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

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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Pillars

1) Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
3. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
5. I'm not sure that the terminology used here is ideal—the three core content policies form only one of the five pillars, and some of the other pillars tend to be interpreted more flexibly than others—but the substantive point here is correct. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Original research

2) Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources"; in particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.

Support:

1. Wikipedia articles must reflect the extant literature; they report what reliable sources state but they cannot be used to advance a new interpretation or novel theories. — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
3. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
5. With the proviso that such conclusions need not necessarily be espoused by the authors of said reliable sources; it is acceptable to mention a discredited theory if that theory is covered in a reliable source, provided that our statements about it are supported by the source itself. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Primary sources

3) The use of primary sources to cite article content is generally not allowable. While some limited use is permissible in very specific circumstances, their use to support or rebut a position in an article is generally original research. In particular, alternative points of views in a topic area must be already expressed in reliable, independent sources to be included in an article.

Support:

1. In short, "secondary sources trump primary sources". Interpreting raw data or information is, by definition, what WP:NOR is about. — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Close to abstaining, as CHL says below, but generally ok. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Largely per Carcharoth; the use of primary sources to advance particular points of view is problematic, but their use is permitted in a reasonably wide range of other circumstances. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Would prefer something closer to the language of WP:SYN or WP:PSTS. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. I think this principle starts off on the wrong foot. I can't support the first sentence (because use of primary sources to support uncontroversial statements of fact is widespread in Wikipedia), but I can support the last sentence. The key is to buttress with secondary sources in disputed areas, and to not use primary sources to engage in synthesis (or indeed engage in any synthesis at all). But some primary sources do have their uses on Wikipedia, and I think better wording of this principle is needed. To go further, I agree absolutely that the topic in dispute here is one where primary sources have very limited uses and secondary sources absolutely need to be followed, but the principle generalises this too much. A principle on this matter that has strong or unanimous support from arbitrators would be good, as this issue is central to this case. Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct use of sources

3.1) Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Support:

1. Taken from WP:PSTS per CHL in the comments on principle 3. Carcharoth (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Good. I think 3 is an overly aggressive take on policy. Cool Hand Luke 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Better. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Self-published sources

4) Self-published sources, including books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs, are largely not acceptable. While they may occasionally be used as source of information on themselves, they do not constitute reliable sources as required by our policies on verifiability and original research.

Support:

1. In other words, a self-published source that makes a claim can at most be cited to support that that source makes that claim; not as support for the claim itself. Even then it's only generally appropriate to do so when the topic of the article is the source itself. — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Support the principle. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Though I may have missed where self-published material was majorly problematic in this case, it does come up a few times. Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. WP:V suggests that self-published "expert" sources may be considered reliable in some circumstances. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I'm not sure of the relevance of this one. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

5) Mediation — whether formal or informal — is a voluntary process to help editors who are having a dispute. While it serves the valuable function of facilitating agreement between good faith participants, it cannot make binding decisions on contents or sanction users.

Support:

1. That is, it's a tool to reach consensus, not to impose a solution. — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
3. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Advocacy

6) Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing an specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.

Support:

1. In other words, making "the truth" known isn't what Wikipedia articles are for. — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Agreed. Wikipedia is not for posting unique theories/points of view that do not find traction elsewhere. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Agreed. This principle is also key to this case, with the usual caveat that getting the balance wrong either way is bad. My view is that two lines in the sand need to be drawn, to make sure things don't go too far in either direction. In some cases, trying to define a single line in the sand for the article's balanced position is unrealistic and a permanent battleground. Attempting to keep an article somewhere between two close positions is better than swinging wildly between two extremes. Define the extremes and define the grey area and keep the article in that grey area and keep refining it there. Carcharoth (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Single issue editors

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

Support:

1. That is, while it's not prohibited, consensus is that it's a generally bad idea and is generally viewed as a symptom of advocacy. — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. It's a concerning factor, usually those who only care about one subject have a rather strong POV on that subject. Do understand where CHL is coming from, however. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
3. I actually like this wording, as it avoids the perjorative SPA language. My view is that diversity in editing should be encouraged, as it helps editors to gain perspective and experience in other areas. But equally, editors need to be given the chance to gain that diversity, and instant labelling of new accounts as SPAs is classic WP:BITE behaviour. I could also support a wording that adds the caveat that many editors who contribute to a single narrow topic area do so without any problems whatsoever. Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer 7.1.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Prefer 7.1, which removes the presumption of wrongdoing. The crucial question about SPAs is whether there is misconduct (misusing sources, POV pushing), not about edit count itself. Cool Hand Luke 00:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Per above. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Is there a reason we don't use the existing SPA principles? e.g. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

7.1) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Support

1. Boilerplate.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Cool Hand Luke 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Could also support a wording that includes "the community has historically been wary of editors who do so", plus a wording that encourages diversity in editing, and treating such editors on a case-by-case basis, as some will cause no problems and others will be causing problems. Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Decorum

8) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Support

1. Adding an extra principle to go with findings and remedies to be added soon. This principle would normally be near the beginning of the set of principles, but is here because it is a late addition to the proposed decision. Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Standard. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of the dispute (1)

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

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
3. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Tweaked wording for flow. Also prefer "locus" to "focus", but that's not important. Carcharoth (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Focus of the dispute (2)

2) At its core, the dispute centers on the inclusion of a number of primary sources that advances the hypothesis that differences in a number of social phenomena (primarily intelligence as tested) is explained mostly or in part by genetics and ethnic background while the secondary sources generally dismiss those claims. Editors advancing those sources claim that their use is required to make the articles neutral, while editors rejecting those sources claim that they give undue prominence to a minority or "fringe" position that is not reflected in the literature.

Support:

1. In particular, the claim that it is not possible to find many secondary sources is caused by political suppression is often offered as justification to rely on primary sources. I remain unconvinced that a significant viewpoint, no matter how unpolitical, would remain uncovered by reliable secondary sources. — Coren ^(talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't think this is a wholly accurate summary. The content argument is more nuanced than this, and the state of the sources is less clear-cut. Moreover, I don't think that the apparent SPA accounts confine their pushing to primary sources. At any rate, I do not think such a finding is desirable or necessary; it's all but a content ruling. Imagine a similar finding for the now-pending Global Warming case. Cool Hand Luke 14:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Cool Hand Luke. A less specific finding is possible here that still delineates the problems. One possible finding is that the editors of this topic are failing to agree on how to use sources and indeed failing to agree on what sources to use. Carcharoth (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not quite an oppose, strays a bit too close to content ruling for my peace of mind. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Focus of the dispute (2.2)

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

Support:

1. Would be happy to just have finding 2 to define the scope of the case, but if more detail is needed, then this is as far as we should go in characterising it, and is presented as an alternative to finding 2.1. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Would also support rolling this into 1. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editor behavior

3) Editor behavior on all sides of the issue has often been less than optimal, and the tone of discussion has occasionally strayed into incivility. Given the emotional and controversial nature of the underlying dispute, this is undesirable but understandable and generally does not raise to the level where sanctions are necessary.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. In some cases, does not. I do not think generally applies here. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
2. I've come to believe that individual sanctions are necessary. Cool Hand Luke 15:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
3. I also think individual sanctions are needed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Note: findings on individual editors to be added as findings 5 onwards. Carcharoth (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation

4) During the dispute, some (but not all) of the participants have engaged in informal mediation[1] with the Mediation Cabal. While well-intended, that attempt at mediation was fundamentally flawed because it purported to create a binding decision and proceeded despite major participants having refused mediation.

Support:

1. It seems clear that, no matter how well intended, the results of that flawed mediation cannot be used as a show of consensus given the limited involvement of some of the main parties and the unorthodox manner in which it proceeded. — Coren ^(talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Involuntary binding mediation is a ship that sailed in 2004, for better or for worse. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
3. For worse, I'd say, myself. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
4. While noting there were some good aspects to how the mediation was handled, and the way concerns with the mediation were raised was not ideal and better ways should be found to allow objections to such mediations short of participating in them. Mediations should always aim to provide a limited agreement between the parties to a mediation, with the caveat that the wider community may disagree with the results of the mediation, so the results can never be binding other than binding between the parties to the mediation. Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mathsci

5) Mathsci (talk · contribs) started editing Wikipedia in February 2006, and began contributing regularly since around June 2007. Since then, he has made 18,276 edits on a diverse range of topics, with 8,929 edits to article space. Most of his edits in the disputed topic area have occurred since April 2010. He has been blocked twice, on matters unrelated to the dispute being arbitrated here.

Support:

1. Background (stats from an edit analysis tool). Specific conduct issues to be covered in separate findings (if needed). Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

David.Kane

6) David.Kane (talk · contribs) started editing Wikipedia in June 2006, and has made 2,357 edits overall, with 1,063 edits to article space. He began contributing regularly to the disputed topic area in October 2009, and has edited almost exclusively in that area ever since. He was blocked for the first time during this arbitration case for disruptive editing of articles within the disputed topic area.

Support:

1. Background (stats from an edit analysis tool). Specific conduct issues to be covered in separate findings (if needed). Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Captain Occam

7) Captain Occam (talk · contribs) started editing Wikipedia in November 2006, and has made 2,685 edits overall, with 336 edits to article space. He began contributing regularly in around July 2009, and has been editing almost exclusively in the disputed topic area ever since. He has been blocked three times in a four-month period from October 2009 until January 2010 by three different administrators for edit warring on the race and intelligence article, with an additional block in June 2009 with associated restrictions that were vacated.

Support:

1. Background (stats from an edit analysis tool). Specific conduct issues to be covered in separate findings (if needed). Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Finding updated to be more precise. 10:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mikemikev

8) Mikemikev (talk · contribs) started editing Wikipedia in September 2007, and has made 645 edits overall, with 88 edits to article space. He has been editing exclusively in the disputed topic area from December 2009 onwards, and much of his non-article contributions are also focused on this topic area. He has not been blocked.

Support:

1. Background (stats from an edit analysis tool). Specific conduct issues to be covered in separate findings (if needed). Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Source probation

1) Articles in the topic area of Race and Intelligence, broadly construed, are put on source probation. All sources used in all articles of the topic area must be independent, secondary sources that meets the guidelines of reliable sources. Disagreement about whether a source does or does not meet the guideline should be brought to the reliable sources noticeboard for evaluation by uninvolved editors.

Support:

1. This is as close to a content ruling as I am comfortable making; but the fact of the matter is that those articles have been plagued by original research and fixing that will fix the rest. — Coren ^(talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Well, RSN regulars cannot reach consensus about one of these attributes, and even the author of this remedy seems unsure about the meaning. I'm also uncomfortable that the author admits that the proposed decision is all but a content ruling, which—worse in my view—doesn't seem resolve the dispute. For example, this remedy instead simply pushes the dispute onto RSN where it will continue to churn without a reasonable chance of resolution. Similarly, the edit counting remedy doesn't do anything to improve the quality of R/I edits, and instead promotes a edit-counting game. I am convinced that the cause of this case is agenda pushing. I wish the remedies that treat the cause rather than the symptoms. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
2. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Seems the secondary/primary sources debate still has some way to go for Wikipedia in general (though it seems to be a problem of terminology rather than anything else - a good writer will know what the difference is between the sources they are using). Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

Editors reminded

2) All editors are reminded that using primary sources or sources that are not considered reliable to "rebut" secondary sources constitute original research and is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Citing the existence of such primary sources is not a problem (the original papers that sparked this topic area should be cited, for example, but only in a limited fashion). It all depends on how "rebut" is defined. Using the right wording, it is possible to present the history to the reader and let them draw their own conclusions. Also, conflating primary and unreliable sources is not ideal here. I would support a remedy about unreliable sources (e.g. blogs and self-published material) for this topic, but not one about primary sources. Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
2. As written, I believe that this is false in many cases, as when the secondary source is about a primary source, and describes an aspect of the primary source that would have be made more clear by citing that source. For example, if a law review article were to characterize an opinion as dismissing an argument, I do not think it would be OR to quote the passage dismissing the argument, if the opinion adds clarity within the context of the article. Cool Hand Luke 00:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Need more time to think this over. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic restrictions

3) All named parties to this case are subject to the following restriction for one year: edits to the topic area of race and intelligence, broadly construed, including talk pages must constitute no more than one half of their total edits outside project space.

Support:

1. With a note that the exact list of parties will be revised before the case closes to ensure it is correct. This is an admittedly novel remedy; but the attempt is worth it in my opinion; focusing exclusively on a topic area in unhealthy at best, and often leads to a biased perspective. — Coren ^(talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I prefer remedies that prevent gaming. Edit counts are misleading in RFA, and they are triply bizarre as a measurement for involvement from an RFAR decision. In other words: If the editors involved install Huggle and run it occasionally, are we really better off? Cool Hand Luke 15:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. While I commend Coren for thinking outside the box, and trying to bring balance to things, I dislike this proposed remedy. We should be de-emphasizing editcountitis, not emphasizing it. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose this formulation, though I think some of the talk page alternatives may work, such as applying this retrospectively. Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

3.1) All named parties to this case are topic banned from articles in the topic area of race and intelligence, broadly construed for a mininum of three months. During this timeframe, editors will need to show that they can edit in other areas without issues. At the expiration of this restriction, parties can petition the Committee to lift this sanction.

Support:

1. I don't like to encourage editcount-itis, but it seems to be the feeling that there are quite a few editors in this area who have an unhealthy fixation in this area. I would prefer that we give them an opportunity to show that they can edit in other areas without trouble, and then we can see about letting them back in. Again, we can go through the party list and trim it down, or vote on individual sanctions if need be. SirFozzie (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. First, the list of parties needs to be trimmed, as Shell said in her acceptance of the case. Second, we should just topic ban indefinitely or for a year, with instructions that those topic banned should petition after three months. Thirdly, we should vote on proposals for individual editors, as I don't think we've ever handed out blanket topic bans and that is not how we should handle such sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I support topic bans, but I believe this case calls for an individualized approach now, not later. I am open to this approach, however, if other arbitrators prefer it. It's infinitely better than 3, and it gives the SPAs a chance to prove whether or not they are hopelessly fixated on this topic. But if we're going to almost certainly remove the restriction from non-SPAs in three months anyway, why not just exempt them now? Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic bans on race-related articles

4) Editors engaged in long-term tendentious editing, on their own or in concert with other editors, to push a point of view on race-related articles, may be topic-banned from articles and talk pages related to race, broadly interpreted, by any uninvolved administrator. The administrator may determine the period of the topic ban at their discretion. All such topic bans shall be logged on the arbitration case pages.

Support:

1. Taken from the workshop pages. I still intend to propose individual findings and remedies, but this proposal is designed to cover future editing problems on any race-related articles similar to the problems seen here. Possibly this is too broad, so alternative proposals should be put forward if this does not gain support. I also intend to use this formulation for any proposed topic bans for individual editors, as the problems I've seen extend beyond just the article that is at the centre of this dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement

1) Should any editor subject to a restriction under the terms of this decision violate the restriction, then the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 13:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Happy with this in general for whatever passes. Carcharoth (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Abstain on remedy 3 above, willing to support on 3.1 SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass

{Passing principles}

{Passing findings}

{Passing remedies}

{Passing enforcement provisions}

Proposals which do not pass

{Failing principles}

{Failing findings}

{Failing remedies}

{Failing enforcement provisions}

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

Oppose

Comment