Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:42, 26 July 2010

Revision as of 16:24, 26 July 2010

Line 863:

:::The problem I see with this is that it would only deal with "limited-agenda" accounts (e.g. accounts dedicated to a specific article or topic, narrowly defined) and fails utterly to deal with "broad-agenda" accounts (e.g. accounts dedicated to pursuing an agenda across a significant range of pages). In other words, UserX is considered a problem as he focuses all his efforts on one side of an argument that spans one or three pages dealing with issue Q, but UserY is ''not'' considered a problem as he focuses all his efforts on one side of an argument that involves forty or fifty articles dealing with issue P? Mathsci can be counted on to represent one side of an argument in any fringe theory debate, and he does so on dozens upon dozens of articles, with the same kind of reckless abandon in re: wikipedia principles (like civility) that he has shown on R&I. Broad agendas are (again, arguably) far more damaging and far more difficult to control than narrow agendas; does that mean (through some pervertedly pragmatic logic) that we should ignore them? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 07:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

::::What Ludwigs2 writes about me does not seem to be accurate. I have no history of editing articles in fringe science or otherwise. My editing of [[Race and intelligence]], which has been on my watchlist for 3 1/2 years prior to mediation, constituted 31 edits, mainly adding sources. Apart from writing a neutral lede in the first week of April, my contributions to [[Race and intelligence]] have been on its long well-documented [[History of the race and intelligence controversy|history]], part of the [[history of psychology]], from the mid-19th century up until the present time. I would not touch the "science" involved with a barge pole. Ludwigs2 has incorrectly suggested that I have an agenda, but that is not borne out by my content editing history. My policy is to paraphrase the best reliable secondary sources, having located and identified them, not to synthesize content myself and to maintain a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. I would never feel at ease adding extended content which was not encyclopedic (that applies even to the stub [[ECE theory]] on a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific topic]]). In the case of race and intelligence, the subject is discussed by impartial world experts in psychometrics in university level textbooks or encyclopedias. These are the natural sources to use for wikipedia. Very recent speculative research, that has not been probably evaluated by the scientific community, might not be suitable for inclusion on wikipedia. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 09:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

::'''Support:''' While single purpose accounts are not problematic by definition, they do come with the possibility of being agenda accounts because their ''rasion d'etre'' <s>is their area of interest rather than the encyclopedia</s> is more likely to be their area of interest rather than the encyclopedia. In controversial areas, this <s>manifests</s> may manifest itself in the form of attempting to ensure that their views and beliefs are well represented in the encyclopedia, especially when that POV happens to be a minority view in the academic community. --[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|talk]]) 02:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

:::@Vecrumba. I believe that the focus of this arbitration exercise is the role of SPAs. What we have here are three sets of editors. One set, a few long term editors with eclectic editing patterns who are concerned that SPAs are skewing neutrality in articles on race. A second set, a few editors (with varying length of editing histories) who are SPAs primarily interested in articles on race and who believe, either sincerely or disingenuously, that they are being unfairly maligned by the first set. Then there is the third set which appears to have got involved for well-meaning reasons (I'd, for example, place ludwig2 in that set). While it may seem to you that ''Focusing on SPAs--rather than on polarized content--as an issue will only facilitate denouncing editors with the SPA label and not improve content'', the reality of this arbcom case is that it centers on figuring out whether or not these SPAs are skewing articles and whether or not these SPAs are being treated fairly by the long-term editor set. Ignoring the SPA issue will make this arbitration exercise meaningless. --[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|talk]]) 15:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

:::: (ec) I think we're in agreement. My only concern is insuring that the discussion of whether or not a ''particular'' editor is (A) disruptive and (B) an "SPA" be separate from a generic discussion of the potential evils of SPAs and (thus) opening the door for denouncing editors as disruptive SPAs based on article involvement (or not) elsewhere without dealing with specific content edits. So, in terms of these proceedings, one can certainly discuss (A)+(B) with regard to a ''specific editor'' and present evidence in support, but evidence focusing on (B)=SPA implying or supporting the contention (A)=disruptive is inappropriate, and generic findings regarding alleged SPAs should be discouraged except for statements of principle. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 15:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)