Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

For the sake of all that is holy, enough canvassing
I don't know how to make this any clearer.

I was contacted for the RfC in a "targeted" mass canvass.

I was contacted for the Mediation request by a "targeted" mass canvass.

I was contacted for the evidence phase here by a "targeted" mass canvass.

Enough of this. A large number of people with exceedingly minimal involvement were clearly upset, if not openly hostile, to being contacted for the Mediation request, where they were all named as parties for the Mediation in what I can only describe as a stroke of pure stupidity.

I realize that there was a methodology behind each of the "targeted" canvasses, but someone, somewhere, should have picked up on the large number of people saying "don't contact me again about this" at the Mediation request and... wait for it... not contacted them about this.

I know ArbCom has procedures, lots and lots and lots of them, but IAR applies here. For most of the people who were contacted for this and are not named parties in this case, the whole thing has been nothing but an annoyance.

And for the record, yes, I know this is the evidence page. This is evidence of how botched this whole process has been.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  05:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Steven Zhang
This is not evidence, per se. Consider it a comment. I feel it inappropriate for me to present "evidence" on the case, but merely to direct the committee to view the history of the dispute on the abortion talk page as well as the MedCab case. I still consider myself neutral on this subject, and thus will not present evidence against individual users. I am confident that the listed parties will be able to provide the committee with enough evidence in regards to the issues at hand here, and will limit my contributions to the case to proposing a decision at workshop. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  09:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Entire move process was disruptive
This whole mess began in February with a proposed move of pro-life to anti-abortion; that proposal was closed as no consensus to move after 60 individuals commented. After a month, another move proposal was opened, then closed as no consensus to move, then reopened, then closed once again as no consensus to move. The same admin, User:Anthony Appleyard, who opened, closed, and re-opened the second proposal opened another proposal a month after the second was closed for the final time; the third proposal was closed as no consensus to move.

A different but just as disruptive process was followed at pro-choice; a proposal was opened, closed quickly, opened again, then closed again with the highly questionable rationale that the discussion had run 40 days, and the page was moved to abortion-rights movement. After the close was questioned, a proposal to move it back to pro-choice was opened and closed, then another proposal for the same change was opened and closed.

What I see in the process for pro-life was that a few editors who didn't like the result of the first move proposal kept opening new ones until to keep trying to get what they wanted, and it eventually went to MedCab where they got what they wanted ("pro-life" was extinguished). This was extremely disruptive. The process never should have gone to MedCab because the repeat proposals should have been automatically closed. In the process for pro-choice, the actions of User:Anthony Appleyard were particularly bizarre in closing one proposal with a poor rationale, then closing a proposal to reverse his previous closing, then opening a new proposal doing the same thing proposed by the discussion he just closed.

We are here at arbitration because of the disruptive actions of a few warriors who refused to rest until they got what they wanted. The closing at MedCab sets a dangerous precedent - if you can't get consensus in a discussion, keep starting new ones until you get mediation, where you can get what you want. To me it seems the only option is to move the articles back to pro-life and pro-choice - that's where actual consensus wanted them, or at the very least, actual consensus didn't want them anywhere else. To keep the titles at anything other than pro-life and pro-choice is a victory for the disruptive warriors. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Responses to other users' evidence regarding myself

 * Response to VsevolodKrolikov
 * Response to MastCell
 * Response to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

The beginning of the move process was disruptive
The first move request was made by User:WikiManOne who is now indefinitely community banned for disruption, and as pointed out by NYyankees51 the second move request for pro-life was conducted poorly. With regards to pro-choice the first move was closed due to WP:POINT and the editor who created it was WikiManOne as above. The second one I'm not so sure about, but the closing rationale was poor.

The end of the move process was intended to achieve results
The third move request was also opened by Anthony Appleyard, however it had been requested by User:Roscelese - who initially stated in the first move discussion that they didn't think attempting a move was initially worthwhile and they have repeatedly stated that they just want parallel titles 1 2. Although I had expressed a view about moving away from pro-life and pro-choice in the previous move discussions, in the third move discussion I pushed fairly hard to keep the pages at the status quo of pro-life and abortion-rights movement. I was the only person to do so without double-voting. When it became clear that was going to lead to a stalemate I suggested going (and went) to the mediation cabal, as there wasn't really a good alternative. This was backed up by the discussions closing rationale.

At Mediation large numbers of people were asked to participate
At mediation User:HuskyHuskie contacted every user who had edited the articles in the previous year to get their involvement in the mediation case if they wish, so basically everyone who was plausibly interested was invited to participate. The only exception seems to have been User:Born2cycle but I guess they didn't make the required edits.

It is doubtful as to whether pro-life and pro-choice meet Wikipedia's common name and NPOV policies
As far as I know the best evidence gathered in the mediation case in favour of pro-life/pro-choice stated that pro-life was used 67% more often than anti-abortion. However this didn't take into account other possible alternative forms as pointed out here, and it seems far fetched to say that this evidence points to WP:POVTITLE coming into play.

Of course maybe I've missed some better evidence elsewhere, and maybe Born2cycle can bring some to the table. If this evidence is from media sources as English is the world's lingua franca this should include coverage by reliable sources outside the UK and United States - at the very least covering English language media in India and Australia, if not further afield.

With regards to neutrality itself HuskyHuskie explains that pro-choice fails to meet NPOV with this comment and User:VsevolodKrolikov lists various sources and their usages here and here

Reply to NuclearWarfare
NuclearWarfare states "I'm really tired of this dispute. I think basically everyone who came to this article as a previously uninvolved party is too." this is the reason I want Arbcom to make a ruling on which title is the most suitable. -- Eraserhead1  18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by VsevolodKrolikov
I joined this case at informal mediation.

Evidence of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour
The essence of the discussion: Is “pro-life” an appropriately neutral title?

In mediation and after, no serious attempt was made to deal with strong evidence that pro-life is not neutral. Here I repeat user:NickDupree's evidence of major media organizations refusing to use the term because it is not neutral. User:LedRush at least interacts with this evidence, dismissing it as the "decree" of a minority of RSs. Reasonably taking this reply as a statement of evidence requirements, I show that the majority of the top ten US newspapers do not use pro-life/choice as descriptors; several explicitly because of neutrality concerns. (I now know the WSJ evidence has problems, but the overall picture remains). There is virtually no response, but a repeated insistence that pro-life “wins” through WP:COMMONNAME.

Evidence was also presented that pro-life fails WP:WORLDWIDE (my own edits again (sorry), the same point is made by  several editors). Again, this evidence is pretty much ignored.

At least some editing in support of "pro-life" is openly politically motivated
This exchange appears to suggest that User:Kenatipo, User:Lionelt and User:NYyankees51 are openly working to forward a POV on wikipedia. In mediation, User:Kenatipo dismisses major media organizations like Associated Press and CBS as "liberal", and openly refers to each “side”, including a refusal to let them re-name "us". User:Lionelt makes polarising accusations about editors supporting the title move, despite heartfelt pleas from editors openly opposed to abortion who accept that neutrality issues exist.

Refusal to accept mediation outcome is disruptive
Informal mediation lasted a whole month. The request for formal mediation is only weakly based on a complaint about mediation closing (only one involved user complained to the closer, and rather confrontationally - please read the whole section). Instead within 48 hours of the closing of this month-long mediation, discussions had suddenly “raised more issues”. User:NYyankees51 complains about previous actions (I see in his diffs a history of growing support for a move) but he and others then dismiss the findings of a stronger consensus at a wider mediation to which they had consented. This seems disruptive to me.

Proposed move was a good concession, and not against policy
The descriptive neutral title, rather than "anti-abortion" (approved by many US media stylebooks) was an attempt at compromise. Users of all views feel frustrated that despite consensus, a minority remains determined to keep a different title that explicitly reflects their POV. User:Born2cycle has joined the discussion to promote his own idiosyncratic view of WP:AT that descriptive titles are verboten where any common name exists (contradicting a recent ARBCOM decision). His view is not accepted by a majority of editors; his efforts here and here to re-write policy in the middle of this particular case have been reverted and protested by several users. Born2cycle is acting in good faith - but he does need warning as to editing policy while arguing it in serious cases.

VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Why article omits discernible image of what's aborted in typical abortion
At the request stage of this case, I said: "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 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.' . Hopefully that editor [OrangeMarlin] 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." So, I want to present evidence regarding a disruptive pattern of censorship inconsistent with Wikipedia's rules about edit-warring, consensus, NPOV, censorship, etc. The evidence is lengthy, because there's been a LOT of edit-warring; this evidence is at the evidence talk page for anyone interested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That last link I gave shows, among other things, that the abortion article was frozen by an admin in his preferred version that excluded an image of what is aborted. That admin had previously removed another such image, and said subsequent to freezing the article that he disagreed with the image's use in Wikipedia, and was also potentially concerned about its accuracy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

MastCell's false accusation of agenda-driven editing
MastCell asserts below that I have, "Numerous blocks for edit-warring, including 2 on abortion-related topics." But, the last time I was blocked was in 2009, and during that year (2009), my only block was unrelated to abortion..

MastCell also writes below that I was, "Found by ArbCom in 2007 to have a 'long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion'." But, since 2007 the log of blocks and bans pursuant to that finding has remained empty. MastCell's accusations against me were considered at Arbitration Enforcement and rejected..

MastCell also stated below regarding WP:Consensus: "That snippet of policy was added by Anythingyouwant himself, shortly before he cited it in the content dispute". Actually, I edited WP:Consensus twenty (20) days before alluding to it at abortion talk. I edited WP:Consensus on July 10, simply to improve policy based on personal experience, per my edit summary: "A bold addition, pertinent to an article I edited today." An arbitrator once told me, "This is Wikipedia, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals." So, I don't edit policy based on hypotheticals. I alluded to this snippet of policy on July 30 at abortion talk, and had not planned for this issue to be relevant 20 days later. The sentence in question from WP:Consensus is valid, and remains in the policy today (August 16), despite intervening policy edits by others including MastCell. Note that, before MastCell mentioned this issue below, I already informed ArbCom that "I edited WP:Consensus this summer" Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)(via iPhone while travelling)
 * Reply to Mastcell's dishonesty charge.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Failure to listen on both sides
I am amazed at the apparent inability of some (I emphasize, some) of the partisans on both sides to recognize the validity of their opponents' points. This isn't a matter of one side is all wrong and the other is all right--there is a conflict between two policies here, though several editors would have us believe that they and they alone hold all the cards.


 * Does WP:COMMONNAME factor in here? I think clearly this provides a strong argument for titling the articles Pro-choice and Pro-life.  I say this as someone who does not favor said titles, because nobody I know would fail to recognize these terms as referring to the movements in question.  Some editors have stated or implied that these terms could be “mistaken” for other movements. (yes, that's me).  But I think if we're honest, we'll realize something rather clear:  While  WP:COMMONNAME does not mandate the use of “Pro-life” or “Pro-choice”, it’s sophistry to deny that anyone would be confused by these titles.


 * On the other hand, does WP:NPOV factor in here? I think that there is also a strong argument for Anti-abortion and Abortion rights based on this point, and I am amazed at the unwillingness of most “Pro-life/Pro-choice” supporters to even consider the validity of the POV argument here.  Cannot one hold to the WP:COMMONNAME argument, and still accept that a POV issue exists?  Clearly the name “Pro-choice” is a euphemism; it refers to only one choice out of thousands of choices one makes in life, so it is POV by nature.  And clearly the name “Pro-life” is a euphemism; in its most common usage, by “life” it refers to fetal and embryonic life, not the life of murderers, animals, or the terminally ill, so it is POV by nature. But many editors have simply ignored the NPOV argument; most offer no refutation (with a few exceptions, asserting WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:NPOV--based upon their chosen part of that policy). There's almost no point in providing diffs, because how do you show diffs of someone ignoring something? And one editor has argued that there is no conflict between WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME because neutrality is defined by what is most common!.  Huh?

Lack of good faith grows wearisome

 * This is a minor point, but I've been upset by the persistent claim, by some who favor the title “Pro-life”, that anyone disagreeing with them is not actually concerned with the stated POV issues, but is actually acting out a pro-choice/abortion rights partisanship.. My repeated refutations have been ignored, and they keep repeating this untruth, effectively smearing the messenger and ignoring the message.
 * Secondly, I am disturbed that some have been editing policy while simultaneously using said policy in this very matter. I am not knowledgeable about such matters, but am I wrong to think that such revisions to policy should be left until after this matter is settled?

Evidence presented by MastCell
A brief overview of some of the more active editors on abortion-related pages:


 * Long history of tendentious editing on topics related to human sexuality; topic-banned after particularly serious problems at cum shot and ejaculation (link to topic ban discussion). Moved on to abortion, which apparently does not fall under "human sexuality, broadly construed" (?!?!)
 * As of August 15, 2011, his last 1,000 contributions (more, actually, but I stopped counting) appear to be dedicated solely to litigating one side of a single abortion-related dispute.
 * Inappropriate use of Wikipedia as a soapbox: disrupts talk-page discussion of content issues by pushing his personal viewpoint on abortion:
 * "Come on Wikipedians? The Fetus is a baby, the baby is alive and the baby is a person. Abortion kills an unborn baby. We are pussy footing round the whole issue, which is worse than just coming out and being honest about it - no roe v wade said this or said that. We all know, all of us here. We all have to face it."
 * "At least we will start to see POVs more clearly. Yours is that a mother can kill her unborn baby if it is going to be a burden... Every kid coming out of high school knows abortion kills a baby."
 * "Sure it (abortion) is a clear cut evil, its the taking of innocent human life."
 * "By the way: I know that a fetus is alive before viability. I don't need to wait till medical definitions catch up with what most people knew 50 years ago."
 * Out-of-nowhere antagonism: "Thats dishonest and you know it... But keep going and we'll see what happens."
 * Block log: Two blocks, both for edit-warring, once at abortion.
 * Addendum: Blocked for edit-warring on abortion again during the case; see 1RR report and unblock requests. 05:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Blocked for edit-warring on abortion again during the case; see 1RR report and unblock requests. 05:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * , né Ferrylodge
 * Found by ArbCom in 2007 to have a "long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion".
 * Rewrites policy to support his position in a content dispute: "If you would go read WP:Consensus, you will find that unanimous loathing of a sentence in an article is not enough to change it; there needs to be consensus what to change it to. That snippet was added to WP:CONSENSUS by Anythingyouwant himself, shortly before he cited it in the content dispute:.
 * Shoots down good-faith attempt to find a suitable image
 * Rhetorical dishonesty: Recently, said of another editor's viewpoint on fetal death: "It's just a bunch of fucking cells you sanctimonious obsessive little fuck." Anythingyouwant repeatedly cites this comment as "typical" of editors he disagrees with (,, , etc.) In fact, no other participant has said anything even remotely like that, ever (hence the absence of other diffs). It was an abusive remark born of extenuating circumstances. That doesn't excuse Orangemarlin's abusive comment, but neither does it excuse Anythingyouwant's repeated misrepresentation of that remark as "typical".
 * Block log: Numerous blocks for edit-warring, including 2 on abortion-related topics.


 * Block log: Multiple blocks; reasons include abusive sockpuppetry and 3 blocks for edit-warring on abortion-related articles.
 * Sockpuppet investigation suggests that he has edited from an IP belonging to the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life advocacy group.
 * Sockpuppet investigation suggests that he has edited from an IP belonging to the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life advocacy group.


 * Block log: Numerous blocks, including 5 for edit-warring on abortion-related topics.
 * Block log: Numerous blocks, including 5 for edit-warring on abortion-related topics.

The lead sentence
All things are wearisome, more than one can express. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun. See Poe 2006, Atlantic Monthly: "Such negotiations never really end. As new participants enter the fray, the struggle always begins anew." MastCell Talk 18:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Anythingyouwant and sourcing
Regarding the dispute over the lead sentence and the definition of abortion:
 * : Anythingyouwant cites Black's Law Dictionary: "the knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child or the intentional expulsion or removal of an unborn child from the womb other than for the principle purpose of producing a live birth or removing a dead fetus."
 * : I notice that AYW is citing the 1979 edition of Black's, and question why we're using a 30-year-old edition rather than the most recent (2009) edition.
 * : updates the article to cite the current edition of Black's: "An artificially induced termination of a pregnancy for the purpose of destroying an embryo or fetus."  Notice the difference in tone - Anythingyouwant's 1979 citation speaks of the "knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child", whereas the modern edition speaks of destroying an "embryo or fetus".
 * : ArtifexMayhem follows up by noting that Black's explicitly addresses viability ( "The word 'abortion,' in the dictionary sense, means no more than the expulsion of a fetus before it is capable of living" ), in a way that conflicts with AYW's preferred wording.
 * : AYW now objects to quoting Black's, when it comes to this particular material. He shifts ground to argue the OED definition.

One could draw a range of conclusions here, ranging from an accidental failure to use up-to-date sources to intentional selection of sources based on their POV. I'll leave the interpretation to others. MastCell Talk 23:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful comments

 * .-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * .-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Scope of the case
This case is simply an amalgamation of two cases: the dispute over the naming of the pro-choice / pro-life articles and the lead sentence of abortion, as well as some smaller matters. Despite having some editors in common, they are actually two rather distinct issues. I know very little about the latter, so I'll talk about the former.

Lead sentence of abortion
Around the beginning of June 2011, Orangemarlin stated that he believed that the lead sentence of the abortion article was not neutral. At the time, it read Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. (Reference: Gynaecology for Lawyers). After a bit of edit warring, the article was protected. That is not to say that there was not talk page discussion; there was quite a lot of it. You can follow it starting here. It is my impression that instead of properly surveying a variety of previously-heavily-cited secondary and tertiary sources, editors were cherry picking sources to support their point of view. For example, see Michael C Price, who pointed to a Google Scholar search for the phrase "death of the fetus" and essentially said "OK, that's good enough". He also engaged in heavy original research on the terminology, e.g. "intent [of abortion] is still to kill, albeit sometimes with regret"; "Show us a source that says the fetus/baby doesn't die in a miscarriage" (Archive 42). Other improper arguments include DMSBel's citation of (from 1962), which states that "birth" is an improper definition of the beginning of life and that medical practitioners have begun using terms like "perinatal". DMSBel uses this and another source titled Fetal death to conclude that because medical practitioners use the phrase "fetal life" and "fetal death", abortion can be defined as "death". While this seems intuitive at first glance, it is quite clearly original research in my mind, and not reflective of what major sources say (see next paragraph). I entered the discussion on June 14. I surveyed every major medical dictionary, every major obstetrics and gynecology textbook, five other medical dictionaries, two other textbooks, six other dictionaries, and five other encyclopedias (This was essentially a comprehensive reference dump—I included every single major secondary or tertiary source I had access to from the shelves of a nearby medical school. 23/24 did not support the addition of "death" in the lead; I strongly encourage you to read them all for yourself here.) Now, why do I tell you all of this? I don't want you to rule on what the lead sentence of abortion should be; that much is not in your purview. I do want you to be able to examine the conduct issues in the proper light though. What may appear to be simple disagreements over content are often, in my view, disingenuous and POV-pushing in a manner that gives undue weight to certain cherry-picked sources from pro-life websites. I'm not saying that everyone is doing this, but the repetitive nature of such arguments wears you out after a while. See, for example, KillerChihuahua's posts starting at 22:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC) in archive 43 about that issue; it didn't really improve from there. I had originally planned to into far more detail about the various stalling techniques, discussion derailing, and so on done by certain editors. But honestly, it's just depressing me. Let me attempt to quickly sum up the rest; I encourage you to read Archives 42 and 43 as well as the current talk page to decide for yourselves. Several RFCs were set up. They attracted outside attention. The few people who did come didn't stick around for the full discussion, and rightly so. I floated very many proposed compromise versions of the lead; none were really considered. After the last bout of edit warring, I added a compromise version of the lead sentence to the article. This was accepted, with a few changes, by everyone who still remained, including editors from both "sides". I thought that the matter was settled. But a few days ago, RoyBoy started the discussion again. From square one. The compromise version that appeared to be working fine wasn't even considered in the list of options. Maybe one or two editors that haven't watchlisted this article for years remained to stay for this. I'm really tired of this dispute. I think basically everyone who came to this article as a previously uninvolved party is too. It's hard to discuss with someone who has literally spent their last 1000+ edits on abortion topics (see MastCell's evidence and this currently open case request). I don't know what will help solve this dispute in a reasonable fashion, but I guarantee that a simple "everyone go play nice and remember to reread WP:OR and WP:NPOV" will not suffice. 15:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Other users
I endorse all of MastCell's evidence above. I wanted to add on to it with a few editors he hasn't mentioned:


 * Block log: 2 blocks, one for 1RR violation and one for block evasion
 * Examples of disruptive editing:
 * Cherrypicking primary sources, constrasting them against secondary sources such as positions of expert bodies and systematic reviews, and using them to overwhelm discussion
 * Tagging content he personally dislikes, despite the fact that the source specifically uses those words, which is stated even in the abstract of the source.
 * Edit wars over the inclusion of article cleanup tags without attempting to seriously discuss further; this has been a problem in previous cases too (Climate change general sanctions).
 * Adds material that is 100% contradicted by the referenced articles and edit wars to include it, in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV.
 * This is all within the last few weeks. Despite that, I think a topic ban would be helpful, to nip the problem in midstalk, if not the bud. 22:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is all within the last few weeks. Despite that, I think a topic ban would be helpful, to nip the problem in midstalk, if not the bud. 22:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Andering J. REDDSON
I’d like to make a statement, if I can. The issue was brought up on another page that there is no specific naming conventions on pro-choice and pro-life views; But those are the universally accepted terms. “Pro-life” has for many years meant those who oppose legalization or performance of abortion, “Pro-choice” has for many years meant those who support legalization or perform of abortions. Whatever else the mediation resolves I can not speak on, but those naming traditions ARE correct. (I did use quotes, but equally applied, to maintain my own neutrality; I also applogize for my fumbling earlier.) A REDDSON

Word quibble: "legal" is more appropriate than "legalization"
One proposal was to use article titles involving the phrase "legalization of abortion" (or the British English equivalent). According to wikipedia, "Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal". Thus, the phrase "legalization of abortion" is appropriate only for geographical locales where abortion is not currently legal or was not historically legal. However, what about places where abortion has always been legal? It makes no sense to speak of the legalization of abortion in those places, but it is still quite sensible to discuss abortion politics in those places. Thus, I ask that the word "legalization" not be used in the article titles, and likewise for "legalized".

Using the phrase "legal abortion" instead of "legalization of abortion" fixes this problem. One can support (or oppose) legal abortion regardless of whether abortion is currently legal or illegal. — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 20:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by KillerChihuahua
I'm not sure why I was added to this case; I have not been involved in the recent edit wars regarding the images and/or the renames/moves. I have asked a few questions and offered some comments on the first paragraph. I believe I offered a view in one of the many polls preceding the move. However, as this case is about editor conduct I feel I can offer some small evidence which may be helpful.
 * Anythingyouwant continues problematic approach to editing: From an earlier ArbCom case, Andrew_c said at one point that "KC says If you cannot address this issue, your case is without merit. a bit blunt, but not incivil, and FL's reply: If you cannot perceive sources in my first comment in this section, then your comment is without merit and further sources are pointless. then KC's I'm getting tired of warning you about civility. followed by FL's I am getting exceedingly tired of your accusations. It's like "I am rubber you are glue, what ever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" for FL. And sure, this stuff was taking place 9-10 months ago, but we saw the exact same thing with FL's interaction with Pleasantville just days before his ban, at Talk:Mother. She says (in a second civility warning in that thread): Please try to adopt a more civil tone. You seem to be extremely anxious about this. which FL replies: Please stop condescending, psychoanalyzing, and pretending that my tone is not civil. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in that regard. It is like deja vu."  and so it is. Deja vu all over again, in this very case. MastCell adds evidence regarding Anythingyouwant; Anythingyouwant tries to spin it back on Mastcell, rather than offer opposing evidence.  etc.
 * Anythingyouwant on WP:AE I noticed that ATYW has commented several times here on the case pages for this case that he has been "hauled before AE numerous times". I have room here so in case anyone is interested, here are the times and focus of his appearances there:
 * 1) Archive10#Ferrylodge - Request for clarification: is Ferrylodge banned from Abortion articles? No clear consensus
 * 2) Archive11#FerryLodge continued - Civility, declined because ArbCom decision did not cover/mention civility. Ferrylodge commented "I am growing weary of these frivolous requests for ArbCom enforcement. " - after only one such request (as the first was for clarification, this was the first for enforcement)
 * 3) Archive15#User:Ferrylodge - disruption. Result: talk pages are deemed to not be included in the ArbCom decision
 * 4) Archive33#How does one get a restriction_lifted ? - Ferrylodge wanting a lifting of the ArbCom sanctions regarding him
 * 5) Archive34#Ferrylodge - request for possible sanctions; sent back as content dispute.
 * 6) Archive92#Anythingyouwant - edit warring over image: no action taken.

Evidence presented by User:DMSBel
Note: Section moved by Case Clerk User:Penwhale at 06:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am an editor who had been heavily (and in the view of a few editors tendentiously) involved (but mainly in discussion) on the Abortion article. Also my IP is 62.254.133.139 some of my posts are signed with that. I have tried to indicate in discussion when I forgot to sign-in, but sometimes just left my IP as I thought most editors knew my IP and Username.

The recent areas of dispute have been:


 * a) The removal from the article of a photo of a fetus removed in situ during a hysterectomy / abortion by editor User:Friend of the Facts. If the committee is not sure which photo this refers to I will add ref. upon request. Followed by rejection of an RFC on the matter by User:Orangemarlin. []


 * RfC's are a waste of time. But if you're going to open it up, I'm going to make sure "death" is removed from the lead, since a fetus is not alive, so it can't be killed. If you're going to open one shitty can of works, I get to open my own. Go for it. By the way, I reverted the POV picture. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is fairly obvious. When OM wrote that he was "going to make sure "death" is removed from the lead..." [bold mine] he expressed not just a POV but seems to have declared an agenda. DMSBel (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Again it is probably stating the obvious, (but as the obvious seems not to be noticed at times it probably worth re-stating it), an RfC was not held in regard to the photo removal. I was not intending to open an RfC on the subject myself, being involved I thought it would be better for someone else to to that. I can only regard OMs above comment implies it would be disruptive to follow normal course in a dispute (that of having an RfC), and that unilateral deletion by one editor of a photo that was in the article for some time should be tolerated. OM comment "Excellent. However, watch for the war that follows." on Friend of the Facts talk page [] following deletion of the photo may also be of interest to the committee.


 * b) Objection to the manner in which the terms therapeutic and elective are used. Particularly the way they are disambiguated in the lede which I have argued was contra the sources cited. Discussion here:[]


 * c) A (non-consensual in the view of myself and several other editors) change to the lede first sentence to remove "..resulting in or caused by its death.." on the grounds that a fetus is not living. There are diffs regarding this in NWs evidence. The evidence from the earlier dispute over the picture is in my opinion relevant in regard to this also, see section (a).


 * d) Most recently over the best way to summarise the findings of various reports, reviews, and meta-analysis of abortion and mental health.

With regard to naming of article disputes, I have not been involved, though I have been involved in discussion and editng in regard to terminology relating to abortion, specifically therapeutic/elective.

The above has been trimmed and re-factored somewhat so as not to be too long. If it is still too long I submit request for extension from the committee.DMSBel (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
My only involvement in this debate has been in closing the mediation cabal discussion. I was not involved prior to that, and have not been involved since. I have also not yet read any of the evidence in this current case, in the hope my evidence will be as close to my own views as possible. As such, I am only commenting on those who struck me as 'characters' in the MedCab case.

Steven Zhang behaved admirably
Steven Zhang was, in my opinion, presented with an extremely difficult MedCab case to work with. He came up with a novel solution, and rather bold solution: to go with a neutral name, over the politically charged but arguably more common names. The proposal was to move 'Abortion-rights movement' to 'Support for legalized abortion (or Support for the legalisation of abortion)', and the same sort of change for the pro-life article - as outlined here. I believe he did this in the belief that it would be an acceptable compromise for both sides.

HuskyHuskie has worked towards a solution
HuskyHuskie has, on occasion, used foul language, she has acted in good faith generally, suggesting solutions, apologising when things were heated, and shown herself to be open to compromise, despite having strong views.

NYyankees51 has edited with a single purpose
NYyankees51 has a long history of editing topics from an obvious political standpoint - that of the right-wing of the United States. In particular, his past edit history has included a plethora of edits to the Susan B Anthony List and Bobby Schilling articles - see http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=NYyankees51&l=all. He stated that he was an intern at the 'SBAL' organisation in 2009, yet despite this he maintains that he has 'no conflict of interest' in abortion-related topics. During my perusal of the MedCab discussion and NYyankees51's edits and previous sockpuppetting, I was surprised that he had not been banned indefinitely. In my opinion, NYyankees51 has shown that he is not a positive influence on the project.

My personal feelings
My personal opinion is that the entire situation could be fixed by topic-banning a fair few editors from 'abortion and political topics' and outright banning those who are obviously here to push a PoV. As this is a personal opinion, I haven't included any evidence - it's just my 'gut feeling' given the range of problematic editors involved.

Evidence presented by ArtifexMayhem
For many years the lead of the abortion article took the form of...

...and has been defended as the "consensus version" allegedly edit-warred out of the article over this past summer.

It has never been supported by the source supplied...


 * Please see Abortion 2011: The Lead Edit War for a combined table of text diffs on the abortion lead between 7 June 2011 and 9 September 2011.

Eight of the IP editors at Talk:Abortion are actually one.

 * Please see The IP known as 67 for the breakdown.

Lead sentence impatience
I did not comment until now, as I thought this was dealing exclusively with a move disagreement. Just in case the scope changes, here is my statement.

The 2006 "death" consensus discussion started on 12 March 2006 and ended around 10 May 2006, or two months of cooperation, compromise and honest discussion. This version was defended from 2006 to mid-2011. Then came along new editors, fine, who changed it in good faith to match medical sources. Okay. What follows is leveraging those sources without discussion to maintain a change to a well established consensus they clearly didn't bother to consult (archives). Not cool.

After a lot of retreaded discussion, about life and medical sources I reiterated the rationale behind "death". Wikipedia defines death correctly once, "permanent termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism", not of a person. Regardless, what cliches it IMO, is that Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopedia (like Encarta). If we can avoid technical terms, we should, especially to maintain summary style.

Current lead: "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before it is viable."

While "viable" is medically relevant and accurate (enough), it isn't for an encyclopedia. I believe it is contrary to Wikipedia policy as its "overly specific" as viability does not define what an abortion is (ie. war crimes on pregnant women, causing loss of pregnancy of a viable fetus). What made me personally side with death in 2006, was it communicated this is a controversial / emotional topic from the first sentence, in a measured accurate way; it encapsulated the entire complexity of the topic in one clear sentence. The obsession with removing "death" in my estimation is political correctness gone too far; admittedly reflected in many medical RS's, but most of which have a need to clinically define abortion for legal / bio-ethical / patient reasons. Wikipedia is not a medical source.

As to tactics and prolonging discussion, real patience is necessary on hot topics, especially with an existing consensus. I find complaints amusing given the repeated shortcuts used to push through preferred inaccurate, longer and/or convoluted versions. Somehow a straw poll of ~48 hours is sufficient. - RoyBoy 06:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person