This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Courcelles (talk | contribs) at 23:20, 7 April 2013 (/* Gradual Gap Appearance: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter *d/). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Gradual Gap Appearance

Initiated by Dbate1 (talk) at 14:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Dbate1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

• Akuri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dbate1#Arbitration_notice
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Akuri#Arbitration_notice

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Original_synthesis

Statement by Dbate1

The matter in dispute is whether the information included in http://en.wikipedia.org/Race_and_intelligence#Gradual_gap_appearance consists of violations of WP:SYNTH.

I have made a number of modifications to appease and alleviate concerns that the section is a violation of WP:SYNTH, but users continued to eliminate the information even after these changes. None of the authors described how the modified material consisted of original synthesis (the only proffered challenges were to the prior sections), yet they simply decided to eliminate the material.

In terms of the sources, all of the information was extensively cited by articles published in notable journals. The information has not been challenged as factually incorrect. Moreover, all of the information cited was reliably supported by multiple sources, including references to each other. Thus, the primary sources challenge is insufficient. Additionally, when primary sources were included no interpretation of the sources is offered, which further conforms to the use of primary sources on Misplaced Pages. More importantly, the disputed section does not advocate any position. The only information that is included is direct text from the sources themselves, thus the http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:SYNTH#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position challenge is insufficient.

This appears to be a case of http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool

Statement by Akuri

I encourage Arbcom to accept a case about the race and intelligence topic, but NOT for the reason given by Dbate1. What he has presented here is a content dispute where he can't get consensus for the changes he wants to make. But there also is a much longer-term dispute around these articles, which has been the subject of (by my count) eight arbitration requests in the past year. This is the ninth.

Some of the issues that I think require arbitration are:

• Future Perfect at Sunrise's history of making poorly-considered admin actions in the topic area despite being a WP:INVOLVED admin. Cla68 requested arbitration about that issue in December, and I am the most recent person to experience it. Shortly after I had criticized FPAS for blocking user:BlackHades while involved, he threatened me with a block as well. (This was before I registered, when I was posting as an IP.) His stated reason for the block was to make me register, but when he made the block it was a hard block that disabled registration from my IP range. Contrary to Misplaced Pages:ADMIN#Accountability, FPAS refused to explain the reason for this inconsistency any of the places he was challenged about it. He did not respond to my query about it in my user talk, did not participate in the AN thread that The Devil's Advocate about it, and his only response when he was challenged in his user talk was a flippant comment that he intended to "ignore this stuff and wait for it to go away." Due to FPAS's refusal to participate in discussions about his block, it took me a month to finally get an account via ACC. This is part of a long pattern of misuse of his admin tools: note in Cla68's request that he previously had them taken away in the Macedonia 2 case.

• There have been several requests about the one-way interaction bans that The Devil's Advocate, Cla68, SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 all have with Mathsci. On at least one occasion Arbcom almost made the interaction bans mutual, but changed their minds after Timothesus Canens announced that he was leaving AE, and was strongly considering lifting every AE sanction he had ever made. I think Mathsci has gamed some of these editors' one-way interaction bans with him, and will present evidence about that if Arbcom wants me to.

In last year's arbitration requests and AE threads, multiple arbitrators and uninvolved editors said the race and intelligence topic requires a full case, and that Arbcom should open one if someone requests it in 2013. For example, Silk Tork said that in this comment. It is 2013 now, so please open a case.

I can provide links to some of the many arbitration, AE and AN threads about these issues, if Arbcom needs them.

Statement by uninvolved Sjones23

Hello, everyone. I am not involved at all in this dispute, but I will try to explain what is going on at the moment.

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an involved administrator, has a history of misusing his administrative actions in the topic area. As described by Akuri, Cla68, a user, requested arbitration on the issue in December, but was rejected. After Akuri criticized FPAS for blocking BlackHades while he was involved, he threatened Akuri (then as an IP) with a block. As opposed to Misplaced Pages:ADMIN#Accountability, FPAS failed to respond to good faith community concerns and did not participate in the AN thread. In last years arbitration requests as well as the AE threads, several arbitrators and uninvolved editors said the race and intelligence topic would require a full case and that the Arbitration Committee (Arbcom) should open one if a person requests it in 2013.

There are also some concerns about WP:SYNTH in the gradual gap appearance section of the Race and intelligence article. Given that FPAS refuses to admit his administrative actions and there are WP:SYNTH violations in the race and intelligence article, I would encourage the Arbitration Committee to look over these problems.

Statement by Looie496

The topic area is highly fraught, as we all know, but this specific matter is not a viable arbitration case. The filing party, a new editor, is trying to force changes that violate Misplaced Pages policies into the article against the consensus of all other editors. The community can handle this. Looie496 (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

This request from the newly registered account Dbate1 shows a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of arbitration processes on wikipedia. The request should be declined and the appropriate dispute resolution processes explained to Dbate1. Although editing in good faith, he does not appear to understand how things work on wikipedia, either in gaining consensus or in resolving disputes.

Akuri's response is just as problematic. It shows a different misunderstanding of the purpose of arbitration processes. I had already commented in private a few days ago to Newyorkbrad about what appears to be a newly registered disruption-only account. Within his first few edits Akuri has agitated for an arbcom case and his response here, essentially attempting to hijack Dbate1's misconceived and confused request, was made in his 25th edit to wikipedia.

Dbate1's request here and general confusion might partly have resulted from this suggestion by Akuri.

There seems to be no reason to request a checkuser. Akuri has edited logged out from the range 101.0.79.0/24 in Melbourne and Dbate1 from the IP 130.132.198.222 at Yale University. There seem to be no issues of sockpuppetry with either account.

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I suggest to the Committee that this is essentially a content dispute and therefore beyond ArbCom's remit. However, considering the amount of socking and off-Wiki coordination there has been in the history of R&I, I would also suggest that both Dbate1 and Akuri be CheckUsered, as this kind of activity in the very early stage of an account is inherently suspicious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Note to Clerk: Could a Clerk please notify Future Perfect at Sunrise that his actions have been mentioned and that he has the right to submit a statement? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent 10:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ent. — ΛΧΣ 17:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Gradual Gap Appearance: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0/0>-Gradual_Gap_Appearance-2013-04-02T13:51:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Decline. The issue raised by Dbate1 is a primarily a content disagreement that should be discussed on the talkpage. If a consensus is reached on the talkpage, it should be implemented; no one user has the right to dictate the content of an article. If no consensus is reached, forms of dispute resolution well short of arbitration, which is the final step in our dispute resolution processes, should be used. Dbate1 is also advised that references to "disciplinary action" and "banning" of other editors, as in this edit summary, are not appropriate. The issues raised by other commenters do not persuade me that an arbitration case is needed. I have no interest in revisiting the existing interaction bans, and there is no showing of recent misbehavior or ongoing problems that we could be helpful in resolving. I interpret my colleague's prior reference to our accepting a case in 2013 to mean that we should seriously consider accepting a case if actual problems continued, not as a commitment that we would do so simply upon request, and certainly not at the behest of a brand-new editor who seems to have come to Misplaced Pages for the very purpose of stirring up a case. A statement from Fut.Perf. explaining the actions that Sjones23 has questioned would be in order, but having read the relevant threads I believe I understand the reasoning behind those actions. I will leave it for someone else to assess the suggestion for a checkuser. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)"> ">
• Decline, largely per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Decline - resolution of the issues raised here should be addressed (or continued to be addressed) by stages in the dispute resolution process prior to arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Decline Recall that this topic area is already under discretionary sanctions and matters can be taken to Arbitration enforcement if there is a clear violation of policy. NW (Talk) 06:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. AGK 09:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Decline Courcelles 23:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)