken against admins, makes it quite clear that sysops have greater, not lesser, obligations than do non-sysop editors.  Furthermore, as the oft-quoted "don't bite the newbies" guideline suggests, it is the newer editors -- not the more experienced ones -- whom we should take extra care with.  Your "Slrubenstein is an admin ... I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or judgement [sic] of the project's mores, I'll be backing Slrubenstein" sends a terrible message.  I'm hoping that was accidental, and will be redacted.  It's IMHO contrary to some very important wiki guidelines, and is precisely what non-sysops say on a regular basis when they see sysops covering each others' backs in questionable circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that Guy's rationale is not productive or appropriate. Maurreen (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have noticed more sysops, than editors, being unafraid that their misbehavior may result in sanction, or even just censure.
 * Are Wikipedians divided up in a two-tier social hierarchy, in which the admins are the elites that can flout policies and guidelines with impunity? -- Rico  04:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) While I can see tempers becoming elevated, I don't see anything which would qualify as a personal attack. I think some of the comments are coming close to being incivil, however. Perhaps everyone involved needs to take a day off and cool down before coming back to the article. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In context, the very minimal testiness is actually a sign of great restraint on the part of Slrubenstein whose judgement I trust quite substantially. The article topic is of immense interest, which means it is of immense possibility for head-butting.   Nothing to act upon, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If the consensus here is that these quotes from Slrubenstein aren't incivil enough to warrant action, I'll accept that. However, I would still like it if someone could do something about Mathsci's attempt below to hijack this thread into a complaint about me, and in the process evade the requirement of notifying me on my userpage the way he would have to do if he were posting a thread about this issue normally.  As I pointed out in my comment there, this is the third time he's done this in an AN/I thread in the past month.  If you look at the two prior threads where this happened, you'll see that his conduct in both of them was fairly disruptive, particularly in terms of his series of personal attacks against Ludwigs2.  But nothing's ever been done to prevent him from continuing to repeat this same behavior in multiple AN/I threads. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein's wikiquette in that usertalk could use improvement, but an ANI thread with allusions to a block proposal is a bit much. Captain Occam seems a little too eager to provoke drama by bringing it here.  66.127.52.47 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was actually hoping for something more along the lines of a warning from another admin that if he feels he’s unable to work collaboratively with other users on this article, it would be better for him to leave the article alone for a little while until he feels differently about this. I’m well aware that over the past several months, Slrubenstein’s contributions to this article have been more positive than negative, so I think I agree that a block would be excessive. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your proposal of "a warning from another admin" implicitly implies you want a threat of sanctions. If you just want someone to suggest Slrubenstein try to dial it back and/or take a break, anyone can do that, not just admins.  I thought of leaving Slrubenstein a note but decided that it's enough if he looks over this thread and takes in the issue.  The suggestion that Slrubenstein is having trouble working collaboratively seems to carry a presumption that the edits he's objecting to constitute meaningful collaboration themselves.  Given Mathsci's report, without knowing more, I'd say that presumption is not necessarily a done deal. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * “The suggestion that Slrubenstein is having trouble working collaboratively seems to carry a presumption that the edits he's objecting to constitute meaningful collaboration themselves.”


 * My saying that was intended only as a paraphrase of Slrubenstein’s own comment about me and Mikemikev: “I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article.” To me, his saying that sounds like an expression of unwillingness to work collaboratively, but perhaps I should have been clearer what I was referring to. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A quick note on the actual issue. Of the above diffs, much of the language was not IMHO inappropriately uncivil.  The only language that gave me pause was: a) "or that you are a crappy scientist). […] Apparently you do not understand even this simple sentence.”; and b) "They are charlatans".  And even those two, in the broad scheme of things, and under the circumstances, might not trouble me.  Without delving deeply, I'm unsure.  At the same time, sysops especially are supposed to model good behavior for everyone else.  If Slrubenstein were to make an appearance here, and say he apologizes if his colleague was offended, and didn't intend to offend him, I would be happy to consider this case closed -- and I hope that Captain would agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say calling someone's actions "trolling", unless it is demonstrable, a personal attack. Doing so out of disagreements with another's viewpoint would certainly cross the line of exemplary behaviour expected of an Admin. I'm sorry, but I agree that JzG's back-scratching is pretty lamentable too. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that Slrubenstein was getting pretty frustrated with some perceived non-consensus edits and the flow of some of the talk page discussion, but don't agree with him that this causes permanent damage to the encyclopaedia or that there is some sort of crisis brewing which requires such strong and emotive personalised language. Wikipedia editors are often not experts on all (or even any) areas of the subjects they are editing, and this is particularly true when subtleties of statistics and nebulous concepts like race and intelligence are involved. With time and patience, all these issues can be explained and ironed out in the article. He's fully aware of his own frustration, but I don't believe he has misused his admin authority here. If Slrubenstein could lower his expectation of the knowledge of his protagonists, but increase his willingness to communicate his knowledge uncritically, we could take a slower but surer path to resolution. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Captain Occam, I don't know the background to this and it's a lot to read, but in general if Slrubenstein is getting frustrated in this way there's a reason for it, because he's a good editor. That's not to give him a free pass, so please don't anyone else misunderstand that. It's simply that he does tend to know what he's talking about. Captain, I don't know whether you yourself have an academic background in this area, but it's the kind of subject that's difficult to write about without knowledge of the scholarly sources. That could be the source of Slrubenstein's frustration. Sticking closely to the very best sources is often enough to resolve these things. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have refrained from commenting up to now because I am concerned about turning this page into an extension of a conflict on another page. This is my perception of events: I have long believed that racist editors (often SPAs or "very few purpose" accounts) have sought to hijack certain WP articles in order to push their views, often under the cover of fringe science. Race and Intelligence is one such article. Now, we had a lengthy (four months?) mediation in which I thought I was consistently civil, and under the mediator's guidance sought compromise with all participants of the mediation regardless of my prior experiences with them. The mdiation ended with David Kane revising the R&I article based on points of consensus. Within a day, Mikemikev2 and Occams Razor started changing it.

The specific issue had to do with regression towards the mean. This is a statistical phenomena one inds any time there is a bivariate distribution (i.e. most scores are close the thg average, but some are above it and some are below it). Mike and Captain kept adding material stating that this is caused by genetics, so when it occurs with IQ scores it is proof that the reason blacks have lower average IQ than whites is, they are, as a group, naturally less intelligent than whites. Racism aside, this misrepresents the science, and the way they wrote it violated NPOV and NOR.

The mediation is over. I participated in the mediation in good faith, and thought we had achieved a workable consensus accommodating multiple perspectives. But as soon as the mediation ended, Mikemikev and Captain Occam referted to their SPA POV-pushing. I reverted to David Kane's original mediation consensus version.

Over time other editors have noted flaws in the aticle and I have made changes to the passage reflecting other people's comments - I just want to keep SYNTH and POV violations out.

I actually am aware of my own anger about edits that violate a mediation consensus, and are made in a way that show an utter disregared for collaborative editing - Mikemikev and Captain Occam have never modified their edits to respond to concerns I have voiced on the talk page. I actually went to the mediator to express my concerns, not only over their edits but over my behavior. Please note that Captain Occam provides this edit-dif above, but misrepresents it. He states, aboe that this comment was "Directed at both me and Mikemikev." Not true, it was directed at Ludwigs2 the mediator, an in the comment I explicitly said that I was considering dialing back my involvement in the Race and Intelligence article because of how angry I was, watching Captain Occam and Mikemikev push back into the article things that we agred to take out in mediation.

Many of you might think that, if there is solid science saying Blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites, well, we need to say that in articles. Let me remind you of NPOV: we have to present this as a view, not as the "truth." Moreover, there are many scientists who tak issue with this claim, this is by no means a consensus among scientists. Yesterday, I began to involve myself in a new argument on the talk page, about whether or not to include the views of Stephen Jay Gould. Gould was a Harvard biologist and one of the leading experts on evolutionary theory, and published a book examining claims that certain races are intellectually inferior to others has a biological basis. Mikemikev, Captain occam, and Distributive Justice have been fighting to keep this source out of the article. It looks like any view that questions their view will be excluded. This to me is edit-warring. And yes, when we are talking about whether blacks are inherently inferior to whites, I think the stakes are high and we better get the science right and be fanatic about complying with NPOV. When a group of editors disregard these concerns, it does make me angry, and I am glad I went to Ludwigs2 to have an honest discussion with him about it, and I am trying to restrain myself. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi SL. It is, of course, where one or more editors view the stakes as being high that emotions tend to run the highest, and civility finds itself most at risk.  I don't think the issue on this page is "who is right".  But rather, whether the involved editors can comport themselves in a civil fashion, within the wiki civility requirements.  Some of the editors on this page feel that some of your language (though not all of that cited) may have approached or passed the border of acceptable communication, and been somewhat short of what is expected of an admin.  Would it be possible for you to apologize if your colleagues were offended?  If that were the case, I for one would be happy to consider this case closed.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, two points:


 * 1: Let’s keep the discussion here to user conduct, rather than rehashing content disputes here. There’s already a lengthy debate on the article talk page about Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity (which is what this issue is about), and whether what Arthur Jensen and Richard Nisbett have written about it as it pertains to IQ scores should go in the article.  Since the discussion of Galton’s Law as it pertains to IQ is in the source material from both sides of the debate about this topic, it’s questionable whether we should be second-guessing the validity of the source material like this, but either way that’s not what we should be discussing here.


 * 2: If you look at the discussion during which we were first coming up with the article outline, you’ll see that consensus actually supported the inclusion of this line of data, although we didn’t add it to the outline itself because we weren’t sure which section of the article it belonged in. When Muntuwandi proposed his own version of the outline, not everyone agreed that this point should go in his own version of it, since his outline wasn’t data-centric.  But for the outline that we ended up using, the data-centric one proposed by Varoon Arya, multiple users agreed that it should cover Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity and how this applies to IQ scores, and nobody raised a problem with this until we tried to actually add it to the article.


 * However, even if you were right both that Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity had nothing to do with genetics and that there was never a consensus to cover this topic in the article, that still wouldn’t justify your personal attacks against me and Mikemikev. It’s easy to point out that you disagree with a piece of content without attacking the user who added it.


 * “Mikemikev, Captain occam, and Distributive Justice have been fighting to keep this source out of the article. It looks like any view that questions their view will be excluded. This to me is edit-warring.”


 * I should point out that before the article was protected I had reverted it only once during the previous two days, while you had reverted it four times within the past 24 hours. For me to be disputing on the talk page whether Gould’s views on IQ are notable enough to belong in the article, without editing the article itself, does not fit Wikipedia’s definition of edit warring.  That’s just a normal content dispute, and the only problematic thing about the way I was expressing my viewpoint about this topic was the fact that I disagreed with you.


 * I think you need to recognize the fact that there’s a legitimate scientific debate as to what’s causing the difference in average IQ scores between races. Not everyone who thinks that genetics are contributing to it is necessarily a racist; they may just interpret the data differently from you.  One of the things we reached consensus on in the mediation also is that this viewpoint does not meet Wikipedia’s definition of a “fringe theory”, so I don’t think you should be implying that it does.


 * Epeefleche: If Slrubenstein apologizes to me and mikemikev for being uncivil towards us, and agrees to make an effort to avoid this problem in the future, I would be happy for this thread to be closed. In fact, because of Mathsci’s effort to convert this thread into a complaint about my conduct in a separate article, I would prefer that this thread be closed before it drifts any further off-topic. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that would go a long way to resolving this issue, perhaps long enough for the content disputes to be resolved amicably. I would also suggest that, as a further gesture of goodwill, you commit to take more account of comments from Slrubenstein. You have seen here he is generally respected as an editor. I have noticed that on technical issues, his understanding is often similar to mine, and these have included some matters of mathematical fact rather than opinion. And the list of participants Slrubenstien mentioned above includes someone who seemed to reject my reasoned argument with little attempt to understand it, and when Slrubenstein supported me, you opposed him seemingly on an unrelated point to my original point. Focussing on points of agreement first is often a good way forward - the differences may become less relevant later on, saving much energy which would otherwise wasted on irrelevant battles. My general preference is not to ban anyone, but for everyone just to step up their level of awareness by a level or two. Ironically, there is an editor who seems much more disruptive working on the article at the moment who hasn't been mentioned once, and other editors working quietly away without incident, which suggests there is a lack of trust and respect between the participants is the root of this issue. I would like the participants to resolve this underlying issue, because having editors coming from different sides is important, particularly for articles like this. I might also point out that several people feel that they are the aggrieved party here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's worth anything, I would like to express some opinions. I am currently involved with him at Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence, where we are discussing the validity of the article. In the past I would check up on articles like race and intelligence and such, and he is of course a regular contributor to those kinds of articles, so he has a level of expertise on the subject. I respect his opinions and viewpoints on various subjects relating to this, although I don't know what his biases are, and as everyone is human, humans have biases. From what I've seen of his interactions with various users over the long course of me checking those articles, he is sometimes combative with some users, and "bites the newbies" which is unfortunate. Personally I don't agree with Guy's opinion that SLrubenstein needs to be "backed" simply because he has been here longer, and then throwing a warning at Occam. That seems more like favoritism than anything else. ScienceApe (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Request of community topic ban for Captain Occam

 * History of the race and intelligence controversy
 * History of the race and intelligence controversy

My editing history is in mainstream articles in the arts and science. In order to restore some order to Race and intelligence, I wrote History of the race and intelligence controversy based on impeccable secondary sources in the history of psychology. I used all mainstream historical accounts available and looked carefully for these. The article is neutral and accurately represents the sources, academic experts on the history of psychology.

There are a number of POV-pushers active on Race and intelligence. The most extreme of these is Captain Occam, a WP:SPA who seems determined that wikipedia should unduly represent a minoritarian point of view. I don't have any particular point of view myself and tried to write the history from history books that gave lengthy historical accounts of research into race and intelligence. There are a fair number of other supporters of the minoritatian point of view active on the R&I page. When I wrote my neutral history, as best I could, simply summarising and shortening the sources, I was not selective - no cherry-picking, etc. Just what the sources said, no extra commentary by me.

However now Captain Occam has decided that he doesn't like the article and has posted messages on the user talk pages of some of these other editors as well as Ludwigs2. These editors have appeared at the talk page of the article and some at the entry I wrote on the NPOV noticeboard. They have not said anything cogent so far. They want to rewrite the history using primary sources and have even suggested bizarre conspiracy theories concerning Marxist historians, environmental historians, but all just their own peculiar point of view. They seem to be suggesting that a large number historians of psychology, in particular all those that have written on the topic, are biased and misrepresenting events. They write this as a simple matter of fact without the slightest attempt to justify themselves. No book reviews confirm this eccentric point of view, so this kind of argument seems just to have made in order to be disruptive and waste time.

Captain Occam has orchestrated an onslaught onto a neutral and well-written article. He has been WP:TAG TEAMing, leaving messages for multiple like-minded editors to message-bomb the talk page. They have not produced any cogent arguments, just vague trolling comments, quite unlike any criticism I have seen of any other article I've written - and I have written a wide range of mainstream articles. Varoon Arya and Captain Occam have even discussed tiring me out. That is of course one of the main objectives of civil POV-pushing.

The disruption is apparent on Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy where I've supplied diffs of Occam's messages to other users requsting support on the article talk page. This seems to be a deliberate attempt to bully/tire out/confuse a normal experienced editor. Captain Occam seems to be doing something similar above to another user. I therefore suggest that Captain Occam be given an indefinite community ban on all wikipedia articles and their talk pages related to race. Mathsci (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose "Seems to be", as expressed twice in the last paragraph, is not good enough. Suggest a RFC/U, if you feel it appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are some of the diffs. ,,, ,  As I say, I have a lot of experience editing and creating  articles on wikipedia and the laws of probability do not suggest that I would at any stage create a non-neutral, improperly sourced article in the light of all my other contributions. Most of the history section of Europe for example was  comprehensively rejigged by User:Hemlock Martinis and me a while back using multiple sources. Captain Occam - as Guy says above - is a dedicated POV-pusher and single purpose account who seems intent on spreading disruption. These diffs seem like an attempt to sabotage a quite normal article; I'm not quite sure what his precise objection is except WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a general WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset in his edits. Mathsci (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for context, my impression is that there is a group of editors on WP determined to give undue weight to research conducted by a small number of hereditarian researchers. As explained by academics from UCLA and Yale University in this source, there are only a few researchers in this particular area, which would neutrally be called "group differences in intelligence". What is clear from the history - at least all the sources I've seen - is that the hereditarian side periodically proposes a new version of their theory which is then commented upon, often in popular science books and academic book reviews, by eminent academics in related fields. Historians of psychology have chronicled how in the late sixties and early seventies political unrest amongst students spilled over into some rather ugly events involving physical violence or threats against academics. In the history article I don't give a point of view but just summarise what historians have written about contemporary reaction. I was slightly surprised that I could find good sources covering the whole period. My neutrality extended to omitting any specific mention of the well documented racist aspects of the Pioneer Fund, which supports much of the heriditarian research. Mathsci (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."


 * Mathsci, this is the third time in the past month that you've evaded the second requirement for posting here by ignoring the first requirement, and piggybacking one of your complaints about a user on top of an unrelated thread here. The previous two times are  here and  here.  Could an admin please do something to keep this thread on-topic? --Captain Occam (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, it is fundamental to Wikipedia dispute resolution that people who initiate DR actions (like you did here at ANI) automatically make their own conduct part of the subject, which means they can end up on the receiving end of sanctions. And yes, the header you quote advises people to work grievances out in userspace before bringing them to ANI. However, since you've already brought the matter here, centralization to this thread is appropriate per WP:DRAMA, so Mathsci's weighing in on it here is fine. Wehwalt: Mathsci does present some diffs (that at least establish canvassing) at the talkpage he cited, but if he is serious about a ban discussion, it would help if he incorporated the diffs directly into his report. I can't bring myself to pay attention to the R&I battle even though some very good editors are involved, so I don't have any particular views about past editor conduct in it. In general, though, it's better to dispose of clear-cut problems at ANI, and reserve more tedious processes like RFCU for cases complex enough to need it. So if Mathsci is claiming this case is clear-cut, it could help if he presents some more documentation here in the hope of getting the problem resolved more efficiently. (Captain Occam is of course entitled to do the same, although it looks to me like he's already given his best shot). Given how long the conflict has been active, though, it's probably headed towards RFCU and/or arbitration. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with what Mathsci is doing here is that my report had nothing to do with him, or with the article in which he’s complaining about my conduct. (He’s complaining about my conduct in history of the race and intelligence controversy, while my report was about Slrubenstein’s conduct in race and intelligence.)  If you look at either of the two linked AN/I threads that Mathsci turned into complaints about Ludwigs2, in those cases Mathsci’s complaints had even less relevance to the original topics of the thread.  In one of these two cases, the user Hans Alder closed the thread with a comment explaining the problem with what Mathsci was doing: “This page has a notice above that says: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." The present thread has been hijacked by a user who is ignoring the first sentence, and by piggybacking on an almost completely unrelated thread is also circumventing the second sentence.”  As can be seen in this edit, Mathsci responded by reverting Hans Alder’s closure of the thread.


 * As far as WP:CANVASS is concerned, I left comments on the userpages of three users, which I think falls within the limits of what’s considered a “friendly notice”. My comment for Varoon Arya did not mention either Mathsci or the history of the race and intelligence controversy article, but was only to let him know that mediation for Race and intelligence was now over and that he might want to pay attention to how things have changed in that article.  My comment for DJ referred specifically to the history article, but was neutrally worded.  In both his case and VA’s, my criterion for contacting them was that they hadn’t been very active lately, and I wanted to make sure they were aware of the recent developments that had occurred with these articles.  The only one of my comments that I could see Mathsci reasonably taking issue with is my one directed at Ludwigs2, but I think it’s important to bear in mind that Ludwig was our mediator for the race and intelligence article for several months, so all of us often come to him for advice about user conduct.  Several other users have come to him with other complaints similar to this, Slrubenstein included.


 * There’s a lot more I could be bringing up about Mathsci’s conduct that I consider problematic, particularly involving his behavior towards Ludwig in the two linked threads, but I’m not sure if this is the appropriate place for it. Is that something we should be discussing here? --Captain Occam (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're having a centralized discussion of this bunch of related issues, then yes, put everything here for now. (That is consistent with what Mathsci did).  If it gets too messy, it may have to move to an RFC per Wehwalt's suggestion.  I also understand that Medcom can refer failed mediations directly to arbitration, though I have no idea whether that's appropriate here.  Whatever venue is used, the idea is to keep all the drama in one place at any given time. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All right. I suspect that Ludwig will have more to add about this, but for now I’ll start with an explanation of the history of this issue.


 * When the race and intelligence article entered mediation last November, Mathsci was one of the users involved in the mediation case, but he dropped out of the mediation case early on. (This was before Ludwigs2 took on the role of mediator.)  And so the mediation case proceeded without him, although there were still several other users involved in the mediation case who shared Mathsci’s opinion about this topic, such as Aprock, Muntuwandi, and Slrubenstein.  Around four months into the mediation, in  an unrelated thread at AN/I (from Muntuwandi complaining about incivility from TechnoFaye), Mathsci showed up and began a sub-discussion claiming that Ludwig wasn’t handling the mediation case properly.  That in itself wouldn’t have been a problem, except that every time Ludwig invited Mathsci to participate in the mediation and offer his suggestions about how it could be improved, Mathsci repeatedly refused and just kept trying to shut down the mediation case via AN/I, or get Ludwig blocked for mishandling it.  The discussion about this can be seen in the linked thread.


 * From there, Mathsci’s complaints devolved into a series of personal attacks against Ludwig, most of which involved bringing up of irrelevant past conflicts and which continued into the second AN/I thread. Here are some of Mathsci’s comments from the first thread that have been directed at Ludwig:    Remember, these comments were in a thread about incivility from TechnoFaye; what Mathsci was bringing up was completely off-topic there.  Later on in the same thread, when a new editor (Cryptofish) showed up to express their opinion, Mathsci started a new discussion in the same thread about his suspicion that this user was a sockpuppet.  And as I mentioned before, when Hans Alder closed this thread based on the off-topic nature of Mathsci’s complaints, Mathsi reverted the closure.


 * Mathsci’s hostility to Ludwig has been near-constant since this point, although I’d prefer to wait for him to explain this himself, since I’m sure he’s been paying closer to attention to it than I have. The most recent problems I’ve had with Mathsci are on  this article and its  talk page, where he’s engaging in WP:OWNership.  Several users (me, Mikemikev, David.Kane, Varoon Arya and DJ) have raised NPOV concerns about this article, but Mathsci has reverted most of our efforts to improve this article without any effort to justify it on the discussion page.  After the NPOV complaints about it on the talk page were already well-established, Mathsi removed NPOV the tag without providing any justification of doing so on the article talk page.  When I added it back, he then removed it a second time, again without any discussion, this time with an edit summary that threatened all of the users who were raising these NPOV complaints with being blocked.  After he reverted my adding of the tag a third time, while also reverting an edit from David.Kane, he self-reverted when I warned him on his userpage that he was edit warring.


 * Along with WP:OWNership, the primary problem with Mathsci in this article is that even though there are five users who disagree with him about it, he does not feel that he needs to justify his edits to any of us. He’s said this himself, when I complained to him about his unwillingness to discuss our NPOV concerns with any of us:  “I am completely unwilling to waste my time on any discussions beyond the material on specific pages in the sources I have used or other secondary sources for the history which satisfy WP:RS.”  As a result, when other users have brought up their justifications for wanting to edit the article or at least add back the NPOV tag, Mathsci has either ignored us or brushed us off, as in this comment to Varoon Arya: “Sorry, what you write is nonsense. Please stop wasting my time.”


 * Obviously there’s nothing wrong with Mathsi feeling this way about another user’s comment, or even (possibly) with mentioning it. But if this sort of comment from him is the only type of response he’s willing to give to editors’ raising NPOV concerns about the article, then he shouldn’t be reverting other users’ edits when they try to improve the article, or keep removing the NPOV tag when other users add it.  Part of WP:BRD is that when a user is reverting an article, they’ll be willing to discuss it with the users making the edit and work towards a compromise; if Mathsi isn’t willing to do this then he shouldn’t be reverting.


 * While I was not intending to suggest in my initial post here that I supported a block for Slrubenstein (I think a warning about civility would be enough), I would support a topical ban for Mathsci on race-related articles. His personal attacks against other users, bringing up of off-topic accusations in AN/I threads, and WP:OWNership of the R & I history article have all been disruptive.  During the time since he became re-involved in these articles around a month ago, I have seen very few constructive edits on them from him.  Searching through the archives of this noticeboard, I can also see that the past month isn't the first time Mathsci has engaged in this sort of behavior on these articles.


 * Ludwig, I would appreciate you filling in some more of the details about how Mathsci has behaved towards you; I’m leaving out a lot of that because I know you can describe it better than I could. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like Ludwig isn’t interested in providing more examples of the behavior I’m describing from Mathsci, so I’ll find the rest of them as best I can on my own.  Here’s one, in which Mathsci was refusing to accept Ludwigs2’s right to refactor his comments on the mediation talk page for race and intelligence, although Ludwig’s right to do this was something we all agreed to as part of the mediation.  Even though Mathsci had agreed to this also when he signed into mediaiton, he threatened Ludwig with being blocked if Ludwig did this in his own case, and then brought it up at AN/I.  (By hijacking an unrelated thread; this was the second AN/I thread that I linked to.)


 * There’s also this personal attack against David.Kane. “David Kane's editing is a disappointment. He seem to be POV-pushing and does not appear to be respecting any editing WP editing rules. […] He seems to be wasting everbody's time by suppressing and inventing facts to suit his purposes/ I have never seen worse editing in my experience on wikipedia.”  After this comment from him, I warned him on his userpage about not making personal attacks like this, although it obviously didn’t have much of an effect.


 * I probably haven’t been paying as close attention to this as Ludwig has, so I may mention additional instances of this sort of behavior as I find them. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support ban I was going to propose this myself when I first saw this thread a few hours ago, but wanted time to catch up on a debate I have been less than half following. Edit warring, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, POV-pushing, disruptive single purpose account &c. - I would not have chosen tag teaming as the main issue this editor has with Wikipedia norms, but I concur that it is about time we tried something new. I would like to try a ban just from Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy but not their talkpages or the mediation, but I could be convinced of the necessity of a broader action. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Needs more evidence and discussion - I am highly concerned about the article right now, from having taken a quick look, but we need more uninvolved admins / editors to review and analyze in more depth. I believe that going for a topic ban at this point, without sufficient evidence presented, is premature.  I am afraid that the comments by Mathsci may be correct, but it's a complicated situation, and we should not prematurely intervene.  I agree with others above that Slrubenstein may not have been entirely polite at all points; it doesn't seem actionable, beyond at most a reminder.  In light of the possible issues with the article it deserves handling with care.  I don't think Guy's comment helped; AGF and Defend Each Other are important, but all experienced admins eventually do something wrong, and we don't get passes on it when we do.  We don't hit each other with mallets, either, but we have to be willing to entertain the possibility that we or our compatriots have erred.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't know what to say about this silliness, except that I'm a bit disgusted by the fact that Mathsci believes he can solve all of his content disputes by running to ANI and screaming at the top of his lungs to have his opponent banned. How many ban requests has he made in the last year?  anyone know?  at least three or four from my own observation...


 * Just a couple of days ago, an admin (in a different context) mentioned that administrators weren't babysitters. I'd like to think that's true, but if you keep coddling Mathsci's tantrums like this, you might as well hit up the foundation for $5 an hour and fridge rights, because this is a long, looong, loooooooong way from adult behavior.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Ludwigs2 came here as a result of this exchange with Captain Occam. He is sympathetic to Occam's POV-pushing and seems to be spending time enabling it. His comments above are inflammatory - "opponent", "screaming at the top of his lungs", tantrums" - I suggest that he redacts those words, as they read to me like personal attacks. I should also point out that, despite his eagerness to comment on how articles should be edited and giving the appearance of some expertise when requested, this unsourced stub is the only article he has created so far on wikipedia. In those circumstances, I've no idea why he thinks his opinions are of any value. The two of them are still planning my downfall.  Mathsci (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Mathsci, I am not sympathetic to Occam's position. I simply find your behavior reprehensibly childish, and since your behavior is a matter of observable evidence, I see no need to retract it.  but keep talking, it only proves my point.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Topic ban premature but warrants more admin eyes, per Georgewilliamherbert above. --John (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. Folks, look at Captain Occam's edit history.  His mainspace edits are to, , , , ... virtually every edit he has made to main space has been in this one narrow subject area, all advancing the same POV. He's been blocked three times for edit warring on race and intelligence, and  shows numerous incidents of crying foul when people push back against his POV. We have here a single purpose advocacy account on a contentious topic and I am pretty confident that this one editor is a major part of the stalemate in respect of the race and intelligence article.  A topic ban is more than warranted. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have I been violating any rules or policies here during the time since I was suspended for edit warring in January? I’m quite confident that I haven’t.  Guy, your comment makes it sound as though editing an narrow range of articles and having an opinion about how NPOV applies to them are in of themselves reasons for a block, but neither of these things violate either the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia policy.  In fact, the WP:SPA article makes it clear that being an SPA is not a policy violation.


 * I’ve attempted to justify all of my changes to articles via policy, and edited collaboratively with other users to the extent that it’s been possible. In this respect, my behavior over the past two months has not been any different from that of anyone else who has an opinion about how NPOV should be applied to controversial articles; and my conduct may actually be above average for users involved in this article because I haven’t been making personal attacks.  If you need someone else to verify this who’s been involved in the same articles that I have, I’m confident that any of the following five users would agree with what I’ve said here:  Varoon Arya, DistributiveJustice, Mikemikev, David.Kane, or Bpesta22.  (Unless none of their opinions are worth anything, because they’re all SPAs that deserve to be banned also?)


 * Your comment seems to be more an attack on my motives for editing here than anything related to my conduct. I can get into my motives for editing here if that’s really necessary, but aren’t discussions on this noticeboard supposed to be about user conduct rather than motives? --Captain Occam (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I find Slrubenstein's contributions useful, as he is clearly knowledgeable, and his arguments recently seem to revolve around accurate inclusion of mathematical facts. His explanations to Captain Occam have informed other editors too. But Captain Occam is not unreasonable to object to his treatment, which was not ideal, and getting second opinions on talk pages is better than coming here first. MathSci has shown little interest in engaging with me on the talk pages, and all I have noticed so far is his general dissatisfaction with the process set up by Ludwig2 - to the exclusion of any actual article points. I have only been looking into a handful of article details, and it hasn'tbeen apparent from the periphery whether there are two opposing camps or a more anarchic set of disparate views which trigger local disagreement. The controversial areas don't seem to be that related. I prefer the way User:Maunus is conducting himself (for example: ), and the work User:David.Kane is putting in. The editors in dispute might enjoy WIkipedia more if they could adopt some more of these cooperative techniques. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This is a hard article to work on but I have done my best. My feelings on the current dispute is that all three of MathSci, Occam and Slrubenstein have done good work on this article and have useful points to make. I wish that they would all play more nicely, both with each other and with other editors. Is there some magic button I could press to cause that? Alas, no. In any event, I think that having more admin eyes on this article serves a useful purpose. I don't think anyone should be banned. David.Kane (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban from article space of Race and intelligence and related articles. I note 3 blocks in the past for edit warring and one 0RR restriction, with 4 separate Administrators involved. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: A few of the people involved in this discussion have suggested that this thread should be about Mathsci’s conduct in addition to mine. Thus far, several users have commented on my own conduct, but none except Ludwigs2 and Stephen B Streater have commented on Mathsci’s conduct or the explanation I posted above of what I find problematic about it. Since the intention was for this discussion to be about both his conduct and mine, isn’t anyone here going to comment on Mathsci’s conduct also?

If our past histories of conduct matter here (which they apparently do, since a few users have brought up that I was edit warring on the race and intelligence article several months ago), I think this is pertinent also. Mathsci was not blocked for this even though it involved WP:OUTING, and the reason for that is mainly because he essentially chased the user whom he was harassing (user:A.K.Nole) off of Wikipedia with this behavior, so A.K.Nole could not stick around for long enough to continue pursuing his complaint against Mathsci about this. Another discussion about Mathsci’s behavior towards this user can be found here. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Captain Occam is factually wrong here. In fact two users have been wikihounding me, One, has been indefinitely blocked with several sockpuppets. Another, a now disclosed alternative account of A.K.Nole, has agreed to stop following my edts. This agreement was arranged off-wiki by Shell Kinney, who confirmed that wikihounding had taken place. In these circumstances it's a non-starter for Captain Occam to attempt to misrepresent events so grossly. Mathsci (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as I could figure at the time, A. K. Nole was a troll and probably a sockpuppet, with some kind of axe to grind against Mathsci. A bunch of related socks were blocked during the Abd-WMC arbitration if I remember correctly. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT appear to be the two most relevant issues here, and both refer to you. I have just read back over the various noticeboard reports on Race and intelligence since November 2009 and one username keeps coming up as being involved in WP:OWN, edit warring, POV-pushing, stonewalling, gaming the system, forum shopping and so on. That name is yours. At one point you were being reverted by ten other users! You've been blocked and sanctioned several times and yet, according to you, the problem is always all those other people. This is one of the most clear-cut examples of MPOV in my recent experience. I repeat my previous support for a topic ban, but let's be completely fair and extend it to include all single-purpose accounts on this topic. A complete list of such accounts appears at the moment to be you and nobody else, but I will be happy to have any others identified here (though not by you, I've had enough of your finger-pointing). Guy (Help!) 13:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Guy - I know you're a buddy of Mathsci's (which isn't a bad thing; it's good to have friends), and I am more than happy to admit that Mathsci is a good editor when actually gets around to editing, but even you can't perpetually overlook Mathsci's over-bearing behavior. He lies, he insults people, he's arrogant and supercilious, he reverts edits out of sheer petulance when he doesn't get his way, he runs to mommy/ANI to scream about all the bad boys who torment him.  He's a bright guy with (on wikipedia, at least) the emotional continence of an irritable 11 year old.  Now I kind of get that idea that - back in the bad old days of the Pseudoscience Wars - this kind of behavior was deemed acceptable in order to chase off Evil Editors from the Fringe Realm, so maybe it's just old wartime habits that he's having a hard time shaking off.  But he needs to shake them off - it's an uncivil nuisance.  Whatever Occam has done, here, Mathsci has done twice over; Mathsci may merit a degree of slack due to long service, but even so let's keep things in perspective.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a buddy of Mathsci's as far as I am aware, I do not know his real world identity so can't say for sure. I am, however, very firmly not a buddy of the agenda account Captain Occam, having read through some of the past and present complaints by and against him. As I say, his reaction to criticism seems to be "look what billy did". Guy (Help!) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Groan Captain Occam is the only editor to have had their content edits reverted by me on History of the race and intelligence controversy. Nice try, Ludwigs2. Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Guy: sorry, I just assumed from the way you stick up for Mathsci's irrationalities that you to had a relationship of some sort. I apologize if that's an incorrect assessment.
 * @ Mathsci: Groan all you like - I can dig up dozens of incidents where you did the same thing on other pages, and worse, so let's not engage in selection bias. I've got nothing against you, Mathsci, except for your problematic pattern of behavior.  If you'd play nice, I'd consider you one of the better editors on wikipedia, but your own actions subvert your effectiveness.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dozens of incidents? Diffs? The tone of these remarks constrasts with your cosy relationship with a  POV-pushing WP:SPA.  Your unorthodox/experimental approach probably explains why (a) editing on Race and intelligence has become so unstable (the article is at present locked), being primarlily based now on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, a gift-horse for POV-pushers and (b) why the article has become so unreadable, at least for me. Mathsci (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really want me to dig up diffs? I don't particularly want to hijack this thread into full-out critique of your behavior; I really just want you to recognize your own weaknesses and reign yourself in. But if you think that would be helpful, I will.  just say the word.
 * That being said, I'll point out that - again - you've based the entire argument in your last post (above) on childish name-calling. These so-called (by you) "POV-pushing SPAs" are in fact other editors who have a right to edit the article, so long as they abide by wikipedia policy.  Your constant, tireless efforts to win your arguments through vilification is about as un-wikipedian as it gets, and is one of the major factors that has inflamed tempers in the article.  You don't get to decide who is good editor and who isn't, and your insistence that only you can be correct is a major obstacle to effective editing.  Since you have become active on the page, the vast majority of your time and effort has been spent trying to get people banned, accusing them of being a broad assortment of unpleasant things, complaining because they aren't deferring to you as an experienced editor, and otherwise moaning and groaning that you don't get your way in every little thing you want.  Frankly, you lost the right to complain about the state of the page with your first move, when you decided that it would be better to run to ANI and demand to have me banned than to settle down and work cooperatively with other editors.  It took all of my skills as a mediator just to get you off of ANI and into productive discussion on the mediation page, and even that was only partly successful, since less than a week after mediation is over you're back here at ANI with the same old intransigent, supercilious muckraking.
 * Damn it, you're making me use big words.
 * Let's put it this way; I would dearly love to see you have conversations where you:
 * don't call other editors names, or try to label them POV-pushers, SPAs or whatever other 'villain-of-the-moment' you might dredge up.
 * don't threaten anyone with being blocked, banned or otherwise sanctioned.
 * don't insist that other editors need to listen to you because you're a better editor.
 * don't react with hostility and contempt when someone suggests your preferred version might not be perfect.
 * and finally, do actually listen to and work with people, even if you don't like or respect them or what they are trying to do. Almost everyone can be worked with, if you apply yourself to the task.
 * I know you can do it, because I've seen you do it on rare occasions. I would just prefer that to be the norm for you, rather than the exception.  Do you think you can do that? -- Ludwigs 2  00:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2, thanks for all this feedback, duly noted. Please could you now comment on the presence of POV-pushing SPAs currently editing Race and intelligence using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, would you please stop engaging in childish name-calling. As far as I'm concerned there are no POV-pushing SPAs - there's only a number of aggressively tendentious editors, and on a scale of 1 (reasonable) to 10 (tendentious) you and Occam both come in at about a 6.  That isn't the worst on the article, mind you, but still...  I think your black-and-white, us-and-them worldview is offensive and inappropriate to the project, and I reject it utterly. so drop it.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If that has been your point of view so far, then I think you probably are in line for an indefinite ban or block. Incidentally I have hardly edited the article and my few edits there have had consensus, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think any administrator or member of ArbCom would accept your claims that my editing is in any way similar to that of single purpose accounts like Captain Occam. Mathsci (talkof ) 22:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So, now you've progressed - no longer satisfied with mere childish name-calling, you've added threats of dire punishment and supercilious commentary on how sure you are admins and Arbcom would agree with you. that covers points 1, 2 and 3 I mentioned above, I think.  When I fail to respond to this in the way you expect, are you going to erupt (once more) with hostility and resentment?  maybe start a new thread about banning me?  You are incredibly predictable, Mathsci: That would be normally be OK, except I think you've swallowed your own line of self-serving patter whole hog.  Your earnestness spoils what might otherwise be tolerable.


 * Understand why I am calling you out on all this. It would be nice if you saw the problem in your own behavior and took steps to amend it, but all things considered I think that is unlikely. With that in mind, I want to make it very clear to everyone reading this thread the narrow-minded, grossly political nature of your perennial strategy.  You try to settle content disputes by stereotyping and marginalizing your opponents, and then by abusing and trying to corrupting policy and administrative practices to get your opponents in trouble (or at least frighten them into submission).  As you yourself admit, you have hardly touched the article at all, yet you are still here on ANI trying to slander your way to a content victory.  In truth, I'm no longer sure if you have any other tools in your editing toolshed, aside from slander, insults, and strident pleas to admins that they strike down your foes (yeah, I recognize the implicit, almost religious appeal to authority that runs through all your arguments, even if you don't - I have no doubt you'd sacrifice a ram to Jimbo Wales if you thought it would get Occam blocked).  It's unconscionable, and I want everyone to see it for what it is.  Are we on the same page now? -- Ludwigs 2  00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not try to improve this instead of writing rants?  Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Back to personal comments (point 1) - well, at least you're mixing up the order.   Thanks, but my user contributions are just fine; this isn't a competition. And frankly, I'd get a lot more productive work done if I didn't have to deal with editors (such as yourself) who throw hysterical tantrums whenever I make an edit to a controversial article.  That's happened to me at least four times in the last few months, though you've only figured prominently in the R&I thing.
 * I like editing off-beat articles, Mathsci. I understand the scientific perspective - there are few people on wikipedia who understand science in general better than I do, and you are not one of them - and I have a good grasp of the fringe side as well. That puts me in a position where I can flesh out nice, neutral articles on crazy ideas.  or at least I could, except for people like you who raise holy terror whenever I try.  Why should I have to fight off endless personal attacks, mindless reverts, and vacuous ANI proceedings just to make a couple of edits to a fringe page?  and yet, that is consistently what happens.  I swear, if I could get a short list of people (including yourself) topic-banned from fringe articles for 6 months, I could vastly improve a whole ream of articles quickly and efficiently, without any of this stupid drama.  Since that's unlikely to happen, I'll take the other route: I am simply going to continue shoving your nose in your own bad behavior until you can't stand the stench of it anymore.  The only question in my mind is how long it will be before you learn.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve admitted before that I used to have a problem with edit warring, not just for race and intelligence but at Wikipedia in general, because I was relatively new to it and didn’t yet have a good understanding of what sort of behavior was acceptable under what circumstances.  If the example during which I was reverted by ten other users is the same one I’m thinking of, it was around a year ago when I’d only been consistently active here for a few months.  During the time since I’ve begun participating actively, I think this problem of mine has incrementally improved, so that the more recent examples such as the one in January haven’t been as clear-cut as this.  And I think that even since January I’ve gotten better at knowing how to avoid this problem.  It’s now been around three months since I’ve violated any rules here, either against edit warring or anything else.


 * “I have just read back over the various noticeboard reports on Race and intelligence since November 2009 and one username keeps coming up as being involved in WP:OWN, edit warring, POV-pushing, stonewalling, gaming the system, forum shopping and so on. That name is yours.”


 * What are you talking about? You’re just making this up.  Before the current thread, there have been five recent threads at AN/I about this article, and the only one that focused on me was the one in January about me edit warring.  The other four— this,  this,  this and  this—either started out as conflicts between you, Ludwig and Mathsci or were hijacked by Mathsci in order to turn into that.  I got involved in some of them, either by commenting or because other users brought up the fact that I’d edit warred on this article in the past, but there’s no standard by which I’ve been the subject of more recent conflict over this article here than Ludwig and Mathsci have.


 * This isn’t reasonable. You’ve said in your first comment here that you’re a priori decided against me in this thread, based not on anything to do with the conduct in question but just based on my reputation.  And now, you’re pushing for me to be blocked based on this attitude, and misstating the recent history of this article here in support of that.  Could this issue please have the attention of someone who will judge it based on the particulars of the conduct in question, and the evidence that’s being linked to, rather than the reputations of the users involved? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see grounds for an AN/I complaint with those diffs, I dislike diffs personally as they tend to obscure what has gone one before. Looking at the preceeding edits I very much get the impression that they're intemperate comments forthcoming after a lot of provocation. Certainly not grounds for action against that user. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 14:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd like to offer my support of Occam. In my opinion he's a neutral and talented editor. I'm amazed that this witchhunt is going on for no apparent policy breach on his part. The thread was originally about the incivility of Slrubenstein, which I can confirm. Mathsci appears to derail these valid ANI threads with impunity. I am disturbed and curious. mikemikev (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Support proposal that further investigation and possible topic bans are required. From my reading of that talk page there does appear to be a tendency to bully/tire out editors leading to intemperate comments that are then used to call for sanctions against them.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 14:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I oppose witch hunts on Wikipedia, but I think all those criticised should take advantage of this opportunity to ponder the criticism given to them. It is not given out of spite, and as people can't see their own faults, this is a rare chance to see themselves as others see them, caricatured by the filter of their Wikipedia edits. Take active steps to change your behaviour even more than you already have. I'd like to see all the criticised people make one commitment to move forward to make things work better in future. And those who feel the temptation to WP:OWN this article should consider even more keenly the idea of enjoying new pastures for a couple of weeks. You may lose the battle, but you'll win the war - hopefully, being older and wiser, all on the same side by then. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephen - you forgot the link to the dramatic, uplifting music...  -- Ludwigs 2  21:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL - luckily I don't need links to hear music :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I approve of this suggestion. Given the comments here thus far, I doubt there will be a consensus for any action to be taken against me, Slrubenstein or Mathsci.  I still hope that some good will come of this thread, though, in that having the problems with our behavior pointed out by users who are uninvolved in the debates over these articles might make us more aware of what we should change about it.


 * In my own case, the two main criticisms that were raised are my past history of edit warring and the fact that I participate in such a narrow range of articles. In the first case, I’m well aware that I used to have this problem, and I’ve already been making an effort to remedy it.  As for being an SPA, I never intended for race-related articles to be the only ones that I edit, but the debates over these articles have been so involved and time-consuming that they’ve tended to suck up just about 100% of the time and energy that I’m willing to devote to Wikipedia.  I’m not sure what can be done to remedy this part of the problem, but once the race and intelligence article has been stabilized I definitely intend to make an effort to edit articles about a wider range of topics.


 * I think it would be beneficial if the other users being criticized here could also mention whether they’ve learned anything from this thread about their own behavior, and what they think it might be appropriate to change about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I joined this article relatively recently, but I wouldn't say that you in any way stood out as a particular problem editor, so your improvements must be working! Another advantage of editing additional non-contentious articles is it give you an opportunity to unwind, make new friends and learn interesting things about stuff you never knew you were interested in. (Of course, this applies to all editors.) Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I mostly sympathize with the ban supporters at this point. It's clear looking at Captain Occam's user page and his off-wiki site that it links to, and his participation on-wiki (such as here), that he has far too much appetite for advocacy and debate than is really desirable for our style of neutral editing, and that he engages in a lot of gaming and wikilawyering.  The goal here is to write exposition, not to debate (see also: Writing for the opponent).  Intervention (such as topic bans) in situations like this is often necessary, to prevent the debaters from burning out the expositors.  The essay Civil POV pushing also describes the problem.  I'm not exactly buddies with Mathsci but I'm an admirer of his mathematical writing and I consider him to be one of the better expositors on Wikipedia, so I don't want him to burn out.  66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A very nice, helpful Editor left me a comment, not too long ago. It seems fitting here:
 * Tea is good.  Mlpearc   MESSAGE  00:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban. Captain Occam is over-invested in issues of race, intelligence and crime with one particular point of view. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. Some time away from his preferred stomping grounds would be a good indication of why this editor is here, and might also be helpful in providing some experience in editing in a non-contentious situation.  Is he here to help build an encyclopedia or is he here to push a point of view?  It rather looks like the latter, but a topic ban would provide more evidence one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure if this is relevant, but a topic ban under these circumstances would probably make me frustrated enough with Wikipedia in general that I doubt I’d want to keep participating here. This has nothing to do with what articles I do and don’t care about; all it has to do with is the fact that I’m not violating any policies here, and haven’t for the past three months.  The argument for what’s problematic about my participation here seems entirely based on the fact that I edit a narrow range of articles, and have an unpopular opinion.


 * Of course I have an opinion—so does everybody. But what should matter in cases like this is that my actual goal here is to improve articles here in a neutral fashion, rather than to just introduce my bias into them, and I think my participation has been consistent with that goal.  RegentsPark mentioned race and crime in the United States as one article here I’ve been involved in, and it’s a good example of what I’m talking about.  Before I became involved in this article, it didn’t exist at all, but instead redirected to anthropological criminology.  But as a result of my and Varoon Arya’s involvement in it, it’s now a stable, well-sourced, and (as far as we can tell) neutral explanation of this topic that’s covered by courses taught in several universities.


 * If this sort of participation is not only considered POV-pushing, but is actually considered sufficient to warrant a topical ban, all I can say is that this site has problems that run far deeper than poor writing in any particular article or articles. I have serious doubts about whether I’d be able to remain motivated to continue contributing to an encyclopedia where these sorts of good-faith efforts to improve a narrow range of articles are considered worthy of a ban.  If the rest of you end up interpreting my giving for up this reason as meaning the only thing I ever cared about is introducing my bias into these articles, I guess there’s nothing I can do about that—you’d be wrong, but it would only be another example of my reason for feeling like the situation is hopeless. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SO what you're saying is that either you're allowed to keep pressing for your POV in the single subject area that has been pretty much your sole focus since arrival, or you leave? Do you see how that looks? Guy (Help!) 11:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is long. I'm an outsider with no interest in joining the wiki community (though so far I am impressed by all the time you guys put into it, and the good work that results). I was asked to give perspective to this topic as I have a few publications on IQ and one specifically on race and IQ.


 * You'd be hard pressed to find a more sensitive topic than this. Just mentioning the issue usually creates considerable tension. Trying to team-write an article on this, I figured, would be impossible.


 * I have though been quite impressed with the progress this article has made since I started (I guess late Feb?). I have not seen any site anywhere (in about 20 years of internet debate-- off and on-- on this topic) where a more balanced presentation of the issues are offered. That's a nice compliment.


 * I would like to express my support for Captain Occam. He's obviously interested in the topic, but I haven't seen anything-- even the above comments-- that suggest he should be banned from contributing here. As just one example, I thought the early history section was much much more neutral than the one mathsci produced. That's just my opinion.


 * I don't know how you police yourself, but banning any regular contributor to this topic -- now -- seems very extreme. May I propose that the rules of civility be underscored here and there again, and that further breaches would be punished. That levels the playing field for all, and lets all sides no that any further bickering will be punished. That might also save you from a long he-said/she-said thread of allegations from both sides.


 * So, my suggestion is to underscore the rules and then enforce them for all contributors there from here on.


 * Thoughts? -Bpesta22 (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So, this is one SPA supporting another SPA? Bpesta22's edits are all connected to "Race and intelligence". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair to the SPA, new users often start editing on Wikipedia in a topic they are familiar with. It's not until they reach a forum such as this that wider editing norms are pointed out, and a month is not an unreasonable time to come across something like this given that they are a SPA and so, by definition, will have limited experience of the wiki as a whole. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've noticed your comments on the talk page show expert knowledge. It would be nice if you could hang around there a bit longer. You could also check WP:COI if you haven't already. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How hard is it to change oneself? Pretty hard, in fact. But now consider how hard is it to change someone else, particularly when you have only wiki text to communicate. Much harder! So I suggest that to improve interaction here, editors should be looking for changes in the way they themselves work here. If people can't change themselves out of a conflict situation, some sort of arbitrary ban is inevitable, if only to fix the time-wasting symptoms of the conflict. So as we all agree with User:Beyond My Ken that the objective here is to make an encyclopaedia (actually the best one ever), and to build it eventually - everyone might like to consider any action they can take to ensure the quality and longevity of the edits to the articles. I also think editors and administrators have a responsibility to work for the enjoyment of other volunteers. They may be imperfect, but they're all we've got! Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban This is absurd. No diffs have been presented. You can't be banned for editing a small range of articles. End of story. Bring the evidence before the discussion starts. I will note that I looked through diffs presented by Mathsci, and they all look like this - Occam asking Ludwigs for help. That's it. Otherwise it's all rhetoric, which is really hot air. I will note that I am slightly involved in race and intelligence, but I've only added a ref to a study which found black IQs higher than whites . II  | (t - c) 07:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment These were requests by Captain Occam suggesting that link-minded editors become active a new article I had created: that's why there were included. Although several uninvolved administrators have already commented, it could be that it's worth examining his editing of race related articles in greater detail. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I was under the impression that witch hunting season was over with. Guess not. This thread is nothing more than a complete waste of space.  Caden  cool  22:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for period of one year; lets see if he can find articles in which he is less emotionally invested, less inclined to treat as battlefields. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Section break

 * Just trying to clarify people's positions here based on their comments, seeing it's been over 24 hours since the discussion began.
 * Wehwalt, GWH, John, StephenSB, Justin, mikemikev, ImperfectlyInformed appear to think a topic ban is a premature response and have given other feedback.
 * 2/0, Dougweller, JzG, RegentsPark, Beyond My Ken appear to think a topic ban is warranted/needed.
 * I'm not convinced that there is anything remotely resembling a consensus to restrict due to an insufficient amount of evidence for the various claims that have been tossed around, be it regarding the subject, Mathsci, Ludwig2, or anyone else. This is what usually happens when you make proposals without It's also hard to supply the necessary evidence if you're both a party to an article (i.e. directly involved in the content conflict) while trying to establish order as a third party at the same time.
 * Personally, I'd be all up for imposing measures on tendentious editing, but I cannot ignore the fact that it is not clear whether the problems being alleged are actually occurring. I too would suggest that the parties use RfC - an article RfC might be all that's needed to get some fresh perspective from users who aren't in any way involved with the topic or users involved. If all else fails, I'd suggest RfC/U, though I don't think it'd be necessary to go to that point in order to clearly establish the source of the problems for the benefit of the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist, your summary is helpful. I notice that some of those who haven't called for a topic ban have still indicated that there are enough apparent conduct issues to warrant further investigation.  Also, I think Guy's proposal was to ban all SPA's from the topic along the lines of the SPA remedy from the Scientology arbitration..  That remedy calls for a lower standard of evidence (judgement of an uninvolved admin that the SPA was promoting an agenda) than would be needed against a non-SPA editor in good standing, so additional diffs wouldn't be needed under that approach.  I don't think an article RFC is likely to help at this point, given the article's voluminous talk archive, the many previous mediations and ANI threads, etc.  If this thread doesn't reach some kind of consensus and the parties want to proceed to a more formal stage, RFCU is probably the next stop, where evidence would be presented more carefully, and this thread would serve as a prior attempt at DR before proceeding to it.  Those processes are a huge hassle so it's preferable to reach a conclusion earlier when possible. Issues related to Captain Occam (per several uninvolved editors) and those related to Mathsci (mostly per Ludwig) are basically separate, and one possible conclusion might be that both should edit other subjects for a while.  I do find Mathsci's approach to DR to be weird sometimes, and I could never understand why he'd get involved in a rathole like R&I.  On the other hand, Captain Occam indicated a desire to switch to other topics and stop being an SPA sometime in the future.  The obvious question is, why wait?  The best approach to wiki conflict is often to walk away.  One plea to Captain Occam: if you do this, it's best to choose a new subject that's not a perennial battleground.  Anything having to do with religion or human evolution (subjects mentioned on your user page) probably would be poor choices.  66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem, I have almost 7,500 content edits on wikipedia - 71 are to Race and intelligence. But, yes I actually agree with you (whoever you are), I have consciously stayed away from fringe articles except for commenting on sources. After this experiment - drafting a neutral lede and a new history section from scratch using mainstream sources - I have no intention of editing the main article again. From my background as an academic, I find it very hard to make any sense of either the current article as an encyclopedia article or of the bizarre way it's being edited. History of the race and intelligence controversy was a spin-off article based on material prepared on the mediation pages and created on the suggestion of another academic editor Slrubenstein, It was written in the standard way I write wikipedia articles (find good sources, write summary).  As far as I'm aware, I am not a single purpose account nor have I attempted to push any point of view. Any initiative concerning me should come from uninvolved editors and administrators, not users like Ludwigs2 and Captain Occam with vested interests. Mathsci (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification--I did not remotely mean to imply that Mathsci is an SPA. Mathsci is a very good contributor to multiple subjects that are generally much more reputable than the one currently under dispute.  I merely expressed puzzlement at why a good editor like Mathsci chose to get involved in a crappy subject like R&I.  But that's his prerogative. I'm not in a position to assess the conflict between Mathsci and Ludwig, or whether Ludwig has a vested interest.  I don't think it's very relevant to this ANI anyway.  It may have to be examined in more advanced DR if that occurs.  I do think Ludwig's complaints have a shade of legitimacy even if they're basically overblown, so Mathsci should take them under advisement. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If it matters, David.Kane, Ludwigs2 and Bpesta22 have all expressed opposition to a topic ban also. (For me at least, although it’s possible that Ludwigs2 supports one for Mathsci.)


 * With your regard to your question about why I’m currently just focusing on race and intelligence, I think I answered that earlier. Even though I’d like to be editing a wider range of articles, I also still care about race and intelligence and similar articles being improved, and the way it’s been for most of the past year is that keeping pace with the various disputes over these articles has required pretty much the maximum of what I’m capable of.  I have a lot of respect for editors such as Varoon Arya (whom I wish would comment in this thread) who are able to keep up with these disputes while simultaneously making useful contributions to unrelated articles, but I just don’t think I have that kind of energy.  Everyone has different limitations. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Without wishing to point fingers at any particular user, it seems to me as an outside observer that the articles are being held hostage by a group of editors with a particular POV in common. They are either consciously or subconsciously rejecting alternative POV they disagree with and that is disruptive and contrary to our policies.  This is an example of a form of disruptive editing that wikipedia finds hard to deal with and also respected wikipedians who find the experienve tremendously frustrating in trying to keep our policies of WP:NPOV to the fore front.  I believe that was the cause of the intemperate remarks alluded to above; although borderline most don't violate WP:CIVIL.  If I may suggest that the editors involved cannot resolve their differences, then they should voluntarily recuse themselves for a period, disengage and allow fresh editors to work on the articles unencumbered by the baggage that surrounds it.  All appear to have wider interests and focusing energies elsewhere could well be more productive use of their time.  If they can't agree to do that, then perhaps the community should be considering an imposed topic ban.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 09:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Justin's analogy of the article being held hostage. I will make no comments on the proposed topic ban, but I have raised concerns about the article on the mediation page here . In summary, the interest or even obsession that some editors have with this subject has become unproductive. After 6 months of mediation, countless talk page threads, over 74 archives, edit warring is still ongoing. Little is being gained and time and effort is being wasted. I would definitely recommend some action that will force editors to take a break from editing the article. Unless a paradigm shifting scientific breakthrough occurs, there is nothing that urgently needs to be edited into the article. Maybe a longer term protection or article probation would help stabilize the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don’t think it’s possible for someone who isn’t closely familiar with this article or its subject matter to accurately judge whether the majority of the users involved in it are “holding it hostage”, or whether most of us are complying with NPOV policy and it’s users such as Mathsci and Wapondaponda who are pushing their POV there. The reason I say this is because race and intelligence is a topic that is portrayed very differently among academics in peer-reviewed journals from how it is in the popular press.  (And there have been studies that specifically documented this fact, such as the  Snyderman and Rothman Study.)  The only other topic I can think of where this is true to a similar degree is Intelligent Design, which has a lot of popular support but is rejected by at least 95% of scientists who publish their research in peer-reviewed journals.  In the case of the relationship between race and intelligence, it’s the opposite of this:  the popular press almost universally rejects such a connection, but anyone who reads peer-reviewed psychology journals such as Intelligence or Personality and Individual Differences will see not only that the existence of a difference in average IQ between races accepted by the majority of experts in this field, but also that there’s also an active debate about what’s causing it.


 * For this reason, anyone who reads only the popular literature about this topic and none of the academic literature is unlikely to have an accurate idea of what is and isn’t NPOV for this article. One thing that I consider a good indicator of it, though, is the fact that a few of the users that Mathsci has been accusing of POV-pushing (such as Ludwigs2) have made it clear that they actually hold the same opinions about this topic that Mathsci does, and oppose his edits only out of concern for NPOV policy.  If it’s the majority of editors involved in this article who are the POV-pushers, rather than the minority of editors such as Mathsci and Wapondaponda, some of us would have to be pushing a POV that’s the opposite of what we actually believe.  That doesn’t happen very often, does it? --Captain Occam (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is that you're an expert and everybody else should therefore defer to you. You are this: wrong. Wikipedia does not work that way. The best way to deal with endless disputes is, historically, to topic ban those who are unable to accept anybody else's POV; such people quite often do consider themselves to be experts and sometimes they even are, but that does not mean they necessarily have a neutral view of the topic. The involvement of obsessive single purpose accounts almost always means either constant problems or (if they succeed in their usual aim of driving off everyone who disagrees) a gross failure of policy. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what he was saying at all. Are you an admin? mikemikev (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually ANI is not the place to discuss content disputes, so I won't argue about which side is right or wrong. My specific concern is that current obsessive interest in the article is now unproductive. A lot of effort is going in, including 6 months of mediation (even during part of the festive season), but we are not getting the equivalent in output. Currently the article is protected due to edit warring. Wouldn't our efforts be better placed contributing to other subjects or articles.
 * I do feel that the article is being held hostage. Captain Occam frequently makes controversial edits while claiming that there is a consensus for these edits, but he never consults editors who he knows fully well will disagree with his edits. In short, Captain Occam appears to sometimes feign consensus or exaggerates that amount of support for his proposals. I have specifically informed Captain Occam that such tactics are problematic, see this thread for one such discussion. Captain Occam has a very aggressive editing style and will exploit any technicality or opportunity to include his preferred material. Take a break from Wikipedia for a day or two, and you'll find that there was a "consensus" in your absence. Overall, I would say Captain Occam has contributed to an atmosphere of distrust and anxiety over the controversy and the whole experience has been quite stressful. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh, tough one. Anyone round here know if I'm an admin? Guy (Help!) 21:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you? mikemikev (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is. –Turian  ( talk )  22:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One technique I find useful if things risk getting heated is to restrict my edits to the talk page. People would usually rather explain themselves rather than risk a revert war if they have a valid reason, particularly if you haven't annoyed them first by reverting their edit. And if you are right, people will back you. Here's an example:. So if Captain Occam is editing with consensus on the Talk pages, then leaving other editors to actually make the edits will give equivalent results. If Captain Occam really believes this, he can make everyone happy by a voluntary cessation or slow down in article edits, and we can all go home. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephen, I do what you’re suggesting quite often. If you look at the revision history for the race and intelligence article, you’ll see that very few of the recent edits there are from me, and most of them that are from me are fairly minor.  Leaving it up to other editors to make significant changes apparently isn’t enough to stop certain people from accusing me of POV-pushing, though. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have clearly moved a long way. But that doesn't mean there isn't further to go. Unfortunately you now appear to be in a catastrophe theory situation: some people have flipped out of WP:AGF with you, and you have to go much further to change your reputation with them than if you had never gained it. It's not fair, it's human nature. And as you know, it's easier to change yourself than the others here, so it's down to you! (That applies to everyone, but as no one else is going to change enough, it's still down to you!) Stephen B Streater (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don’t think it’s likely that I’d be able to do anything to get Mathsci to assume good faith about me. The reason I say that is because I’ve seen how he interacts with other users who disagree with him, and all it really takes to get him to start threatening anyone with bans / blocks—or get him to make complaints about the person here at AN/I—is for them to interfere with him getting his way about one of these articles.  It doesn’t have to involve actually editing the articles; it didn’t in Ludwigs2’s case.  I think Ludwig can confirm that what I’m saying is right, if you need someone else to verify it, since he’s had to deal with a lot more of this than I have. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration
Mediation has gone past the self-imposed deadline imposed by the mediator, and long past the point at which several present and former participants wrote it off. The dispute shows no signs of dying down, the next step should probably be arbitration. I don't think we can fix this any other way (unless we start banning people, which does not appear to have consensus). Guy (Help!) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mediation for this article closed around a week ago because we’d resolved everything that we needed to resolve in it. At least 80% of the twelve users who’ve lately been involved in the article now agree that the direction it’s taking is consistent with NPOV policy.  (I can list who they are, if that matters; not all of them have been posting in this thread.)  A few of them initially weren’t able to agree with the rest of us about this, but as a result of the mediation we’ve been able to reach a compromise.


 * I completely oppose arbitration for this article. We’ve successfully used another dispute resolution process—mediation—to resolve the disagreements between everyone involved in this article except for a couple of users who are making a lot of noise.  (Mainly Mathsci, although Wapondaponda is guilty of this a little also.)  Arbitration would only be a waste of even more time than has already been wasted by these users’ forum shopping in an effort to change what consensus has already decided. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment To be blunt, I don't see either Mathsci or Wapondaponda as the issue here, the issue is one of WP:CPUSH, where certain editors are pushing a POV but their conduct whilst disruptive isn't violating policies such as WP:CIVIL. It is also giving undue prominence to fringe or peripheral issues.  If users aren't prepared to recuse themselves voluntarily then arbitration or an imposed topic ban is indeed the next stage.  Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 20:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin, are you going to address what I said above? I don’t think users such as you and Guy, who aren’t familiar with the academic literature about this topic, are in a position to judge whether or not this issue is WP:FRINGE.  (The consensus we reached in mediation, among people who follow this topic regardless of their position about it, is that it isn’t.)


 * What you’re raising here are primarily content concerns about the article, since they obviously wouldn’t be an issue if the consensus among users involved in the article were correct. But rather than raising these concerns on the article talk page, where we could discuss whether or not your interpretation of NPOV policy for this article is right and the consensus is wrong, you’re framing your problem as a user conduct complaint and complaining about it at AN/I.  And your user conduct complaint is based on the a priori assumption that the consensus is wrong, even though you aren’t willing to discuss on the article talk page whether it is or not, and as a result probably don’t have enough familiarity with the debate over this topic to be able to accurately judge this.  Do you see the problem here?


 * And if you don’t, does anyone else? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Raises hand. Yes, and it would be a very good idea for Captain Occam to (a) branch out to editing a wider range of topics, plus (b) try thethree week rule.  This type of stalemate has occurred many times at Wikipedia over the years (different topics, different editors, same dynamic).  Successful dispute resolution and successful editor development have a lot to do with stepping back, changing gears, and accepting feedback.  Durova  412 03:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again with the "if you were an expert like me you'd see I'm not the problem". This is Wikipedia, people don't have to be experts, you are the problem. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think RFCU would allow for more formal evidence presentation than has occurred in this ANI. That might be enough to reach more decisive conclusions than the ANI has been able to.  A number of the ANI participants have correctly observed that substantial factual issues are still in doubt.  That can only be resolved by a lot of tedious diff-gathering that ANI isn't such a good venue for. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A look at the warring in the various R&I articles leads to despair: from phrenology in the past to attempts in recent decades to use IQ tests to show "facts" they cannot, there have always been plenty of people wanting to conclude that blacks are dumber than whites (I believe that is the core of the current dispute). I doubt very much if arbcom will get involved because this is a content dispute concerning alleged POV and my sources trump your sources issues. I have no idea how Wikipedia can handle this, but due to its enormous volume, it is not feasible for an outsider to look at the edit histories and discussions and get any real idea of what is going on because each side makes some good edits (and plenty of edits that an outsider would find very hard to judge), and both sides are experienced and know not to breach WP:CIVIL. Would experienced Wikipedians please suggest some way to proceed (each side make an evidence subpage showing why their POV should prevail? each side make a draft of each article as they would like to see it, with an explanation from the other side why it not suitable? then an RFC?). Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Captain Occam's exaggeration of consensus continues. If there is a consensus as Occam suggests why has edit warring persisted after the mediation. The article was protected until yesterday (17th June 2010). But within less than 24 hours, edit warring has continued, and Captain Occam is involved. Considering what has been discussed in this thread, it seems that Captain Occam has not taken the comments from these threads seriously. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * “If there is a consensus as Occam suggests why has edit warring persisted after the mediation. The article was protected until yesterday (17th June 2010). But within less than 24 hours, edit warring has continued, and Captain Occam is involved.”


 * If you’ve been reading the talk page for the article, especially this section of it, it shouldn’t be so difficult for you to figure out what’s going on here.  Mustihussain added some detailed criticisms of Richard Lynn to the “test scores” section, which until now that had been just discussing the general IQ test score results, without getting into details about specific researchers.  (That part comes much later in the article.)  Since I disagreed with these edits, I explained in the linked section of the talk page why I thought they were a bad idea, and nobody tried to argue with me about this.  Two other users have also agreed there that these edits don’t belong in the article, and nobody has attempted to argue with any of us about it.  Since nobody is attempting to justify these edits, even when we’re explaining on the talk page why we disapprove of them and are making a specific effort to discuss them, it shouldn’t be a problem for us to revert them, right?  You’d think so, except that the users who approve of these edits (Mustihussain and Mathsci) are continuing to just reinstate the edits whenever they’re reverted, while refusing to cooperate with our efforts to discuss them.


 * At least 75% of the edit warring that happens to this article is in situations that are virtually identical to this. One group of people is carefully explaining why they disagree with an edit or edits, and another one or two users is refusing to participate in the discussion about their edits, and is just continuing to reinstate them regardless of what anyone has to say about them.  If you look at the revision history of either race and intelligence or history of the race and intelligence controversy, you’ll notice that I’ve always been in the former group (as I am in this case), and Mathsci has nearly always been one of the users who’s continuing to revert the article while refusing to cooperate with other users’ efforts to discuss his edits with him.  This is one of Mathsci’s signature patterns of behavior for both articles; I can provide diffs of earlier examples of this if anyone needs them.


 * It’s a maddeningly effective tactic, which must be why Mathsci uses it so consistently. Since it completely contravenes the idea of seeking consensus or compromise, it means that neither Wikipedia policy nor community consensus can make any difference in whether he gets his way with an article.  For people in my situation, who are trying to discuss his edits with him and getting ignored, there are only two options:  we can either let him make whatever edits he wants without ever discussing them, or we can revert his edits once we’ve made an effort to discuss them and he’s made it’s clear that he has no interest in participating in such a discussion, which results in us being accused of edit warring like you’re doing in this case.


 * Really, if you have any suggestion about how to better handle this situation, I would appreciate it. This applies both to you, Muntuwandi, and to everyone else who’s reading this thread.  Allowing him to always make whatever edits he wants without any discussion, regardless of consensus or Wikipedia policy, obviously shouldn’t be an option here.  Reverting his edits and risking an edit war is only marginally better, but are there any other options?  This is the administrators’ noticeboard, so it’s probably as good a place to ask about this as any.  I discussed this aspect of Mathsci’s behavior with Ludwig a few weeks ago, and he suggested that I should bring it up here if it continues, so here we are:  and advice or help would be appreciated. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's just Mathsci you're having trouble with, how would you feel about both of you taking a voluntary break from the topic? 66.127.54.238 (talk) (new address, was 66.127.52.47) 08:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mathsci has been causing more of the problem I described than all other users combined, but it’s probably inaccurate to say that he’s the only user I’m having this problem with. As I mentioned in my last post, Mustihussain is currently doing it a little also, and there are also other users who have done it in the past but aren’t currently involved in the article.


 * Even if Mathsci really were the only one, though, there’s another reason I’m reluctant to take a break from this topic right now. During the mediation case, we reached consensus about a certain number of changes that were going to be made to the article, and at this point only around three-quarters of them have been implemented.  David.Kane is currently working on implementing another of them, and in doing so is relying a lot on input from other users, myself included.  When he’s finished with this, I imagine that we’ll be doing likewise for the rest of the changes that we decided on during mediation.  There aren’t all that many people currently involved in the article who were also there during the entire mediation case, so I think it’s important for those of us that were to stick around and help keep the article on track during this process.  Once this is finished, and all we’re dealing with are these sorts of haphazard additions like what Mathsci and Mustihussain are trying to put into the article, I probably wouldn’t have a problem with taking a break from it if Mathsci agrees to also.  But we’re not at that point quite yet. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Captain Occam, you seem to always believe that there is a consensus when you and a few editors in your "camp" come to an agreement. In such a dispute, a consensus will exists when editors who have previously disagreed have reached a compromise. So do not exclude editors who disagree with you from your consensus. You seem to think that Mathsci or Mustihussain should be brushed aside. This is precisely why Justin argued that a few editors are holding the article hostage.


 * I have a suggestion, which I have mentioned before. Identify a stable pre-mediation version, protect it for six months and we can all have a much needed break. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. This has nothing to do with what the consensus is, and nobody’s being “brushed aside”.  (Except possibly the people who want to discuss revisions being made to the article.)  All this has to do with is following WP:BRD, which states that one person reverts another’s edit, both parties should discuss it and seek an agreement.  What we have here is one user (Mathsci) who is reverting, but refusing to participate in the “discuss” portion of bold-revert-discuss, no matter how much other users try to get him to do so.  Is that problem difficult to understand?


 * Reverting to the pre-mediation version is not going to solve this, and when you’ve suggested this on the talk page before now, almost everyone disagreed with you about it. Despite the disputes that are going on over minor aspects of the article, at this point around 90% of it is not under dispute, except possibly by you and Mathsci.  In order to find a version of the article from before mediation that’s more stable than this, we’d have to look back at least three years. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If the only stuff under dispute right now is "minor aspects" as you say, that sounds like it's time to call it an article.  Proposal: Protect article for 6 months on the version current as of this timestamp: 10:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC) (roll back any subsequent edits).  I haven't looked at the article in months so I have no idea whose disputed edits are in the current version, so that's as random a place as any to freeze it.   All disputing parties should switch to unrelated topics, not other articles in the same topic.  Captain Occam cautioned against tendentious and battleground editing, Mathsci possibly the same. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is a chronic problem. Because the subject is highly controversial, there is no permanent solution. Chronic problems cannot be "cured" but they can be managed. Many of the editors who have been sucked into this dispute are not WP:SPAs, but they are now devoting a significant amount of time and effort to this controversy. Protecting the article for a period of time will simply give editors the time to refocus their energies elsewhere and actually participate in improving the overall quality of this encyclopedia, rather than focusing on just one article. My preference would be a stable pre-mediation version because this was before the current flare-up. But I would leave that up to uninvolved administrators. At this point the most important thing is that many editors need to take break. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wapondaponda, Captain Occam has said this current version (let's say that means the one current as of my timestamp above, more precisely 2010-04-18T10:05:03Z) is the most stable. Does that work for you? It sounds like you're ok with it too. Mathsci has said "I have no intention of editing the main article again.". Unless someone else says there are major problems, let's freeze it. I haven't heard anyone saying earlier in the thread that the article is getting worse, so using the current version sounds plausible to me. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have a preference against it being locked. Even though I do think the current version of the article is more stable than any version that’s existed since 2007, we’re also still in the process of implementing some of the changes to it that we agreed on during mediation.  In other words, it’s in the process of becoming even more stable than it is currently, although rather slowly.


 * I think it would be unfortunate if we were unable to complete this process for another several months. By that point, most of the users who were involved in the mediation may have abandoned the article, in which case implementing the rest of these improvements might not be possible at all.  However, if there’s a strong consensus for locking the article, I guess I’ll accept the majority decision about this.


 * Isn’t there any better way than this to solve the problem of a couple of users who keep reverting the article while refusing to discuss their edits? Locking the entire article for several months because of something like this really seems like overkill. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As four uninvolved administrators have already mentioned, topic banning editors who have been blocked several times for edit warring on the article might help. Editors who continue to invite like-minded editors to assist them in POV-pushing  should probably also have their editing privileges restricted for continued disruption. Mathsci (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What POV is everyone except you pushing Mathsci? It's a pretty extra-ordinary claim. Isn't it more likely that you are pushing a Marxist POV, and everyone else is neutral? mikemikev (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Where does "marxism" enter into any of this? I hope Admin's will take note of this, because it is indicative of why MathSci has expressed NPOV concerns on the talk page about Mikemikev as well as Captain Occam.  How can you improve an article on race and intelligence if, whenever you insist that a reliable secondary source be used, you are accused of being a marxist?  This is clear evidence of disruptive editing.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know there was a Marxist position on the issue of race and intelligence - if there is it should certainly be mentioned described in the article. ·Maunus· ƛ · 19:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maunus' unhelpful wisecracks apart, Mikmikev's charges of a Marxist POV of view are just a ruse for disruption. Mathsci (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's a call to have you investigated and sanctioned. mikemikev (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're a single purpose account with 249 edits in total, 49 in article space, mostly related to Race and intelligence. You have suggested that because I used a history book published by Cambridge University Press and written by Adrian Wooldridge, Management Editor and columnist of the Economist and former fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, that I have a Marxist point of view. Wooldridge is not a Marxist historian by any stretch of the imagination. You are being deliberately disruptive. I assume if you continue making these far-fetched allegations and personal attacks you will be blocked. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article History of the race and intelligence controversy, written by you, is skewed badly in favour of a Marxist/Environmentalist POV. It doesn't matter which book you cherry picked from. Describing anybody who disagrees with you as a 'POV pushing SPA' is totally out of line. There are about 4 other editors who have raised the same concern on the talk page, and you're just arrogantly refusing to listen. I don't know why I'm even wasting my time talking to you, I'm just gonna get some sources and rewrite it myself. mikemikev (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I have summarised secondary sources in reputed publications by established academics without any removal of material - there has been no cherry picking as you call it. And again, writers like Ludy Benjamin or Adrian Wooldridge are neither environmentalists nor Marxists. Varoon Arya wanted the article do discuss the Marxist inclinations of Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Stephen J. Gould. A secondary source was found related to sociobiology and added to the references by me. The source concluded that Marxism played no role in the various scientific and public debates. It was discussed on the talk page and editors can continue to look through it for relevant material.


 * The main reason that you are being disruptive is (a) you never discuss or produce secondary sources (b) you are at present a single purpose account aggressively pushing a minoritarian viewpoint (c) you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and (d) you have blatantly lied in an inflammatory way about the neutral nature of my edits. In that way, you are quite similar to Captain Occam. Other editors on race and intelligence and the history article have welcomed my help in locating good secondary sources and sometimes making those available to other users on the website associated with my wikipedia email. Some of these have commented here. You would probably be indefinitely blocked if you follow the path you outlined in your last sentence.  Mathsci (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Multi-day section-editing only
I am too involved with this debate to be objective and too inexperienced an editor to be knowledgeable, but MathSci, Occam and Slrubenstein have all, once or twice, said something nice about me, so maybe this gives me credibility. ;-) I hate to see anyone banned and, although this article is a war-zone, it has been a productive war zone over the last 6 months. I think most everyone agrees that the article we have now is better than the one that we had in November. (Whether the amount of time/energy invested is worth that progress is debatable.)

Anyway, it seems clear that the worst editing/edit-warring occurs when editors just add a sentence or two (however well-sourced and WP:NPOV) and then other editors delete that sentence with not unreasonable complaints about WP:UNDUE or other issues. Then the fight begins. The best editing occurs when someone takes an entire section, redrafts it from start to finish, solicits comments from all concerned, incorporates those comments and then iterates. MathSci did a wonderful job of this in fixing (dramatically) the History section and I am doing the same in redoing the Assumptions section. So, dramatic progress on the article is possible. Suggestion: Instead of protecting the entire page (which prevents improvement) why not enforce this procedure on the entire article? We may not edit the article directly. We must take an entire section, redo it (including seeking new/better sources), solicit comments on the talk page, incorporate those comments, and, only then, place the new section in the article. Highlights: Again, I am involved in this dispute and inexperienced (a dangerous combination!), so feel free to ignore. But, at the same time, I have dived into the topic and recently purchased several books precisely so I could provide better sourcing. Give the committed editors --- meaning those willing to fix entire sections and seriously incorporate comments --- a chance and let us show you what we can do. David.Kane (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This allows good progress to be made, as MathSci did with history, while preventing the vast majority of pointless edit warring.
 * This would be easy to enforce. Just place the policy at the top of the talk page. If anyone edited the article without going through this process, one of the editors involved would simply revert it. (And, believe me, there are a lot of editors on this article who are good a reverting!)
 * This would discourage drive-by editors who just want to add their two cents without taking the time and effort to seek consensus.
 * This would encourage good editors, like MathSci, who honestly want to see the article get better and who are willingly to put in a lot of time and energy to do so.
 * These seem like very good ideas from David.Kane. Mathsci (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would seem one could combine this idea with the notion of protection. Lock the article, agree the entire content of a section on the talkpage, then one of the admins (doesn't have to be uninvolved, provided there's good faith on all sides) can unblock to load up the new text.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. I guess a list of typos will also be necessary. mikemikev (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * David's suggestion has to do with content issues, and ANI is not the place for handling content disputes. While I commend David for his optimism and idealism, I think we need to be more realistic. At the heart of this dispute is highly controversial, emotionally charged and contentious claim, that one race is inherently more intelligent than another. There are those who strongly believe this claim and those who strongly reject it. It is not possible to sugarcoat this controversy. Whether we use the talk page, mediation or any other editing system, it still comes down to this one controversial claim, and both sides of the dispute are not willing to give up an inch. If say it was possible to have an article that was in the middle of these two extreme positions, it would still leave both sides very disappointed and still willing to edit war to shift the article back to their preferred POV.
 * As I have previously mentioned, there is no long term or permanent solution to this problem. The article has been controversial for several years and will continue to be for years to come. All that can be done is to manage the controversy. The number of edit wars can be reduced by protecting the article and by giving editing restrictions to problematic editors.
 * I have to disagree with David's claim that the war zone has been productive. Since David wrote much of the current article, I don't believe he is the ideal person to state that it is better than previous versions. I have stated on numerous times that I would prefer if the article was reverted to the pre-mediation version. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. My proposal has nothing to do with content. It is simply a suggestion for new ground rules which would encourage productive editing. "As I have previously mentioned, there is no long term or permanent solution to this problem." How do you know that? You can see the future? You already know every idea that MathSci or Mikemev or I might possibly come up with? You know exactly what would happen in all possible scenarios? Surely you would agree that any idea that both MathSci and Mikemikev see as useful has a chance for success. Why not try it? What is there to lose? David.Kane (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been watching this article for a couple of years, what is going on now isn't very different from what has happened before. The same dispute, but a few new faces. Wikipedia does not solve problems that exist in the world. As long as the controversy exists in the real world, it will also exist in Wikipedia. MathSci, Mikemikev, you and I are just some of many editors who are interested in the article. Satisfying any one of us does not mean that the whole community of editors will be satisfied. You seem to believe that there is a nice way to deal with an unpleasant subject. Though you have specifically stated that you are agnostic, I still do not consider you as a neutral party in this debate. Captain Occam specifically wanted you VA, or DJ to write the article and nobody else. Captain Occam wouldn't recommend anyone who didn't in some way share his views. Your lack of neutrality is evident in your writing which is why I dispute the current article. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommend user conduct RfC
Threaded noticeboard format is not effective right now. Either this is a user conduct problem or it is a content dispute. If it is a content dispute it does not belong at this board. If it is a conduct issue then specific issues need to be clarified and substantiated with evidence in the structured setting of conduct RfC.

Please focus upon evidence of behaviors such as:
 * WP:SYNTH violations (if any)
 * WP:RS violations (using unreliable sources, and/or excluding reliable sources for frivolous reasons)
 * Personal attacks and/or incivility
 * Edit warring
 * WP:SPA (not actionable in itself, but often weighs in community decisions when other problems exist)

Procedurally, I offer to certify user conduct RfC on any of the editors who have been active in the dispute. Now let's mark this thread directed to another venue. Durova 412 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Durova, some wise person once observed that all Wikipedia disputes are content disputes at the bottom.  Staying in any dispute for too long, with too much intensity, is inadvisable conduct, and persistent enough inadvisable or unhelpful conduct eventually becomes a valid target of restriction even if it's not misconduct in its own right.   As others have noted, the main conduct issues with this dispute seem to be WP:CPUSH and obsessive editing, and action may have to be based on that.  The participants are pretty skillful by now at sticking to the letter of the more central editing policies.  Moving to RFC seems ok.  If Guy has a reason for preferring arbitration to RFC, he should explain it, since he may be onto things that the rest of us are missing.  66.127.54.238 (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If sources have been misused or if other solid conduct policies are actually being violated, then it would be counterproductive to continue negotiation. Durova  412 20:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think individual RfCU's would be particularly helpful here: however, I do think that an RfC on the editing around all articles related to race and intelligence might be helpful (there are quite a few). That could include user conduct where relevant.


 * I should point out that Durova has privately been emailing me - I'm not quite sure why. In my first reply she was specifically told about why History of the race and intelligence controversy was created and how it was sourced. I'm not suggesting that she's being a busy-body, but she has chosen not to mention this unsolicited off-wiki exchange. As a trained historian (a fact I mentioned in the exchange), she could easily have checked WP:RS and WP:V at a glance on that article. But instead, in volunteering herself as certifier, she seems now to be wilfully confusing established editors of long standing with single purpose accounts. That doesn't seem very helpful and might indeed lead to editors like me leaving wikipedia. I hope that was not her intention, but perhaps she could clarify herself. Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's good to have been able to interact with you constructively on this article recently. I think the Wikipedia editing process does involve some element of the convoy system, and it is best to slow down the controversial editing and share the educational workload through the talk pages to use our time most efficiently overall. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly any time people make constructive suggestions on content, as you did just recently about a book review by Nicholas Mackintosh, that is helpful and useful. Mathsci (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the fundamental cause of the problem here is that Wikipedia has still not recognized the need to have a SPOV policy for articles on scientific topics which would mean that they will have their own versions of the core policies like RS etc. In most science articles we don't see problems as the editors can agree with each other. But in case of politically charged subjects you get SPAs who will do their best to get their views edited in the article. When that happens, the existing policies are not good enough.

You can then then blame those specific problem editors here, just like User GoRight was blamed for creating trouble on the climate change articles. However, this problem will go on, as other users will pop up taking their place after their predecessors are (topic) banned. So, we need a more structural solution. We should draft and adopt a SPOV policy. Editors on any article can decide by consensus that they want to let the SPOV policy apply to their article and that will then go a long way to pre-empt conflicts. Count Iblis (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A specific SPOV policy would also help to solve the WP:RANDY problem. (Taivo (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Again, there goes Mathsci and his classic "argument by vilification" - yeesh...


 * As one of the more neutral people associated with this article (despite claims to the contrary, I have almost no preconceptions about what the page should look like or say), let me tell you that this page doesn't need RfC's, it doesn't need arbitration, and it doesn't need user conduct discussions - none of those will have more than a token effect on the problem, regardless of the outcome. What this page needs is an admin who is willing to step into the discussion and enforce civility and forward momentum, and do so with a heavy hand.  The problems on this page are almost entirely ego-based.  There are four or five major players who are tendentiously clinging to particular perspectives (Mathsci and Occam are only two of them). Each seems largely incapable of distinguishing between content disputes and personal disputes, and as a result every discussion ultimately boils down to a fruitless exercise in invective.  Even though I lack admin status, I managed to get the page moving along at a good clip simply by ruthlessly squelching everything that looked mildly uncivil, and forcing people to discuss content if they wanted to participate.  What little imaginary authority I had evaporated with the end of the mediation, of course, which is why the page is back here at ANI; If someone who had actual authority were to continue with what I was doing during the mediation, this whole problem would be over in fairly short order.


 * Much as I hate to say it, no one is born with a sense for democratic discussion. People are naturally (if innocently) tyrannical from their second year of life, and they need to learn to constrain themselves to the limits of what democratic discussion can handle, otherwise they will bork every discussion they enter into.  There are several people on this page who have not learned to constrain themselves: ultimately the choice we have is to (a) give up on decent democratic discussion entirely and consign the page to eternal bickering, or (b) forcefully constrain them to the limits to which they ought to be constraining themselves.  The second one sounds harsh, but it is the only viable long-term solution and the only solution that gives the participants the opportunity to learn what restraint means, and to see why it's a better approach.


 * I can already hear the objections that will be raised to this - perfectly reasonable objections (at least the ones I can think of off hand), but if the goal we want is a solid consensus process, then none of those objections are going to hold water. And yeah, I know know one's going to want to do it - it takes a special kind of insanity to put yourself in that position willingly. I'm just telling you what needs to be done if you want the results we seem to want.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * P.s. have to disagree with the SPOV idea - at best it would be instruction creep at worst is would conflict with NPOV. That's doubly true on Social Scientific articles (such as this one) where public opinion becomes a significant concern to the topic.  Joe the Plumber doesn't care whether the Higgs boson exists, but Joe the Plumber does care when some scientists starts suggesting he's smarter or dumber than his neighbors.-- Ludwigs 2  23:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment During mediation there was a freeze on editing, except in the last two weeks when David.Kane redrafted the article directly in mainspace. I stepped in to help with rejigging the lede and the history section just before mediation ended about two weeks ago and stopped about a week afterwards. I'm flattered that that makes me a "major player". As editors like David.Kane have acknowledged, I have tried to help constructively by providing possible content and suggesting sources. During mediation, there was hardly any discussion of specific sources or of most of the new content. There was a decision that the article should be "data driven", whatever that means. Anyway it's not binding. Wikipedia articles are not edited by Ludwigs2's rose-tinted democratic methods, but by fixed policies, such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Consensus is not decided by numbers but by discussions on the strength and quality of the content in WP:RS. At the moment  discussions on the talk page of Race and intelligence are just a continuation of the jumbled open-ended debate that occurred on the mediation talk page before mediation stopped, so Ludwigs2's proposed model has never in fact been tried out on this article. Some altmed articles in which Ludwigs2 participated had such admin policing - homeopathy and possibly chiropractic - but that didn't seem to work very well. Cold fusion is the closest article to this one, since it centres on disputed scientific claims by a few researchers on the fringes of science. This article has much fewer editors, probably because it's a taboo subject and touches on issues of scientific racism. A "rathole" as 66.127.54.238 has said. Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * “What this page needs is an admin who is willing to step into the discussion and enforce civility and forward momentum, and do so with a heavy hand.”


 * I think this is a good idea. I approve of the way you handled the mediation case, and the amount of progress we made with the article during mediation as a result.  Getting an administrator to fill the same role that you filled as the mediator seems like it could be very useful.


 * If we end up following this suggestion, the one thing we would need to be careful about is to find an administrator who’s truly neutral with regard to this dispute, since one that isn’t could easily cause more harm than good. I’m not familiar with many of the administrators here, but if I had to make a specific suggestion I’d suggest user:Dbachmann for this role.  I’ve seen him step in a few times during disputes about similar articles, and I’ve been generally impressed with his fairness about them. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The reactions to this suggestion may be an indication that a new essay about dispute resolution is needed, because a straightforward suggestion is garnering odd responses. This dispute's mediation lasted four months and most of the participants dropped out along the way. At the end of mediation the article appears no more stable than before mediation began. That stalemate is probably the result of one or more parties behaving tendentiously.

It can be exercise of good faith to enter mediation with someone who might be tendentious, but after mediation has failed if one really is convinced that an editor is tendentious and ought to be topic banned then the thing to do is document the behavior. Disruptive tendentious editors nearly always violate actionable policies such as misuse of sources, but they also blow so much smoke that it is difficult for observers to take definitive action--especially when other editors within the dispute become too frustrated to document the problem.

Various accusations have been made at this discussion that would be actionable if substantiated. The main thing that was documented well was edit warring, which has been addressed with page protection. So this might be headed into the worst case scenario: another failed effort at negotiation that frustrates the conflict's best participants into either quitting or producing sanctionable sound bites and ends with arbitration.

The best way out of that trap is conduct RfC. Editors who are actually tendentious are unlikely to file that because it is easier to muddy the waters at fluid settings such as article talk pages and ANI; one seldom sees tendentious editors starting RfC unless they have enough allies to dominate the discussion. A malformed RfC usually backfires on the filer and many impartial eyes are watching this dispute, so an across the board offer is likely to produce an appropriate result. Several uninvolved people have recommended RfC; ANI has its limits. If this offer truly is unwelcome, though, it can be withdrawn. My aim is to improve a bad situation rather than worsen it. Durova 412 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Durova, thank you for clarifying things. Your analysis is spot on, athough I'm not sure about the solution. The situation is difficult. In the past, instability of the article has usually just been due to one or two editors, who were POV-pushing SPAs. These were all banned, the first by Jimbo, and then the article stabilized. These editors were




 * It is impossible to protect the article against editors like that. Perhaps an RfC can better pinpoint problematic editors like this. Probably Captain Occam and Mikemikev fall into this category. Mathsci (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I realize that Ludwigs2 will probably leap up to defend these editors and scream abuse at me, but I think I'm used to that by now. Why deny him his little pleasures?


 * ah, Mathsci, you almost had it there, but you had to jump into another personal attack. pray tell, when have you ever seen me defend any editor?  The fact that I'm not on your side doesn't mean I'm on someone else's.  Persoanaly, I think you are just as disruptive as Occam (if not more so), I think you're both salvageable, and I've put effort into trying to straighten both of you out.  Hasn't done much good, but hope springs eternal.


 * You're going to have to get out of that "if you're not with me you're against me" mindset of yours some day... -- Ludwigs 2 03:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Goodness, you never stop trying, do you? This time you've had to put words into my mouth. Please don't. Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I never do stop trying. Do you understand what I'm trying to do, though?  that's the real question...  That being said, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.  I was just extrapolating from the several times where you've made claims that I was somehow 'on Occam's side'.  Since I'm not, and have never given any evidence of being so, why would you make such a claim except out of some 'us or them' mentality?  That's a serious question, mind you, because aside from that I draw a blank.  if there's another explanation for it I'd be interested to hear it.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, this was written simultaneously with Durova's and Mathsci's posts) Mathsci, just how strongly do you desire to stay involved in these articles? You're a high-value Wikipedia editor but this topic area is basically a rathole, and we need you much more in other places. Captain Occam has indicated willingness to quit editing in this area if you're willing to do the same, provided what he calls some minor issues are worked out. My view is that there will always be unworked-out issues, so it's ok if minor ones stay unresolved, and letting go of them is essential to ever achieving peace. That means if you're willing to voluntarily quit the topic and move on to other ones, maybe we can decide it's also time for Captain Occam to do the same, impose a restriction, and call it a day. (That doesn't mean you've done anything wrong—I'm just asking "aren't you tired of this yet?"). There isn't consensus for unilaterally restricting Captain Occam, but maybe it's more palatable if you're also willing to move on from the subject. If it helps, I'll voice preference for Guy's approach to DR over Durova's. Durova's approach (I think) involves tying every remedy to concrete policy violations, while Guy is more willing to base remedies on abstracting over a user's wider approach to a conflict and to editing in general. Guy's approach is consistent with recent arbitrations and arbitrator views that have held agenda-driven SPA editing in disputed areas to indeed be actionable, treated topic restrictions as relatively unimposing remedies since there are still millions of articles that the restricted person can edit, and recognized a need for novel approaches to DR when traditional ones haven't been effective.  I still believe an RFCU can present evidence for an abstract assessment of a user's editing, so Durova's RFCU suggestion is reasonable if participants want to continue with DR. It's just a lot of work. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Solutions are easier to achieve (and more durable once they're achieved) when firmly grounded in policies that the community agrees upon. Durova  412 02:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Durova: Policy is not a substitute for clear-headedness. The problem we have on pages like this is that some editors refuse to operate with good faith and common sense.  The policies we have are fine, but no one seems to bother enforcing the behavioral policies, so editors who have a mind to run amok, and pages go to crap because of it.  There isn't a problem article on wikipedia I couldn't fix given broad latitude to enforce policy, but the people who have that latitude don't do it.  why is that?  -- Ludwigs 2  03:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We agree that policy is not a substitute for clearheadedness: good policy is an exercise in clearheadedness. If editors have indeed run amok then conduct RfC will demonstrate it.  ANI has its limitations; when a thread covers half the page its useful lifespan has ended.  Let's archive this discussion.  Durova  412 04:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with 66.127.54.238, when he states that an RFCU is a lot of work. Certain things are pretty clear right now and RFCU isn't necessary to discover them. Captain Occam's editing fits the profile of a single purpose account. His interest in the subject can be considered as obsessive. He edits around the clock, almost 24 hours a day with very few breaks in between and this appears to have been going on for months. Other editors who are not SPAs have interests in other articles and also real life to deal with, so it is quite difficult to keep up with Occam's level of dedication. There is no policy against being an SPA, so this in itself is not actionable. However some of the effects of SPA editing are problematic. Captain Occam is an aggressive editor with a strong tendency to edit war and is now misusing the essay BOLD, revert, discuss cycle as a means to justify edit warring. Apart from edit warring, Occam does not commit many blatant policy violations. Captain Occam may be involved in WP:ADVOCACY, or more specifically WP:Civil POV pushing, but this is not blatantly obvious. Overall, we have a problem that doesn't fit nicely into any category. The symptoms of the problem are that we have had a dispute that has dragged on for more than 6 months, and even after a long mediation edit warring is underway. With the exception of edit warring there is nothing blatantly wrong, on the other hand this dispute has put a strain on everyone involved and has now become unproductive, should administrators intervene? Wapondaponda (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In reply to 66.127.54.238, as I explain below, as before mediation, the article is one that I don't feel comfortable editing. My mainstream content editing elsewhere has not been affected, except briefly a week ago. There is no indication so far that Captain Occam is moving onto new pastures or has changed his attitude. Yesterday he left a note on Mikemikev's talk page, the fourth or fifth of its kind, inviting him to edit History of the race and intelligence controversy, hardly a promising sign.


 * I agree that the editing conventions on the article and its talk page, make Race and intelligence one of the biggest messes I've ever seen on WP. Just let me give an example of the open-ended debate on the talk page going on at the moment, pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Richard Lynn is one of the main researchers in the hereditarian camp, an author of many books. Various academics have criticized his scientific methodology and selective use of data sets, including Nicholas Mackintosh. The key work of Rushton and Jensen (2005) relies on Lynn's work. In view of the negative comments by critics, one editor, an active researcher into this very area, is now suggesting that Lynn be removed from the article as a "straw man". That is an abuse of the talk page. It is being used as a WP:FORUM. Wikipedians cannot simply get together and alter the rules for editing as a private little club. That's another reason why I couldn't possibly be involved in the article - the editing conditions are worse now than they have ever been before - the talk page has become a high school debating society on fringe science. The idea of using secondary sources has been abandoned.


 * However, for the moment, I intend to continue watching the history article. That is not a case of WP:OWN, just a way of guaranteeing that editors use sources properly and adhere to other wikipedia editing policies, so that the article does not also become what you call a "rathole". Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Protect article for 6 months ?
I still suggest protecting this page for a period to force a cooling off period. The potential for edit warring and an extended dispute still exists. Protecting the article will take the pressure off editors and allow them to freely edit other articles. Editors could still work on content proposals, but without the pressure of having to implement them immediately. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note there are several articles in this topic. Are you proposing protecting all of them? 66.127.54.238 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A ban on POV forking can also be enforced. If an editor tries to create a new article with the same subject matter, or move the same subject matter to a different article, then they can be hit with a block or other editing restrictions. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wapondaponda, there are several articles already existing. Which ones (if any) are you saying should be left unprotected?  And what do you think will happen to them if they are unprotected? 66.127.54.238 (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think POV forking can be handled on a case by case basis. Some of the related articles tend to be less contentious. Provided editors are warned against POV forking, I wouldn't see at as a major problem. The articles listed above, heritablity of IQ, Between group differences etc are all likely candidates for disruptive editing. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would hope that, before anything so drastic as a 6 month protection, we would seek the opinions of editor who are involved in the article(s) but are not following this thread. David.Kane (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The nature of single purpose accounts and topic bans
In my opinion, topic bans on single purpose accounts are necessary for the good of the project. While I agree that we should not immediately assume that just because an account has a single interest it necessarily follows that the account has a well-defined POV agenda, the reality is that controversial long-term accounts of this sort usually have this agenda and become particularly adept at sticking to the letter of this policy (usually RS) while not adhering to the spirit of the encyclopedic mission. Over time, this whittles away at the ability of even the most persistent generalist editor to move affected articles in a neutral direction. In such cases, we should be willing to topic ban these specialist editors for a period of time and allow them to demonstrate their commitment to the wikipedia project by working in areas unrelated to their primary interest, without casting aspersions on their neutrality. This topic ban will have three effects, two positive effects and one possibly negative effect. The possibly negative effect is that the specialist editor will stop editing because they are not really interested in any other topics and I'm not convinced that this is bad thing. The positive effects are that the specialist editor will gain a better understanding of the meaning of neutrality by seeing what goes on in areas where they don't have a strong point of view, and they will also get the opportunity to demonstrate that not only do they care about their area of interest but that they also care about the project as a whole. If we fail to topic ban these editors, we will, over time, lose the very editors we should be trying to keep, the generalists. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate, not topic banning long term SPAs, at least for a while, is very bad for the project. Regular editors who, by their generalist nature, are more interested in building the encyclopedia as a whole, get frustrated and leave the project. My suggestion is straightforward - topic ban long term SPAs without prejudice. While this idea may not have much traction now, we will likely see SPAs taking over more and more contentious areas, especially the ones that don't have the high profile of climate change or evolution. Just a thought. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that some editors seem to be interested in "the project" and "building an encyclopedia". Others seem to just be interested in contributing to certain articles and I doubt they give much thought to "the project". Different goals for different people. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Different goals for different people is correct. However, the goal of this project is to build an encyclopedia and not necessarily to cater to the goals of its individual participants (though it is always better if the goals are in consonance). As anyone in academia knows, no 'expert' in a field is neutral and excessive reliance on a small set of 'experts' is not a good way to present the accepted wisdom in any subject matter and this becomes particularly problematic in controversial areas. Single purpose accounts are particularly problematic because their goal is usually to make sure that their world view is well represented and, often, that it is the dominant view on the subject. That is why it is better, keeping in mind the goals of this project, to topic ban these long term SPAs from their areas of interest.--RegentsPark (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then encyclopedia seems to have been built already for the most part. What's left is mainly detail work and infighting over what exists. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the state of the encyclopedia, the point is that we don't need to cater to the goals of the people who come here as editors. If there exists a class of editors whose activities are generally not consistent with the goal of ensuring that this compendium of knowledge is well balanced, we should act appropriately. Single purpose accounts are generally not consistent with neutrality and with ensuring that the various points of view are represented in proportion to what is generally accepted. We should, for the good of the encyclopedia, topic ban them. If that sends them away, so be it. If they decide to work awhile in other areas, so much the better. But, not acting quickly with these editors is going to drive away other editors in frustration. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, RegentsPark, some (most? all?) of Wikipedia's best editors in its best subjects (e.g. mathematics) are specialists.  They contribute a ton of stuff, rarely get in disputes, and everybody respects them.  There's only an SPA problem in these politically charged areas where billions of internet nitwits want to bring their opinion in.  Even in controversial areas (e.g. global warming), the troublesome SPA's are the non-experts.  The only areas where there's problems from real expert specialists is where the experts have seriously conflicting interests or are attempting self-promotion.  Carl Hewitt is one of the more persistent examples of this.  66.127.53.162 (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review by academics?
RegentsPark's solution above does not go far enough. Topic bans can be effective at treating the symptom, but to treat the underlying disease permanently, more is needed. The problematic specialist editors are those editors who have a fringe opinion on the subject, where fringe is measured relative to the academic standards in the relevant field. So, all that's needed is to modify the RS policy so that it becomes compatible to the way scientific papers are written.

If a source is not reliable for a scientific review paper on the subject, it shouldn't be ok. to use it in a Wikipedia article on the same subject. If RS were to state this in so many words, then the tendentious editors will be directly violating the RS policy to get their way, instead of vaguely violating some vague notions of good conduct that are hard to objectively quantify in specific intances (while over time the entire record of edits will clearly point to a problem, you cannot necessarily point to any individual edit which violates a rule).

Short of modifying the RS policy, one can also think of an ad hoc intervention in this case where you restrict the allowed sources to some list of approved sources.

But to decide what are good sources and what are not cannot be done by the involved editors alone, as there already is a conflict. So, you need to invite expert academics to review the article and make recommendations. Those recommendations can then be imposed (e.g. by ArbCom) as binding rules for the article. Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. But, what I'm suggesting is fairly simple and does not require an examination of the editor in question. If an account has been active for a while, and has only a narrow area of interest, we should topic ban the account without prejudice. Simple, and hopefully effective. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have such a blanket rule, how would that have worked in the climate change area? You would have topic banned all the experts like William Connolley, Short Harvester Brigade, Stephan Shultz etc. etc. while many of the climate sceptical editors are less of a SPA (many of them are active on politics topics). If anything, we need to get more real experts involved. It then has to be recognized that most experts academics will have very limited available and can thus only afford to edit one or two articles here. Count Iblis (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No rule comes without exceptions. I think it is generally unhealthy for us to cater to editors who have a limited agenda on the project. I also believe it hard to find genuine academic experts in areas that are inherently subjective who can approach articles with sufficient neutrality. In my own area of expertise, a reasonably quantitative area, you'll get differing opinions on the importance of this topic or that and, short of convening a panel of the top people in the field, I don't see how a neutral set of articles can be produced. (I'm also suspicious of self-proclaimed experts, yes it's ironic, but that's another matter!)--RegentsPark (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposals like Count Iblis's have been around for a long time on Wikipedia without getting much traction so far. I have some sympathy for the concept but it is way, way, way outside the scope of the current dispute resolution process.  There are also forks like Citizendium that use alternative editing policies to Wikipedia in the hopes of fixing the same issues, but they haven't gotten much traction either.  Anyway, try Village Pump rather than ANI.  66.127.54.238 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you topic ban me I will wash my hands of wikipedia. I created the dry distillation article in 2004, it still stands as I wrote it. I make corrections from time to time, usually I don't bother to login. I got caught up in R&I after seeing it POV forked in December, it's now a decent article (my part was not instrumental). Maybe if I had logged in and helped write the Teletubbies article you would not be having this discussion (prompted, might I add, by Mathsci). Might I also add that one of the 'SPAs' (BPesta) is a professor of psychology published in 'Intelligence' for R&I research. mikemikev (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Taboo subject
The human gene pool varies from place to place. Even in the same area, there can be different gene pools due to group segregation. Therefore, there are differences between groups of people. Even if the gene pool was the same everywhere, there would still be differences between groups due to environmental differences (certain alleles would become more predominant/frequent in certain environments).

It is somewhat taboo to suggest that when the average IQ score of the individuals in one gene pool is different than the average IQ score of the individuals in another gene pool, that the reason could have a significant genetic cause. It is, however, accepted that the differing IQ scores of individuals within the same gene pool can have a significant genetic cause.

Despite the taboo nature, a rejection of genetics as a possible significant cause of the difference between group average IQ scores could be seen as unscientific in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Sufficient evidence contrary to this possibility has not thus far been presented by scientists. It is the presentation of this possibility that is causing most of the angst amongst the editors of the Race and Intelligence article because of its taboo nature. On Wikipedia, those wanting to dismiss this possibility or to reduce its coverage are generally seen as the good guys wearing white hats, while those wanting the possibility to be discussed in the article are seen as the bad guys wearing black hats. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally, wikipedia's role is not to break taboos or to draw its own conclusions about this subject matter or that. If the existence of racial differences in intelligence have academic credence, then that's what we will report. If that existence does not, whether for reasons that are legitimate or not, we won't. That's not the problem. The problem is that it is easy to find reliable sources for almost any viewpoint and it is easy for editors with an agenda to give more than the 'due' space to these fringe viewpoints. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that the recent mediation concluded that this was not fringe but was instead minority. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That conclusion was imposed by the mediator, and has not been accepted by everyone. The topic is still eligible for a fringe label, and this was also agreed upon in the mediation. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This article hits the nail on the head regarding many of the key points: . --120 Volt monkey (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are going to talk about gene pools, then provide the views of population geneticists who study them. And I know of know study by a population geneticist that links consisten IQ scores to genes.  One reason is that diferent populations share different environments, so how can you tell if the cause of he diference is genetic or environmental (of course, according to Darwinian theory, the important differences are usually environmental.


 * But that is not what this is about. 120 Volt monkey is a SPA who was not part of the mediation, is not seeking to collaborate on the talk page, and seems only to wish to push her POV on Wikipedia. I do not see how this is relevant to AN/I, unless AN/I cares about SPA's geting involved in contentious conflicts. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So you see me as wearing a black hat? --120 Volt monkey (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The color of your hat is of no interest here. Since you have been active only one week and have edited only in areas relating to R&I it is very reasonable to alert others that you are an SPA. It would be fair for you to reply that this is only your first week and you intend to branch out in into other areas, if that is your intention. Of course you don't have to edit in other areas, if R&I is your only interest. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 120 Volt monkey is discussing content issues, and has no specific policy issue. I don't see how 120 Volt monkey's comments have any relevance for ANI. Maybe he/she should read WP:NOTFORUM. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked for WP:HAT but could not find anything. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)