Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motion: Ignore Propaganda and simply be accurately descriptive
1) It is widely recognized that both of the very-commonly-used-and-referenced titles, "pro-choice" and pro-life", were created as propaganda tools. That way opponents of "pro-choice" could be equated with slavers, and opponents of "pro-life" could be equated with murderers.  It is to be expected, because of natural human laziness, that those titles will remain in common use simply because they are very short.  Nevertheless, if Wikipedia is not a battleground, then it is essential to reject both propagandistic titles.  It is also a fact that deliberate abortions occur whether they are legal or not.  Therefore even the current titles, which mention "legalized abortion", are not as accurate as they should be.  I therefore propose that the titles should be something like "Abortion: Proponent Views" and "Abortion: Opponent Views"  --even these are not as accurate as they should be, because the definition of abortion sometimes includes spontaneous miscarriages, which can happen totally independently of anyone's viewpoint on the subject. However, these titles have the advantage of being reasonably brief and quite accurate, and, if each title was accompanied by an explanatory sentence or subtitle (very common in Wikipedia), it could be indicated that the page so titled is relevant to deliberate abortions only. V (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When writing the above I failed to keep in mind that most abortion proponents don't encourage abortions to actually be done; they just want abortions to be allowed to be done, and let individuals decide whether or not to abort. Which means, for those proponents, a title such as "Abortion: Proponent Views" would need additional explanatory stuff in the subtitle, since the title alone implies that most proponents actually want abortions to be done.  In fact, though, that would be true for only a minority of proponents. V (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can even think of a specific "abortion proponent" example, regarding rape ( http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/college_campuses_and_rape.htm ). Does anyone out there know why up to 60% of males might commit rape if they thought they could get away with it?  I can offer a guess.  All through History rapes have occurred, and vast numbers of rape-caused pregnancies resulted in births.  Now, it is a Scientific Fact that Nature Doesn't Care about the methods employed by various life-forms to pass genes on; if it works, well, that's good enough for Nature.  This implies that there could exist a genetic tendency in (up to 60% of?) males toward committing rape, since Historically it has been a successful way to pass genes on.  However, suppose that "abortion proponents" made it Mandatory that all rape-caused pregnancies be aborted?  Then that particular method of passing genes on would no longer be successful, and, but only in the long long run, any genetic tendency toward committing rape should gradually shrink in the male population.
 * Well, the preceding paragraph is speculation (and probably Original Research, too!), and it is quite obvious to me that any actual "abortion proponents" as described above would immediately offend everyone who dislikes another notion altogether, known as "eugenics". Talk about abortion, all by itself, being a can of worms!  I'm going to copy this to my Talk page, in case anyone wants to discuss it further. V (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * In general ArbCom deals with conduct issues, and doesn't make decisions about content. In this context, it's unlikely that ArbCom is going to rule on the appropriateness of these terms. PhilKnight (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to reinforce what Phil says here. I can guarantee you that the outcome will not specify article titles, since both sides have reasonable, policy-based arguments for their preferred description.  What we may very well do is propose a process by with the community or its designated representatives will resolve the issue, and what will happen to editors who are unable to accept and work within such an outcome. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Well, in view of the fact that so much behavior considered "bad" was related to arguments about a couple of article titles (I actually don't know most of the details because I haven't edited anything on the Abortion-article pages for a fair number of months), I was expecting this Arbitration process to finalize and lock-down-with-no-more-discussion-about-it some titles (and indicated something to that effect as a comment on the Mediation Request page (since removed when the request was denied). Tempers could be expected to cool if that topic of argumentation can no longer be argued!  Of course, persons deserving of arbitration will make themselves known in due course, as they misbehave over something else.... V (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the difference with the Ireland case is that while Republic of Ireland is slightly more descriptive it is longer, and if you search on the BBC's website for Ireland without northern ireland 8 of the top 10 hits are for cricket and Rugby which are "all Ireland" sports. Thus overall both options are reasonable picks and so a straw poll is sensible.
 * With regards to Macedonia, there is clearly a lot of the historic country not ruled by the current country known as Macedonia so the current position seems the most sensible and therefore Arbcom ruled to that affect.
 * With regards to this case if pro-life and pro-choice are considered neutral then those are probably the best titles to lock down on, if pro-life and pro-choice aren't considered neutral then maybe it is worth an RFC to consider the names beyond the current ones (possibly excluding pro-life/pro-choice), or maybe the current titles should be locked down at least for a few months with the possibility of a binding RFC later. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Motion: Anythingyouwant is restricted
2) Anythingyouwant is restricted from making any article space edits in abortion and pregnancy topics, broadly interpreted. Anythingyouwant may take part in talk page, wikiproject, and noticeboard discussions on these topics, but any uninvolved administrator may ban Anythingyouwant for disruptive behavior. This replaces the November 2007 arbitration against Ferrylodge/Anythingyouwant: Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This motion isn't supported by evidence to establish an urgent need to restrict an editor before the case is closed. Proposing sanctions in this manner is extremely unhelpful. 166.205.138.68 (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopaedia, and this effort is best achieved with an atmosphere of collaboration, camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. The use of Wikipedia for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This or something substantially similar will be included in the final decision. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. We need to remind everyone of this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Reasonably standard. While normally a stock standard principle is used, I felt it necessary to emphasise the need for collaboration, which at times is severely lacking on Wikipedia, especially at disputes which end up at Arbitration. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  10:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Editorial conduct
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Again, worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This or something substantially similar will be included in the final decision. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. We need to remind everyone of this. It is how people conduct themselves when discussing issues covered by guidelines which may be amenable to consensus building. There is some caveat where policies are violated, however. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Pretty standard, but important in this situation as a principle. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  11:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Neutral point of view
3) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is a non-negotiable, fundamental policy, and requires that editors strive to (a) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not given undue weight, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree with Steven - this is certainly relevant. PhilKnight (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An appropriate principle, but I may propose a more nuanced version that in articles on topics that reflect both scientific/medical and religious/philosophical aspects, articles must accurately encompass both types of sources in evaluating whether NPOV has been reached. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is relevant apparent consensus building (or otherwise) which may violate one or more core policies. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Important in this situation, but adding info about article titles below as both are relevant here. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  11:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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.

Neutral point of view
3.1) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is a non-negotiable, fundamental policy, and requires that editors strive to ensure articles (a) accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not given undue weight, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source. Articles with content of a medical, religious or philosophical nature, as well as matters of public policy and debate must additionally ensure that significant alternate viewpoints on the subject are accurately represented and encompassed to ensure compliance with NPOV.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed alternative, based on suggestions. It's not quite there with the wording, but I think it's getting there so tweaks to wording would be appreciated. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  06:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Disputes regarding article titles
4) Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. 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. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree we should something along these lines, however not sure about including the last sentence. PhilKnight (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Will not use this in this form, but may find a way to modify it to encompass social/political/philosophical sources and perspectives, which is a key aspect of this case but obviously not relevant to Tree Shaping. Contra PhilKnight, I believe that encouraging consensus among the potential candidate article names is an appropriate recognition that One True Answer may be unattainable. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tricky. need to think about this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Taken directly from Tree shaping, as it is definitely relevant to the dispute here. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  02:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Phil, agreed, I don't like the wording either. See 4.1 below. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The last sentence is a bit problematic. Those principles are not exclusive. In relation to that, there's a big debate on the WP:Article titles talkpage about where NPOV fits in. POVTITLE and COMMONNAME are subject to very differing interpretations.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Article titles
4.1) Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. 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. In a few cases where there is no single term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, it may be 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prefer this slightly more cautious wording. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, as an alternative to 4, which on reflection doesn't quite fit here. I took this from two findings from Tree shaping, and combined them together. It's important that we balance the appropriate policies, but in situations where there is no clear common name as documented in reliable sources (see my initial information that I provided in my filing of the RFAR) and as a result, a descriptive title may be a feasible solution. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would modify the part of 4.1 indicated in italics: "it may be preferable to use a neutral title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." For example, it's not really neutral to use the titles "support for...." and "opposition to...." if we can just as accurately avoid characterizing one side as unsupportive naysayers. In the present context, the titles "Support for abortion legality" and "Support for abortion illegality" would be neutral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer the end of this version, as it makes it clear that descriptive titles can be used. However, it would be good to remove the implication that if there is no singularly overwhelming name then we go to descriptive titles. Could we add ", and where there is no single term in common usage that sufficiently meets our commitment to being neutral"? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Use of dispute resolution
5) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This or something substantially similar will be included in the final decision. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this doesn't allow for the issue if one party is violating a policy such as WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Partly taken from Transcendental Meditation movement. I have emphasised the need for using DR, but also cautioned against its abuse. Feel free to play with the wording. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  02:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Feuds and quarrels
6) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, per WP:BATTLEGROUND (a policy) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Taken from Transcendental Meditation movement. Seems appropriate in this case. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  02:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this, since extensive clashing usually leads to editors trying to destroy each other. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Purpose and role of the Arbitration Committee
7) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes. This doesn't imply that ArbCom is actually going to directly rule on conduct, but instead set up a process that will eventually establish a Request for Comment or a poll or something similar which results in a content decision. PhilKnight (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This or something substantially similar will be included in the final decision. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Phil, part of the issue I see is that the titles in this situation have been discussed extensively. I am not sure how successful an RFC would be, or a poll seeking wider community input. In my experience, members of the community are reluctant to participate in controversial disputes such as these, partly due to not wanting to be considered "involved" or to be accused of having a bias or POV pushing, etc. I would ask the committee to consider whether another poll or RFC would provide the required resolution, and think of an alternative. Perhaps a panel of 3 uninvolved admins could review the dispute and make a decision? Something needs to be done here, but I'm really not sure what. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  02:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless the medcab case is found by Arbcom to have been closed inappropriately, I don't see any value in having another RFC. Even if it has been found to have been closed inappropriately, I'm not sure of the value - I think a reversion to pro-life/pro-choice would be reasonable enough in that case. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never been to RfC (or Mediation or Arbitration, for that matter) before this, but what I'm reading at WP:RFC suggests, as Steve and E-head have already said, that it would be a complete waste of time to go down that path. I don't really know if it's a lack of good faith or merely an inability to see others' perspectives, but even if one could secure an "agreement", if it is undertaken without some weight behind it, it would just be a Wikipedian Kellogg–Briand, soon to be either forgotten or ridiculed for its lack of impact. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence presented for this case shows a whole lot of editors are fed up going over this. I would hope another long discussion could be avoided. We shouldn't have decisions being made by attrition.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * The above "purpose and role" stuff strongly hints that in the present case (remember how this Abritration got started!), it might indeed be appropriate for Arbitration to lock down a couple of article titles. V (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Or just one. See below. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Discretionary sanctions
1) Articles relating to the area of abortion are placed under discretionary sanctions. At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, they may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project, including page protection. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

This remedy supersedes the general sanctions that were put in place by the community.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * If ArbCom sets up a process to make a content decision, then at least for the duration of that process, it would probably make sense to either have discretionary sanctions or article probation in place. That said, I wouldn't explicitly mention 0RR, which usually isn't a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1RR is easier to police than 0RR, otherwise sanctions are prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Taken partly from Macedonia. I have modified it a bit to add the element of protection as a possible way to resolve an issue, edit warring is a no-no and it needs to be clear that disruptive behaviour on these articles will not be tolerated. Additionally, I think discretionary sanctions would assist in providing long term stability to the articles. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  10:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Having a blanket sanctions regime over multiple articles seems less useful than looking specifically at each article and considering what would fit best. Sanctions at the abortion article were already imposed without any notice or discussion at the abortion talk page, and were explicitly imposed as a slopover from imposing them at another related article, without any conduct at the abortion article being justification for the sanctions: "the article history doesn't show any sign of the editing patterns that led to the sanctions being imposed in the first place". Since then, the sanctions have not prevented problems from arising at the abortion article, and the sanctions have not helped at all. I also have doubts that the sanctions have been applied fairly (see previous diff, and this one: ).  I support lifting sanctions at this particular article, and trying a different approach.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of sanctions imposed on abortion-topic edit warriors and politically motivated activists who use the articles as a battleground. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that blocks and bans imposed on abortion-topic edit warriors and politically motivated activists who ignore policy and use the articles as a battleground are fine, but it's easier said than done, and I'm not sure sanctions always help. The existing sanctions have made the problem worse, not better, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that 1RR hasn't helped much; it's just made for slow motion edit warring. I don't think across the board discretionary sanctions would help because one misstep could be very costly and people would be afraid to be bold. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Anybody who is afraid to be bold is very likely aware of his own vulnerability to sanctions; his own status as a political activist editor. Me, I would not be afraid to be bold, as I have created about 120 new articles and taken a significant editing role in about 120 more. I have personally advanced 25 articles to GA or FA status. All of these ~240 articles are in a very wide range of subjects. I know I am part of building the encyclopedia rather than skewing it for political ends. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The article is already under (community-imposed) discretionary sanctions almost exactly identical to those proposed here. This remedy would essentially simply endorse the status quo, which doesn't seem to have been effective to date. MastCell Talk 04:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not realise the nuances of the community enforced discretionary sanctions (I was only aware of the 1RR restriction. This leads me to wonder why it has not been enforced in the past. I would be interested to hear the opinions of the Arbitration Committee on this.  Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  05:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions would certainly be more effective than the current community probation, which as noted elsewhere, was imposed as a remedy for a problem editor who had never edited Abortion (he edit warred on Planned Parenthood) and who is now banned. For one thing, it is far easier to get an uninvolved admin on the ArbCom Enforcement noticeboard to take action; curently unless a new (long, involved) thread is placed on ANI it is virtually certain no uninvolved admin will see problems on the article(s). Requests made on WP:AE generally receive the input of several uninvolved admins. This approach is much better than the proposal of an Abortion-specific noticeboard, with or without the probation. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a system for imposing standard discretionary sanctions that often gets started with a request at WP:Arbitration enforcement. There is a Template:uw-sanctions that takes parameters to specify the Arbcom case which applies. If abortion were put under the same system it should be easier to find admins who could impose sanctions when they are needed. (I just barely know how to do the abortion sanctions under the community system, but it wasn't easy to figure out). The discretionary sanctions are routinely logged in several Arbcom cases so you can go and see how they are done, if an admin is not sure how to do them properly. EdJohnston (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Article probation
2) Abortion and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility.

This remedy supersedes the existing general sanctions put in place by the community.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think either discretionary sanctions or article probation is needed, not both. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Phil, I think sanctions will take care of things and this might be unnecessary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Taken from Prem Rawat. Might be redundant to discretionary sanctions, but I thought I would add it anyways. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  10:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I described above, I'm not convinced that the current sanctions should have been installed at the abortion article, and they seem to have caused rather than solved problems. Why would more sanctions help?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think sanctions will help halt the editors who come to Wikipedia purely to push their political aims, allowing editors with wide interests to continue building the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that such editors should be halted, but that can be done by routine Wikipedia procedures. There was no big problem at the abortion article before the current sanctions were imposed without reason or discussion.  I have a problem giving increasingly huge discretion to admins, given that they are not infallible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's actually remarkably difficult to deal with even the most obvious agenda-driven editing on this topic. The last time I bothered, it took six months and Arbitration case to deal with a single, obviously disruptive agenda account. I don't think it's realistic to think that "routine Wikipedia procedures" are effective at handling this kind of editing. MastCell Talk 04:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Discretionary sanctions would be more effective than the current community probation; see my rationale above. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Parties instructed
3) All editors who are party to this case, or edit in the area are instructed to read the principles outlined above, review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them. The committee notes that failing to correct such behaviour in future may lead to further sanctions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I am actually leaning towards more nuanced findings which would be specific to each editor with any less-than-optimal conduct, with potential remedies ranging from reminders to bans. This is going to be a lot more work to do, but I think in protracted philosophical discussions, it will help to avoid the WP:IDHT issue. Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * From Transcendental Meditation. I am not too sure on the wording of the last sentence. This remedy is intended to be a rap on the knuckles of all involved, to remind all that complying with the policies of Wikipedia at all times is important, and that failing to do so in future may lead to sanctions, which are outlined in the discretionary sanctions section. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  02:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens, I figured that ArbCom would issue findings of fact and remedies for individual users, but at the same time think that all parties to the case would still benefit from a remedy such as this. I would assume that not all parties to the case will be sanctioned, but still think a general "cut the crap and behave yourselves" sort of remedy would suit. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  06:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Editors reminded
4) Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the dispute, writing from a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilising reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.

In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Also from Transcendental Meditation. I feel in this situation it is important to remind all that complying with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia is important, and Wikipedia's purpose trumps our own opinions of articles we edit as editors, and that if this seems too difficult, walking away from the area is an alternative. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  02:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Procedure implemented
5) At the closing of this case, a new body of dispute resolution will be convened. This body would only review disputes which have gone through all avenues of dispute resolution, including the Arbitration Committee, and these disputes must be referred to itself by the Arbitration Committee. It will consist of five editors, at least three being administrators, and will all have extensive experience with dispute resolution processes. They will spend one month considering the background of the dispute, and will implement a decision based on past discussion which will be binding for a period of one year. A unanimous consensus is required for resolution.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I've written an essay about a similar idea - WP:RFCCOM - however, I think implementation would require community approval. PhilKnight (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Eraserhead1 - thanks very much for your kind words.
 * @Steven Zhang - I agree that ArbCom could appoint a panel moderators in a similar manner to the Ireland naming dispute.
 * @HuskyHuskie - entirely agree that widespread community support would be required.
 * @TransporterMan - I thought your essay was very interesting. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I am really unsure about the wording, which needs to be played with, but I do think that the Arbitration Committee does need to consider something like this. On rare occasions we have content disputes which have not been able to be resolved by any of our dispute resolution processes, and in some situations a remedy which refers the debate back to the community for further discussion is counter-productive and I feel is damaging to the health of the project. While there is no precedent for this, and it would be a major move, I think it falls under the provisions of the purpose and role of ArbCom as in my proposed principles. Some disputes cannot get resolution, even after ArbCom. Binding resolution is rarely appropriate, but there should be an avenue available to provide it if continuous discussion, incivility and edit warring is the result of no resolution. I also feel in this instance that referring this matter back to the community for an RFC would be unhelpful. In the past, I have seen RFCs largely ignored about disputes, due to their controversial nature, and think that it would be no different in this situation. The issue of article titles has been discussed for far too long (from my count at least six months, if not more) and further discussion will do little to change the viewpoints held by the involved parties. Due to this, I feel that this is an appropriate course of action. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  05:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think WP:RFCCOM is a bloody good idea. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@PhilKnight, then make it a one off. I truly think having another RFC here would be counterproductive. The Senkanu Islands case could also use something like this. I agree a permanent DR body of this nature should be discussed at the Village Pump (indeed I may propose something there) but I think a finding like this is needed here. Steven Zhang <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  18:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

@ PhilKnight, I think this permanent body is a good idea, but it is rather radical, per Wikipedia's mission, is it not? I think its creation would require extremely widespread input from the community, and the outcome of such input is far from certain. And the matter at hand certainly cannot wait for it to happen. Still, I like it, as (per KillerChihuahua's comments somewhere around here) it would probably be best not to put this into the hands of an abortion-specific anything, as the matter really requires fresh editorial input. Half of our problem has been the ability of small numbers of editors to command ostensible consensus, by which I mean, from what I can see they actually do properly invoke consensus, but I wonder if they would command this consensus if there was a wider degree of involvement from the community. Oh, and I've made one small suggestion on your essay's talk page.HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * The phrase "all avenues of dispute resolution" is vague because it is not clear whether some processes — for example, WP:RSN or WP:BLPN — are or are not types of DR. For that matter do we really want to require that the dispute be taken to WP:3O and WP:DRN and WP:WQA and WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM before it can go here?
 * Like PhilKnight I've been tinkering with the parameters of a content arbitration board, which can be viewed in my sandbox. It's more specific and procedurally-oriented than his WP:RFCCOM and, like his, was not intended to necessarily be used only upon referral from ArbCom. It's still a half-baked idea in progress, but there it is for what it's worth.
 * Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit-warring for a new version that lacks consensus is blockable wthout need for special article sanctions
1) Edit-warring away from the last conseneus version of an article, without establishing a new consensus, can be very disruptive and may be blockable under normal Wikipedia policies without any 3RR (or even 1RR) violation. However, reverting to the last consensus version is distinguishable from such conduct,  even if it occurs repeatedly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No, I disagree. The general principle is that edit warring is unacceptable, and I don't consider the distinction being made here to be especially significant. PhilKnight (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Edit warring is edit warring, period. The second sentence of this proposal seems to indicate that reverting back to a consensus version is exempt from this requirement. See WP:CCC. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  04:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course consensus can change. But if it hasn't changed, and an editor keeps trying to make the change anyway, what's wrong with the other editors preventing the tail from wagging the dog?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The better solution would be applying protection to the article, as opposed to continuous edit warring. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  04:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A standard method of POV-pushers is to wreak such havoc that an article is protectively frozen in a version far from the most recent consensus version, and then they have an undue advantage in demanding concessions. If 100% of ArbCom sees that an article has obviously been edit-warred away from the most recent consensus version, I see no reason to freeze the current version, which rewards the POV-pushing minority.  If the POV-pushing minority would allow POV section tags or article tags (which they have not) then the article would at least not be as misleading to Wikipedia readers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This suggestion glorifies a past version in the face a new challenge requiring a new consensus. The past version may well have a serious problem in its sources or interpretation, or simply because of newly published data, but this suggestion puts a major stumbling block in the way of the editor wishing to correct the problem or update the article. We should not adopt this suggested solution. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion at the time indicates that there was nothing new to challenge the consensus. No problems with regard to the sources were raised, no new published data was cited for the change. The assertion made was that the wording was a form of advocacy.DMSBel (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This principle is in direct conflict with existing policy. "Being right" or "believing that one's preferred version is the 'consensus' version" are generally not considered justifications for edit-warring. MastCell Talk 04:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not find your quotes in the policy that you have cited and linked. You yourself have been one of the primary edit-warriors at the abortion article MastCell (e.g. see the evidence that I've linked at the evidence page).  I would have no problem with your edits if they were in defense of a consensus version, or in defense against those seeking to change longstanding material without consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the ad hominem portion of your response is supported by evidence. I'll simply reiterate that, both in policy and in practice, Wikipedia has generally not recognized these sorts of exceptions to its rules on edit-warring. Do you have an on-topic response to that? MastCell Talk 05:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EW: "if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action." In other words, jumping into an edit-war is okay if it helps to demonstrate or defend consensus, or prevents non-consensus editing from changing an article without consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that policy is encouraging people to jump into an edit-war, then I think you're misreading it. The point is that there is no consensus at present, and pretending that policy somehow favors your edit-warring while condemning other peoples' edit-warring is misguided or outright gamesmanship. MastCell Talk 22:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And therefore your version of the article should be published, even though it changes the last consensus version? If that's what you and/or ArbCom decide, then let's put that into the applicable policies.  We'll have to explicitly use your username in the policies, though, along the lines of "MastCell and like-minded editors are allowed to do WP:BRRR unless there is a clear consensus stopping them."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then. I think personal animus is clearly getting in the way of useful discussion here, so I think I'm done with this thread. MastCell Talk 23:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do have an animus toward POV-pushing. No apologies for that.  It's nothing personal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Placing an article under sanctions does not always help
2) Sanctioning an article is not always helpful. If it was, then sanctions would be imposed at all articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree with Steven Zhang. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If it helped, we wouldn't be here now, would we? I see no particular reason to point out that previous efforts at dispute resolution have failed; we decline requested cases where such is not the case. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Of course it does not always help. The logic about if sanctions were useful they would be universally applied is a bit silly. We have policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia, sanctions are only imposed when despite these problems ensue. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  03:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Steven Zhang, you're incorrect when you say "sanctions are only imposed when despite these problems ensue". The present sanctions at the abortion article were imposed when no problems were existing or ensuing.  The responsible admin said so explicitly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

ArbCom's role with regard to consensus editing
3) Consensus is a core Wikipedia policy. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes, and for other changes at least a lesser consensus is required.  Controversial articles can become unstable and descend into chaos if this principle is disregarded.  However, the Arbitration Committee will not say whether this principle has been disregarded in any particular case, nor take any action against people merely for disregarding this principle, nor restore any part of an article to the most recent version that was supported by consensus.  None of that is ArbCom's job.  Nor may individual editors repeatedly revert non-consensus edits, which would be unacceptable edit-warring.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC) WP:BRRR is a tendentious and disruptive editing style. It undermines a core Wikipedia principle: WP:Consensus. ArbCom can identify WP:BRRR and impose sanctions against it, without making any content decision.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I'm sorry, but this statement is a muddled mess. You are welcome to try rephrasing it. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Crossed out muddled mess. The material I crossed out was (in my view) ArbCom's actual position rather than the position it should take.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

The already-existing general sanctions at the abortion article were imposed when they were not needed
1) General sanctions were imposed at the abortion article only as a result of activity elsewhere at Wikipedia, and were not a consequence of editing at that article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Sanctions were imposed, after a discussion, over a number of articles in an article topic, which is good practice. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My version of this FoF is included elsewhere on this page. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Note: Sanctions were imposed as a remedy for the actions of one editor, as an alternative to topic banning that editor. See the relevent discussion at the ANI Archive discussion regarding WikimanOne. That editor is currently banned, per this discussion. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't recall anything about that editor (WikiManOne). Did he ever edit, or disrupt, the abortion article?  Certainly not the latter, AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like the disruptiion by WikiManOne was entirely at the Planned Parenthood article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. Toolserver states he never edited abortion: link although he had 229 to Planned parenthood. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence of abortion article has been subject to frequent edits without consensus
2) More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes in a Wikipedia article, but this summer there has never been any kind of consensus about how to make any particular edit to the lead sentence, especially the part of that sentence prior to its last word ("death"). That lead sentence was stable from 2006 to 2011, but has been repeatedly edit-warred this summer consistent with the essay WP:BRRR, and contrary to WP:Consensus.*Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC) *Please note for the record that I edited WP:Consensus this summer, but not in any way that affects the accuracy of this proposed finding of fact.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Don't entirely agree with the first sentence. Better to say that before making significant changes to a highly contentious article it may well be prudent to establish consensus on the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

POV tag has been removed by admin despite blatant continuation of dispute
3) Removal of a POV tag has occured at the abortion article even though the issue is actively and adamantly disputed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The general principle of solving one disagreement and then moving onto another is sound. In this context, I don't think mentioning this single occurrence is warranted. PhilKnight (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In order for this to make it into a finding, a pattern of inappropriate conduct will have to be shown. This one diff in isolation does not amount to a pattern of inappropriate editing by the editor in question. Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * A POV tag serves multiple purposes. For example, it alerts readers to be skeptical.  More importantly, it prevents a disputed version from becoming entrenched as a de facto consensus; WP:Consensus says: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus".  If there is no POV tag, and no edit war, how else is a continuing dispute supposed to be signified?  Presence of more than one POV tag in an article is not unusual, and does not prevent editors from dealing with one problem at a time.  The tag itself says: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your concept of what the POV tag is meant to be used for does not square up to its stated purpose which you can read at Template:POV. The template is not used to warn a reader to be skeptical. It is used, for a limited time, as an attempt to attract other editors who can weigh in. It is not to be placed permanently, or used as a badge of shame. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Binksternet, I stand corrected regarding warning readers, and accordingly am crossing out that remark. Still, the tag very clearly says: ""Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.". No one contends that this dispute was resolved, and it is extremely common for an article to have more than one tag.  The diff shows not just removal of the tag, but also a simultaneous revert to the version that the editor liked best.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Without making any judgment on this particular removal, I would bring to everyone's attention that if we left every POV tag placed on the abortion article, it would never be without one. Its a contentious subject; those who believe that abortion is murder (and there are many) will never be satisfied unless the article either stated that, or else the POV tag were in place. In short, abortion is a contentious article which evokes strong feelings, especially on the anti-abortion side, and any article which is even remotely neutrally worded is sure to get POV tags added, which one can easily see is the case by checking the history. I've been editing and watching the article for over 5 years now; most POV tags I recall seeing added involve precisely such rationale. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * KC, this would render all POV tags pointless. As long as there is a dispute, the tag must stay.
 * It is not the case that contentious subjects, which abortion undoubtedly is, cannot be worded in a way that would not require the tag. If so, the NPOV principle would be an ideal that could never be attained.
 * It is especially cheeky to first turn the article into POV pushing and then to remove the tag. It used to be a neutral, consensus-based article before.User:Str1977 (User talk:Str1977) 08:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps I was unclear, or you're misreading me. I'm not saying its all-or-nothing, and I'm certainly not saying the POV tag is not sometimes used appropriately on the Abortion article. I'm saying that on contentious subjects in general, and on Abortion in particular, the POV tag is sometimes used as a tool to try to push an extreme POV. Again, not commenting on any specific instance of the use of the POV tag. Certainly, there are genuine disputes between well-intentioned editors actively (and actually) seeking compromise and consensus. There are also misuses of the tag. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 11:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Involved admin has frozen article in preferred version
4) The abortion article has been frozen by an involved admin in his preferred version that excluded an image of what is aborted. That admin had previously removed such an image, and said subsequent to freezing an image out of the article that he disagreed with its use in the article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Note that at the moment the admin in question isn't a party to this case. Obviously we should hear from the admin before rushing to judgment. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This workshop section should be removed until there is a section on the /Evidence page about it. In regards to, user:Jmh649 moved the image within the article, and removed a second image.  He did not remove the image in question.  While I have only looked at this issue briefly, my initial impression is that the edit summary of that diff is logical.  I would want stronger evidence of intent before I could support a finding that Jmh649 froze the article to his "preferred version", implying he used admin tools to have this image removed from the article.  If his intent was primarily to stop the edit war, and if evidence doesnt show that he was actively involved in efforts to add or remove this image, his "involve"ment is only minor and we typically only caution admins against this and we often dont include them as parties. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Can I add him?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @John Vandenberg: the three pertinent diffs are provided above. For more detail, I provided a chronology at the evidence talk page. I linked that chronology at the main evidence page, and will now elaborate at the main evidence page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the image in question but only moved it. This was back in June 2010 and I actually placed it in a more prominent position. I voted to keep the image at commons. And have not been involved with the edit war over its inclusion (the image had been placed and removed 7 times). No inclinations to get involved with an ArbCom case. There are too many other medical articles in need of attention.
 * My comment on disagreeing with how it is used on Wikipedia was not referring to the English language but to this image being the only one to illustrate articles in some languages on abortion as per here and here. This is an issue of WP:DUE which is not an issue on the English Wikipedia. Now User:Ferrylodge/User:Anythingyouwant has been restricted per here and is not to edit article pertaining to abortion. Was this lifted? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jmh649, you repeated your objection to the use of the image at Wikipedia here, while also expressing concern about accuracy of the image. Presumably your concern about accuracy was not silently limited to the Russian and Finnish Wikipedias.  Anyway, you are not correct when you say I was restricted from editing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you interpret: "Ferrylodge restricted" which was passed 6 to 1 "Ferrylodge is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."
 * I did not make a statement that I was concerned about the legitimacy just that this and how it is used is the only potential concern raised "The only legitimate concern I see here is potentially". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You said above that I am, "not to edit article pertaining to abortion." That's incorrect. While the editing restriction potentially restricts me from editing, it hasn't thus far done so, AFAIK.  Primarily what I've tried to do at the article has been to oppose WP:BRRR from deeply involved editors such as yourself, and to give readers a neutral article without POV-pushing from either side.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ?? I have re-read your entry above several times but I cannot understand how you arrived at the conclusion that reverting others' edits is somehow not the same as editing in a disruptive manner. At Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge, it says "Ferrylodge is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." While that statement from 2007 is too loosey goosey to fly in today's Wikipedia, it seems to me that reverting is inappropriate, when editors have not arrived at a consensus, such as your removal of the AbortionLawsMap template here, which was based only on an single edit summary by an editor who visited the article just once, never to return. His edit summary said "Inaccurate, no source. Lebanon is incorrect, many middle eastern states incorrect. Contradicts 'Religion and Abortion'", but he did not go to the talk page to show better sources. Other editors did not see the need to remove the map on such flimsy basis but you edit warred it out of the article. That action was against the 2007 editing restriction. There are more examples of your unilateral reversions in the article's history. I guess the "uninvolved administrators" are asleep at the switch. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, no one has been asleep at the switch. I've been hauled before Arbitration Enforcement many times, and always it was found that I had not violated the terms of that 2007 decision.  Regarding the specific event you refer to, the editor Shamalguy removed a map, writing "Inaccurate, no source.  Lebanon is incorrect, many middle eastern states incorrect." Doc James (Jmh649) reverted, writing "So fix it".  I then reverted, writing: "If it needs to be fixed then it should not be included yet".  Was I being tendentious and disruptive?  No.  Doc James was not disagreeing that much info in the map was incorrect.  My view was that the article should not contain info that no one says is correct.  Feel free to take this to WP:AE if you like.  Here is the talk page section about it.  (As explained there, Doc James violated 1RR.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to take it to AE at this time, I just selected your May 2011 edit to show that you have been disruptive, in violation of your restriction, and somewhat recently. From my reading of your restriction, I don't think you have the right or privilege to revert another editor at any abortion or pregnancy topic. Rather than violate 1RR, Doc James should have taken it to AE. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Stable image in abortion article for over a year has recently been repeatedly removed without consensus
5) As detailed at the evidence page, the article now contains no discernible image of what is aborted during a typical induced abortion. This is a result of edit-warring instead of consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * In my opinion, this is too close to a ruling on content. PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the community has spoken loud and clear that removal of offensive images--be they of Mohammed (classic, cartoon, or satire), the Virgin Killer album cover, or other examples that escape me at present--is not condoned. The question would be here whether the edit warring to remove an image has risen to the level of sanction for attempting to remove content.  I don't recall ArbCom ever needing to become involved in this before, because the community has always overruled LOCALCONSENSUS when alerted to such. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment: concur with PhilKnight - not only a ruling on content, but content in which, apparently, consensus has changed at least once, and may again. Last time I was on an ArbCom page about Abortion, consensus was very strong against such an image, to the point that that was in the FAQ for that article. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens: I don't think this is an issue of censorship or removing "offensive" images (though the original poster presents it that way). There have been a range of objections to specific images raised on the talk page, and (to my recollection) few or none of them have focused on the perceived offensiveness of such images. I'd have to review the talk page to be sure, but I don't think this is in the same category of dispute as the Mohamed images etc. MastCell Talk 04:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Set up user conduct notice board solely for the abortion article
This remedy supersedes the general sanctions that were put in place by the community at the abortion article without talk page discussion and without cause. Complaints about users frequently go unnoticed down the memory hole, because they're typically posted at the offending user's talk page, or at some noticeboard (wiquette, edit-warring, ANI, et cetera). If such complaints could alternatively or additionally be posted at a dedicated noticeboard for this article, then uninvolved admins (and others) would be able to more easily see what's going on, see what the history of user issues at this article has been, give a response, and/or take action. Preferably the Noticeboard would list at the top at least two uninvolved admins who are currently monitoring the Noticeboard (admin actions could be critiqued at the Noticebord too). Each section would be titled with one or more username, and nothing else. Anyone listed in a heading would have to be notified. Any administratve action taken as a result of (or in connection with) a Noticeboard section, or even separate actions without any prior Noticeboard activity, should be noted in a section of the Noticeboard (immediately below the heading). Failure to do so would require some disincentive, such as removal of administrative action from a block log. Other than this new Noticeboard, I don't think any general or special sanctions should be put in place at the abortion article right now (though it may be advisable to hand out some blocks and/or revert the article to the most recent consensus version that existed prior to edit-war).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not sure about this. Anythingyouwant, are you familiar with the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard? I think what you're describing sounds fairly similar. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * We should look specifically at each article and consider what would fit best, instead of a blanket remedy over multiple articles. Sanctions at the abortion article were  imposed without any notice or discussion at the abortion talk page, and were explicitly imposed as a slopover after imposing them at another related article.  The admin who did it acknowledged: "the article history doesn't show any sign of the editing patterns that led to the sanctions being imposed in the first place". Since then, the sanctions have not prevented problems from arising at the abortion article, and the sanctions have not helped at all.  I also have doubts that the sanctions have been applied fairly (see previous diff, and this one: ).  I support lifting sanctions at this particular article, and instituting a user conduct noticeboard as proposed.  No new article sanctions or probation are needed at this point, and we should see if they are needed before imposing them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @PhilKnight: Yes, I am very familiar with Arbitration Enforcement. I've been hauled there many times on frivolous grounds that were correctly rejected (never with any penalty for the complaining party).  AE can be time-consuming, and I doubt if the admins there would appreciate a new influx of abortion stuff.  If ArbCom goes that route, I hope you will insist upon notification at the abortion talk page so that people know what's going on.  Consensus is a core Wikipedia policy, but I don't see you being inclined to do anything specific to protect that core policy, and I don't see how AE could fill that gap.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @KC, and MastCell and anyone else doing this: just what is this continual refering (See No.###) to the cynics guide on MastCell's user page about. A userpage is not a policy or guidance page. DMSBel (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I am deeply concerned that this remedy is tailor-made for abuse. See #16 here. All anyone would have to do is diligently report editors of oppising views regularly, and hey presto! Eventually they'd be sanctioned simply for being reported - not because any Rfc, community discussion, etc had actually found there to be any merit to the reports. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've not suggested that any consensus among editors at this new noticeboard could directly result in blocks or the like. An admin would make that decision independently based on policy, or else a proceeding at ANI or the like would be needed.  I'm the last person who would want to set up a lynch mob.  Anyway, please note that this is the least urgent of the remedies I'm suggesting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What admin? No, IMO removing the community probation and replacing it with ArbCom sanctions is the correct approach. The WP:AE is on the watchlist of a number of admins, and any remedy applied would be done so with the consensus of several uninvolved admins. A special noticeboard would not have these admins; it would arguably be watched even less than the articles; and it would be difficult to find uninvolved admins; action would be slow, therefore stale, therefore inappropriate, therefore no actions taken; it would be easy to game... there are too many problems with this solution, when there is already a working system in place which has none of the problems and pitfalls of this proposal. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Revert lead sentence to 2006-2011 version and admonish editors to edit based on consensus
2) The lead sentence will now be reverted to the last consensus version (which existed from 2006-2001). This does not constitute any endorsement of it, nor discourage edits to it that are based on consensus.  All editors are warned that they can be blocked for edit-warring away from consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree with Steven - this is a ruling on content, so it's outside the purview of ArbCom. PhilKnight (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not going to happen. The closest we would come would be topic banning or otherwise sanctioning the participants who've edit warred over the sentence. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * ArbCom will never make a ruling such as this. It's purely a decision based on content, and ArbCom won't do that. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  02:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then ArbCom should block everyone who has edit-warred away from the consensus version. That's the basic problem here.  Do you think ArbCom should effectively freeze the edit-warred version in stone by not restoring the consensus version, and not penalizing the edit-warriors?  This article has been under sanctions and yet admins did absolutely nothing.  ArbCom should do nothing also?  I also disagree with you that I've asked for a content decision.  I've not asked what content ArbCom would like or prefer.  I've simply asked ArbCom to undo the effect of edit-warring-without-consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

If longstanding abortus image was removed without consensus then take corrective action
3) The image was in the article over a year, following extensive discussion. It was removed by censorship and edit-warring without consensus.  There must be some remedy other than freezing the article so the image is out permanently (notice that the POV section tag has also been edit-warred out, as described above in findings).Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I'm not sure what to suggest. Possibly a Request for Comment on the issue, with uninvolved admins appointed to moderate the discussion, and eventually close the proceedings? PhilKnight (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * If we were to do another image RFC as you suggest, would the question be something like, "Should the image be gone from the article?" or instead "Should the image be in the article?" I favor asking the former question, and oppose the latter question. The question can substantially effect the outcome, and the former question implicitly acknowledges a prior consensus for inclusion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That post pretty much sums up how dysfunctional the abortion-related pages have become. We will probably need a separate RfC to decide how the RfC question should be phrased, because everyone wants to stack the deck before we even start. MastCell Talk 00:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I take it, MastCell, that you would disagree with an RFC to answer this question: "Should the image be gone from the article?". Perhaps you could explain why.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care how the question is phrased. I just want an editing atmosphere where people aren't always playing an angle, like you're doing with the question phrasing. Bonus points for trying to maneuver me into a rhetorical corner while ignoring my point, though. MastCell Talk 03:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then. I support Phil Knight's RFC suggestion, if the question is something like "Should the image be gone from the article?" But I oppose MastCell's suggestion for a preliminary RFC to determine if that would be an acceptable question, because no one has objected to that question (yet).  As far as MastCell's accusations of "stacking the deck" and "angling" are concerned, maybe the real concerns here ought to be projection and WP:ABF, but in any event it would be nice if we could at least be polite when we don't actually disagree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggested an RFC at the outset without specifically stating how the question should be asked, only that an RFC was needed at the time as part of the Bold (photo removed) - Revert - Discuss Cycle. I still think an RFC is proper. Obviously an RFC about the question to be used in an RFC would be redundant when we are already discussing that question here. It's perfectly valid to discuss, and saying this shows how dysfunctional things are is pointless, thats why we are here, trying to pin the dysfunction on one editor is rather counterproductive in a workshop, when the the discussion has not at times reflected well on any of us (including myself). DMSBel (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Neither side in this matter is actually wrong
1) There are solid, valid arguements for both sides in this matter. Both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV are relevant to this dispute.

Sometimes the conflict between two sides cannot be reconciled by debate
2)Unfortunately, these two important policies, in this case, are in conflict, leading to this protracted dispute even as most of the parties attempt to exercise good faith. If both sides are correct in their arguments, attempting to persuade the other that they are "wrong" is bound to be unsuccessful.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Interesting and probably correct, but these are both findings of fact, rather than principles. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

These two articles are just two sides of the same coin, covering the same topic
1)These articles are undeniably about the same topic, namely, whether or not abortion should be a legal procedure, or under what circumstances it should be legal.

This dispute over the titles is drawing most of the energies needed to improve our articles
2)This ongoing argument about the name is taking away from the development of the actual text: as of a month ago, 2/3 or more of the edits on these articles and their respective talk pages over the previous year had been spent just on arguing the titles, instead of improving the articles themselves.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I'm not sure we need a finding of fact that the editing process is being unduly hampered by debates that have resulted in an ArbCom case. I'd say that's axoimatic, actually. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Merge Pro-life and Pro-choice into Abortion debate
We should merge these articles into a single article at Abortion debate. This idea was touched upon six months ago by User:Amakuru and put forward as a serious proposal three months ago by User:DeCausa. Contrary to what some might fear, I believe this would reduce the net POV of the subject's coverage on Wikipedia, since both sides would continually check the other's contributions (See Federalist No. 10, by Madison.) With the topic covered at only one article, it would be easier to monitor editors who are POV warriors, which will make them all more cautious about what they write. Is it a perfect solution to this dilemma? No, but it’s damn close.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This will not happen--it oversteps ArbCom's authority. What we can do is enforce some sort of binding community input, which is far more likely.  I think the root of this particular part of the problem is that a mediation involving only the most interested editors cannot truly be said to represent community consensus, much like "straw polls" in the American political system represent just those interested enough to attend, not a community-wide sample of voters.  If the community at large is going to be bound by a decision, then the community at large needs to have input into the process.  If it sounds like I am using hindsight to say the mediation was doomed to failure... that would not be an inaccurate reading of my perspective on the issue. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * If this idea was enacted, the resulting article would be written in summary style because otherwise it would be too large. Branching off the article would be a number of other articles including the same two articles about those who want abortion legal and those who do not. We would be back to square one regarding what to name them. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Binksternet's concern is a valid one, but he errs in one important detail: While it might be necessary to expand beyond Abortion debate, there is no reason why that branching need be into "prochoice" and "prolife" articles. To demonstrate this, I have created an extremely rough outline/draft of a possible new Abortion debate article at User:HuskyHuskie/Abortion debate.  Please don't focus on the limited amount of text (I whipped it up quickly and that's not the point of this page); what's important is that the article breaks down the abortion debate along lines other than prochoice and prolife.  Then, there are (currently red)links to articles that would expand upon these themes.  Each of these articles would cover the concerns of both sides, and there would still be no need to worry about the names of the articles. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens. First of all, I acknowledge my complete ignorance of this process, so I take you at your word that to do this oversteps ArbCom's authority. But may I share some thoughts? You say that a mediation involving only the most interested editors cannot truly be said to represent community consensus. I can certainly get behind that. But how do you propose to obtain a wide community consensus? A few weeks ago, I thought trying to reach consensus by holding a discussion with the editors of the month was a sure route to failure, so in order to get participation in the mediation I contacted additional editors, but only those people who had edited this article over the previous 12-13 months. The result? I got my ass jumped for being disruptive because I was involving people who are not regularly and actively involved in the issue. How will you obtain this wider community consensus? And more importantly, who will decide when that consensus has been achieved and what that consensus says? On such a massively controversial topic like this, will a regular sysop be allowed to close the discussion? Would you expect a closure by any single individual to be respected, even if they were a 'crat or whatever else is higher than that? Don't you think that such a closure would ultimately have to be done by a highly respected group. . . say, like ArbCom? So then what happens to this being out of your jurisdiction? The content issue is going to end up falling on you guys anyway, as far as I can tell.

Here's the big problem, not only as I see it, but as I believe you and others tacitly acknowledge in your other comments: Anything ArbCom "normally" does is unlikely to work here. I read about things like enforcing 1RR, and as one person noted elsewhere, that only leads to "slow motion edit warring". And you write, Prohibition on using IP addresses or any other username to make edits to affected articles" would go into effect here; well, of course that makes sense, but with all respect, isn't that already at WP:SOCK? Sir, there are zealots on both sides of this debate, and they won't be stopped by these kind of measures.  Outright banning of editors won't solve the problem, because there's no shortage of zealots to take their place.  Most good classroom teachers learn early on that having a list of rules that says "Don't do this", and "Don't do that" can easily be rendered ineffective if a sincere respect for rules is not extant, and that's the situation here.  The solution must be something radically different.  The merger solution is different because it robs the POV-warriors of the one thing they (inexplicably) value most:  their own pet article where they can define the terms of the argument in the way that suits them best. Does this exceed ArbCom's boundaries? Clearly it does, given that your fellow arbitrator (is that what you guys are called? Sorry if I got that wrong) has proposed a new body to deal with such issues as this. But right now, as far as I can see, ArbCom is the only game in town.

I've seen some references to the "Macedonia" situation. I'm unfamiliar with the Wikipedian history of this matter but am well-versed in the intensity of that naming issue in the Balkans, even today. May I suggest, that however vicious that debate was, that it would be unlikely to be as difficult to quell as this one? The passions may be equally intense, but there are simply, for practical purposes, an infinite number of people that will fight this abortion battle. Some do it because they love to fight, and you can get rid of them. But most are simply passionate in what they believe, and they'll continue to make this miserable as long as your solution is "Don't chew gum in class." Is the content matter here out of ArbCom's jurisdiction? Everyone seems to agree that it is, yet it was content, first and foremost regarding the names of these articles that brought us here, and you guys took the case. (The first step in finding a solution is identifying the problem, and, as asinine as it sounds (and is), this issue over article names is not a mere symptom, it is a cancer unto itself.) I'd say that the WP:IAR genie is already out of the bottle on this one, and halfway measures won't change a thing. Only a compromise (in this case equally loathed by both sides) can hope to stem the wasted energies being expended here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Suppose there was a way to create a multi-page article? Then a combined Debate could be several pages long, with each page focusing on a subsection of the Debate, and therefore no single page would be too long.  For example, one page could be devoted to arguments about the "right to life".  Another page could focus on arguments about whether/why an unborn human is/n't a person.  Another page could be devoted to Religious arguments concerning whether/why an unborn human has/n't a soul.  Another page could be devoted to various legal principles that have been invoked by various nations, to ban/allow abortion.  And so on...and there wouldn't be a title problem, because all those pages would be part of a single Abortion Debate article. V (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * V, would you mind taking a look at User:HuskyHuskie/Abortion debate, which I mention in the above paragraph? Is this the sort of thing you mean in your proposal here? HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I looked. We are describing two slightly different things.  Your notes indicate that the subsections of the debate would be separate articles; I'd prefer that they be separate pages tightly associated with a "parent" article.  I wonder about that "/" method you used to create that test-page for yourself; I want to experiment with that, in terms of creating sub-pages.  Perhaps something like: Abortion debate/Religious views, and Abortion debate/Political views, etc. (Yes! That appears to be workable!) V (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see now what you're suggesting, but while it may be workable, is it allowed? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Obviously the Wiki software seems to allow it.  As for doing it according to Policy, that's for Arbitrators (or others) to decide.  I might mention, though that other articles could probably benefit from having tightly associated subpages, in order to have room for all the relevant details without any one page becoming too long; I'm thinking of Cold fusion as a particular example (there is a whole branch of CF experiments that so far have barely been mentioned in the article, because of the lack of secondary reference-sources, yet the article as it currently exists is about as long as is typically acceptable --so how should that extra data be added when the secondary sources finally appear?). V (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It has occurred to me that because of the Policy WP:BB, perhaps someone could just go ahead and create all the subpages, after which consensus could be sought with respect to editing the Abortion Debate and other pages, to move data from them into the subpages.... V (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One reason to not Be Bold in that regard is simply the fact that the situation is currently in Arbitration. And now I've just discovered the WP:SUB page, and it looks like what I'm discussing is not allowed, and is actually disabled: "in main namespace (article namespace), where the subpage feature has been disabled in the English Wikipedia"  --although I didn't see any sign of such disabling when I clicked on the red links I specified-as-examples, above.  Maybe if I had actually tried to create one of those pages, it wouldn't have worked.  Well, so it goes, sometimes.... V (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it was an interesting idea. Maybe someday, when you are Lord of All Wikipedia, you can have that idea implemented--it certainly looks to have some merit.  But in the meantime, I guess the solution to Binkster's query will have to be what I have suggested, eh? HuskyHuskie (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I note that there are already several separate articles associated with the overall topic of Abortion, yet there is no easy way to visit all of them, and only all of them.  The subpage idea is a simple solution to that problem, because all the subpages could-be/should-be listed in the parent page, whereas when separate articles are created, it is not always obvious why (or even which) one article should have links to all the others.  I will agree that this is less of a problem when a set of pages is designed-from-the-start to have a common focus and "start page". V (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Initial merge to be done by uninvolved party
1) I would request that an uninvolved editor with successful WP:FA experience to do a quickie merge of the content of both articles into Abortion debate

Move protection
2) All relevant redirects (e.g., Pro-choice, Anti-abortion, etc.) would be to Abortion debate and would be indefinitely move protected, as would Abortion debate itself.

No immediate blocking or topic banning of any editors
3) This doesn't require any initial sanctions on any editors. I would then simply warn all parties that their participation in this fiasco makes them subject to intense scrutiny and quick blocking for any POV warring on the article. It'll be much easier to monitor bad behaviour with everyone working on the same article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * 1 and 2 are content ruling, and will not happen by ArbCom fiat. 3 is probably not going to happen; the likelihood is greater that the number of topic bans and other sanctions handed out for non-collaborative behavior will be greater than in any other case this calendar year. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sourcing diversity
1) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Was going to wordsmith this a bit more, but Cas' proposal would be improved by harmonizing it with this facet of the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @NW, I intended this to highlight that the discussion specifically with regards to the usage of the term "death" in the lead, seems to involve editors talking past each other and using the term in different ways. I think I'll go ahead and post my remedy idea a bit later, which is pretty much a boilerplate reminder to editors to recognize differing perspectives and deal appropriately collegialy with editors whose perspectives differ. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @NW 2, I don't know what sort of "binding resolution" you're looking for here, but I don't see a problem that's so intractable that it needs ArbCom to make a content decision. I'm anticipating topic bans for the misbehaved, guidance like this that should focus the remaining editors on how to collegialy resolve the dispute, and protections to keep external disruption in check so that people who are actually interested in working within project guidelines can do so. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, but the kicker is the word "appropriately" which can be interpreted by either side differently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * addendum - best might be to include in this one some end sentence, "Care must be taken with weighting and appropriate use of sources, such as undue prominence in the lead section or elsewhere." - to make this principle worthwhile at all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree with Casliber. Would this mean that the lead sentence of abortion should be a synthesis the definitions given in Williams Obstetrics, Comprehensive Gynecology, The Catholic Encyclopedia, the Quran and Hadith, and Oxford University Press' Questions of Life? I highly doubt that's what you mean, but without further clarification, this principle isn't very helpful. Also, I see no reason to give religion a special place in these discussions; I would suggest folding it into philosophy. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens: See the last sentence of my evidence. The thought is nice and all, but we need some form of binding resolution here. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversial Image Removal
2) The Wikipedia community has repeatedly preferred to keep images of a controversial nature that illustrate an encyclopedic topic, especially when internal or external groups have objected to them. Past discussions include various Mohammed images, the Virgin Killer album cover, and ejaculation images. .  Given the extensive community cohesiveness on this point, edits that remove a controversial image from an article other than for legal compliance (depiction of minors involved in sexual activity, copyright violation) without previously obtaining a clear consensus to do so are per se disruptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * At least one other arb has opined that this would be a content ruling. I disagree.  Content ruling would be arguing about whether a specific controversial image removal is correct or not; this principle is simply derived from my observation of the consistent operation of Wikipedia over the past several years. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @MastCell, aside from people completely new to the topics in question, many "policy-based" arguments to various images have been raised. Non-neophyte editors know that "I don't like it" doesn't garner nearly so much credibility as an "I doubt the copyright status of this image". Doesn't mean that every policy-based argument is just a smokescreen for an IDONTLIKEIT, but I've been around far too long to believe that every argument can be taken at face value: many editors state a good reason which is distinct from their real motivation. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Slight wordsmith per private correspondence, updates in italics. More refinement/improvement ideas welcome... Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be ok for ArbCom to set up a process and appoint moderators to determine consensus on this issue, and then after consensus is established, to say this consensus will stand for a fixed length of time. However, it isn't ok for ArbCom to decide the outcome. PhilKnight (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per PhilKnight - each controversial image case is different, so I feel wary about lumping them together, but more importantly this is a content decision which can be made by the community (which we can request be settled for a time). Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC) i.e. principle is unnecessary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would oppose this as sweeping much too broadly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I feel pretty strongly that this is both a content ruling and a bad precedent. It essentially privileges controversial images, and sets a higher bar for their removal than for ordinary images. First of all, if you look at the discussions in question, most of the people objecting to the various fetal images are not objecting to them because they're "offensive", but on legitimate policy-based grounds. I know the dispute has been framed as an issue of "censorship" by some editors, but that framing is incorrect (at the very least, I would encourage the Committee to critically examine that framing). This is, in fact, a straightforward content dispute, and should be addressed like any such dispute. If people are being disruptive or failing to heed consensus, then that should be actionable per se - I don't see why a special finding is needed to place images in a special, protected category solely because they're "controversial". MastCell Talk 01:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with MastCell when he says this essentially privileges controversial images. But I disagree with his conclusion.  If I may make an analogy--as an American, I believe in the principle that Freedom of Speech is not needed for popular opinions; it exists for unpopular and controversial ideas.  Yes, we make decisions here based upon consensus, but if that consensus is for a particular POV, does that consensus represent our principles or does it violate them?  I think clearly it does both, and we need to decide what we want to make a higher priority principle in said case.  For myself, I think it's wholly unnecessary and offensive that we have a video of an ejaculation on our pages, but I recognize that Wikipedia is not censored.  I support JClemons' ideas on this matter. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PerFloNight, prior consensus should not be needed for an initial bold edit. So, I'd change the proposal as follows: "edits that remove a longstanding controversial image from an article ... without previously obtaining a clear consensus to do so if the removal is reverted are per se disruptive." I think this is true for any major change to an article, by the way, including removal of controversial images. After all, WP:Consensus says that major changes generally require consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @JN466, does the change I suggested take care of the problem?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @JN466, you say that the disruptiveness of the edit should not be dependent upon whether it is subsequently reverted or not. I agree entirely, and did not mean to suggest otherwise; I thought this was clear from my suggestion, but it can be made more clear: "edits that repeatedly remove a longstanding controversial image from an article ... without previously obtaining a clear consensus to do so if removal of that image has recently been reverted are per se disruptive."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Edit warring is the problem, not editing out an image. We don't require prior consensus to make an edit to improve an article. This proposal as worded seems too general and will have unintended consequences. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 09:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with FloNight. Right now, we have five images (all of unclad females) in Hogtie bondage. Gender bias, anyone? And if a BDSM fan uploads and inserts another 15 gratuitous such images of women in the article, or inserts 5 close-up photographs of women in Bukkake (sex act), removing any one of them should be a priori disruptive? -- J N  466  16:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Anythingyouwant: Not entirely, because as written it makes the disruptiveness of the edit dependent on whether it is subsequently reverted or not. No editor has a crystal ball. What's disruptive is edit-warring, i.e. repeatedly removing such an image, without a consensus to back it up. And that is basically no different from any other kind of edit-warring. -- J N  466  19:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead Sections
3) Per 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 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 use it as a POV football.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * General support, though I'd rephrase the last bit, as use of the word "football" in this sense is an Americanism. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We use it in Oz too, and I think probably in the UK. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, its used in the UK - or at least I am aware of the term. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
N+1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Locus of Disagreement
1) There are three separate areas of contention all under consideration, joined together in this one case due to topic and participant overlap:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Background. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree the dispute has these 3 elements. PhilKnight (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - you could clarify the lead sentence by itemising the sticking points, mainly the word "death" Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Added in italics. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * You can add one more, Abortion and Abortion and mental health, which just kicked off (again) a few days later. It's not at ArbCom level instead, but it does serve as an example of how we need more editors and uninvolved administrators who have read and reread WP:NPOV. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind offer, but no, I don't think we're going to creep the scope any more than it already is. Hopefully, these principles and remedies will appropriately guide (or affect) editing there. Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Tried
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Background. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, necessary as a preamble. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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. (c.f. Talk:Abortion/Archive_43)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Background. May play into not-yet-ready-for-presentation remedy ideas I'm thinking about. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @MastCell, see my proposed remedy #2. Hornets nest, kicked? Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Just as an FYI, this is an ongoing problem. As of today, an apparently banned editor continues to edit-war on the abortion page using various IPs. MastCell Talk 21:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have previously removed this ban-evading IP's comments from the abortion talk page, and urged the IP to follow the rules. However, I want arbitrators to be aware that the initial block of this IP (prior to the block-evasion and ban) was highly suspect. The IP made a reasonable 1RR report about another user, the 1RR report was rejected because the article was instead protected, and then the IP was blocked in reply to his 1RR report.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion you link is not the initial block of the IP. The initial block was on 23 June. You're linking his second block, from 27 June (Guy alludes to this in discussion you link, saying that the IP editor "seems to be on a mission and did not learn from his first (short) block"). You may want to correct your statement to clarify that this was a second block for continued disruption rather than the IP editor's initial block. MastCell Talk 19:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, I did not mean that this was the first time in the IP's life that he had ever been blocked, only that he was not subject to any block when he made the 1RR report.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Repeated discussions skew involvement
4) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I'm not sure whether this should be a FoF or a principle, but the outcome seems to be (in this case and others) that as long as strong-willed editors who don't get their way are allowed to continue bringing up a topic, they will, and each time, a finite number of opposing editors give up the discussion. Where is the balance between WP:CCC and WP:DEADHORSE?  I'm not sure we have a good answer at this point, nor am I convinced that behavior on this point has been particularly worse than on any other of a number of repeated discussions. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the constant disagreement exhausts existing editors and puts off new editors from venturing into this area. PhilKnight (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree with Phil's observation being appended in some way too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree with this and all the comments above. The nonstop move proposals at pro-life/pro-choice brought us to this point. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree, but there is also a fine line between this proposal and "if you hold out long enough, it is the other editor who is being disruptive". <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 13:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * NYyankees51's comment ironically illustrates the problem with this. NYyankees51, for example, is one of the main reasons we are here. He did not accept the outcome of the informal mediation to which he agreed. Why was it not right to stop then, but it would have been right to stop discussion at a much earlier stage? That point aside, both mediators noted a certain deafness. If an FoF is to be made, it should take into account WP:HEAR issues as an indication of when further dialogue may be pointless.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not the only one unhappy with the result of the cabal case. Agreeing to participate in an informal mediation does not bind users to its result. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Orangemarlin conduct
5) User:Orangemarlin has been repeatedly incivil on Talk:Abortion:, , , , , . The incivility towards specific editors extends to his talk page: ,. Orangemarlin edit warred, violating 1RR on the first sentence: First revert Second revert, 3:40 later with a deceptive edit summary. Orangemarlin participated in the edit war over image content in Abortion:.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * There's probably more than this. I may dig through other past discussions for examples that this is not new behavior, nor is it limited to Abortion and related topics. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @MastCell, that's intended to show that his participation in the topic area spans two of the three loci of the dispute, not that that one edit would be actionable in and of itself. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Orangemarlin's conduct has been a problem, but he is not currently active, and I will suggest that his situation be addressed other than through findings against him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * While the incivility is unarguable (and incivility is putting it mildly), I'm not clear on the last sentence. Is Orangemarlin's participation in the edit-war over the image limited to a single edit from June? If so, does it rise to the level of warranting mention in an ArbCom finding? MastCell Talk 18:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Michael C Price conduct
6) User:Michael C Price has been repeatedly incivil in Talk:Abortion:, , , , , ,.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Gandydancer conduct
7) User:Gandydancer has repeatedly used incivil hyperbole and sarcasm in discussions at Talk:Abortion:, ,.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
N+1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Public Policy Probation
1) Definition: "public policy" topics that are currently subject to ongoing political debate, broadly construed. This would include, at a minimum, climate change, death penalty, political campaigns at any level and BLPs of politicians, reproductive health, government health care, and any other hot-button topics identified by any administrator.

Effects: While the public policy probation is in effect, an editor subject to it would have a set of restrictions designed to be a "short leash" without being an outright topic ban:
 * 1RR on all affected articles, broadly construed
 * Prohibition on using IP addresses or any other username to make edits to affected articles
 * Zero tolerance for incivility or personal attacks anywhere on en.wiki relating to affected topics (including talk pages, user talk pages, Wikipedia space, etc.)
 * Enforceable by AE block of increasing lengths.

This may be a solution in search of a problem, but I get the feeling that if we topic ban people from abortion, there's going to be a sizable percentage of those who don't leave Wikipedia entirely who will simply find other "culture war" BATTLEGROUNDs to take their efforts.

Love it? Hate it? See a fatal flaw, but one that can be fixed? Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is something I'd proposed on the mailing list, and two other arbs including Coren thought it might be appropriate, so I'm reprinting part of my post here to allow time for community input. Like any novel idea, I know it's not fully formed and wouldn't want to spring it on the community as a surprise. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @MastCell, your critiques seem spot-on. Yes, Culture Wars seem to be mostly American, and some of the things I've named clearly aren't big deals elsewhere.  But I am an American, so I see this problem through that lens, and posting this here for comment is one way of acknowledging the community is better at seeing a whole perspective than one arb who is only tangentially involved in such matters.
 * That said, if we presume that discretionary sanctions and AE are broken for the purposes of crafting such a remedy, what else would be better to put in their place? Do you (or anyone else) have suggestions on untried methods that might be appropriate for a "short leash" style of restriction like this? Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to note that another arb had suggested to me off-Wiki that Public policy disputes or a similar wording might be more universally applicable. I think that's at least as good a name as my initial proposal. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and changed "culture wars" to "public policy". Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @VsevolodKrolikov, that part still needs to be worked out, but it would involve a warning before any kind of sanction, and an ability to appeal that warning (e.g., just because one administrator thinks it applies to saltwater taffy doesn't mean it's going to stick (ha ha...)). Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already expressed support for the concept, even if the implementation might need some further thought. I'm not convinced this is an Americal phenomenon, really – the same kind of volatility can be found in relation to China/Tibet, or the Sea of Japan/Korea, much around the Troubles, and so on.  The actual issues vary from culture to culture but the general problem of camps trying to spin Wikipedia to their favored interpretation is universal. I suppose that the fact that most examples that come readily to mind are American is mostly a result of much of the editors being Americans more than anything particularly different about US culture.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The scope of topic-bans and editing restrictions against a user should be tailored to address the nature and extent of the misconduct by that user. Thus, the remedy as outlined above might be appropriate to an impose on an editor who had misbehaved on a variety of "public policy" related topics or articles. I am less convinced it would be valuable to create this separately designated, broad-reaching remedy in the abstract, afterwards selecting users to assign it to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The only non-US issues I can think of which get people anywhere near as excited as US culture war issues are probably Kashmir and maybe China-Taiwan issues and maybe the catholic churches handling of child abuse. Outside the US topics like abortion and government healthcare aren't really a big deal. I've only basically got involved to resolve the dispute and because I enjoy debating. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @Jclemens, the only other alternative I can think of (which would require a lot of discussion with a broad consensus;at the Village Pump) is the alteration of the banning policy to allow admins to implement lesser restrictions instead of blocks, such as page, interaction and topic bans. A proposal like this is too big, so I'm not sure if I'm comfortable proposing it, but it's the only alternative I can think of. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies for my ignorance on procedures, but how would this be applied to a topic area? Say, for example, Affirmative action suddenly becomes a Beltway or Tea Party talking point and there is need for such sanctions, could any administrator decide these sanctions apply, or is there a more detailed procedure?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens. Thanks for your reply. While obviously we need safeguards against admin error, I think a streamlined process to get sanctions applied quickly would be a good idea to reduce wikistress, and I think your broad identification of problem areas is spot on. I can see two issues we might face: first is the handling of well-meaning new users who start editing wikipedia articles because of a media fuss. Phrases like "sanctions", "1RR" and "ARBCOM" can be disorienting. Perhaps that can be solved with a fluffy warning template that includes kittens. The other one is certain parts of the formal and informal media crying censorship if it's not handled carefully.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The "culture wars", at least as defined here, seem to me to be a distinctly American phenomenon. In most other Western countries, the death penalty and government health care (for example) are not particularly hot-button issues. That said, I think that the thrust of the proposal is probably correct, in that there are a handful of editors at abortion whose edits to other American "culture wars" topics advance a consistent agenda. The problem isn't limited to abortion, although that's currently the most active theater of operations. I'd also like to make a plea against a "discretionary sanctions" remedy. They don't work on these sorts of topics. They didn't work on climate change, and the community-imposed version hasn't worked here. "Zero tolerance" blocks for incivility have an unmitigatedly disastrous track record. Additionally, the corps of active admins at WP:AE is severely depleted, and complaints frequently sit open and unaddressed until they become stale. I hope that something besides discretionary sanctions comes from this case, although I acknowledge that I don't have any brighter ideas at the moment. MastCell Talk 05:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens: No, I wish I had some novel and constructive solution to propose in place of discretionary sanctions, but I got nothing. I will think about it, and I think others might have some ideas as well. MastCell Talk 06:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

IP editing prohibited
2) IP editing prohibited: The articles and corresponding talk pages relating to Abortion shall be indefinitely semi-protected such that no non-autoconfirmed editor (including IP address editors) shall edit them.  Editors in good standing who wish to edit such topics under accounts not linked to their identity may do so under the provisions of WP:SOCK and WP:SOCK.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed for community input. Does the benefit of IP-address editing in this controversial topic trump the damage done by bad-faith and/or banned editors who abuse it?  This is far from a done deal, but it is an option that's on the table here.  Now is a very, very good time for those with strong feelings about it to comment in this section. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * article pages subject to frequent erosion via IPs are often semiprotected for long periods of time, so this can be addressed under normal policy, but the talk page might be a different matter. Given the contribution by IPs I see this as prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think this will be controversial, but I strongly support it. In fact, abortion was permanently semi-protected, but after recent episodes of full protection to address edit-wars the semi-protection fell off (since that's how the software works) and has not been restored. I think that IP editing has been a clear net negative on these articles, at least over the past several months, and the article is often if not continuously semiprotected as a practical matter in any case. MastCell Talk 01:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm one of those a**holes who would be fine with banning IP editing altogether, but I'm not sure I would support doing it for this alone. Aren't these the very type of article that will bring in new editors (one of the supposed rationales for allowing IP editing)?  Maybe I'm naive, but I've seen some pretty stubborn behaviour on the part of non-anon editors here.  I'm not opposed to this, I just am unconvinced of its efficacy. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea, but maybe slightly narrow. Perhaps extending this to a strict limitation to editing Abortion-related articles from one account only, and making it very obvious that any editing from more than one account will come with severe consequences. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  05:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just FYI: "I will never stop trying to edit that page (abortion) or influence its content." MastCell Talk 20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
N+1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Candidate Findings of Fact
This section contains proposed findings of fact (or lack thereof) related to ALL of the named parties in each case. These have been alleged by a party or an arbitrator, but do not currently rise to the level of evidence necessary to include them in a proposed decision. The community, especially including the named parties, is invited to augment these preliminary allegations with diffs, or provide mitigating explanations for the behavior documented.

User:Steven Zhang
Filing party, part of Medcab. No inappropriate behavior has been brought to the committee's attention.
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Eraserhead1
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community
 * I would like to be informed on my talk page when this section is filled in. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese
Jclemens is recused with respect to this editor
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:NYyankees51
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community

No one has presented evidence of misconduct within the scope of this case (pro-life, pro-choice, and abortion). Also, those users who have presented evidence against me have agreed that my editing has improved in the past year. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community
 * You're behaviour has generally been fine in my experience. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Lionelt
Jclemens is recused with respect to this editor
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Kenatipo
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:DeCausa
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:CWenger
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:LedRush
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:TheFreeloader
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Haymaker
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:SarekOfVulcan
No evidence of misconduct has been alleged. SarekOfVulcan has provided evidence, and no sanctions are contemplated at this time.
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Anythingyouwant
Potential incivility on March 18th: “Reliable sources flatly contradict both lies.”  See also the assertions elsewhere on this page and the evidence page. Anythingyouwant, under his previous username Ferrylodge, has been previously sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for his involvement in Arbitration-relation disputes.
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community
 * Per WP:Civility: "Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern." - I presume this won't be taken any further unless significantly more issues are found. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens is correct that this was potentially the most uncivil thing I've said at the abortion talk page this year. Just to clarify, it was a part of this consecutive series of diffs.  Whether the statement of mine was accurate or not, I should have been more diplomatic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, regarding the sanction against me that occurred more than four years ago, it resulted in no blocks or bans, and it was never extended to cover any talk pages. I don't think anyone involved in this ArbCom proceeding would be so bold as to say that no one has ever lied at the abortion talk page.  When that happens in the future, I promise to be diplomatic about it, as I was two weeks ago when I criticized another editor for being "counterfactual".  I don't see how I could be more polite about it than that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Binksternet
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Objectivist
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:NuclearWarfare
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:VsevolodKrolikov
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Chaos5023
Jclemens is recused with respect to this editor
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Anthony Appleyard
Anthony Appleyard's involvement in the article move process was sub-optimal: Pro-Life:
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)

Alpha Quadrants first close:

Anthony Appleyard proposal 1:

Proposal 1 self-close, 1 May:

Proposal 1 self-reopen, 2 May:

DrKiernan close of proposal 1:

Anthony Appleyard proposal 2:

Pro Choice

WMO proposal 1: Closed:

Kwamikagami proposal 2, 9 Feb:

Anthony A close as move on 21 Mar: (11 to 7 in favor)

Reversal motion 1, Roscelese, 1 May:

Anthony A close reversal motion 1, 13 June:

AA starts reversal motion 2, 15 June:

Comment: Under no circumstances should an administrator close a discussion to reverse their own action; that is the definition of INVOLVED, even if they maintain no editing in or around the topic in which that decision was made. Further, subsequently opening another discussion on the same topic is not a self-revert of the closure, which would have been the proper way to remedy an inappropriate close.


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
Editor (recused arb) participated in and closed the MEDCAB effort, added as a party to provide evidence only, no allegations of poor behavior, no sanctions being considered.
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:DMSBel
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:MastCell
Reverts evidence specifically criticizing his actions. While the evidence was in the wrong place and his assertion of WP:BAN appears correct, it is never appropriate for an accused person to remove an accusation themselves:
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)
 * Amendment: Per the below, MastCell DID note this removal in email to the committee.

De-Tags Abortion, potentially inappropriately: De-tags, removes image:

Potential incivility: on June 19th: “You're not going to convince me with sophistry, misrepresentations, and anecdotes, because this isn't a high-school debating society.”


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community
 * Regarding the first point, as best I can tell from Ban, this was a completely correct and policy-compliant revert. But, recognizing the potential contentiousness of my removal, I took the extra step of proactively discussing it by email with the Committee. I received what I consider to be explicit approval from the Committee for the edit which Jclemens cites as "never appropriate". Check the ArbCom email archives, or I'll forward you a copy. Either way, I would deeply appreciate some revision of the first "charge" against me, since it appears based on incomplete information. MastCell Talk 18:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the huge number of parties to this case - and therefore there are unlikely to be large numbers of non parties following the case and given the committee hasn't always been exactly speedy at handling matters raised on this cases talk page I don't think its reasonable to criticise a party for following WP:BAN here. To add I know the committee has bought up similar issues before, at least in the MickMacNee case, but if you don't want parties to do things like this you guys need to act significantly quicker and respond to items raised on the talk page with at least a preliminary response within around 24 hours or so. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) There seems to be a slight problem of transparency here. Some time back Jclemens, because of the sheer size of the archives on Talk:abortion, suggested on his user talk page that Captain Occam and his girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin should help him gather diffs for this case. They did so. Jclemens was probably unaware that Ferahgo the Assassin had been blocked for a week by MastCell in 2010, which would create potential bias in any evidence presented about MastCell. Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm fine with diffs, no matter their source. Anyone can present any evidence they want, on- or off-wiki, regardless of past conflicts, and it's up to the Arbs to judge it. I guess I'd only ask that individual diffs be viewed in the context of my overall track record of civility, and in light of the portion of policy noting that "Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern." I'm much more exercised about the "never acceptable" edit. Once again, I directly contacted the Committee via their mailing list at the time of that edit, and received what I took as explicit approval for the edit at the time I made it. I wasn't naive enough to expect support from the Committee simply because I was following policy (and apparently my cynicism was amply justified). That's why I took the extra step of proactively addressing the edit with the Committee. MastCell Talk 21:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've amended the notation above. I'm sorry that I'd missed that. To be clear, I still think that was a bad move--a clerk should have done that at our request, rather than a party--but you're right that it looks far different in light of the email. I wish I had time to investigate everything as thoroughly as I'd like to, but I've been told I'm dawdling--hence posting things here so they can get more eyes sooner. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And re: volunteers searching for diffs, MathSci, I would expect in an adversarial proceeding that parties would dig through and filter the evidence to present the best case about what the committee should do (from their own POV, of course), and I overestimated the amount and quality of such evidence provided to date. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the interests of transparency, perhaps the evidence solicited by email from volunteers could be posted on a wikipedia subpage with identifying information redacted. Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the interests of confidentiality of communications with the committee or its members... no. You are welcome to independently review the diffs that have been posted, go through the articles yourself, and find anything that may have escaped other volunteers.  Your email contributions would be likewise held in confidence. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the Arbitration policy, "the Committee normally expects evidence to be posted publicly unless there are compelling reasons not to do so." Are there compelling reasons why this evidence cannot be presented publicly? MastCell Talk 07:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In my mind, it becomes "evidence", once it is factored into a decision, and everything that has been taken into account, or is reasonably anticipated to be considered, is posted above or elsewhere in the publicly viewable case pages. That's how I'd strike a balance between confidentiality of communication and the expectation that evidence be made public. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't share your definition of evidence, nor am I convinced that this particular episode lived up to the standards set forth in the Arbitration policy. On the other hand, I also don't think it's a big deal or worth discussing any further. MastCell Talk 23:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens: Thanks for the amendment. MastCell Talk 18:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin
See above.
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)

I'd prefer to address any remaining issues regarding this editor outside the scope of a formal arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:JJL
BOLD edit: Reverted+tag by LionelT: JJL immediately redid reverted edit with deceptive edit summary:
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Jmh649
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:PhGustaf
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:ArtifexMayhem
Potential incivility on July 1: “Glad I'm not an awkward dishonest pro-choicer.”
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Michael C Price
See the evidence provided above.
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Str1977
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Gandydancer
Incivility on July 3: “It's a well-established fact that if a decision has stood for 6 years any johnny-come-lately that thinks they know better than a decision that has stood the test of time (6 years) and been reaffirmed again and again and has no new information to add, should stand! This was true when the wemmon-folk wanted the right to vote and the nee-gras said they didn't like being slaves and it's still true today, by gawd.”, again on July 3: “Anyone should understand that 3/5 was a great compromise compared to making the darkies zero or one, since that was out of the question. Sound logic and worked perfectly till some upstarts upset the applecart. Really, who doesn't long for the days when logic ruled and the women-folk and the darkies knew their place, other than them, of course.”, and on July 20th: “RoyBoy has an odd idea that a handful of Wikipedia editors has the authority to pronounce the editors of just about every dictionary and the editors of every encyclopedia inaccurate. By his standards, lets go straight to the evolution article and insist that the planet is only 8 thousand years old -after all we need only produce a dozen Wikipedia editors to show that all those scientists are simply inaccurate. Easy as eating pie!”
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:KillerChihuahua
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Friend of the Facts
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

User:Pastel kitten
TBD
 * Initial assertion (arbs or clerks only edit this section, please)


 * Diffs provided by the community


 * Non-diff evidence and commentary by the community

Coverage of controversial topics
1) Wikipedia aspires to be a serious, respectable reference work. Its representation of controversial topics should thus reflect the coverage one would expect from a such a reference work.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant has a good point: Wikipedia does not shy away from controversy to the same extent that "serious, respectable reference work[s]" tend to. Its audience and authorship are appropriately larger. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @MastCell each "serious reference work" has an editorial board who makes those sorts of decisions, based in large part on their desire to make money with the effort. Wikipedia is fundamentally different in that the non-commercial nature of the encyclopedia allows editors to cover topics with no commercial viability. Of course, the flip side is that anyone with a keyboard and Internet access is theoretically equal, which creates its own problems. Nevertheless, I don't think you're actually proposing we set up a commensurate governance system, are you? Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I strongly oppose this proposal. Many Wikipedia articles about controversial subjects contain images and content unlike what is found in other reference works.  In fact, entire articles at Wikipedia are devoted to subjects that are not covered in standard reference works, because Wikipedia is much bigger.  My impression is that if this proposal is adopted in this case, then it will be applied selectively, and will be unworkable as a general Wikipedia principle.  Moreover, this proposal is about selection of content, which is not the central responsibility of ArbCom.  Moreover, Wikipedia's policies on some matters, such as censorship, are different and sometimes more stringent than one finds in typical commercial encyclopedias, and I see no reason we should follow the crowd.  If information meets the usual threshold of reliability, verifiability, NPOV, and the like, we should not also require that the info be in Brittanica.  It would be naive to think that this principle would not overturn a heck of a lot of settled content decisions at Wikipedia, unless this pronciple is applied very selectively.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I think this should be uncontroversial, Pardon my naivete. but worth restating in this context. Our coverage needs to be that of a serious, respectable reference work, and we need to be guided by a desire to find the best available sources. MastCell Talk 06:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens: I don't think that serious, respectable reference works shy away from controversial topics. They just seem to be able to cover them without pandering to the most vocal, obsessive, or tenacious partisans on such topics. That's what I think we should shoot for as well. MastCell Talk 05:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens: No, I don't think we need any sort of novel governance system. I do think that Wikipedia needs to decide whether it wants to be taken seriously. If it does, then it needs to act accordingly. A great deal of the editing and argumentation on these topics seems to spring from a desire to raise the visibility of various agendas, rather than to produce serious, high-quality, informative content that readers will take seriously (the fetal "death" dispute is a case in point). I suggested this principle because I think it's a useful big-picture yardstick of how we evaluate editors and their contributions, not because I think that controversial content needs to be excised or otherwise avoided. MastCell Talk 01:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Well stated, and follows logically from our general sourcing policies and guidelines, which privilege the most reputable and most reliable sources. Incidentally, this also reflects the principle of least astonishment as articulated in the board resolution on controversial content ("content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain"). This project was set up to create an encyclopedia, not an alternative encyclopedia. -- J N  466  01:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong viewpoints
2) Strong personal views on a controversial topic do not disqualify a user from editing in that topic area, provided that they are able to comply with Wikipedia's policies and expectations. However, if users' personal viewpoints on a topic overwhelm their ability to edit within policy, then they may be restricted from editing. In this setting, edit-warring, tendentious editing, attempting to game the system, or other forms of disruptive editing may indicate that an editor is unable to put aside their personal convictions sufficiently to productively edit a Wikipedia article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree with Mastecell - this is central to the case. PhilKnight (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably would not phrase this in this manner. Rather, I'd emphasize that appropriate conduct is expected of all participants, regardless of their belief systems.  In this case, it's not at all clear to me that strong personal beliefs are directly correlated with inappropriate edits. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree - this is the nub of many disputes with polarised views Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd add " + inability to make concessions to valid points made by those with an opposing opinion". Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This is sort of the crux of the matter, from my perspective. MastCell Talk 06:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Motivation must come from a desire to convey knowledge. The desire to influence thought is anathema to the goals of this project. IMHO. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * per thought sparked by JClemens: How about rephrasing like this: Editors are expected to be able to comply with Wikipedia's policies and expectations when editing articles on controversial topics, irrespective of their personal views in that topic area. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agenda-driven editing
3) Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a venue to promote specific political or social agendas. Users who consistently promote one side of a topic (or narrow range of topics) should be particularly scrupulous to ensure that they edit within this site's policies and guidelines. Violations of policy in the service of agenda-driven editing may lead to restrictions of editing privileges.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Again, worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Historically, single purpose accounts have always been viewed with suspicion; and this articulate why that is. Anyone who edits Wikipedia to "right a wrong" are doing so for the wrong reason and are, almost by definition, not going to be able to participate productively.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, right... that reminds me of one other semi-serious remedy I'm going to propose: Any user with "truth" or "facts" in their username can be banned on sight by any administrator. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would broaden this to also discourage agenda-driven actions against other editors. When an editor only pursues and seeks action against other editors who he perceives or portrays as being on one "side" but not the other side, then that may raise questions about whether those actions are agenda-driven.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * There are a number of accounts which pretty clearly edit here to promote one side or the other of a small range of controversial topics. I think that sort of editing is a net negative, if not a major threat, to the idea of an openly edited encyclopedia. I'm not proposing we ban people solely because they have a narrow agenda-driven focus, but perhaps such accounts deserve a bit of scrutiny when they also have trouble editing within policy. MastCell Talk 06:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens: great minds think alike (see #3). MastCell Talk 23:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am somewhat confused as to the purpose of the workshop, being given notice of its existence only after sanctions were proposed against myself. Is this the way they normally proceed? Also who is facilitating it and why is it being allowed to run all over the place?DMSBel (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Role of ArbCom
4) The Committee has generally declined to settle good-faith content disputes. Where such disputes are complicated by user-conduct issues, the Committee may address those issues.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prefer 'The Arbitration Committee does not settle good-faith content disputes'. From my perspective, it should be considered as outside our remit. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per PhilKnight. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * No matter how intricately you phrase the question, folks should recognize that the Committee isn't going to tell them whether a fetus is "alive", whether it is "killed" by an abortion, or whether "pro-life/pro-choice" is the right naming convention. The Committee can (and hopefully will) help create the conditions where editors can successfully resolve those questions for themselves. MastCell Talk 06:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

All of the above
5) In many naming and content disputes, there is no One Right Answer. There may be more than one reasonable approach. Insisting on one alternative to the exclusion of other reasonable alternatives can eventually become disruptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Perhaps something along the lines of 'In many article naming and content disputes there are number of academically respectable possibilities. Some editors may feel strongly that their preferred version should used to the exclusion of alternatives. However, continuing to insist on using one alternative against an established consensus may eventually become disruptive.' PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the challenges I've seen is that disputes are often treated like a game of King of the Hill (game), where the defenders of consensus demand clear consensus to change, but then when a change is made, with or without the desired level of consensus, the defenders of the "new" "consensus" use those exact same arguments against the restoration of the previous consensus. Treating consensus as a high ground to be attained and kept at all costs does seem to promote a BATTLEGROUND mentality. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This is meant to address the "pro-life/pro-choice" naming wars. I think I speak for most reasonable people when I say that any one of several naming conventions for these articles would be appropriate and encyclopedic, and that there are good arguments in favor of several alternatives. The problem isn't that we need a specific naming convention; it's that we're beset with editors unable to accept any alternative, no matter how equally valid, to their preferred set of terms. MastCell Talk 06:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Amen. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing policy pages
4) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a good principle, even absent a finding that the edits in question were disruptive (which the editor making them has disputed). Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, important. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Absolutely agree with this. I had naively assumed that policy pages were a bit more locked down than they are - it never occurred to me that an editor could so easily do this. I would suggest modelling this like a temporary COI. If editors are arguing a point of policy in a content dispute they should not edit the policy page, and be open on the policy talkpage that they are involved in a dispute if they wish to recommend changes.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm the editor in question. I support the principle, and deplore MastCell's exclusion of pertinent information about what happened in this instance.  First of all, I didn't even allude to the policy edit at any article until twenty days later, nor did I plan in advance to do so (I made the edit as a matter of principle to improve the policy, and assumed that the matter would be settled by then).  A neutral editor reviewed and modified my policy edit in the mean time, and I was completely up front about the fact that it was motivated by experience at an article.  And when I did eventually allude to the policy edit at the article talk page, I did not do so to advance my position about content; my position about the content was that the word "death" should be changed, whereas the policy edit indicated that such things should not be changed (by myself or by others) without consensus.  And the policy edit merely reiterated what I believe the policy already says: Wikipedia requires consensus to change an article, not consensus to keep it the same.  My sole purpose in making the policy edit was to make a good-faith improvement to emphasize an aspect of the policy, and the validity of the policy edit is confirmed by the fact that MastCell subsequently modified my policy edit without removing the portion in question that I alluded to at the article talk page (subsequently KillerChihuahua deleted the whole edit after this ArbCom case was opened, but that doesn't change the fact that MastCell had indicated it was acceptable, nor do I agree with KC's edit).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think the diffs and evidence speak for themselves. You altered WP:CONSENSUS on the basis of a specific content dispute. Less than a month later, you told another editor - in the context of that very same content dispute - to "go read WP:CONSENSUS" - specifically, the part you added. You didn't disclose that you'd authored the policy excerpt you were leaning on. I'm sure there are various spins one could apply, but to me that has every appearance of altering policy and then using the alteration to win a content dispute. MastCell Talk 05:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You say that I did not disclose at the article talk page that I had authored the policy excerpt in question, and you are correct about that; I acknowledged at the article talk page several weeks ago that this may have been a mistake on my part, and in retrospect I believe I should have made that explicit disclosure out of greater caution when I alluded to the policy edit. However,  per the evidence presented at the evidence page, I did make explicit disclosures at the policy page and to ArbCom.  Was I prohibited from ever alluding to the policy edit for the rest of my life, with respect to the word "death"?  You say that "less than a month" was too soon.  I thought that 20 days was a pretty sizable duration, especially since the policy edit had been revised during that time by an uninvolved, neutral editor.  The larger problem here is the rampant violation of WP:Consensus regardless of what it says --- e.g. "More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes".  You have been a leader in that regard, MastCell, and perhaps I was naive to think that it might be helpful to reiterate this principle within the policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This incident illustrates what I think is a larger pattern of gamesmanship on your part. It's very difficult to take anything you say at face value; when one looks deeper (as in this case, with your citation of WP:CONSENSUS), one's more cynical hunches are often confirmed. You often seem to rely on legalistic technicalities rather than engaging others with forthrightness. For example, when someone called you out here, for quoting a segment of policy that you'd authored yourself, your defense was that you "didn't quote it". That's technically true - you cited it without directly quoting it - but it's exactly the kind of evasive rhetorical trick that drives your fellow editors on a collaborative website nuts. MastCell Talk 06:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As best I recollect, I have not said one syllable in this ArbCom case until now, regarding whether I quoted the policy edit or not. I did not even raise that issue in the diff you now provide from the article talk page.  According to that diff, the previous comment from another editor said that I quoted it, and I was merely correcting him as an aside.  You are nitpicking in the extreme, and the diff you provide shows that my comment was primarily directed at another point entirely.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This phenomenon is ubiquitous enough (see #7) to warrant a principle. In this specific case, per my evidence, an editor altered Consensus to favor their position in an abortion-related dispute, and shortly thereafter cited the altered policy to "win" a content dispute, without disclosing that he had authored the policy excerpt in question. MastCell Talk 06:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Agenda-driven editing as a serious problem
5) Agenda-driven editing, in which users advocate a specific personal ideology at the expense of Wikipedia's policies and goals, is a substantial impediment to the project's mission of creating a serious, respectable reference work. Where it is clear that editors have consistently engaged in agenda-driven editing, they should be handled as expeditiously as we handle other threats to the encyclopedia's integrity such as vandalism.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Overall agree, perhaps would favor a copy edit. PhilKnight (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the last sentence doesn't fly. Vandalism is vandalism, and POV editing is covered squarely by WP:VAND. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think MasCell equates POV pushing with vandalism so much as state that they are equally damaging. Personally, I'd go further and say that it is, in fact, more dangerous because it is so very much harder to spot and correct and can mislead readers in a way "simple" vandalism cannot:  nobody would read a biography that reads "X suks dicks!!1!" and get the impression of having learned something about X's sexuality.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * They do make coming to a compromise extremely difficult on anything remotely controversial, and force you to argue to totally excessive lengths to get them to agree - additionally admins find it difficult to close move discussions etc. in a timely manner around anything remotely controversial. The second move request for pro-life did take far too long to close. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I like this notion. I trust MastCell is making it clear that he is not calling POV-pushers vandals, and Coren's comment about the greater threat of POVers is an excellent point.  So I endorse this in principle.  My only fear is, how do we go about expeditiously identifying them?  Despite many comments I read here deriding POV-driven editors, I cannot help but think that there is an element of subjectivity in ascertaining who merits such a label. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * We can argue about how to best deal with agenda-driven editing - I'm not sure I have any novel ideas on the topic. But I think it's vitally important to acknowledge that this sort of editing is at least as much of a problem as vandalism or copyright violations, and to prioritize it so we can brainstorm better approaches to deal with it. The existing approaches suck; they're tedious, soul-crushing, and don't scale well, as it typically requires a huge investment of productive editors' time and energy to deal with a single obviously disruptive agenda account, much less a group of them. MastCell Talk 00:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens: Just to clarify, I'm not saying that POV editing is vandalism, only that it's at least as great a problem as vandalism (IMO). MastCell Talk 22:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of medical information
6) While Wikipedia does not provide medical advice, it is nonetheless a widely used resource for medical and health information. Because of the potential for real-life harm arising from inaccurate medical information, editors have a responsibility to ensure that Wikipedia's medical coverage accurately and proportionately reflects expert opinion and does not contain inaccurate or misleading medical claims.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't know how wise it is to elevate this to a principle given how gamable it fundamentally is, but it's clear to me that we have (collectively) a very powerful ethical duty to as much accuracy as we can in those cases, and that we should always err on the side of caution (which, in practice, means established medical science). &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is something I've felt strongly about for a long time - I think the potential for real-life harm from inaccurate or misleading medical information is actually orders of magntitude greater than the potential harm from BLP violations, but we usually blow off the former as simple content disputes. I'm not sure whether this case is the right place for me to take a stand on this, but I will probably at least submit evidence that we have a real problem with consistent insertions of medically inaccurate or misleading information related to abortion. I think we should take this seriously as an ethical concern - for example, reverting such potentially harmful material should be in the same protected category as reverting clear BLP violations, and editors who consistently add inaccurate or misleading medical information should be sanctioned accordingly. But I accept that the issue is, at best, a small subset of the abortion dispute and thus perhaps outside the scope of this case. MastCell Talk 22:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a really, really important point that I'd not considered before. Definitely warrants the kind of response that we did on BLP, but needs to take place before we have a medical Seigenthaler incident.


 * However, this is not the place. It's just too hot for all these other reasons, and such an important idea needs to be sown in more dependable soil. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, but I think this might actually be a good topic area in which to emphasize this principle. Misinformation about the medical aspects of abortion is extremely widespread (see ) and often makes its way onto Wikipedia. Because this is both a high-visibility topic and heavily prone to medical misinformation, I think this principle might be relevant here. MastCell Talk 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think its highly relevant here. I'm just saying that it would be better to establish the principle elsewhere, where it can be done without the politicization, and then spread to wherever its needed. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I very much like this, but bear in mind that it will also apply as a general principle to articles, about, say, homeopathy and faith healing, as well as vaguely-interconnected topics like Trancendental Meditation. That said, I am in favour, because generally I think Wikipedia should err in favour of established science when writing articles. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Appropriate use of talkpages
6) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a platform for advocacy. Article talk pages are intended to provide space for editors to discuss specific content changes to the associated article, and should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, from the talk page guidelines. I think this needs to be reiterated formally, not just as a general principle on controversial topics, but because in particular has consistently and egregiously abused Talk:Abortion as a soapbox for his personal, deeply-held viewpoints on abortion (see my evidence for diffs). MastCell Talk 00:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See also the quantification of editing volume by, demonstrating that 2 editors (the banned IP and DMSBel) accounted for about 40% of all posts to Talk:Abortion. I think that if you read through the posts from these two editors, you'll find a high proportion of argumentation and soapboxing and relatively little guideline-compliant, constructive talkpage use. There needs to be a way to deal with egregious talk-page abusers on high-profile, controversial topics. MastCell Talk 19:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Primacy of reliable sources
7) All content on Wikipedia should be verifiably based on a reliable source, without editorial spin. Particularly on controversial topics, editors should seek out the highest-quality available sources and strive to accurately and proportionately convey their content. Where sources disagree, editors should strive to use the best available sources and resist the temptation to search selectively for sources which support their personal ideology.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Open to wordsmithing, but I think this is central to the utter failure of consensus-building and dispute resolution on the abortion page. It's not hard to identify high-quality sources. But where the conclusions of those sources are ideologically unpalatable, editors have descended into stonewalling, selective citation, and the promotion of partisan and less-reliable sources. The best example I have at my fingertips is this thread on the impact of legal restrictions on abortion incidence. I try to approach these disputes by starting with what I think are the best available sources, and asking others to kick in additional sources. You can see where things go from there. And notice that despite plenty of stonewalling, no one actually produces additional reliable sources. This pattern has been repeated quite a few times, often by the same handful of editors. MastCell Talk 23:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple quick responses. First, if MastCell would like to expedite this proceeding, then it might be best to let the arbitrators arbitrate instead of bringing up new issues at this late stage.  Second, MastCell's principle is (as usual) unobjectionable in the abstract, but I object to his using it as a back door to introduce new evidence, and evidence that is not even persuasive.  This edit, for example, indicates that there is also a problem with removing reliable sources en masse, without any attempt to keep them and use them more effectively.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I thought that edit was a reasonable attempt to improve the article and its sourcing, in line with the talkpage thread I linked immediately above. I'm sure one could disagree with the particular content, but I'm not seeing how you could construe it as abusive editing. Anyhow, I was just looking at some old threads at Talk:Abortion and they helped crystallize this idea, which I really do think is central to a lot of the problems at the article. MastCell Talk 03:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I said problematic. I didn't say abusive.  But it was your edit, so perhaps you know best.  :-). The point is that I have always tried to use reliable sources, and the mere fact that you don't always like them does not mean they are unreliable. Good night, MC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sound, and should have broad application. This is a concept which is often difficult to convey, especially to editors who start editing because they care about a subject. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps part of it could be phrased like this: "in assessing sources, editors should try to use the best, most appropriate sources available. Where an editor persists in giving equal weight to sources which are of clearly lower quality and are inappropriate for the topic, in order to challenge these high quality sources, it may be considered tendentious editing. For example, where the reports of several peer-reviewed specialist academic articles agree in their findings on a point germane to their specialism, it is usually inappropriate to challenge this with non-specialist news reports."
 * In general we have to insist on a clear dividing line between what academic research says, and what advocates and campaigners think about that research or the questions the research examines.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments by others:

Consensus and filibusters
8) The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Taken verbatim from WP:CONSENSUS, and (I think) an apt description of the problems at Talk:Abortion. There are innumerable examples of filibustering behavior by a number of editors, but again, to me this talkpage thread is as typical as any. I presented what I thought the best available sources had to say, and asked for additional sources. In response, you see no additional sources, no alternate wording, no compromise proposals... just filibustering. And attempts to shoot down the sources, move the goalposts by demanding studies addressing the exact objections of individual editors, or bog down the incorporation of the proposed sources into the article. The same happened when NuclearWarfare dug up a long list of definitions of abortion - instead of forming a jumping-off point for constructive discussion, people started filibustering and trying to get their favorite dictionaries featured while denigrating the dictionaries whose definitions they disliked. MastCell Talk 23:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments by others:

Locus of dispute
1) The current case involves a loosely connected group of abortion-related disputes, including a dispute over appropriate naming conventions for the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements and the question of fetal "death" in the lead sentence of the abortion article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Reasonably close, but see my FoF elsewhere on the page. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This is my understanding of the case scope, although perhaps the Committee has something broader in mind. MastCell Talk 21:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant
2) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages, and has inappropriately edited policy pages a policy page to further his position in a content dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * MastCell, in his present role of prosecutor, is being far less than candid. He knows that I have edited only one policy page related to anything about abortion (not plural pages as he says above), and MastCell declines to acknowledge other facts about this matter that I've presented at the Evidence page (e.g. MastCell himself edited the policy stuff in question without changing the material I alluded to twenty days later at abortion talk).  My goal was simply to improve policy based on experience (and when I alluded to the policy 20 days later it was to suggest temporarily leaving the word "death" that I was proposing to change).  Regarding the "fairly well-documented" history that MastCell points to below, he fails to mention it is over four years old.  He does not seem to be criticizing one single article edit that I've made in years, much less a pattern. Please see the evidence I've given at the Evidence page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for crossing that out MastCell. Would you also please clarify that "abortion-related pages" does not include actual articles, unless you come forth with article diffs that are more recent than four years old?  And below you link a thread that you cut off so as to give yourself the last word; how about editing the link so arbitrators can see my reply (which was my last comment in that thread)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * MastCell, your gamesmanship and dishonesty here is really appalling. You said (below), "I used the link from my evidence submission":  That was plainly false.  And then a few minutes ago, you edited the Evidence page to make it seem like it was true. Please edit the Evidence page so that it does not cut off my final response in that talk page section.  And please note that I gave my reason for opposing Doc James' image, whereas neither MastCell nor Doc James bothered to even acknowledge that I suggested a good faith alternative drawing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've struck out part of my comment above. But I must say that it's mystifying to me why MastCell updated a link at the evidence page on August 28, but updated it no more thereafter.  Had he done so, ArbCom would have been able to see my reply to MastCell's WP:IDHT accusation (which was a baseless charge).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You made very serious accusations against me, including "appalling dishonesty", which turned out to be completely false and based on your basic misreading of a timestamp. I wasn't going to beat you up about it, since everyone makes mistakes, but that's your response? I'm not naive enough to expect you to apologize for the irresponsible, hasty, and false accusations, or even to admit that you'd made a mistake, but implying that I'm at fault for not updating my evidence as often as you'd like is a bit much, even for you. MastCell Talk 18:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I made an error, and crossed it out, just like you did when you crossed out "policy pages" above.   Since you now request a formal apology, I give it.  I apologize for the error that I corrected.  You have tenaciously and obsessively been pursuing me at multiple articles for years, presenting one-sided evidence that excludes all evidence that might weaken or undermine your accusations.  I would ask you for an apology but (1) I would not expect it, and (2) I prefer silence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's what you consider an apology, then please don't feel compelled to apologize to me any more. MastCell Talk 03:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The history is fairly well-documented at Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. More recent examples are cited in my evidence presentation. I think the length of this editor's track record on the topic speaks for itself, but the best example of the problem is this thread, which demonstrates how a single tendentious editor can derail a potentially constructive discussion. Look at what other editors bring to that thread, and what Anythingyouwant brings to it. Editing policy pages to further one's position in a content dispute is probably worthy of sanction in its own right, as it's sort of the archetypal example of gaming the system. MastCell Talk 21:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Anythingyouwant's objection, I've modified the wording on policy pages to use the singular rather than plural. MastCell Talk 23:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I used the link from my evidence submission, which was current at the time I submitted my evidence. The current-as-of-now link to the thread is here. MastCell Talk 00:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Anythingyouwant: I honestly cannot fathom what you're so worked up about. The diff you're citing isn't from "a few minutes ago"; it's from 28 August (about a week ago), as I think you'll agree once you look at the timestamp. I'll stop short of accusing you of intentional misrepresentation, and just ask you to take a deep breath and double-check your assumptions. By any measure this is one of the most pointless arguments I've ever been involved in. Why don't you just provide the link you think is appropriate, and I'll use it. MastCell Talk 02:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel
3) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages.

3.1) has a history of tendentious editing on topics related to human sexuality, leading to a topic ban from those areas. Since that topic ban, he has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages.

3.2) has a history of tendentious editing on topics related to human sexuality, leading to a topic ban from those areas. Since that topic ban, he has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages and used them as a soapbox from which to voice his personal views on abortion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * See my evidence presentation; it still boggles my mind to see 1,000 consecutive edits dedicated to litigating a single side of a single content dispute, to say nothing of the associated edit-warring. This sort of editing is anathema to the way Wikipedia is supposed to operate. MastCell Talk 21:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated to 3.1 to note the previous, clearly documented history of tendentious editing on closely related topics. I think that history is relevant, since the exact same pattern (obsessive focus, ignoring other editors' input, edit-warring, etc) was repeated on abortion-related articles after his topic ban from human sexuality. It's probably worth noting what I think are prescient comments from the earlier topic-ban discussion, by User:Cyclopia: "It is true that ejaculation has been by far and large the main subject of DMSBel crusade, yet I wouldn't be surprised, given the pattern at other articles, if an article ban would simply move his crusade on some other article (like the one you linked). The problem with DMSBel is much deeper: he is the textbook case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He has a critical problem in understanding what consensus really is and/or in recognizing it. About the apology, I think it is sincere but I am not sure, given again the pattern, that he will held up his promises." MastCell Talk 19:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated to 3.2 to include the disruptive use of article talk pages as a soapbox. It's impossible to have a serious, on-point content discussion with this kind of unceasing disruption. He doesn't stop: as of right now, 22 of the last 28 edits to Talk:Abortion are from DMSBel. And they're along the lines of this gem: "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." And this, directed at other editors trying to calm him down: "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." I defy anyone to actually resolve a content dispute or reach a meaningful consensus in the face of this unrelenting avalanche of tendentious commentary. MastCell Talk 23:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Haymaker
4) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Haymaker/Schrandit has been combative and tendentious in various abortion topic articles, most recently at Catholics for Choice. Some of his comments required revdel on August 13 and 14, for outing of Roscelese. Binksternet (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Per my evidence. Edits that consistently promote one side of this contentious issue, combined with 5 blocks for edit-warring on the topic, is clear evidence of a problem. MastCell Talk 21:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51
5) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:

The scope of this case, as MastCell and I understand it, is user conduct on the pro-life, pro-choice, and abortion articles. So I am confused as to why I am being considered for a topic ban. I haven't done anything that I can remember that comes close to warranting a topic ban. I made an uncivil comment to a now-banned antagonistic editor on the pro-life move proposal in February, but that doesn't warrant a topic ban. Yes, I have been blocked for violating 1RR, but if I remember correctly none of the three were on these three articles. And I violated 1RR because I didn't understand that a partial revert constitutes a revert that counts towards 1RR. So essentially my conduct at the articles I got blocked at wasn't different than other editors - they simply knew how to avoid 1RR and I didn't. This is not to defend edit warring, this is to say that my blocks, while deserved, could have easily happened to someone else. I have not been blocked for edit warring in over three months now.

Yes, I tendentiously edit abortion-related articles, but that in and of itself is not against policy. I must be tendentiously uncivil and unconstructive, and MastCell acknowledges that I am not, at least not on purpose. A yearlong topic ban seems excessive and wouldn't better the encyclopedia. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I consider NYyankees51 to be a major problem at abortion topic articles, especially at Susan B. Anthony List where he has a history of sockpuppeting from 2009 through 2011, using several aliases to conduct edit warring, including editing from two IP addresses registered to the Susan B. Anthony List: Special:Contributions/70.21.119.84 and Special:Contributions/75.103.237.18. The conflict of interest is underscored by violations of NPOV, taking out unflattering information and inserting PR-type news about programs and publicity. Binksternet (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that I have been engaged in various disputes with Binksternet for quite some time. An uninvolved arbitrator would have to look to determine whether Binksternet's comment is evidence of a need for discipline or evidence of a simple content disagreement. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The period "quite some time" is a little over 13 months, dating from when I saw a squabble posted to Critical Chris's user talk page and clicked over to the Keith Fimian article to see what was the trouble. My first interaction with NYyankees51 was on that article's talk page when he was editing as User:BS24, in this diff on July 27, 3010]. I thought to myself that this editor appeared to be working against Wikipedia's best interests to protect a pro-life politician from his own very public words. I thought, 'Has BS24 performed any other edits harmful to Wikipedia?' At BS24's edit history page I saw a lot of attention given to the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List article, an organization I had never heard of but one that was named after a suffragist about whom I had expert knowledge, and I went there to look. There, I noticed that the article incorrectly quoted as her own words an anonymous letter printed in Susan B. Anthony's newspaper, so I took it out. BS24 reverted my whole edit. For the next month, BS24 and I were at it hammer and tongs until he was blocked for sockpuppeting, then the friction continued with NYyankees51, the puppetmaster account. Nearly every dispute I've had with BS24/NYyankees51 was on pro-life articles. The editor has a very strong bias in favor of pro-life, and he has sockpuppeted extensively and edit-warred considerably to downplay pro-choice scholarship and promote pro-life people and programs. That is the tenor of the "various disputes" I have had with the editor "for quite some time." It's about the politicization of the abortion debate, using Wikipedia as the battleground.
 * On the positive side, NYyankees51 has learned in the last few months to be more civil in talk page discussions, and to be more careful in his manner of editing. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to whether the Keith Fimian diff was right or wrong, I think I was mad at what I saw was a ton of bias in the article. It's water under the bridge now. When Binksternet says the article "incorrectly quoted as her own words an anonymous letter printed in Susan B. Anthony's newspaper", he means he agrees with the sources which conflict with that position. It's not a blatant falsehood, it's a content disagreement. All I have done at the article is to add sources that counter the sources Binksternet has added; he has done the same to me. I'll be happy to answer questions about the sockpuppetry; I failed to understand (or more accurately, read, which I take full responsibility for) the rules on block evasion, and the BS24 account was intended for legitimate editing. All the sockpuppets were created to vandalize a baseball article, not to use Wikipedia as an abortion battleground as Binksternet says. Besides, the sockpuppetry case is almost a year past now. In any case, the behavior said to be problematic above comes before the newfound civility and carefulness cited by Binksternet and MastCell. I have an opinion on abortion, and on occasion it interferes with my editing. But it is not persistent enough to warrant a topic ban. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Of the editors addressed in my evidence presentation, NYyankees51 is (IMO) by far the most civil and the most constructive. Nonetheless, given the overall degradation of the editing environment on abortion-related pages, I think that the combination of edits which advance one side of the political dimension, combined with multiple blocks for edit-warring in the topic area, probably rises above the threshold to be addressed. MastCell Talk 21:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @NYyankees51: I agree that you're generally civil (especially by the standards of the topic area) and I think there has been an improvement in your editing over time. Maybe my proposal is overly harsh here with regard to you; I'll leave that up to others, perhaps more objective than I, to decide. I will admit to some long-term frustration with the prevalence of edit-warring and agenda-driven editing in the topic area, and maybe that's led me to paint with a broad brush. Anyhow, I appreciate your response. MastCell Talk 02:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Topic bans
1), , , and are restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * In general, findings and remedies will be limited to individual editors at a time, such that nuanced examination and discussion of conduct may be done per individual editor. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This proposal would quickly allow for reasoned debate and consensus rather than time-sucking tar baby arguments that never end. Binksternet (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I could not help but to notice that in the whole of this multi-party fracas the only 4 editors that these 2 pro-choice users think should be topic-banned are all pro-life editors. I view this proposal as being undertaken with less than good faith. - Haymaker (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm not sure on what basis you're labeling me a "pro-choice" editor, since most of my editing on the topic has focused on medical and public-health aspects of abortion rather than its political, legal, or social dimensions. But nonetheless. Most editors (and most people) have some opinion about abortion. I've tried to focus on instances where opinionated editors have advocated their personal belief system at the expense of this site's policies and expectations. The four editors I've singled out all have clear and longstanding track records of problematic editing behavior, on top of a clear personal agenda on the subject. Are there "pro-choice" editors who meet similar criteria, with a similar history of abusive editing in service of their agenda (as exemplified by multiple blocks for edit-warring, topic bans, sanctions, etc)? I didn't identify any at a brief glance, but if you have, then we could discuss them. MastCell Talk 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take this opportunity to again say that I am not "pro-life", and that even if I was that is not relevant here. I believe that abortion should be entirely a woman's legal right up to a certain point in pregnancy.  That opinion of mine is not something that I should be virtually compelled to announce here, to refute disingenuous comments from other editors who should know better.  I believe it is manifestly absurd that the Wikipedia article about abortion says virtually nothing about what is aborted during a typical abortion, and absurd that any consensus to provide such information is defied in the most disruptive manner, without consequence.  I cannot sufficiently express how sad I am that MastCell has chosen to mischaracterize my editing, and pursue me in such a tenacious and unfair manner.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Haymaker pigeonholed you as a "pro-life editor", not I. From my perspective, whatever your personal viewpoints on abortion, they seem to be strong enough that you're not able to edit constructively and within site policy on the topic. You're not compelled to discuss your personal viewpoint on the topic; your editing speaks for itself, one way or the other. MastCell Talk 00:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If my position is so "strong", MastCell, why can't you say what that position is? Why can't you show ArbCom one single article edit that you think is problematic?  I have a strong position that this article should be NPOV, and that major changes to it should generally be made only with consensus.  I do not believe you share that position, either strongly or weakly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I presented evidence, which will have to speak for itself since I'm not willing to litigate this with you any further. MastCell Talk 05:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * These editors seem to me to have shown that they're incapable of restraining their personal opinions on the subject to the degree necessary to comply with this site's policies. MastCell Talk 21:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Jclemens' comment, I will split these out into individual remedies immediately below (1.1 through 1.4). MastCell Talk 19:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant
1.1) is restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Haymaker
1.2) is restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

DMSBel
1.3) is restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, per my evidence, which I think amply supports the idea that this editor needs a break from this topic area. MastCell Talk 02:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies, as of today this is the first I have been made aware of this workshop, or of the associated ArbCom case, so I have not properly digested the contents other than the initial motion proposed by User:Objectivist and some of the proceeding discussion. For that reason I will have to take some more time to review the discussion (here) so far. I would be grateful for differentiation to be made between talk-page discussion and article editing, and reference to be made to one or other or both in regard to any tendentiousness on my part. The bulk of my edits are on the discussion page of abortion. It's rather difficult not to have a POV in any discussion. I acknowledge being substantially, involved in the discussion, and focused on that article singly a large part of the time over the last year. I acknowledge that was bordering on an obsessive focus at times, but the debate was rather without much pause. I don't wish to comment further at present unless asked about specific matters in regard to my conduct with reference to context of the discussion there at the time, rather than general assertions of tendentious editing.DMSBel (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

NYyankees51
1.4) is restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Addressed above. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. A little lax for my tastes - I imagine NYyankees51 will just move on to the same behaviour on political articles - but it goes a way toward solving the problem. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide specific examples of what behavior of mine warrants something even tougher than a topic ban? Two users above have agreed that my editing has improved over the last few months (at least). Granted, I'm probably not a model editor, but I'm confused as to why you are singling me out. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Other editors reminded
2) All editors on abortion-related topics are reminded that whatever their personal beliefs, their participation on this project is contingent on being able to comply 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 serious, respectable reference work rather than on promoting a specific agenda.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * May appear in some form, although probably not with this specific wording. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * General advice, applies to everyone, myself included. MastCell Talk 21:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Best behavior
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. Any uninvolved administrator may topic-ban any editor who demonstrates that their personal viewpoint on the topic overwhelms their ability to edit within policy. Examples of behavior which might trigger a topic ban include: tendentious and repetitive argumentation, repeated incidences of edit-warring, attempts to game the system, or consistent abuse of article or talk pages as a soapbox.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Will likely appear in multiple different remedies, although I think we'll include substantially all of what you've put forth here. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Basically discretionary sanctions, but I'd like to both highlight the specific problematic behaviors and empower admins to deal with them. I'm under no illusions that the problems in this area are limited to the specific editors listed by name above. MastCell Talk 21:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Restrict the ability of people to debate things endlessly
1) One of the problems with issues like Abortion is that they provide people with the opportunity to continually debate and to filibuster progress in an article. Some of us enjoy a reasonable amount of debate, but Wikipedia isn't really the venue for it. I think if people are making the same point more than twice or so and have been asked for either sources or detailed policy evidence have failed to provide it then that's disruptive and those users should get sanctions against them.

The current position allows those of us who enjoy debate to get too much practice at it, and doesn't achieve results in a timely manner and drives away those who don't enjoy debate from controversial topics which is bad as they need more impartial people.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Clearly this is going to need a tidy up and rewording into something coherent - and probably community input. I also respect that I am probably currently a gross violator of this rule, but I'm happy to suggest this as I think it would improve the project as a whole.
 * Without such a rule you still generally allow the person whose the most boring about a discussion to win it without being prepared to invest huge amounts of time into debating the point. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See also #16. This is a problem which I tried to illustrate in my evidence on editors who dedicate over 1,000 consecutive edits to arguing a single content dispute, or who have been beating the same drum about abortion images for more than 4 years now. It comes into play in the pro-life/pro-choice naming dispute also. Wikipedians (rather, a subset of Wikipedians) are really bad at just letting something go. Once they sink our teeth into something, they don't let go. Those sorts of folks are, over time, increasingly over-represented on controversial topics. I considered listing, in my evidence, a roll call of sane, reasonable editors who have either left Wikipedia entirely or left the topic over the past several years because of this sort of endless, circular debate and filibustering. The problem with "consensus", as practiced on Wikipedia, is that it doesn't scale to high-profile, controversial articles. If you have a group of n like-minded, agenda-driven editors active on a topic, then that group can obstruct efforts to build a consensus indefinitely. The value of n, in my experience, is quite small, probably <5. MastCell Talk 19:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it feels like the only way to "win" such a debate is to use the same tactics, which makes one just as bad as the people you are arguing with. It needs to be against the rules. There are plenty of other places to debate things and it isn't really appropriate to do so here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also happy to take this to the wider community if that makes more sense. Which rule do we need to change to get this fixed? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. More rules to lawyer by. Although I get incredibly frustrated with people who refuse to provide evidence or deal with evidence provided to them, having this actionable is dangerous. It could enable Gish Galloping. Providing evidence takes time and care: asking for it takes seconds.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. OK, lets try 1.1). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Continually making the same point is disruptive
1.1) Continually making the same point in discussions filibusters progress, is disruptive and prevents the project forward. Making the same argument in the same discussion more than three times will be considered disruptive to the project and blockable by an uninvolved administrator.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * So when things go 'round and 'round, do we block all the participants? I'm unconvinced a hard-and-fast rule will work, or that attempts to enforce it will result in anything other than partisan squabbling. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with the principle, even if I'm not certain the wording captures it as clearly as it could. Ultimately, this seems to say that IDIDNTHEARTHAT is to talk page discussion and consensus what 3RR is to article text, and that's a sentiment I'm willing to endorse.  Consensus as an editorial process only works when everyone participates constructively, repeating arguments in an endless loop is just as counterproductive as reverting blindly.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * There is no evidence requirement to avoid gish galloping, but it codifies that at a certain point that you have to drop the argument. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * What sort of finding are you looking for? That, in accordance with WP:MEDCOM, mediation isn't binding on anyone at all, not even the parties who consented to it? I suggest you review the actual expectations and limitations of mediation. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't see anything about the reaction to the mediation. I feel its outcome was ignored, rather than challenged, and that this was inappropriate. Is there nothing whatsoever binding in any way about signing up to a mediation? (signing up is voluntary, but what about the outcome?)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Was this originally attached to something else? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
1) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:

Core wikipedia policy - No_original_research Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Use of the word "death" in the lead
The presence of the word "death" in the opening defining sentences of the article have been a focus of dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:

As presented elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can be rolled into my FoFs above. I don't think we need three separate ones. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and I just did that. Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Summary of sourcing
has provided a summary of definitions for "abortion" from a selection of medical dictionaries and major obstetrics and gynecology textbooks with a clear consensus for the word death not to be used in the definition.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:

Per his evidence, clear use of broad secondary and reinforced with tertiary sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, it doesn't address the fact that "death" is a scientific/medical as well as spiritual/religious/philosophical concept. This could probably be salvaged by wordsmithing, but the key point here is that "death" and "death" are two different things, and I think the larger issue is that we have scientific and religious editors talking past each other, intending to use the same word to mean two very different things. Deciding that the concrete definition of death takes precedence over the abstract would be a content ruling. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, I am not saying these should not be discussed in the article, as they are clearly integral, however the sources do not list the word in the first two sentences. There is a religious and spiritual aspect obviously but these are aspects and not global. At the end of the day it is a obstetric procedure not a religious ritual. It is not just people talking past each other but a concern of undue weight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So I'm still processing a mountain of evidence, much of which has not been helpfully assembled by our parties, but I fail to see how this is 1) anything other than a content ruling, or 2) helps ferret out who wasn't helpful. Nothing in any of the proposed remedies posted or contemplated (to the best of my knowledge) by any of the arbs are going to bless any one version of anything.  More to the point, I haven't seen or seen allegations of unhelpful content by NW in the first place, so saying he did a good job at pulling sourcing together is all well and good, but doesn't identify faults that need redress. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We can examine how editors use (or cherrypick or ignore for that matter) sourcing in disputes. NW made a good effort at showing what the 1-2 line definitions of abortion are in a whole swathe of secondary sources. As above, we have content policies that we can monitor for violations. We are not 'blessing' any version of anything, but we can't ignore policy violations on sourcing, which must be on a par with civility/edit-warring etc.? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is almost a content ruling; it is, however, primarily a statement about proper use of reliable sources to create contents, and I agree with Casliber that this is the key in this particular dispute. For that reason, I think this is a good finding and necessary background.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * I think NW deserves a barnstar for trying to elevate the level of discourse by actually putting in the legwork to review reliable sources. That said, I do think this proposal verges on taking sides in a content dispute, and I think Jclemens has a good point. It is true to say that medical sources generally don't define abortion as involving fetal "death". But the question of whether the fetus is "alive", and whether it "dies" during an abortion, has ethical and moral dimensions that go well beyond the medical definition. I think that we could actually outline this ambiguity successfully, under ideal cirucmstances, but I agree that the discussion has been marked by a counterproductive degree of absolutism. MastCell Talk 01:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; he's put in an extraordinary amount of work. Perhaps we should add a proposed remedy thanking him, as per the Giano case where Kelly Martin was thanked as a remedy. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's going to happen, and in any case words are pretty cheap. The best way to thank NW, and to thank anyone who's done serious work on making the article better, is to give them an editing environment as free of agenda-driven editing and nonsense as possible. MastCell Talk 23:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that a Wikipedia article needs to stick verbatim to the exact phrasing or word-choice of sources, as long as we capture the meaning. That said, I have consistently and repeatedly argued during the past few months that the word "death" should not be used in the lead, because it's potentially misleading due to various connotations that the word has (such as brain death, et cetera).  But this is a content decision that is primarily to be decided by consensus.  Even though I support changing the word "death" to something else (such as "demise"), I don't think that I or anyone else should be allowed to do that without consensus, per policy, even though that policy may undermine my position in the content dispute.  If the consensus policy were respected at this article, I think we would have a lot more productive discussion, and a lot less edit-warring.  The word "death" has been removed by process of WP:BRRR, and I'm disappointed that more editors in this proceeding seem to think that's none of ArbCom's business.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposals by Tznkai
First, a caveat. I've edited the abortion article a fair amount over the years, so I am not a neutral party.

Wikipedia is not a battleground
1) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import conflicts, or carry on ideological battles Wikipedia editors are expected to write articles from a neutral perspective, and to assume others are doing the same, rather than trying to "balance" against a conflicting ideology.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Adapted from WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:AGF A reaction to the tendency to see the article in the lens of "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" rather than something more productive.--Tznkai (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)