[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 359: Line 359:
:''Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)''
:''Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)''
===Discretionary sanctions===
===Discretionary sanctions===
4.1) [[WP:AC/DS|Standard discretionary sanctions]] are authorized for all articles related to [[abortion]], broadly construed. This authorization supersedes the earlier authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community. All sanctions enacted prior to this case under the terms of the community authorization shall be logged under this case as though they had been enacted under the new authorization.
4.1) [[WP:AC/DS|Standard discretionary sanctions]] are authorized for all pages<sup>'''†'''</sup> <s>articles</s> related to [[abortion]], broadly construed. This authorization supersedes the earlier authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community. All sanctions enacted prior to this case under the terms of the community authorization shall be logged under this case as though they had been enacted under the new authorization.

⚫
:''Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)''

:<sup>'''†'''</sup> <small>Note: drafting slip fixed by copy-edit, per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&oldid=477261037#Request_for_clarification:_Abortion this discussion]. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)</small>


⚫
:''Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)''
===Systematic discussion and voting on article names===
===Systematic discussion and voting on article names===
5.1) A ''structured'' discussion on the names of the [[Opposition to the legalization of abortion]] and [[Support for the legalization of abortion]] articles shall begin following the conclusion of this case and continue for one month thereafter. During that time, editors should collect ''systematic'' evidence of the frequency with which various names for these topics are used in various English-speaking countries, as well as any other material which is relevant to the appropriateness of any proposed title, and present that evidence in an organised, structured and easy to navigate manner.<p>After one month has elapsed from the conclusion of this case, a community vote on the titles for the articles in question will begin. Voters shall be asked to digest the presented evidence and its relation to Wikipedia's article naming policies, and to offer their opinion on the titles to be used. The vote will be coordinated by one or more administrators appointed by the Committee. The vote will remain open for two months, and its result will be binding for a period of three years from the date it concludes.
5.1) A ''structured'' discussion on the names of the [[Opposition to the legalization of abortion]] and [[Support for the legalization of abortion]] articles shall begin following the conclusion of this case and continue for one month thereafter. During that time, editors should collect ''systematic'' evidence of the frequency with which various names for these topics are used in various English-speaking countries, as well as any other material which is relevant to the appropriateness of any proposed title, and present that evidence in an organised, structured and easy to navigate manner.<p>After one month has elapsed from the conclusion of this case, a community vote on the titles for the articles in question will begin. Voters shall be asked to digest the presented evidence and its relation to Wikipedia's article naming policies, and to offer their opinion on the titles to be used. The vote will be coordinated by one or more administrators appointed by the Committee. The vote will remain open for two months, and its result will be binding for a period of three years from the date it concludes.

Revision as of 22:17, 16 February 2012

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Penwhale (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Jclemens (Talk) & Coren (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case Opened on 04:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 12:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Requests for comment

Statement by Steven Zhang

I am presenting this case to the Arbitration Committee, as I have unfortunately done so in the past after a mediation (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed_Pacifist_2. I don't do this lightly (I hate RFAR) however I feel it's the only way forward in this situation, and in the best interests of the community, as the general sanctions these articles are under have been ineffective. This would encompass all abortion articles, however mainly the Abortion article, and the recently renamed (as a result of the Mediation Cabal case) Support for the legalisation of abortion and Opposition to the legalisation of abortion. It seems to me that while there are still niggly content issues with the articles, the major player is is user conduct. In my opinion as a mediator, the reason things aren't progressing is due to polarised opinions on the matter. This isn't something that can be resolved through discussion and consensus building. I feel that the conduct of all parties needs to be reviewed, and remedies implemented to provide long term stability to the articles. Edit warring has been an issue, with editors doing one revert a day to get around 1RR, so a temporary injunction to address this for the term of this arbitration case should maybe be looked at. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since this RFAR has been filed, a slow-mo edit war has continued at the Abortion article. While not in violation of 1RR, these edits continue to be made. Because of polarised views, talk page discussion is having little or no success. Please see the diffs I have provided, where in the lead sometimes is changed to the word usually, changed from usually to may be, and in a separate issue, before birth changed to other than birth, other than birth changed back to before birth, and again changed from before birth to other than birth. This is part of the reason why I initially proposed 0RR as a temporary injunction, though I realise the scope was too broad. A temporary injunction needs to be implemented here. There are users making these edits that are not listed as parties, so an injunction topic banning all listed parties from editing articles related to Abortion would be ineffective. The same applies to restricting listed parties to 0RR on abortion articles until the case is accepted, or resolved via motion. The only workable solution I can think of is full protection until a resolution is made on this case, whether by motion or acceptance of the case.

Proposed injunction by Steven Zhang

1) Due to continued edit warring on the Abortion article [1][2][3][4][5], even while an Arbitration case is pending, it is placed under indefinite full protection, pending resolution of this case either by motion or Arbitration finding. No administrator may lift this protection without the express permission of the Arbitration Committee.

I think this is the only way forward pending acceptance by the Arbitration Committee. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to comments

@Ohms law, I've only added parties to this case that I noticed contributed a bit to the MedCab, or on talk pages. It's not intended to drag users into the dispute that don't belong in it, and that can be sorted out by the clerks or arbitrators. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • @NuclearWarfare, the larger issue as I see it here (In regards to the Abortion titles dispute) is contrasted and polarised opinions, not a lack of structure in mediation discussions. As the mediator, I of course am biased in favour of my own handling of the dispute, but am unsure if mediation over the titles again will achieve a desired result. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 04:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John Vandenburg, I definitely agree that walking away would be the best course of action here, and I do apologise for filing here, but done so only after it was evident that the MedCom case would not be accepted (a significant majority of parties disagree) and that other resolution would be required. Because it seems that soon after the MedCab was closed, discussion continued about titles, and then a MedCom case was filed, that these issues will just go around in circles until resolved. This is the reason I filed the case. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jclemens, something similar to Macedonia would probably be effective in this instance. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. This is why I hate RFAR :) (more comments below)
  • @Coren, while Ireland article names would likely be the precedent for accepting this case, I feel that remedies such as discretionary sanctions to replace the community probation the Abortion articles are currently under, may be required in order to bring stability to these articles in the future. Findings from Tree shaping may also come into play here, as there is no consensus that either combination of abortion-rights/anti-abortion or pro-life/pro-choice is actually more common, per COMMONNAME. My rationale will follow in a separate reply. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DeCausa, clarified my original intent for adding parties to this case. Hope it clears it up. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Born2cycle, as your statement largely refers to myself and Arbitrator TheCavalry, I think a decent reply is required. I apologise to the clerks in advance if this is too long, if so, feel free to move it to a subpage of mine and replace this text with a link. Firstly, I notice in your statement, you only reference the moving of Pro-life, and not Pro-choice. Any particular reason, or do you not see an issue with the moving of Pro-choice? How odd. You state that I ignored POVTITLE, and that per COMMONNAME the articles should be at Pro-life. This was addressed in Mediation. This is not a case of Bill Clinton or William Jefferson Clinton. The statistics of which names were common was reached by a plain google search, without the search engine test being applied. COMMONNAME also says that "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." The large issue at hand here is that we should not treat all sources as equal. By using the most reliable and respected sources in this situation, as presented at the MedCab case by VsevolodKrolikov (I can find a diff if required), we don't have a common name at all. Just today, I did a basic, unfiltered Google News search. I got 1,330 results for pro-life, 1,180 results for anti-abortion, 436 results for pro-choice and 2,550 for abortion rights. I don't see a strong argument for common name for either title here, and this is the reason I proposed an alternative, such as was found in the Tree shaping arbitration. Sure, the policy on title changes does say to not just change the name for the sake of resolving a dispute, but as has been presented, there's no common name for these articles. It's reasonably split down the middle. Initially, I did propose to ignore these policies, but in the end, they weren't ignored. No common name exists in reliable sources and in these situations descriptive titles are often required. I don't feel myself or TheCavalry did anything that wasn't completely above board. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Born2cycle, one last comment, as I feel something I said has been taken out of context. Indeed, I did say "This is a contentious topic, and opinions are clearly split pretty much down the middle. This one is going to require a compromise, and I don't think it's going to involve either of the names", however I feel some clarification is required in regards to this. Firstly, this comment was said at the start of the mediation, when I had done a quick skim of the previous move discussions, and not after the mediation discussion had taken place. Indeed, compromise is often required to resolve difficult disputes. Not all disputes are resolved through collaboration, unfortunately. You are, of course, correct when it comes to the policy on title changes. In normal circumstances, article titles should not be changed simply to resolve a dispute. The issue I saw at the time, and continue to see, is there is no agreement on which titles for the articles are more common as documented in reliable sources, and this has been discussed ad nauseum. One of the principles in the Tree shaping case was that " In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists...Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." I think this would be appropriate in this situation, and was a factor in my comments on the case. In the end, I don't think the decision that was made ignored the above policies you have pointed out, and I feel I have provided the reasons for that above. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kenatipo, nope, this case is to review the conduct of people actually involved in this dispute, on a large scale, not just edit warring. Has nothing to do with the massive list of parties at MedCom. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sven, I actually note quite a few objecting to the MedCom do so as they feel that a resolution has already been reached, and not refusing as they disagree at being listed as a party. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Penwhale, actually, they have not. That one is an old case. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @All Parties, I do have comments on the posts that have been made since my last posting but think in this situation it is best to keep my mouth shut, and let ArbCom do their job, as that is the reason I brought this case here in the first place. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 12:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LedRush, I was going to leave your comment unreplied to, but I seek clarification. As you said, "But we have accepted short terms. It's just that a minority of vocal ideologues have decided that they don't like it" however based on the discussions, it's unclear what minority you are referring to. I would encourage you to read the comments of Elen of the Roads before replying to this post, and remember what the purpose of Wikipedia truly is. Like all of us here I hope, I am here to try to make Wikipedia a better place. I try to do that by resolving disputes between users. Sometimes I'm successful. Sometimes I'm not. I just hope that all parties here realise that the reason I've brought this here is not to punish anyone, but to bring this dispute some final resolution so we can all move forward with Wikipedia's true purpose, building an encyclopaedia and providing the right to free knowledge for everyone. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 12:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newyorkbrad,
    • 1) From my perspective, yes, the main issue is the titles of the articles, though the main article on abortion has also been an issue and hence why I have added it to this RFAR.
    • 2) Yes, they have, at the respective talk pages for Support of/Opposition to legalised abortion, as well as on several user talk pages.
    • 3) The ugly truth about Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is that there is no process to bring a final resolution to protracted debates other than the Arbitration Committee, and in normal cases only to address conduct issues. I feel the precedent for action by the Committee in this situation is from the Ireland article names case, namely "...in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision". I think that is what is required in this case. I personally don't care as to the outcome of the committee's discussions and findings, I would just like to see some resolution.
    • 4) Perhaps two remedies could be implemented by motion in lieu of a full case. The Committee should consider whether providing some binding resolution on this case would be for the benefit of the project. As I said above, I have no vested interest in this dispute (apart from seeing it through to the end and wanting the issues to be resolved), so whatever the Committee decides on is fine by me, as long as it will stick. I would strongly advocate for the Committee to supersede the general sanctions placed on these articles by the community with discretionary sanctions, such as those in the Macedonia case. Rejecting the RFAR in lieu of a motion should obviously be done with a caveat, that is, if these motions are unsuccessful at resolving the dispute, a full arbitration case would be opened. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MastCell, Agreed. Best way to deal with this is not to sanction users but to get a structure for dealing with issues going forward, as all other methods of DR have been exhausted. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ArbCom, just to make myself perfectly clear, as I feel it may be unclear and wish to clarify for the record. My reasons for bringing this case are to seek a resolution to this dispute, as I have listed above, ArbCom is the final step in the dispute resolution process, to be used when all other methods of resolution have either failed or are not viable options. I feel that in this situation this is the case. I bring it here to seek a resolution, and not to sanction individual users (though in the end that may be part of a resolution). These articles need a long-term plan to bring them stability, and this is something I think ArbCom can help facilitate. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 19:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I have not been involved with the issue of the title of the pro-choice/pro-life articles. Honestly, I think something along the lines of User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Mediation-Arbitration Referrals Subcommittee or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 is necessary to solve that, as it's getting kind of ridiculous right now.

Steve also mentions the dispute over the lead sentence of Abortion, which I am far more familiar with, as it has wasted hours of my life allowed me to gain invaluable insight in how to find quality reliable sources. Despite the rather ridiculous amounts of edit warring we have seen over the last two months, I think that the editors who have not been pushed away from the article have come to a rough agreement on the article. Hopefully. I don't think review by the Arbitration Committee would hurt a great deal, but neither do I think it's entirely necessary at this time. NW (Talk) 02:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Maybe an admin-mediator with more power than a normal MedCom member or a mediator with significant content experience to help the discussion move along? But I think that would have been more helpful four weeks ago; I don't see a need for one now. Maybe some sort of agreement that one will be appointed in two weeks if the dispute isn't settled by then? NW (Talk) 04:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NYyankees51

I'm not familiar with arbitration, so forgive me if I'm not supposed to make a statement. I filed the request for formal mediation. The fight over the titles has dragged on for six months now ([6] [7] [8]), with three move proposals and an informal mediation. I would like to note that the initial proposal at pro-life resulted in what seemed to be, to me at least, a clear consensus to keep the title of pro-life. Requests were opened again and again by people who favored changing the title. This was highly disruptive; they were pushing the issue until they got the result they wanted. Now here we are. Again, I don't know how arbitration works so I don't know if this is a better or proper solution as opposed to formal mediation. I just want to draw attention to how we got here. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Newyorkbrad's questions

1. Yes, it is primarily about the titles of the articles. Though I'm not sure why the Abortion article, where there is a dispute about the lead sentence, was included in this request, since that is a different issue involving mostly different editors.

2. Yes, at Talk:Opposition to the legalization of abortion#Issues with new title, Talk:Opposition to the legalization of abortion#Do reliable sources really avoid "pro-life"?, Talk:Support for the legalisation of abortion#New title, and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Opposition to the legalisation of abortion.

3. I'm not familiar with the arbitration process, so I won't try to answer.

4. I still think we can accomplish something at the formal mediation. The only problem is editor fatigue. But again, I'm not too familiar with arbitration. I don't think editor conduct is the issue. Things have gotten heated, though there has been nothing exceedingly improper. So if arbitration is going to focus on editor conduct, I don't think it's a good solution. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objectivist

I don't especially care about the titles of Wikipedia articles, except where a title can be extraordinarily misleading. "Pro-Life" appears to be such a title (per the definition of "hypocrisy"), and I will now explain why, an argument that so far as I know is generally unknown...it is categorized as "Original Research" here.

Consider a simple "model economy" in which the population and the resources needed to sustain that population are well-matched. And, as in the real economy, there are people who are "middlemen" in terms of converting resources into goods for that population to consume. They operate businesses that hire laborers to do the converting, and they sell the goods, to be able to pay for the labor. Standard stuff.
But what happens if more people are added to that model economy, without simultaneously increasing the available resources? Per the Law of Supply and Demand, there will be increased competition for the available labor slots, which generally means wages would fall. Simultaneously, per that same Law, there will be increased competition for goods, which generally means prices would rise. Does anyone benefit? Certainly! The middlemen who hire labor and sell goods end up with greater sales receipts and lower labor costs, resulting in greater profits. This is actually the fundamental mechanism, the world over, explaining how the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
Now of course some people will say that there is now an Opportunity for someone to open up new resources to compete with those middlemen. BUT, in the Real World, it is well known that businesses try to stifle competition, and try to lock down resources and create monopolies (witness the diamond cartel), as an alternate way to increase prices and profits. There is no guarantee that the possible Opportunity can actually be implemented. But there is every guarantee, per the Law of Supply and Demand, that if the middlemen can successfully cause the population to increase faster than the supply of resources, they will profit from it, while simultaneously causing laborers to have a tougher time making ends meet. The proof of this is to be found throughout the last half of the 20th Century, in which, at its start, one laborer's income usually sufficed to support a family, and now the incomes of two parents are all-too-often barely enough. The price of ordinary labor has most certainly not kept pace with the price of resources/goods!
Those middlemen can claim to be "pro-life" and oppose abortion, but what they act like is that they are pro-profit-only. They most certainly can directly personally benefit from increased competition for limited labor slots and limited goods. They apparently care nothing about the Quality of Life for all that extra Life they want the economy to include! If they were really pro-life, they would be willing to ensure that the cost of labor was always sufficient to sustain a decent life. Yet many of those same business-oriented "pro-lifers" oppose Minimum Wage Laws!
The Evidence of History is that resource-availability must increase faster than the rate of population increase for the overall Quality of Life of a population to increase. Even though that would naturally mean, per the Law of Supply and Demand, that wages would go up, to attract laborers who have many choices, and prices and profits would go down as goods flooded the markets, and the poor would get richer faster than the rich ... as has actually happened in History when a new resource (e.g., big sections of North America) suddenly became widely accessible for exploitation.
Notice how important it must be for middlemen/businessmen to try to keep secret the wider consequences associated with claiming to be "pro-life". They don't want the foundations of their argument to be revealed as being equivalent to quick-sand, so of course they must automatically deny the validity of (or even try to suppress) any argument that points out the above wider consequences --or any other wider consequences, some of which are even worse for pro-lifers than that one. I've never seen the above argument published in a Reliable Source, yet it seems to me it should be simple and obvious to anyone with a decent background in economics. It should not be original-with-me research!

Getting back to the overall topic of this Request Page, I want to clearly indicate that however it finally closes, the titles of all the appropriate abortion-related articles need to be locked down in such a way that anyone who wants to change them should be directed to some sort of Final Decision page, where it is clearly stated that no other input will be accepted regarding title-changes (unless something truly extraordinary and relevant happens outside of Wikipedia). Thank you! V (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@HuskyHuskie --uniting the two articles could in theory be a fine idea, except that in practice it is normal for an article to refer to split-off separate sub-articles when it grows to be too long. And even if that typicality was ignored in this case, there would still be arguments about the names of the subsections of the united article!
To ALL: Hey! Maybe the two existing articles should be called "Debate Side X" and "Debate Side Y", with a coin toss deciding which side of the debate gets which name! Then nobody can claim they got some sort of "short end of the stick" with respect to the title names! V (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extending my previous "hypocrisy" explanation, I'd like to point out The Very Simplest Way To Prove That Many Pro-Lifers Are Hypocrites. Just start by recognizing that throughout just about all human societies across History, it is generally expected that if someone wants something-or-other, that person should pay for it. So, if pro-lifers want various unborn humans to be born, instead of aborted, simply insist that those pro-lifers should "put their money where their mouths are", and make them pay for all costs associated with prenatal care, childbirth, and child-rearing, for every abortion that they desire to prevent. Then we shall see how many "pro-lifers" change their tune! --especially if they are businessmen as described above, wanting to gain money from ---not pay money for-- all that human life they want to be born! V (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with the present arbitration case? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Would a clerk please remove this irrelevant commentary. Jehochman Talk 18:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first two sentences under "Statement by Objectivist" for your answer. What I wrote is entirely relevant to the proposed article title "pro-life" --I'm proving that that title is not anywhere near as accurate as claimed; it is mostly pure propaganda being pushed by an ignorant (albeit extremely vocal!) minority of the population. (By the way, it is not an "attack" of any sort to say that someone is ignorant; it is a simple Truth that everyone is ignorant of something-or-other. Pro-lifers are merely ignorant of various facts, which, if they knew those facts --or stopped denying that they are indeed facts-- and included them in their reasoning, they would no longer be pro-lifers.)
If you like, for the sake of thoroughness, I'll be happy to reiterate the explanation that while "pro-life" might be a trifle accurate in the short term, in the long term that penny-wise/pound-foolish policy is actually "pro genocide" toward most of the human species (by promoting the faster arrival of a Malthusian Catastrophe, with its typical associated 99% death rate of a starving animal population, or, in this future case, the human world population). No, indeed, "pro life" cannot be a valid/accurate/correct long-term name for a Wikipedia article describing opposition to abortion! V (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Roscelese

Agree with Floquenbeam and Casliber that 0RR is a terrible idea. Even 1RR cuts with one edge as it heals with the other: it helps cut down on edit wars, but it means that even the most ludicrously POV stuff can't always be reverted. Would it be a good idea to elect a team of respected and experienced editors to help deal with content issues? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@all: This is not the venue to complain about not getting the titles you wanted, or even to complain about people complaining that they didn't get the titles they wanted. That discussion is going on in more than enough venues as it is. If you have nothing to say about a long-term solution to the conduct problems on abortion-related articles, just stick to the half-dozen other places where the titles are being discussed, thank you very much. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Eraserhead1

Unfortunately I think this is the right venue. I looked at my talk page initially and saw the message pointing here first and was about to urge you to decline but I've changed my mind.

Its obvious to anyone who is prepared to take a step back that pro-life and pro-choice have POV issues and that even though the new titles aren't perfect they are better as they meet that. Its also obvious that WP:NPOV takes priority over WP:COMMONNAME and its pretty clear from the extensive data gathered in the mediation cabal case that WP:POVTITLE doesn't apply in this case. Overall Chase me I'm the cavalry made an excellent closing statement on the matter and I am fully satisfied by it.

I honestly don't see what formal mediation can do to improve the decision that has already been made other than waste a huge amount of time. Given that other people seem to continue to want to revisit this I think Arbcom is the right venue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think the primary issue here is a refusal to get the point from some of the contributors. I among others have debated the matter extensively at the mediation cabal page and tried to explain why pro-life and pro-choice don't meet the projects policies - there does seem to be quite a bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on this matter without suggesting any other possible alternatives other than pro-life from some people here and that does need to be addressed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Sven on Steven's point, I have declined the formal mediation because I don't see how its possibly going to accomplish anything. The only person who has bought anything new to the table at all is Born2Cycle and he's only one editor and the ground he is covering has been covered - even if it has been less well articulated before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to NewYorkBrad
@NewYorkBrad. 1) As far as I'm concerned yes. I made some arguments in the original move discussions and primarily got involved to try merging the articles to resolve the issues and then when it became clear that some form of escalation (the MedCab case) was required. 2) I have discussed it a little further with Born2Cycle. Part of that is that he hasn't been involved with the previous discussions as he wasn't invited to participate. I've just suggested agreeing to disagree so I presume that discussion is over so its possible it won't continue. 3) I think that's probably not a bad idea. As it then allows discussion to talk about article content. 4) A motion would be fine by me and hopefully everyone can live with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2Cycle, what if the Arbitration committee rules by motion that the current titles are the ones to stick with? Are you happy to walk away with just a motion stating that? Personally I'm happy to go with whatever Arbcom rule in their motion, even if it means reverting the articles titles to their locations at the start of the year. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

I think Arbcom involvement is appropriate. I agree with Eraserhead1 and Steven Zhang. I largely dropped out of this issue earlier in the year and won't participate any further. DeCausa (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LedRush

NYYankees51 is essentially right on all points. What has happened is a group of idealogues has pushed their political agenda for about 8 months now. After failing a few times to get the pro-life article moved, they tried again through a mediation process. Despite the fact that the old titles are about as NPOV as the others, and despite the overwhelming evidence of WP:Commonname, and despite the fact that the current titles are highly inaccurate and unwieldly, many people joined the POV-pushers merely as a way to end the endless debates. That is not how Wikipedia should work. We should not allow a small group of people to circumvent WP procedures and policies to get their way at the expense of a clear and precise encyclopedia. Many, like myself, have become disillusioned with the process and have removed themselves from it.LedRush (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscalese, since the current situation is a result of the misconduct by others in the naming debates, this is an appropriate forum to discussion such issues.LedRush (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@VsevolodKrolikov - If you are not talking about me, I apologize in advance. But if you are, could you please either point to the place where I say that Commonname was ignored, that there was no reasonable challenge to the evidence of commonname, or that the problems with the descriptive title were never addressed or strike your comments? Of course there was evidence given against commonname, but, in my opinion, the evidence was small in comparison to the overwhelming evidence for it. Commonname as a policy was discussed (and therefore not ignored), but the policy was not followed, in my opinion. And while the problems of name were discussed, the concerns with them were considered less important than making the change.LedRush (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@VsevolodKrolikov - I have explicitly contradicted your assumptions of bad faith and flat out untruths said about me. Please redact your statements as they pertain to me.LedRush (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@StevenZhang - You said that tree shaping is ok when "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists...Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." But we have accepted short terms. It's just that a minority of vocal ideologues have decided that they don't like it and, after failing to get a move twice immediately before the mediation, pushed the issue against wikipedia policy and common sense.LedRush (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@VsevolodKrolikov - I see. So when I explicitly say that others have made reasonable arguments against commonname, but that I believe the evidence is overwhelmed by other evidence (as others have argued to great effect), I must be lying. And you know this because you have peered deep into my soul and analyzed what "silence" means after others had deliberately misrepresented my view on this matter. Got it.LedRush (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VsevolodKrolikov

That the parties now trying immediately to overturn the informal mediation outcome had agreed to that process in the first place is very problematic. What's more, they are doing this by severely misrepresenting the informal mediation discussion and its closing. They claim that policies such as WP:commonname were either ignored (they weren't, in both debate and closing), that there was never reasonable challenge made to the evidence backing up a commonname claim for "pro-life" (there was), and that the issue of a descriptive title (what they call "invented") was never addressed, when it was. The evidence against pro-life as a common name (major mainstream media stylebooks reject it as POV) was clearly substantial enough to at least be taken into consideration by those interested in mediation, even if it was ultimately rejected. But it was neither critiqued nor disputed. It was simply ignored, over and over again. Comments in there and on other pages lead me to believe that there was little intention on the part of a few editors ever to accept a mediated outcome that did not end in precisely what they wanted. I am also concerned that one or two editors seem pretty open about editing wikipedia for POV purposes (something also mentioned in the closing). This is not a healthy state of affairs. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush. Your own description of the evidence for "pro-life" as "overwhelming" is an example of simply not acknowledging any counterarguments and counterevidence (leaving aside interpretations of common name that would count even raw google hit ratios as enough evidence of commonname status). If a lot of major media outlets describe "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as non-neutral and to be avoided, the very least you could do is acknowledge this as a problem (it's mediation after all), rather than blithely say that these titles are "just as NPOV as all the others". It is a clear example of not listening, although I stress you are far from alone in this. Given this and the immediate call for formal mediation directly after a clear closing at informal mediation, I really struggle to believe that the informal mediation was entered into in good faith on the part of those now challenging it. The point of process is to regulate how we resolve disputes and win and lose arguments with grace so as to maintain the project's good health. It's important to respect itVsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@LedRush I won't redact my comments. Instead here are some diffs illustrating the problem. Here I provide a link from the NPR ombudsman detailing how NPR, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Enquirer all avoid using pro-life (and pro-choice) as descriptors (User:NickDupree had already detailed much of this, as well as Christianity Today also avoiding pro-life). LedRush dismisses this as the "decree" of a minority of RSs. So, I quite reasonably presume that LedRush would want to see a majority before being persuaded of anything, I provide a list of the top ten newspapers by circulation, showing that a clear majority of them do not use pro-life/choice as descriptors, with several explicitly because of the perceived non-neutrality of the term. That is, the term is out of favour with many major media organisations, and for neutrality reasons (In fairness I note that the WSJ evidence presented has recently been shown to be faulty; WSJ seems to use pro-life and anti-abortion interchangeably - but it doesn't alter the overall picture of major media usage). LedRush's response? Neither critique nor concession, but silence. I would like to say to ARBCOM that I absolutely don't think this sort of thing is actionable per se, but it's an illustration of the pointlessness of another round of mediation. If things have got to mediation, and one "side" is still refusing to acknowledge that there is any kind of problem that needs addressing - and then the mediation goes against them and they still neither recognise any substantive problem exists with their preferred outcome, nor, in effect, the outcome of mediation to which they agreed, then we have a behavioural problem that needs resolving somehow (I have a lot of sympathy with HuskyHuskie's view). I stress that LedRush is not alone in this and do not intend to single him out.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ LedRush. Wow. An explanation of why you did not (and have yet to) respond to what seemed to be meeting your own stated criteria for relevant evidence would have been enough to end this conversation. I'm not accusing you of "lying". That's just odd.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@SvenManguard - it is not true that the only people refusing to participate in formal mediation are those who do not count themselves involved. There are some of us who object to the request for mediation per policy because the previous step had resulted in a clear result. There are also those who have accepted but under protest for much the same reason.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@kenatipo If you're unclear of what user behaviour refers to, comments such as this I would guess might come under issues of user behaviour.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Newyorkbrad
  • (1) Is the proposed case primarily focused on the article titles, or are there broader issues?

As far as I can see, it's basically about the titles.

  • (2) Have the problems discussed in the request continued since the mediation was closed?

Yes, insofar as the problem is the continued distraction of editors from building content and the raising of wikistress levels. Discussion on the dispute has continued in various places. However, there was a whole month to get out all the issues in mediation; these subsequent discussions are inevitably a rehash of that mediation. Once we get past issues of not hearing, I think it boils down to (a) the extent to which NPOV is primary in article titling (including the use of descriptive titles to meet NPOV) and (b) the threshold and quality of evidence needed to establish the existence of a "common name", and the interplay between (a) and (b). That will just go round and round in circles until a binding process establishes an outcome. (The mediation process that addressed these issues and found consensus has been rejected by a number of editors who had originally agreed to that process.)

  • (3) Is the inevitable outcome here the creation of a binding article-title decision process, as the Committee did in the Ireland names case and noted with approval in the dashes-versus-hyphens in title dispute?

I think so. I do think removing the issue from Wikipedia would allow everyone to contribute to building the encyclopedia both in this topic area and elsewhere. Given the manner of the rejection of the mediation closing by some parties, I am not persuaded that further prolonged mediation attempts will do the encyclopedia or the community any good.

  • (4) If the answer to (3) is yes, do we need a full-fledged arbitration case to get to that, which might raise the general unhappiness level still further, or should we act by some sort of motion?

A motion, absolutely. As can be witnessed by the comments from named parties in the request for formal mediation, people are getting tired and frustrated over disputes on this single issue. Trust is breaking down, and that needs to be nipped in the bud as soon as possible.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by kenatipo

I'm not at all clear what Steven Zhang is proposing here. This forum addresses conduct problems, right? Is SZ proposing that the Arbitration Committee review the conduct of all 62 listed editors for edit-warring? The proposal seems very vaguely stated. --Kenatipo speak! 17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselinokov: @VsevolodKrolnikov:"focus on what the other chap is DOING that breaks our rules, not on what he is SAYING that offends your sensibilities/religious convictions/politics etc." Thanks, Elen of the Roads. --Kenatipo speak! 04:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what Steven Zhang is proposing is that the listed 19 editors be investigated by an ArbCom committee for edit-warring and ... saying things on talk pages and at informal Mediation that hurt other people's feelings???? --Kenatipo speak! 04:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@VsevolodKrolnikov: some of you bolsheviks Russians have no sense of humor! --Kenatipo speak! 16:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we have 2 issues: 1. Did Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry properly close the informal Mediation Cabal on changing the name of the Pro-life movement article? No, he didn't, and Born2cycle's statement gives the reasons. 2. Steven Zhang would like the conduct of 19 18 editors investigated: "Generally, the Arbitration Committee will review the the background to the disputes brought to RFAR, as well as evidence presented. Conduct by users is also investigated, with issues such as edit warring, personal attacks, or using Wikipedia as a soapbox or battleground, as well as being unable to be objective and neutral are considered. If they find reason that these issues are causing significant issues on the articles these users edit, they may impose topic bans, prohibiting the users from editing articles related to the dispute. At times they impose site bans, prohibiting editing anywhere on the Wikipedia project, and sometimes they impose discretionary sanctions on articles related to the conflict, so in future if issues remarries administrators can take action to solve these issues. Arbcom does a lot of discussion and thought before imposing these measures, and generally only as a last resort or when in Wikipepdia's best interests." My only comment about this proposed witch hunt is that it looks like somebody's feelings got hurt. --Kenatipo speak! 15:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HuskyHuskie

I don't know the difference between arbitration and mediation or what is the proper venue or what. I pretty much care about one thing, and that is this: I want the article titles for these two articles to be settled and locked in, so that people will spend their time improving the articles instead of wasting time arguing about the titles. Beyond that, I think it would be nice if the titles were parallel (Anti-abortion/Abortion rights, or Pro-life/Pro-choice, or even Steven's well-intentioned if inelegant solution). But, for the record, I still believe the best solution to this would be that made by User:DeCausa back on May 1[9] to unite these two articles into Abortion debate, thus ending this mess fairly and equitably. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anythingyouwant

Hello I must be going, so I'll chime in briefly. Regarding the article naming issue, I hope ArbCom will not finalize or otherwise salute the results of the informal mediation, which ended up (perhaps inadvertently) characterizing one side of the issue as unsupportive naysayers.[10] Regarding sanctions at the abortion article, they were imposed without any notice or discussion at the abortion talk page, and have been enforced selectively and unfairly.[11][12]. Finally, regarding the abortion article, I hope to address the issue of censorship soon; we had a huge RFC in 2009 about how to show readers what is aborted in a typical abortion, and subsequently this non-bloody image was in the article for over a year. This image was removed without consensus this summer via edit-warring, in no small part because of POV typified by the following remark by an editor who was involved at that article: "It's just a bunch of fucking cells you sanctimonious obsessive little fuck." [13]. Hopefully that editor is recuperatimg nicely from recent surgery. Normal Wikipedia articles include pertinent images, and we all know that Wikipedia has leaned over backward in this regard. Anyway, I hope this helps ArbCom as you try to see the big picture.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven Zhang....It's unclear to me if ArbCom will be wading into the various issues surrounding the lead sentence of the Abortion article, or other issues at that article such as edit-warring for purposes of censorship (as I mentioned above). If so, then freezing the article until the case is over might make sense. If not, then not. The root issue regarding the lead sentence is whether the stable 2006-2011 version was changed by consensus, or instead was changed by edit-warring without consensus. Incidentally, I'm kind of leery of the suggestion to simply impose new rules going forward at the abortion article, without looking at editor-conduct, because doing so could lock in the recent "ill-gotten gains" of edit-warring without consensus (both with regard to the lead sentence as well as image censorship).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ARBCOM, several involved parties have not been listed above, especially if this case will not be limited to the article-name-controversy. Please indicate whether it would be necessary or helpful to expand the list.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by TheFreeloader

The way I saw it, the mediation cabal result was really only a temporary solution to get away from the unacceptable situation of unparallel titles created by User:Anthony Appleyard. I still have not seen any good arguments for abandoning using a common name titles, other than to make the sort of compromise specifically advised against at WP:TITLECHANGES. I think it has been credibly shown by VsevolodKrolikov that the terms "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are avoided by high quality sources, especially major news outlets, because of partisan nature of the terms. But I just do not see how that gets one to the conclusion that we must therefore invent our own terms for describing this subject. Rather I think the logical conclusion must then be that we use the terms high quality sources use instead, and the AP Stylebook advises that we should "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life" and "abortion rights" instead of "pro-choice" ([14], page 5). Clearly these terms are viewed as neutral by reliable sources, and in that case I do not think we should give any weight to personal opinions of editors on what is neutral. Especially not given the high proportion of editors involved here who do not even attempt to look at this issue in a disinterested fashion.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/1/3/2)

  • comment - I agree with Floquenbeam's note about 0RR and agree 1RR a better bet. A question for NW - is there anything else, such as any other motion, that the arbitration committee could pass which would help the situation short of either (a) opening a full case or (b) nothing (given you've mentioned there is a rough consensus happening)? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Risker (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't doubt that there are user conduct issues all around. I also don't doubt that there are incredibly polarized opinions on the matter. What I also am unsure of is how ArbCom is going to solve a dispute here. I've contributed a few opinions on the naming dispute--should I recuse on that basis? If all of us who've ever touched abortion or associated topics recuse, it will be a might small panel of arbs, I expect. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept. Nothing appears to have been resolved, reading the above comments, so I find myself concurring with my colleagues who suggest it appropriate to hear the case. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. The Medcab decision is very recent, and the Medcom request is still in flight. This may need arbitration, which will probably result in a lot of bans and/or topic bans, but the parties should be given a few days to get back to peaceful work or walk away. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse as closing admin on the MEDCAB case. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. –xenotalk 13:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept; this is one of those cases at the boundary of content and behavior where the primary problem is the acrimony around a content problem. This is partly due to how divisive the fundamental issue is (and thus how frayed tempers can get), and partly due to the weakness of our normal editorial process when faced with uncompromising parties that cannot reach true consensus as a matter of principle.

    However, I think the driving precedent in this case is more likely to be Ireland article names than Macedonia given the stability issue about how the dispute is framed in the first place. — Coren (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accept - MEDCOM is never going to work with half the 'parties' screaming blue murder about being listed as such. Can we give participants some guidelines for submission of evidence - for example, stick to the word limit, any lengthy attempt to convince Arbcom that name X is right/wrong will be removed on sight. Clearly you cannot reach a consensus because this is not an academically neutral topic, people have strong opinions, so focus on what the other chap is DOING that breaks our rules, not on what he is SAYING that offends your sensibilities/religious convictions/politics etc.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Arbitration is part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, and if we decline a case, there must be a plausible alternative, and in this instance, I'm not sure there is. Also, strongly agree with Elen in regard to evidence, which should be focused on user conduct, as opposed to arguments about article content or article titles. PhilKnight (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions for parties: (1) Is the proposed case primarily focused on the article titles, or are there broader issues? (2) Have the problems discussed in the request continued since the mediation was closed? (3) Is the inevitable outcome here the creation of a binding article-title decision process, as the Committee did in the Ireland names case and noted with approval in the dashes-versus-hyphens in title dispute? (4) If the answer to (3) is yes, do we need a full-fledged arbitration case to get to that, which might raise the general unhappiness level still further, or should we act by some sort of motion? I'll vote in a couple of days when the parties and others can provide responses (brief please) to these questions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Article sourcing

3) Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sourcing

4) Misuse of sourcing guidelines by editors in a field is highly problematic. This is so not least because it can throw all past contributions to the area into question. Reviewing past contributions for compliance with sourcing guidelines can be extremely time-consuming and is hence a considerable drain on editor time and resources.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

5) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to any and all pages on Wikipedia, from articles to templates to project space.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Conduct and decorum

6) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; 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, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

7) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked, or when discussion has broken down. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process through discussion, collaboration and consideration, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict and using the dispute resolution processes to game the system is not an appropriate way of resolving conduct disputes.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair criticism and personal attacks

8) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia, as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring

9) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages

10) The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject, nor for proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, and so forth (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Although more general discussion may be permissible in some circumstances, it will not be tolerated when it becomes tendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwise disruptive.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Policy pages

11) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are meant to codify existing best practices. While edits to policy pages are often prompted by specific editing experiences, it is inappropriate to alter policy pages to further one's position in a specific dispute.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

12) Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia 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.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead sections

13) In accordance with WP:LEAD, the opening paragraphs of a Wikipedia article should be an "introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects", "able to stand alone as a concise overview", and "written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article." While the lead of an article, or its first sentence in particular, is an important facet of an article to improve, improvements to the lead of an article should fundamentally flow from the content of the article, itself compliant with Wikipedia content policies, and not from efforts to advance any particular point of view.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Topics covering multiple perspectives

14) While many articles deal solely with scientific content or with philosophical/religious content, many public policy topics, including abortion, involve both descriptions of scientifically observable facts and religious or philosophical reactions to those observable findings. In order for a topic to be covered in an encyclopedic fashion, each sort of source must be used appropriately in such an article. Care must be taken with weighting and appropriate use of sources, such as avoiding undue prominence in the lead section or elsewhere.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeated discussion

16) Subsequent attempts at discussion of a topic previously settled by community discussion are often initiated by those not initially achieving their desired outcome. Those satisfied with the previous outcome are less likely to re-engage in subsequent discussions, creating an inappropriate bias toward change in subsequent discussions of the topic.

Passed 11 to 1, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

17) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Guiding the community in protracted disputes

18) The occurrence of protracted, apparently insoluble disputes—whether they involve conduct, content, or policy—is contrary to the purposes of the project and damaging to its health. The chief purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to protect the project from the disruption caused by such disputes, and it has the authority to issue binding resolutions in keeping with that purpose. The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. However, in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision.

Passed 8 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Findings of Fact

Locus of disagreement

1) This case addresses longstanding disputes regarding editing of articles on the topic-area of abortion. Specific disputes in this area have included at least three separate areas:

  • Move discussions concerning the articles formerly titled "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice", commencing on or about 3 February 2011, lately resulting in a Mediation Cabal case where Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion was a compromise solution. It is to be noted that the evidence about the frequency of the terms used in the US and other English-speaking countries was presented in a somewhat unorganized manner.
  • Edit warring over the image(s) contained in Abortion commencing on or about 11 May 2011.
  • Edit warring over the inclusion of the word "death" in the lead sentence of Abortion commencing on or about 8 June 2011.
Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions adopted by the community

2) Since 26 February, 2011, the entire topic area has been placed under discretionary sanctions by the community: ANI discussion Before the commencement of this case, 7 editors had been sanctioned: Log, including User:WikiManOne/User:BelloWello who has been banned from the encyclopedia for disruption.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Banned user participation

3) During the period of time under review, at least one sockpuppet of a previously banned user had been contributing to the discussion at Talk:Abortion in violation of that ban. (cf. Talk:Abortion/Archive_43)

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael C Price's conduct

5) User:Michael C Price has been repeatedly uncivil on Talk:Abortion: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].

Passed 11 to 0, with 1 abstention 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer's conduct

6) User:Gandydancer has repeatedly used uncivil hyperbole and sarcasm in discussions at Talk:Abortion: [22], [23], [24].

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant's conduct

7) Anythingyouwant, under his previous username Ferrylodge, has been previously sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee in November 2007 for his involvement in Abortion-related disputes. The basis for this included disruptive editing at pregnancy and abortion related articles. [25][26] He has manipulated sources to present a POV contra sourcing guidelines. [27] He has edited the page on consensus on July 10 [28], giving the reason for an article he edited that day (presumably abortion which was the only contentious one [29], and then referred to it-as-policy 20 days later, hence manipulating policy pages to further a point in a dispute.[30] The policy change was removed by KillerChihuahua.[31]

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51's conduct

8) NYyankees has engaged in an exchange that suggests a battlefield mentality. [32]

Passed 11 to 1, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Geremia's conduct

9) Geremia (talk · contribs) has edit-warred [33] [34], in one case edit-warring to keep material at odds with secondary sources [35] in violation of medical article sourcing policies, and elsewhere pushed for sourcing at variance with sourcing guidelines in medical articles [36] (namely pitting primary sources against secondary sources), and used tagging inappropriately [37]. For a fuller explanation see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_NuclearWarfare.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel's conduct

10) DMSBel (talk · contribs) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages. He has engaged in a battlefield mentality, [38][39] [40] including edit warring [41] [42], and tendentious editing on the talk page, [43] with a total of 686 edits to talk:abortion between June and September 2011. [44] DMSBel (talk · contribs) has a history of tendentious editing on topics related to human sexuality, leading to a community topic ban from those areas in January 2011. [45]

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Haymaker's conduct

11) Haymaker (talk · contribs) has edited disruptively in topics related to abortion (see block log [46])

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

IP editing prohibited

1) The articles and corresponding talk pages relating to Abortion shall be semi-protected for a period of three years from the conclusion of this case, such that no non-autoconfirmed editor (including IP address editors) shall edit them. Editors in good standing who wish to edit such topics under a single additional account not linked to their identity may do so under the provisions of WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.

Passed 7 to 5, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Modified by motion on 12:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


Administrators instructed

2.1) Administrators are instructed to only move or rename pages relating to the topic of abortion (broadly construed) in the presence of a demonstrable community consensus (such as the result of a proper Requested Move discussion).

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Editors reminded

3) Because of the controversial nature of the subject and the history of editing disputes, editors of abortion-related topics are reminded to adhere to this site's best practices. All editors are reminded that whatever their personal beliefs, their participation on this project is contingent on compliance with this site's policies. All editors are asked to review their own participation to ensure that it remains constructive and focused on the production of a neutral reference work rather than on promoting a specific agenda.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

4.1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages† articles related to abortion, broadly construed. This authorization supersedes the earlier authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community. All sanctions enacted prior to this case under the terms of the community authorization shall be logged under this case as though they had been enacted under the new authorization.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
† Note: drafting slip fixed by copy-edit, per this discussion.  Roger Davies talk 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic discussion and voting on article names

5.1) A structured discussion on the names of the Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion articles shall begin following the conclusion of this case and continue for one month thereafter. During that time, editors should collect systematic evidence of the frequency with which various names for these topics are used in various English-speaking countries, as well as any other material which is relevant to the appropriateness of any proposed title, and present that evidence in an organised, structured and easy to navigate manner.

After one month has elapsed from the conclusion of this case, a community vote on the titles for the articles in question will begin. Voters shall be asked to digest the presented evidence and its relation to Wikipedia's article naming policies, and to offer their opinion on the titles to be used. The vote will be coordinated by one or more administrators appointed by the Committee. The vote will remain open for two months, and its result will be binding for a period of three years from the date it concludes.

Passed 10 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin instructed

6.1) Because Orangemarlin has been unable to participate in this arbitration, including answering findings of fact about his editing in the topic-area of Abortion, potential remedies are suspended until he returns to editing. He is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee upon his return and before participating in the topic area.

Passed 11 to 0, with 1 abstention 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael C Price topic-banned

7) Michael C Price is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed in one year.

Passed 6 to 5, with 1 abstention03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer advised

8) Gandydancer is advised to subdue the tone of comments in heated discussions.

Passed 8 to 3, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant topic-banned

9) Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Haymaker topic-banned

10.1) Haymaker (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed in one year.

Passed 9 to 1, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51 reminded

11) NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) is reminded to maintain a collegial and non-adversarial manner in posting in what is a very delicate topic area.

Passed 11 to 0, with 1 abstention 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Geremia topic-banned

12) Geremia (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed.

Passed 12 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel topic-banned

13) DMSBel (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed.

Passed 11 to 1, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement by Block

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the most recent block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 10 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Amendments by motions

Modified by motion

Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

Passed 7 to 1, 12:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, restrictions, and semiprotections

Log any block, restriction, ban, article/talk page semiprotection, or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the rationale for doing it.

Inherited from community-imposed sanctions

Since case closure

Page protections
Other sanctions
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion&oldid=477263844"