Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * 1) Casliber
 * 2) Coren
 * 3) David Fuchs
 * 4) Elen of the Roads
 * 5) Jclemens
 * 6) John Vandenberg
 * 7) Kirill Lokshin
 * 8) Mailer diablo
 * 9) Newyorkbrad
 * 10) PhilKnight
 * 11) Roger Davies
 * 12) SirFozzie

Inactive:
 * 1) Cool Hand Luke

Recused
 * 1) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
 * 2) Risker
 * 3) Xeno

Observation by really-glad-I'm-not-involved Floquenbeam
0RR?? Editors would be free to insert something ridiculous into any abortion-related article, and no one could remove it until they get consensus to do so? I understand you may think that 1RR is not working well, but imposing 0RR on everyone editing a large group of articles is destined to fail. You'd be better off just full-protecting the articles for the duration of the case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Casliber: Abortion articles are already under 1RR. @world: I'm not babbling, a suggestion for 0RR was originally suggested but was later removed, I was responding to that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Born2cycle
(this statement has been pruned; the original long/detailed statement is here)

I have not been involved in this particular issue until yesterday.I believe that this is an excellent case for ArbCom to take because much of it exemplifies a recurring behavior problem associated with article title decision-making: the ignoring of policy, particularly, WP:AT.We've had title conflicts like this before. We've resolved them before. We've developed consensus about how to resolve them, and we've reflected that consensus in policy, at WP:AT, precisely so that conflicts like this would be avoided in the future. That's why I think it's a behavior problem to blatantly ignore the key relevant guidance given in policy at WP:AT, as was done in this case in moving Pro-life movement to Opposition to the legalisation of abortion. WP:AT was ignored here: 1. Though WP:POVTITLE is very clear about how WP:COMMONNAME and neutrality complement each other in title selection (in short, following most common usage in reliable sources is being neutral), in his statement the closing admin implied that there is a conflict between neutrality and the name suggested by COMMONNAME, and that we should follow neutrality since it's a pillar and COMMONNAME is not. Policy clearly states the near opposite: following COMMONNAME is being consistent with neutrality because "True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.". 2. Many, including the mediator and closer made statements suggesting that simply because "Pro-life"  is ambiguous it should not be used, ignoring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 3. The mediator admits that "pro-life/pro-choice" are of most common usage: "As for common usage, of course there's going to be more usage for pro-life and pro-choice", but he dismisses them due to them being American usage. This ignores WP:COMMONNAME as well as WP:CRITERIA because the article content demonstrates these issues are dominated by American influence, and these terms are more natural, recognizable, concise than his invented titles, and they are more consistent with similar "Movement" titles. 4. WP:TITLECHANGES: "do not invent names as a means of compromising". Mediator: "This is a contentious topic, ...This one is going to require a compromise". 5 Mediator, admitting ignoring policy:"in a normal situation ignoring policies is not something I'd advise against in a normal situation, but in this instance, there is a lot of dispute over the name of the article, and in situations like this, we agree that this would be a situation where invoking IAR would be appropriate. "

I implore ArbCom to rule that renaming articles on a basis that involves such a blatant disregard for consensus as reflected in policy is unacceptable behavior, as it opens the floodgates for anyone to move just about any article with little more basis than personal preference. It's one thing to invoke IAR when the existing rules fail, but here all that has failed is the following of the existing rules.

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC) (pruned) --Born2cycle (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @Steven Zhang, I mentioned only pro-life for a) brevity and b) it seems to be getting more attention so I chose it, but none of my points are specific to pro-life, they consistently apply to countless other cases, and certainly to pro-choice.If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if none of the common names is clearly the most common, and consensus cannot be established to pick one of them for the title, that's reason to use none of them and use something else entirely, even invent a rather long and clumsy "compromise" title? I'm not aware of any policy-based justification for that view.  Again, to the contrary, WP:TITLECHANGES specifically says not to do that.  There is nothing in the relevant part of WP:TITLECHANGES -- do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view --  that makes it apply only when there clearly is a most common name, and not apply when there isn't a clear one.By the way, how did we get here?  As far as I can tell, there have been numerous RM proposals, with and without RFCs, to move these articles, and they've all failed to develop consensus in support of the proposed moves.Now, consensus has always been that articles are not moved unless there is clear consensus in support of the move.   When an article is at A and others want to move it B, but neither is clearly the most common name, generally the article stays at A, unless clear consensus develops in support of B (maybe it's more concise).  That's just the way it is, for better or for worse.  Deciding to move it to C, or should I say CDEFGH, instead, is highly unusual, and, again, certainly not supported by consensus as reflected in policy, except when  consensus clearly favors the move to CDEFGH.  And when the 3rd name is not indicated by consensus as reflected in policy, as was the case here, then you really need an overwhelming consensus in favor of moving to that 3rd name, invoking IAR.Now here's the most important point.  There is nothing, nothing, in consensus as reflected in policy that indicates these articles should be at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalisation of abortion.  I mean, WP:CRITERIA does not support these titles. WP:COMMONNAME does not.  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not.  WP:D does not.  Even WP:POVTITLE does not.  Nothing.  Therefore you really need a particularly strong consensus to support such a move, and that clearly was not there.  TheCavalry essentially admitted as much, by noting in his closing that the consensus is only "relatively clear".  What's bizarre is that he claims the contrived titles stem from "relying on those who were able to debate using sensible interpretations derived from policy".   How these titles could possibly be derived from policy at all remains a complete mystery to me.    I don't know of any titles that contradict policy more than these do, though I admit that the ridiculous Climatic Research Unit email controversy is probably a tie, but all of these are examples of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, not precedent.As for Tree shaping, you quote, "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists".  That's just one of those topics that has no accepted common name.  That's not applicable here, as accepted short-hand terms do exist for these topics, such as pro-choice,  pro-life and anti-abortion.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle's response to Newyorkbrad
 * (1) Is the proposed case primarily focused on the article titles, or are there broader issues? As explained above, I think there is a broader issue - and that is the behavior of ignoring policy in order to come up with a contrived title that contradicts policy rather than follow the policy specifically designed to avoid the very kind of conflict that has been created here by those who insist on moving an article without first developing consensus in favor of that move.
 * (2) Have the problems discussed in the request continued since the mediation was closed? Well, the article continues to sit at a title that contradicts consensus as reflected in policy more than any other title I know, and those who made the consensus-ignoring move refuse to reverse their mistaken-ridden decision.
 * (3) Is the inevitable outcome here the creation of a binding article-title decision process, as the Committee did in the Ireland names case and noted with approval in the dashes-versus-hyphens in title dispute? No.  We already have an article-title decision process, and it's documented at WP:AT.  The process for proposing and discussing title changes is documented at WP:RM.   If these were followed, we wouldn't be here.  The problem here is not a lack of rules, but a lack of rule following (perhaps due to a lack of rule knowledge, understanding and appreciation).  I see no need to create ever more rules.  If the processes and rules were followed, and they failed, that would be different, but that's not what happened here.So what I would like to see from Arbcom is something along the lines of a finding that admins closing RM discussion should simply decide whether the move proposal has consensus support, or not.  The practice of a moderator inventing a new "compromise" contrived title, totally contrary to policy ("do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view"), and a closing admin adopting that title, needs to be firmly rejected.  That kind of behavior is not conducive to building a good encyclopedia, and that needs to be made clear to those involved in no uncertain terms.
 * (4) If the answer to (3) is yes, do we need a full-fledged arbitration case to get to that, which might raise the general unhappiness level still further, or should we act by some sort of motion? Acting by motion should suffice.   --Born2cycle (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ohms law
My "involvement" in this is limited to providing my opinion during an earlier mediation attempt. Now I'm being dragged into this and attempting to be dragged into the attempt to create a super-mediation case by one of the other participants in the dispute. To say that being named as a party in either is annoying would be an understatement.

Please also be aware of Administrators noticeboard/Incidents, which I posted just prior to becoming aware of this RFAR. Regards, — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 03:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Steven: that's why everything about this is disruptive. Just a smidgeon of forethought may have avoided my type of objection, but everyone involved in this is so gung ho to start flaming each other that all reason has apparently gone out the window (which speaks volumes about the need for an arbcom case here, with the proper parties, really). All of this simply because I replied to an RFC with my opinion. Just great, people. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 03:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sven Manguard
I really wasn't involved in this at all until I got notified that because I edited one of the involved articles sometime within the last year (it would have to have been though Huggle) that I was considered involved enough for an invite to a RfC. Having been stupid enough to fall for the invite, (yes, it was stupid of me for going anywhere near that mess), I was then listed as a party in a mediation.

In an effort to be as neutral as possible (i.e. to make sure no one can claim they were excluded), people with almost no involvement in this have been asked to participate, and then having participated, were asked to participate even more, this time in a formal process. With only the most altrusitic of intentions, this practice has made a bad situation worse, because by involving people that really have no interest in being involved, and then taking it to a forum (mediation) that can only be successful if everyone listed as involved participates, the mediation was doomed from the start.

I have not, for the record, even read the result of the RfC, becasue it's not in an area I follow. However I urge the Arbs to let the solution that was recently put into place have time to sink in, and therefore I urge them do decline this case. Rapid process hopping/escalation makes sense in some cases, where a solution cannot be found in the processes along the way to ArbCom, however we already found a solution, all the way back at RfC, and now two escalations past RfC we're on the verge of blowing past the solution without giving it a chance. To me, that's wrong because it undermines the entire purpose on intermediary steps.


 * @Elen of the Roads - People are screaming blue at the Mediation because they didn't consider themesleves involved. The people who were actually involved all seem to be lining up to accept this. The Mediation would have worked had NYyankees51 not included a bunch of people that were not really involved.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
Mostly addressed to Newyorkbrad's questions...

If the case is opened, I hope the Committee views this naming dispute as a symptom. The underlying problem isn't what to call these articles. I can think of three or four possible naming systems, including those being fought over. All of them are reasonable and accurate, and there's clearly no One True Naming Convention for the pro-choice/pro-life articles. The real problem is the unreasoning intransigence with which the naming dispute has been litigated.

The abortion articles are beset with agenda-driven editors, more so now than at most points I can remember in the past. I won't bore ArbCom with my personal list of such editors, at least not here and now, and I'm sure others have different lists. I think any experienced admin or editor can identify these accounts for themselves fairly quickly. The point is that reasonable, sane people are rapidly driven away from these disputes by the hard core of agenda-driven editors who sink their teeth in and just won't let go (see #16). Thus, any dispute - whether over naming conventions, or the lead sentence of our abortion article (as a heads up for your next case...) turns into an endless war of attrition.

If this case is taken, then the single most productive thing that could come of it is not a clarification of naming policy, but a means for limiting the damage caused by agenda-driven editing to these articles. We could brainstorm the details. Maybe after two edit-warring blocks you're topic-banned from abortion for a few months. Maybe if your last 1,000 edits are all dedicated to prosecuting one side of a single abortion-related dispute (this is not hypothetical), you're asked to branch out a bit.

Whatever the details, I think that's the direction that a case needs to take if it's to be useful in the long run rather than as a band-aid. The scope would be "disruptive and agenda-driven editing on abortion articles", and the desired outcome would not necessarily be sanctions against specific editors, but a framework for controlling such editing going forward. MastCell Talk 23:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
Elen of the Roads, you are correct that mediation would fail if it included those editors who are vociferously protesting at being named as a party. However, we could simply exclude those parties from mediation, because they (self-professedly) have no significant involvement. I opined as much, in my role as the chairman of the MedCom, at the request page. I do not see how this dispute warrants the involvement of the Arbitration Committee at this juncture. AGK [&bull; ] 16:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Quantling
Please consider adding me to the list of involved parties.

I object to the phrase "legalization of abortion" because it is referring to the process of making abortion legal in a place where it is or has been illegal. However, I don't believe either article title should exclude discussion of places where abortion has always been legal. At the very least, let's change those titles to "Support for / Opposition to legal abortion". — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 14:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Add Anthony Appleyard as a party
I was having a quick read through the evidence so far and NYyankees51 definitely has a point about Anthony Appleyard's behaviour around the second move request (and I'm going to add some evidence along those lines).

It may not be found worthy of a finding, but as this case is at Arbcom it does need looking at. Therefore it would be good to add him as a party. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I haven't seen much of him in the recent discussions but he has definitely played a role. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me pull out my clerk handbook and try to remember the proper procedure to add parties after a case has been opened... - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 10:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * it was done in the MickMacNee case. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only at the instruction of arbitrator(s). I have sent an email to ArbCom requesting instructions. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 12:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any progress? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I contacted the case arbitrators on their talk pages yesterday and will escalate the matter if it isn't resolved within 24 hours. This has been handled appallingly. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Request to add Anthony Appleyard has been granted. (I was only instructed today.) - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Remove SarekOfVulcan as a party
I have been involved in the discussions and 1RR enforcement around Abortion articles, so if you want me to remain in, that's fine. However, no evidence has been submitted involving me yet -- if this isn't going to change, I'd like my name off the case. Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive681 is probably relevant to the above request. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Like what I said above, the words that allows the removal will have to come from ArbCom. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 12:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. I should point out that since the request above, I added two diffs from Talk:Catholics for Choice to the evidence page to point out behavior issues I had a problem with, so that may change the decision. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While this is clearly a less time critical decision than the thread above this one should have been dealt with by now as well. 10 days is still really far too long. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Declined by drafting arbitrators for this case. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having looked over the evidence today, I don't see any sanctions headed your way at this time, Sarek. Still, since you've submitted evidence, I'm not seeing that it tidies the case any to remove you. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple parties added
I have asked the Clerks to add to the case a number of editors involved in the disputes, based on evidence submitted by parties. These new additions primarily involve editors involved in the image removal and first sentence edit warring, as well as the Medcab case closer, Chase Me. Accordingly, the evidence period will be extended to allow everyone newly named as a party to review the case and submit appropriate evidence. While I apologize for the timeline impact to the case, I think it is more important that this case be done right than done fast. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments removed
With applogies. A REDDSON
 * See the evidence page. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Setting up discussion
Right then, the idea now is to set up a structured venue to discuss the naming of

I found WikiProject Abortion and thought of WikiProject Abortion/Abortion-related article names discussion as a venue, with subpages WikiProject Abortion/Abortion-related article names discussion/evidence (for evidence) and WikiProject Abortion/Abortion-related article names discussion/background (to link to all previous debates). I figured the wikiproject (although inactive) was the easiest place to house the discussion (rather than a talk page requiring a talk/talk page etc. The pages to discuss are obviously Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion. Is everybody okay with this? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine with me, this seems the best place to put it. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion (December 2011)
Initiated by  T. Canens (talk) at 03:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Timotheus Canens
How is Remedy 1 ("IP editing prohibited") supposed to be implemented? Does that mean that all 1572 pages listed on Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/List of abortion pages (which, as I understand it, includes all pages in Category:Abortion and its subcategories) should be semiprotected immediately for 3 years? T. Canens (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note related discussion at WP:AN. T. Canens (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Roger: Semiprotecting 1500 pages is not "hard" to implement technically: it takes, at most, half an hour to write a script that performs the protection and adds the relevant tags. I guess a better way to put the question is, did arbcom really intend that all those 1500+ pages be immediately semiprotected for 3 years? T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user
Since various members below think that a motion would be appropriate, I'd suggest getting on with it before someone's bold and actually writes that script.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment: During voting, I preferred R1.1 "IP editing restricted". It didn't pass but it is significantly easier to implement. If there's any support for replacing R1.0 with R1.1 from my colleagues, I'll propose a motion here replacing the remedy.  Roger Davies  talk 05:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to play whack-a-mole with at least one dedicated, IP-hopping, banned user agitating things, but it seems we spent more time discussing the time length than the implementation. I would welcome suggestions on a simple, painless way to accomplish blocking the bad IP editor(s) with the least collateral impact on other IP editors. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I also hadn't frankly realized that this would affect such a large number of articles. Our options are either to (i) replace the mandatory semiprotection of all relevant articles with a remedy indicating that semiprotection should be used liberally where needed in this topic-area, or (ii) to confine the initial semiprotection to a few specified core articles (such as the ones mentioned by name in the decision) and give administrators discretion to proceed from there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Other non-public issues had come up which indicated this might be a prudent way to proceed. Given the competing remedies, I'd be happy to take a mid-way path and let admins have a very low threshold of semiprotection and to let the committee know of any problematic editing by IPs for review. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've said elsewhere, this is best interpreted as allowing the semiprotection of any article in the topic area rather than demanding the semiprotection off all articles now. Granted, the remedy as worded now has implication beyond the immediate intent, and I don't mind a motion to alter it accordingly.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Like Coren, I saw this as a broad approval of liberal semiprot use instead of demanding protection, which I realize looking back was a bad reading. If necessary, a motion to tweak the wording should be sufficient. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, recused. Risker (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed motion (1)
Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
 * Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at their discretion, for a period not to exceed three years from the conclusion of this case. Editors in good standing who wish to edit such topics under a single additional account not linked to their identity may do so under the provisions of WP:SOCK and WP:SOCK.

Support

 * 1) Proposed. Minimal modification to the substance of the original remedy to allow the semiprotection rather than require it preemptively.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2011
 * 2) I hate the fact that we may need to play whack a mole to deal with a banned user here, but on reflection, maybe it was a step too far to mandate semi protection for so many articles. SirFozzie (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) John Vandenberg (chat) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) unnecessary to specifically mention socks and concerned that by raising it specifically is a bit like Streisand Effect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) There's some advantages in version 2, such that I don't want to oppose this, but I would rather see a version that incorporates the best parts of 2, without removing the discussion of appropriate use of alternate accounts. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed motion (2)
Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
 * Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.
 * There are 15 active arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, so the majority is 7.

Support

 * 1) Proposed. This varies from (1) in that it:sets up logging for the long-term semiprotections (we probably need to keep some sort of track on this as it's for so long and potentially so widespread);takes out the bit inviting editors to create second accounts just for the topic (is that really necessary? and should we be encouraging it?)and puts a fixed date that the semiprotection runs from (the case is already closed but it may not be clear whether the three years runs from then or from the date when motions etc conclude).Copyedits welcome,    Roger Davies  talk 15:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * CE: "at their discretion" > "at his or her discretion" otherwise we have two their's relating to different subjects.  Roger Davies  talk 16:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Over first motion. Clarity is probably best.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) First choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) PhilKnight (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) second choice. SirFozzie (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Either works, with no preference.  The first alternative was basically the "minimal change" version, this one is more explicit.Also, I'm agnostic about the mention of alternate accounts, it works with or without as far as I'm concerned: this is already provided for in policy and we are just restating.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) While the sock account bits are redundant to current policy, I would prefer to not remove them from the description of the remedy. I would not have proposed the expansive use of semi-protection without an express declaration that it is a countermeasure against disruption, not an attack on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously in the topic. I would not oppose the rest of the text here if they were retained; I just don't see them as "extra", but rather an integral part of the remedy. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral


Motion implemented. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Abortion motion
Initiated by  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  at 01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by HJ
procedure notes: first, I'm not sure who (if anybody) needs to be notified of this but I will leave a link from the discussion at WT:ACN and will be happy to notify any editor suggested if necessary ; second, I've never filed a request for clarification before, so guidance (and patience!) from arbitrators or clerks on any formatting errors would be appreciated.

This request pertains to the December 2011 motion (permanent link) which amended remedy 1 of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion.

Having discussed the matter with arbitrators, predominantly on WT:ACN, it seems that this motion is ambiguous in its intent and I fear that what may be clearly implied to administrators currently working in the abortion topic area may not be as obvious to others and may not be retained in institutional memory. The current wording of the motion suggests that administrators may semi-protect articles related to abortion (an option already allowed to them under the Protection Policy) and that administrators may only semi-protect abortion-related articles for a maximum of three years.

Without wishing to speak for the committee, I believe the intent of the motion was to:
 * Encourage administrators to apply a lower threshold for semi-protection of abortion-related articles and in particular their talk pages—of which protection is normally discouraged by the protection policy.
 * Authorise administrators to pre-emptively protect particular abortion-related articles which are likely to suffer from sustained disruption with potential consequences beyond Wikipedia.
 * Provide administrators with the authority of acting under an arbitration remedy in the event that another administrator takes exception to a protection that would not be in "normal" circumstances.

I would also suggest that any amended motion should make clear that uninvolved administrators working in the abortion topic area still have the option of protecting articles under the provisions of the protection policy and that this motion is supplemental. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Coren, Fozzie: I disagree. It may be obvious to you and to those who followed the case closely what you mean, but to somebody who doesn't fall into those categories, all you've done is said that admins can protect abortion-related articles for three years. you haven't told us why that might be desirable, you haven't said anything about the pre-emptive protection which Roger Davies suggested was an important part of the motion, and your assumption that nobody would take this as meaning that it supersedes normal procedures would seem to be flawed, judging by this log entry. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem
First, I'd like to thank HJ for initiating this request. As will be evident from the WT:ACN discussion, I believe that clarifying the reasoning behind this decision and its intent is highly desirable. I recognise that comments below indicate that (at least) Coren and SirFozzie do not see a need for a motion to clarify the semi-protection issue in the abortion area (broadly defined) but I submit that their reasoning is flawed. As I understand it, the suggestion is that no clarification is needed as the remedy is already clear. I have no doubt that it is clear from their point of view, but the issue is whether it is clear from a non-ArbCom member's perspective. As you may know, I work as an academic. When I submit a paper for consideration by a journal I expect to have some issues raised where I believe the manuscript is clear and I need to remind myself that I *know* what I meant and I have to accept that the reviewers are better placed to judge whether a point is unclear. Please, try to step back and ask not whether the remedy is clear to you but rather whether the remedy can reasonably be interpreted in way(s) that you did not intend. Ask yourself how an unusual - or even extreme - remedy with no rationale presented might be seen by those who do not have limitless faith in ArbCom. Truly, a remedy contemplating semi-protection for three years with no accompanying explanatory finding and no rationale is deficient. I know from Risker's explanation that there is very good reason for empowering agressive semi-protection but had I not read that user talk page post I could have easily been wondering what you were thinking. I can easily imagine how the remedy could be seen as ArbCom over-reaching. This remedy will be in force for three years. There could easily be administrators applying it in eighteen months who have yet to even join the project; surely suggesting that you pass a motion to provide a rationale and to clarify what actions you are authorising is not an unreasonable request. EdChem (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I really don't see a point to further amendments or motions about this. Your reading above is pretty much on the nose, but that's also the straightforward plain reading of the amended remedy as currently written; and there is no way to write a motion in a manner that cannot hypothetically be misinterpreted or wikilawyered around.As far as I know, no arbitration remedy has ever been (seriously) read or implied to mean that they replaced the normal process unless it explicitly states that it does; certainly nobody interprets discretionary sanctions to mean that normal blocks or processes do not still apply, for instance.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coren. Anyone working in the area doesn't need another formal amendment to understand this is what we mean. SirFozzie (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on a comment by SirFozzie on the mailing list, I think we could make a note on the talk page of the case, and include a diff about this discussion. However, I agree that a formal amendment isn't needed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the amendment should be read alongside the remedy, in which case it allows admins at their discretion to semi-protect for up to three years certain abortion related articles which they feel may be or are vulnerable, and to do so under ArbCom sanction, logging the action. Other forms of protection, such as full protection or indefinite semi are still available, and can be challenged, though a three year semi-protection done under ArbCom sanction shouldn't be undone without going through the procedures outlined in WP:AE. The amendment removes the necessity of all the related articles being protected regardless of vulnerability, while giving alert admins the liberal power to move swiftly to prevent a problem before it happens.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Abortion
Initiated by  Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! at 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 5.1
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * All parties have been notified on their talk page.

Amendment 1

 * That the remedy be vacated and replaced with a binding structured community discussion.

Statement by Steven Zhang
It's no coincidence that I am filing this request only just after the start of the new year, that was my intentions, as I wanted the new committee to be able to consider this. I've been discussing it with arbitrator Casliber over the past few weeks (see the discussion). In short, remedy 5.1 would be vacated, and a structured discussion would be opened, similar to the structure suggested in the remedy. The difference here is that it is a community process. Instead of being closed by administrators appointed by the committee, three editors would close the discussion, an admin, someone who has knowledge in the area (for example in this situation, a member from WikiProject Medicine) and a user experienced in dispute resolution. This is somewhat similar to the recent RFC on verifiability in terms of structure. Once the discussion has closed, it would be logged at the arbitration case as well as general sanctions.

A few things need to be considered here. I think that this kills a few birds with a single stone. It empowers the community to resolve these disputes, and addresses the idea of "ArbCom doesn't touch content disputes" which may have been the partial cause for delay in this arbitration case. I also note that the discussion by ArbCom has not been set up yet, whether due to lack of interest or the holiday season, the discussion still needs to take place.

The proposal I made (Binding RFCs, though the name isn't quite right) is currently under discussion at the Village pump, though discussion has been slow. It really needs a test case, and I think that this would fit perfectly. I'm happy to work with ArbCom to set up the discussion (though I will not take much part in the actual discussion as a party of the case) but I do think that this would be a win-win situation. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Replies to arbitrator comments
@Risker, I disagree that the proposal has received no support. Discussion has been slow at the Village Pump, but there has also been expressions of support on the proposal talk page. It's the lack of participation that is the issue, which is why I discussed the possibility of this remedy being handled by the community as a test case. As for how the remedy is inadequate, well, I don't mean to be rude, but the remedy states that "A structured discussion on the names of the...abortion articles shall begin following the conclusion of this case and continue for one month thereafter." This structured discussion has yet to even be created, let alone the discussion started, and this is possibly due to a lack of interest within the committee, as arbitrator Casliber noted. It appears that from the case decision as well as the PD talk page that Cas was the drafter of remedy 5.1 and was the one that was going to set up the structured discussion, so while indeed it was with the consent of only one arbitrator that I came here, I figured it was the one that counted. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Anthony, will do the notifying in the morning All parties notified. As for the remedy being inadequate, I do not mean to be disrespectful, but the case took over three months to be resolved, and I know that the internal discussion on how to deal with the article names was a factor in this. The discussion proposed in remedy 5.1 has yet to take place, and I feel that this process can word. It would be carefully observed by the committee (and likely by many others), and id expect nothing less. I apologise if I came off as rude. I have a vested interest here, that the process I am proposing be used is one I have developed myself, but I think since little has happened thus far, then it might as well be dealt with this way. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens, I came here after it was suggested by Cas. I can say little more except to suggest you read over the thread on their talk page which I linked to. I think that explains it better than I could, and I'd rather not take Casliber's comments out of context. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork, the main problem I'm facing here is apathy, or lack of awareness. Participation in the discussion at VP has been low, so I was thinking that a test case could work, and this situation is an ideal one. I'll see if I can get a watchlist notice to get more participation. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 20:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@Anthony, in short, the remedy is inadequate because it hasn't been followed through. No discussion has yet to be set up. I trust that there is some new talent on ArbCom, including yourself, though I honestly did think that the committee would jump at the idea. After all, arbs aren't exactly falling over each other to start the discussion. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@ArbCom, I get the feeling that you are ignoring this request. While I realise the Civility enforcement case is keeping you all busy, but that's why you were elected. If y'all think that my idea is a bad one, then go ahead and say it, but at least say something rather than nothing. The case has been closed for a month and a half now, and this structured discussion was supposed to have been well under way now, but it is not. That's why I am here. It's really up to all of you. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@Anthony, I am in a bit of a sticky situation here, mainly because my personal and professional feelings are colliding. The consenquences of a friend being on ArbCom, eh. :-) I didn't start or setup any discussion because the remedy seemed to detail that this was something ArbCom would do, and as it was noted that it would be opened once the Abortion case closed. My impression was that arbitrator Casliber would set this up, as drafter of the remedy. I apologise for my abruptness and/or rudeness. I do acknowledge that ArbCom is busy, but at the same time feel that issues should be prioritised in chronological order. If ArbCom is happy for me to help set up the discussion, then that's fine. I can help with that too. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 01:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Replies to parties
@Binksternet, nothing in remedy 5.1 has even happened yet. My proposal in this case is simple. Instead of a structured discussion where ArbCm would set up the discussion and appointed admins by the committee close the discussion, as a community (but in this case guided by the committee) would partake in a structure discussion, and three admins would close the discussion. There's really little difference, apart from it giving the community the power to resolve content disputes like Abortion, and possibly others like Senkaku Islands, Muhammad etc. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Nyyankee, eh, I see the participation of disinterested people as necessary in the process, but agree that the discussion could turn into a vote if it is not watched carefully. That said, the structure of the discussion would have two parts, part one is where users would present evidence for their proposed title. This would be in the form of policy, backed up with other evidence. No other discussion would take place at this stage. Then, after a period of time, an AFD styled discussion would take place, where users would "vote" on their preferred title, with reasoning e.g. "I prefer the titles of pro-life and pro-choice movements as the titles and this is supported by X policy which is backed up by Y sources" or something like that. It's strength of argument that will be weighed at the close, which will be done by three users, so it is more likely that the outcome will be a fair one, and weigh comments, as opposed to doing a raw number count. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1
The three editors close thing (as well as presenting a strong evidence based case) was also done at Talk:China and seems to have been relatively successful.

All in all this is probably needed, there seems no other sane way to solve these kind of disputes beyond the creation of WP:RFCCOM which never seems to get anywhere - or letting Arbcom do it, which has a lot of opposition and is probably bad. While you may be able to blame me for pushing a couple of cases in your direction we've just had abortion which needs this and we're dealing with Muhammad now which has similar issues which need a binding resolution. And we've also had Senkaku Islands very recently as well.

We probably have a whole bunch more cases like them that people have failed to escalate elsewhere on the project, I mean Muhammad got to half a million words before any serious escalation was done, that's insane. Discussions of that length basically prevent everyone from taking part - so people with families and stuff like that as they literally don't have the time. That isn't good. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Binksternet
I see no reason to replace Remedy 5.1 which was painfully obtained after much discussion and consideration. A test case for new practices should be found elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NYyankees51
I see benefits and a possible detriment to this - The benefit is that this is a much simpler process and easier to understand and participate in, and it allows for consensus, not a majority vote. The negative is that it might make it too easy for disinterested people or meatpuppets to come in and say "Yes per above", and that would skew the vote. I think I would support this; I'll see what others think. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Anthony Appleyard
After wading through much text, I get the impression that, in summary, the topic to be discussed is "In this case, as with Senkaku Islands and some others, discussion goes on endlessly and never comes to a decision. Therefore, let one neutral man be appointed to make a final ruling.". Please, is that correct? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse on the specific case, but I will add some general comments. It is my firm belief that Arbcom decisions (or portions thereof) should not be overturned unless there is a clear need to do so. What is being proposed here is the preference of a single user, and it is not rooted in policy but is instead based on a suggested change in practice that has received almost no support. There is no indication that this specific situation has been discussed anywhere other than a one-on-one discussion with an individual arbitrator. There is no indication that there is any support at any discussion pages related to this issue to change the decision made. I'd suggest that the Requests for Amendment page is not the appropriate "first stop" for this proposal.  Risker (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The original parties will please be notified of this amendment request. Steven, you will need to explain in what ways the final decision of Abortion is inadequate; at this point, I have no view. AGK   [• ]  17:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is still not clear to me how the current remedies are inadequate, and why a resolution cannot be achieved by simply fulfilling the uncreated discussion provided for by the original decision. AGK   [• ]  21:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthony Appleyard, In the case of both the proposed "binding RFC" and "systematic discussion and voting", I am not sure that such is the case. Under both paradigms, the decision about content is remanded to the wider community, and only the final decision is remanded to a small group of neutral users. My take is that the core of both methods is that the decision on disputed content is remanded to the wider community. AGK   [• ]  23:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Steve, I do not see how you reconcile your acknowledgement that our small committee has an enormous workload with your vociferous criticism of our (hardly unacceptable) response time. In any case, my view is that we should proceed by implementing the original decision by starting the "systematic discussion and voting". If you are interested, you could start it yourself. As a rule, this committee looks to the community to implement its remedies, and it strikes me that it is silly to look at an amended decision when the original remedy has not even been implemented. AGK   [• ]  23:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was unsure whether this needed a specific name or process that required an amendment as such, and would be content to have some three-admin closure of an extended discussion, if someone actually had an interest in chairing it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on this one. I can see Steven Zhang's point, but I'd also like to see the remedy proceed as Cas articulated... just to see if it works as designed. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The binding RFC idea is interesting, and as individual members of the community it would be appropriate for us to join the discussion and give our support if so inclined. Should we as a body support or oppose the idea? I don't think that would be appropriate while there's a community discussion in place. In addition, we are being asked to vacate a valid remedy with one that does not yet exist. If Binding RFCs gets consensus, I can see it being proposed in future cases, and at that point it would be fully appropriate for ArbCom to consider using it - but this is too soon.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, apologies for not posting earlier. Overall, my view is that the subtly different version proposed my Steven is just as good. That is, if the case was still open, I'd give his variation equal support. However, given the case is closed, I feel there needs to be more of a necessity to use his version, and, at the moment, I don't see there is any such necessity. Otherwise, I would suggest the process should start in the near future, and if Steven is willing to lead this process, that would be most appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't an arb then, but if I had been, I would have recused from the Abortion case, so I'll just indicate that now. Courcelles 06:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Abortion
Initiated by  Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! at 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Steven Zhang
This is more a clarification on remedy 4.1 of this case. It might seem relatively obvious what the answer to my question is, but the remedy states: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles related to abortion, broadly construed." I compare this with the closure of the Muhammad images case, where the sanction states: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted."

I was reading over the final decision for the Muhammad case today, in particular the remedy on deciding what to do regarding the images, and noticed this sentence: "Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision".

Now, as the committee is well aware, a structured discussion on the Abortion article titles (see remedy) has been set up. So, I suppose my question is rather simple. Will administrators have the authority to ban users from the discussion in events of disruption under the discretionary sanctions as noted in the Abortion case? It would seem logical to me, but the committee may feel differently. I haven't notified the parties of the case (I feel it's a simple clarification for mainly my benefit) but am happy to do so if required. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @ArbCom, I am probably being a bit pedantic here, but from readings of past cases, the scope of where discretionary sanctions and topic bans apply are normally clearly defined, for example in the Prem Rawat case ("related articles and their talk page"), Tree shaping ("The topic covered by the article currently located at...") and the Muhammad case (linked above) are a few examples. I personally don't mind, but it might be better to be explicit as to the scope of discretionary sanctions in this situation?  Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 00:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens, I was probably being just a bit anal about my reading of it, perhaps that's how I picked up on it. But knowing the climate of topics like these, I figured it's best to be explicit just in case we have any wikilawyering over the remedy in future ("the remedy says articles only, not X areas") @Roger, sounds good. I'll keep my eye on this page. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 19:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Whenaxis
Greetings Arbitration Committee. I, too, would like to clarify if administrators will have the authority to ban users from the discussion when disruptive editing occurs. I think the Arbitration Committee should provide this authority to administrators because any uncivil comment can detract from the productivity of the community discussion. At this time, the remedy encompasses articles relating to Abortion, as suggested by Steven above, I think it should encompass the discussion and all pages relating to Abortion. Thanks,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs  21:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
 * Moved per NW's request and redacted to make sense. As you'll see at AC/DS, this is a "problem" (not really) for more than just this case. They can really be fixed by a simple copy edit though, as DS have been applied to all pages in a topic area since forever. NW ( Talk ) 13:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Seems like a fairly common-sense thing to do to me, but I'm still recused on this one. Courcelles 22:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the admins can apply blocks or bans as needed to editors if they disrupt the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as discretionary sanctions that apply to articles also apply to the talk page, so too does the Abortion discretionary provision apply to community discussion related to the article. AGK  [•] 00:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If my colleagues are minded to explicitly resolve that we consider RFCs to be within the scope of discretionary sanctions for the associated article, then I would be happy to support or propose a motion to that effect. However, in my view the scope is self-evident, and the opinions given in this clarification are sufficient as confirmation. AGK  [•] 01:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, especially as disruptive talkpage editing was a feature of the problems leading to the case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions were fully intended to apply to the discussions prompted by the remedy passed in this case. My apologies if the wording didn't make that sufficiently clear. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To avoid doubt I would support changing it to read "for all pages related to abortion".  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. Yes, it seems to be a slip rather an intention and this has been confirmed by Jclemens above. As we seem to be unanimous, best is probably to handle this as a copy-edit instead of by formal motion, and I will do so in twelve or so hours time (unless anyone objects, of course).  Roger Davies  talk 10:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made the copy-edit now so this request can be archived. Thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion
Initiated by  v/r - TP at 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * Haymaker notified

Statement by TParis
On Feb 24, 2012 (Yesterday), I blocked User:Haymaker for violating the topic ban in relation to this case. The specific edits are and. The user has since appealed the block with the rational that "I commented in the continuation of an arbitration committee discussion". I am convinced that this user did not intend to violate the topic ban, but would appreciate clarification on whether the discussion at Requests_for_comment/Abortion_article_titles is or is not a continuation of the Arbcom discussion per remedy 5.1 of the Arbcom case and whether or not this violates the topic ban.--v/r - TP 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and unblocked. I was on the verge of doing so before opening this and the comments below and by AGK and PhilKnight have convinced me that it was the right thing to do.  I'd still appreciate clarification on the above question for Haymaker's sake.--v/r - TP 03:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Whenaxis
I have since removed the notification for the following users that I notified that have been topic banned:Michael C Price and Haymaker. I apologize for the inconvenience this has caused. I think that the user should be unblocked because it was mainly my actions that led to this user being blocked, especially because the user thought it was an addition to the arbitration discussion. Regards,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  21:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Zhang
I think that in this situation, it's quite possible that Haymaker wouldn't have made comment if they hadn't been invited to the discussion. This does appear to be a bit of an oversight on the part of Whenaxis, but it still technically was a violation of Haymaker's topic ban. I think time served would be appropriate in this situation. Steven  Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 22:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Haymaker
Dear all, thank you so much for your consideration in this matter. If I ever find myself in a similar situation in the future I will seek clarification here. - 14:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Haymaker was topic-banned from the Abortion articles, and related pages, because he has "edited disruptively in topics related to abortion". Although I see he was given an automated invite on his talk page to participate in the discussion, such an invite should never have been made (and tangentially, is a source of concern to me). The invite cannot reasonably be interpreted by the appellant to mean his topic-ban does not apply, and he ought to have known that. In my view, you would be justified to use your discretion to unblock if Haymaker recognises that his topic-ban may not be ignored even if he is invited to a discussion. However, the block was sound, because topic-bans also apply to the community discussion established by R5.1 (and, if anything, must especially apply to that discussion). AGK  [•] 19:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic ban does apply, however the mistake by Haymaker was entirely understandable. Given that Haymaker in his unblock request has apologized, I think the most appropriate course of action would be to unblock him. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This appears to be resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this can be filed at any time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion
Initiated by  Timrollpickering (talk) at 20:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * No specific users so far; this is about scope

Statement by Timrollpickering
Is the process for settling the abortion article names binding upon the names of related categories? A good faith renaming of Category:Pro-life movement was recently proposed but withdrawn due to the ongoing RFC. There is uncertainty about whether or not the names chosen for the articles will be binding upon related categories and as one of the regular CFD closers it would be helpful to have clarity on this before it come up again. In my view it is generally undesirable to have the most contentious article naming debates refought at CFD, especially if the option of "go and get the article renamed instead" is unavailable.

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm not terribly experienced in categorical convention, but I would tentatively say that the outcome of the naming discussion will be binding on directly associated categories (for obvious reasons). AGK  [•] 01:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Categories generally follow the name of the main article if possible. There would need to be a good reason for a category name to depart from that of the main article. While there is nothing explicit in either the ArbCom wording, nor the RfC wording that would include the relevant categories, it would be implicit, and those familiar with the procedures at Categories for discussion would follow the renaming of the articles. If it is felt, however, that to avoid any potential future disruption, that the related category names should also be included in the binding RfC, then it is worth bringing that up at the RfC, which is a community discussion, not an ArbCom one.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  00:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I endorse both my colleagues' above statements. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for comment/Abortion article titles
Initiated by  —chaos5023 (talk) at 16:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * No real "involvement", procedural question

Statement by chaos5023
In the resolution generating this RFC, a "community vote" with opinions presented was called for. It is not completely clear to participants whether this means an actual vote, as in numeric results tallied and considered binding, or the usual Wikipedia WP:NOTVOTE. Please let us know which is desired. Further, if ArbCom has any feedback on the advisability of the currently open proposal to use Borda count as a vote resolution mechanic, should voting actually be called for, that would be very helpful.
 * Thanks for the feedback. Getting the input of the closing admins seems like an excellent idea. :)  Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting other statements, but I think in cases where we've specified that three uninvolved admins close an RfC, the closing team has more credibility to discount or assign less weight to opinions at odd with pillars or policy, without such relative weighting being derided as a "supervote". After all, we don't need three uninvolved admins to count votes--ScottyWong's bots could do that in our sleep. :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion is within the community's remit now, but clearly our views will carry some weight in the event of ambiguity so I am happy to clarify. Polling using a preferential voting system like Borda count would, I think, be the best system: the point of the poll is to allow a decisive decision about the proposals made in the discussion, so a straight-vote is clearly not what is needed. The three closing administrators would be well-placed to make a final decision, because it is they who will need to interpret the results of the vote; I suggest you notify them about this request for clarification, and allow them to opine in a statement at their first convenience. AGK  [•] 22:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comments that this is a question for the closing admins and/or those involved in the RfC.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for comment/Abortion article titles
Initiated by  —chaos5023 (talk) at 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * No real "involvement", interpretive question

Statement by chaos5023
One of the options we wound up adding to the RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, could use some contextual clarification in two regards:


 * 1. Is it regarded by ArbCom as a valid outcome for the RFC, in that it calls for a merge of the two articles under consideration rather than specifying names for them as initially requested?
 * 2. In the event that the RFC were resolved in favor of this option, would the binding effect of the RFC upon relevant article titles be seen by ArbCom as indicating that we may or may not create new articles titled Pro-choice movement and Pro-life movement, scoped to coverage of the US political movements that use those names?

Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to Jclemens: The community was asked to decide the titles of two articles. If we were supposed to make broader decisions about our coverage in this topic area, I gotta say, we should've been asked for that, because people who tried to work on the best possible thing to do with these two articles' titles would then have worked on a different question.  Please see my new essay/rant/screed User:Chaos5023/Why your entire way of thinking about the Abortion Article Titles RFC is wrong for how we're presently at risk of completely screwing up. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Regardless of the RfC outcome, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and their obvious derivatives should at the very least be redirects to sensible and encyclopedic discussions of those various political positions. Whether those are separate articles, and under what formal titles those discussions reside are matters for the community to decide via the RfC process, in my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was inactive (but not recused) on the case but the Jclemens approach seems sound to me,  Roger Davies  talk 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Recused. Risker (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion was well-attended and exhaustive, and if consensus emerges from it for something a little different than two titles then so be it. I am loathe for us to vacate the decision of the closing administrators, or send the whole process back to square one, on a technicality. AGK  [•] 19:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In regard to the first question, given the Arbitration Committee doesn't make decisions on content, if the community decides to merge the articles, this would be a perfectly legitimate outcome. In regard to the second question, if that was the outcome, similar to Jclemens, I would suggest the closing admins clarify the redirects should be left in place. PhilKnight (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: Abortion (1RR query)
Case link: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Initiated by  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  at 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan
An article was recently tagged as being under the community 1RR restriction on abortion-related articles. After some discussion, I realized that it was no longer clear that the community restriction was in effect. Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion states that "This authorization supersedes the earlier authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community." However, the community authorization was in two parts -- the 1RR authorization, and the discretionary sanctions. On WP:GS, the whole thing is listed as superceded, but I'm not sure that was what was intended. Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to User talk:Jclemens/Archive 9, it's probably still in effect. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens -- Pregnancy is not the article in question. As Collect points out below, it's Pro-life feminism. I didn't identify the article in my original statement because I wanted to clarify the general principle, rather than its application to this particular case.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I agree this is a more-appropriate venue, I just thought it was best to link to the previous discussion instead of ignoring it. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Roscelese -- I'm trying to keep this on "is there a 1RR in effect", not "should 1RR apply to this article". -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
Queries: It the labelling of an article as being subject to being under 1RR properly done by any editor? Specifically, can an editor who is heavily involved in editing an article a fair source for so indicating that an article not previously labelled as being under a 1RR restriction is now under one? Is placement of the "1RR template" properly done by an involved editor who is not an administrator? Hypothetically, if an involved editor in an article which has not heretofore been identified as being "abortion related" adds material which is clearly "abortion related" can such an editor then add a template indicating that the article is under a 1RR "abortion related" restriction? Where the article has not been under such a prior restriction, is it proper for an involved editor to state that another editor has "violated" the 1RR restriction which was not noted at the article or article talk page? Can an involved admin place an article under the 1RR restriction? Does the placing of a restriction require the act of an uninvolved administrator? I apologize for the logical query string, but trust the issue is clear here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I read Jclemens posts somewhat differently than you do, and also note his position that an article on Pregnancy does not intuitively fall under the sanctions, even if the word "abortion" is in the article, unless the article is substantially about "abortion" proper. The case at hand is about "feminism" proper, and not specifically about "abortion" except to the extent that the word appears as a "feminism" issue (specifically "pro-life feminism").  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is Pro-life feminism strictly an "abortion" topic, or is it a "feminism" topic showing that feminists can and do have differing views about topics which happen to include abortion? I would note that in all the time since the abortion decision, this article has never been cited as falling into its purview.  This comment, morevover, falls below the specific stated queries above, which I suggest reasonably ought to be answered in any case.  In fact, the edit which aroused the ire was to remove an insufficiently sourced insertion of "abortion" into the article.   Collect (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note also that "abortion" is covered in every current political biography (inc. Santorum, Romney, Obama et al, and the campaign articles), pretty much, in the party articles, in the political spectrum articles (including Fascism, etc., and if a strict interpretation of "it says "abortion in it" is used, thousands of articles will be subject to the 1RR restriction.  Somehow I doubt this is a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the committee, indeed. IOW, the law of unintended consequences seems to be at work here. Collect (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would note that Sarek views my position stated here  as somehow reaching:
 * this statement seems to me to show a POV-pushing mentality that is incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Should administrative action be taken?

Which I regard as overkill in the context of this discussion. Is it the position of arbitrators that mentioning a search result is a basis for seeking a ban of any editor where I have made zero POV edits about "abortion" on any article whatsoever? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@R - note that upon receiving the warning, I did attempt to self-revert, as I noted at the time. Thus I am "wriggling out of" nothing at all. What I am concerned with here is what is in my queries, which I would really like answered, instead of having miscellaneous noticeboards brought into this. It is procedure which is the issue, and nothing else, as far as I am concerned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC) @R I am glad you made an edit at 21:20  on 3 April  which far better comports with the source, which was what I asked for in the first place. Though it took a BLP/N discussion to show you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC) shows my notice of an attempt to self-revert - before 18:26 on 2 April. - thus making some of the "charges" made here a tad irrelevent. I trust this clears the air of the charge that I am "wriggling out" of anything. Collect (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Roscelese

 * The article in question is about an anti-abortion movement and is inseparable from the subject of abortion. Past decisions (I'm referring to calls I know Sarek has made, but this may be true of other admins as well) have also held that material related to abortion falls under the sanction even if the article in general is not about abortion, eg. discussion of abortion in a biography of someone whose notability was not as an activist. The applicability of the case to the specific article is not in doubt; the question is whether 1RR is still active. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sarek: Yes, exactly. I'm trying to bring the discussion back around to the topic, not to Collect's attempts to wriggle out of an edit-warring warning at that article. :) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Collect: You're joking, right? April Fools' Day is over. You were edit-warring to remove the classification of O'Brien as an anti-abortion activist in favor of saying her position was representative of Irish women, and the article still calls her an anti-abortion activist and doesn't misrepresent sources to claim she's more representative than she is. I do hope this means you're done edit-warring and misrepresenting sources, though. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
I think the question here is whether 1RR is in effect on abortion-related articles. I think the answer is yes. A community-enacted 1RR restriction was in place before the case. ArbCom found that "All sanctions enacted prior to this case under the terms of the community authorization shall be logged under this case as though they had been enacted under the new authorization." Presumably, "all sanctions" includes the 1RR. It would be good to get a quick confirmation of this from the Committee, since it's apparently a matter of dispute. MastCell Talk 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * With two inactive arbitrators (Xeno and Hersfold) and one recused (Risker), an absolute majority is seven.


 * Sarek, is Pregnancy the article in question? As far as what I said before, I would encourage other arbitrators to look at the question with fresh eyes, because it was certainly never my intent to issue a binding opinion on the matter; this venue is certainly more appropriate than my talk page and its archives. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not my intent as drafter in the referenced case to end the community's 1RR on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Recused. Risker (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: Has the 1RR restriction been widely enforced since the Abortion case was decided? AGK  [•] 19:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments offered above (and to my colleagues for responding). My own view is that the community's 1RR sanction is obviously still in force. (If its retention in this topic area is undesirable, ANI or another noticeboard should be used to rescind the sanctions: what the community giveth, the community may taketh away.) AGK  [•] 15:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with MastCell, the answer is 'yes', the 1RR is still in place. PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aye, my interpretation of the bit Mastcell quoted is that 1RR still applies. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 00:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think they are in place as well. (Apologies that this is very far from the 'quick confirmation' sought here.)  Roger Davies  talk 06:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with my fellow arbs that it still applies. SirFozzie (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for delay in answering - and also apologies for the response being long and complex! The wording is: "This authorization supersedes the earlier authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community. All sanctions enacted prior to this case under the terms of the community authorization shall be logged under this case as though they had been enacted under the new authorization." Slightly awkward wording which could mean that ArbCom take over the community sanctions so that they are treated as ArbCom sanctions, though it could also mean that the new ArbCom sanctions replace the community sanctions (so that the old sanctions no longer apply) but that the records of actions performed under the community sanctions are merged with the records of the ArbCom sanctions. Looking at the Proposed decision page, there was some discussion on the matter - Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed_decision, and the option which made it clear that ArbCom was taking over the community sanctions was not supported in favour of this wording. My reading of those comments makes it appear as though the intention was to replace the community sanctions with Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. As there is some doubt regarding the wording, would it be worth looking at the community sanctions, which essentially only differ from the Discretionary sanctions by the use of a 1 Revert Rule, and seeing if the Committee wishes to take that over as an ongoing sanction, or replace it completely with the standard sanctions? Personally I think that we should all follow a one revert rule as standard, so I would support a one revert rule in any problematic area and would consider opening a discussion to include such a rule in the Discretionary sanctions.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In short - I support a 1RR sanction for the Abortion topic.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that we are unanimous in support of the 1RR sanction, I have asked the clerks to archive this request. PhilKnight (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for amendment (May 2014)
Original

Initiated by  Anythingyouwant (talk) at 22:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 9


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request


 * Link to remedy
 * Request: Termination

Statement by Anythingyouwant
This seems like an opportune time to request lifting a topic-ban imposed on me in 2011. ArbCom has just finished a case (gun control) in which my contributions were scrutinized, so making this request now seems timely given that I am fresh on your minds. I was “indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed”. During that case, I repeatedly made very clear to ArbCom that I objected to accusers going over the word-limits, and said that I would not exceed my word-limits to address accusations which exceeded the accuser's word limits, unless given permission by ArbCom to do so, and I was not given permission. I don’t know what your rules say now, but back then they said this: Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely...Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs....Please reduce your evidence submission to fit within the appropriate limits. I made very clear my objections to violation of this rule, and my intention not to violate it. As to the two accusations back then which I did not address for the reasons described above, they were mostly false. On the first, all I did was quote a book, not realizing that a later edition changed the quote, and I didn't object at all when I was corrected (I was even thanked for correcting a further error made by the person who corrected me). On the second accusation, I made a policy edit merely intended to clarify what the policy already said, it would not have advanced my position anymore than anyone else's even if it had been a new policy requirement, I said upfront that it related to an article I recently edited, and I did not refer to the policy at the article talk page until weeks later (long after other editors had discussed and modified my edit at the policy page, and without having had any intention to refer to the policy---which intention unfortunately cannot be proved).

Even if you regard these accusations and the remedy as legitimate (I don't), then perhaps you might think that several years is "indefinite" enough. I'd appreciate that. If you would like further diffs to substantiate any of this statement of mine, then just ask. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @NYB: Brad, I have not looked at Wikipedia’s abortion-related and pregnancy-related articles in several years, so I cannot say how I would be inclined to edit them.  I have no desire to dive back in anytime soon, at least not in a big way, that’s for sure. Eventually, maybe I’d start a new sub-article; in May of 2011, I made this comment at one of those pages, suggesting creation of a new sub-article about biological facts that are cited by either side of the abortion dispute (I said "there isn't any comprehensive article on this subject, and it would be good to have one, at least as a sub-article of this Wikipedia article").  So, I might want to someday work on something like that.  I think the issue that really got me into trouble at the main abortion article (i.e. the real issue) was that I supported keeping an image that had been in the article for a year, showing what it is that is aborted in a typical abortion (which occurs at about 8 weeks after conception/fertilization).  So, I might support inclusion of something like that; Wikipedia has a no-censorship policy ostensibly, and I think removal of such an image without consensus violated that policy and others (especially when you consider some of the images that Wikipedia does allow in its articles).  But I have no desire to jump back into this anytime soon.  At the very least, I would have to get back up to speed on the subject, and on the coverage that Wikipedia currently provides.  I certainly am not going to edit any of these articles if I am under a sanction that says "Anyone can topic-ban Anythingyouwant for the slightest bullshit reason."  Been there, done that.
 * Regarding "misrepresentation" of sources, I will not do one little iota of a thing differently, because the accusation in this case was phony. As for editing policy pages, an arbitrator once told me: "This is Wikipedia, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals."  But I understand now that more care is needed when editing policies based on non-hypotheticals, and would exercise same.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Mastcell, you know very well that the user in question denied (repeatedly) that the Nazis were tyrants, and said that they were in a worse category than tyrants. I said repeatedly that I was not accusing that user of having any sympathy with Nazis, while trying my damnedest to disagree with that user's absurd  contention that they were not tyrants.  Mastcell, let me just say right here in black and white: you are accusing me of a hideous offense knowing very well that it is false.  And I find this entirely typical of you.  If people want diffs, I will provide diffs.  MastCell dragged me through countless unsuccessful administrative actions in the past that failed because they were frivolous.  But he hit the jackpot by exceeding his word limits in this arbcom case.  And I fully expect Arbcom to do his bidding again.  I say: go for it.  I hope it makes you feel proud.  You can see that MastCell makes me mad, and if being mad is against ArbCom rules, then go ahead and drop the boom.  Your comment below is utterly disgraceful, MC .Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Arbitrators: Before this case was officially closed, I made further protests regarding the word limits to both the drafting arbitrator (at his talk page) and to ArbCom generally.  No one said one word about any misinterpretation of the rules by me, or that they could be circumvented by using talk pages.  I am inclined to withdraw this request right now, but instead will let it keep going for awhile more.  I don't expect that there will be any further requests from me on this score, so it will be a firm lifetime ban.  I note that you have not said a word of criticism about MC's accusation below.  So I infer that you are unconcerned about lies and character assassination, which are your necessary tools for controlling Wikipedia content. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @AGK. I went and looked at the evidence page for this case, and it says nothing about "1000 words".Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nor did Your manual say "1000" back then. It said "500".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not raising this procedural issue belatedly; I provided diffs today pointing to where I raised the issue in 2011, and I raised it repeatedly. Considering that I raised this issue at least four times back in 2011 at the Arbcom case pages, it might have been nice if someone had, you know, answered.  I was not aware that evidence in my own defense could have been presented in unlimited quantities at the evidence talk page (I thought all evidence was subject to the same 500-word limit, and it sounds pretty ridiculous to have a limit that can be exceeded at will).  In any event, the evidence presented against me by MastCell was certainly over his 500-word limit, and it was on the Evidence page rather than the talk page.  I responded to NYB above, regarding how I would edit the articles if allowed to, plus you can look at my history.  But I do think that the bogus nature of the proceedings in 2011 is relevant to whether the remedy imposed was ever necessary.  The BS accusation that MastCell makes below is just like the BS accusation he made in 2011.  At some point, you have to wonder who you're associating with by editing at Wikipedia.  You guys and gals have fun. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade, heaven forbid that ArbCom should even slightly frown at someone who goes around falsely accusing me of labelling someone as a Nazi sympathizer. That is the most outrageous accusation I've faced yet at Wikipedia, but I guess it's all background noise for you guys.  Yes, I combat crap like that.  And you combat me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Malke 2010 and Writegeist, thanks for chiming in, I'm grateful that you've watchlisted this page. Arbitrators, I apologize for getting overtly angry about MastCell's accusation, which seems like the latest in an endless string from him. Shrinks say you shouldn't bottle up your feelings, but maybe it's best to do so when dealing with your committee.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @NYB, after protesting violation of word limits with no response, I did finally try to defend myself at the proposed decision talk page without presenting any evidence (because I was not given permission to do so), and that occurred after eleven arbitrators had already voted. I still have not been offered any opportunity to present evidence in my defense, and in fact have been criticized here at this page for "re-litigating" even though I have not presented any evidence at this page about the accusations back then.  You have no idea what evidence I would present in my own defense.  Moreover, I find your assertion that I misrepresented a quote (by not realizing it had been changed in a newer edition of the book) to be just as inappropriate as your deafening silence in the face of an accusation here at this talk page that I called anyone a Nazi sympathizer.  In my life, I have never seen such baseless, frivolous accusations against anyone.  Even if you agree with what happened in 2011, you really think that warrants a lifetime topic ban?  Sheesh.  MastCell referred back in 2011 to the image I linked above (he did so immediately after he obtained the topic-ban against me), and he refers to it again in his comment below.  I therefore assume that this is mainly a content dispute, and that the other accusations are basically window-dressing, which explains why no one was ever interested in evaluating them per proper procedures.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @NYB, you folks are never going to accept evidence from me in my own defense, and you are never going to strike accusations presented in violation of your own rules. There is only one editor at this page who has made scurrilous bad faith accusations worthy of a site ban, but you folks have chosen to be most gracious toward that editor, and most unfair to me.  Hey, it's your website, so you can do what suits you.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty then, I withdraw this request. The topic-ban is now for life, because I have no intention of ever coming back here. The project is worse off for ArbCom's toleration of, and apparent reliance upon, malicious and hateful accusations. It is worse off for picking and choosing which policies and rules to enforce and against whom. Anyway, it's been interesting. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
Brad, you asked what Anythingyouwant would do differently if his sanction is lifted. His statement boils down to one word: nothing. He's still re-litigating the ArbCom abortion case, not to mention his push to include fetal images in the abortion article which began more than 7 years ago. His recent editing in other controversial areas doesn't inspire confidence; while he was not sanctioned in the gun control case, he didn't exactly cover himself in glory either, falsely accusing one case participant of being a Nazi apologist and nearly challenging another to a duel. What basis is there for lifting this sanction? MastCell Talk 03:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Writegeist
Re. comments by Anythingyouwant and AGK on the permissible length of evidence. The instruction at the Evidence page is clear: ''Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.'' As Anythingyouwant rightly says, he complied with the instruction and his accusers didn't. (And was the rule-breaking evidence from his accusers refactored or removed?) Further, Anythingyouywant says he requested equal leeway and it was not granted. I.e. his disadvantage was not only known, it was actually enforced. So it concerns me to see AGK discount a cornerstone of Anything's submission with "named parties have a 1000 word limit on their evidence (not 500 words as claimed)." If AGK is presenting fiction as fact, I trust AGK will now strike the comments. Otherwise, I await AGK's supporting evidence. There's a strong whiff of kangaroo about an arbitration proceeding that's weighted against the accused by enforcing one written rule for the accused and another, unwritten and contradictory, for the accusers. Writegeist (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, hereby noting Newyorkbrad's prejudicially ambiguous misrepresentation—"[Anythingyouwant] owned the 1979 edition and didn't believe the definition in question had changed in any later edition" (my emphasis)—of Anythingyouwant's assertion at NYB's talk page  that he was "unaware that any later edition might have changed the definition in question" (my emphasis), which of course is very different, as any fule kno.  Noting also that NYB omits mention of Anything's reminder to NYB that when corrected he welcomed the correction and acted on it. Noting also that NYB's comments, and other committee members' apparent collective deafness to significant issues here, may well be viewed as part of a pattern first seen at the Evidence page and now again here (not least in AGK's apparently deceptive assertion referenced above, which AGK still allows to stand despite my request to strike it or support it with evidence): a pattern of impropriety that put Anythingyouwant at a disadvantage and thereby substantially underpinned the sanction and its continuation.  Writegeist (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All moot now, as I see Anythingyouwant has just withdrawn his request. Writegeist (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Malke 2010
Agree with Writegeist. And I can see why Anythingyouwant is feeling so frustrated. He's not being heard. The accusers should have had any of their evidence over the limit removed as would have been done to anyone else. Anythingyouwant kept to the limit and clearly pointed out where the others had not, yet nothing was done. That would make anyone angry and certainly leave them with a terrible frustrated sense that they'd not been given ample opportunity to defend themselves.

As for the diffs by MastCell, I don't see anything there that the other side wasn't doing. He wasn't topic banned from Gun control for a reason. I think that shows right there he's capable of editing the Abortion article again. As for any concern over his wanting to put photos into the article, he's stated he'd only do that with consensus. He doesn't seem to be saying he'd do as he pleased. There are many articles on Wikipedia with necessary photos that don't suit everyone including Anencephaly. An RfC on the question would easily resolve any issue.

I know you're all very busy with these cases and it's sometimes easier to just discount an editor when he gets angry, but as I'm sure you realize, if you ruled against everyone who got angry on Wikipedia we'd not have any editors. I think this is worth putting a kettle on and having a second look.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
Where a process has been used in an unequal manner, the claim that no change would have occurred had the process been handled equally - is weak. The argument that a person who raises this argument is ipso facto going to be found wrong is weaker. And the argument that the complainant was wrong about the 500 word limit is weakest yet. I have no idea on whether the sanction ought to be modified, all I know is the arguments made against it fail to convince me otherwise. Collect (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Considering. Question for Anythingyouwant: If this request is granted, what, if anything, would you like to edit that you can't as of now, and how, if at all, would you edit it differently from how you did previously? Note to newer arbitrators: see also Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge (2007 case involving same editor under prior username). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When we voted on this case in 2011, although I joined the finding of fact, I expressed discomfort with one or two of the specific diffs cited. In retrospect, I might have pressed harder that those diffs not be included. I also regret if there was any miscommunication at the time about the word limit (I've never supported strict enforcement of the word limit that interferes with a party's responding to allegations), but Anythingyouwant did respond to the allegations about sourcing and policy-page-editing to some extent on the proposed decision talkpage, which the arbitrators would have seen. Most important, I don't believe that even if the disputed findings had been omitted, the ultimate remedy would have been any different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, I haven't endorsed the misrepresentation finding here. To the contrary, although my memory is not perfect, I believe the diff describing the "misrepresentation of sources" is the specific one I found troubling at the time and would not have included in the decision. I understand now, and understood at the time, your argument in opposition to this finding, which is that you were unaware when you cited the 1979 edition of Black's Law Dictionary that there were later editions (the dictionary has actually been completely rewritten by Bryan Garner over the past few editions, see here) and that the citation from the later edition was actually to an example quotation in Black's rather than the definition itself. In terms of your request to lift the topic restriction, I personally might have been open to some relaxation (though not a complete lifting), but it's a moot point given my colleagues' comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Per discussion on my talkpage, I withdraw "you were unaware ... that there were later editions" and substitute "owned the 1979 edition and didn't believe the definition in question had changed in any later edition." Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline. Somehow I get the feeling that lifting this sanction would not lead to an improvement of the editing environment in the relevant topic area. As a side note, since you are fresh on our minds, I'll also add that it's probably a good idea if you choose to voluntarily stay away from contentious articles for a while... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline, I don't see any persuasive argument for lifting this remedy at this time. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 09:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unusually, this request is made on the grounds that there were procedural improprieties in the original case, and specifically that the complainant had insufficient space in which to respond to evidence against him. While I am sympathetic to the pressures of being accused from all sides, I reject these grounds because: (A) named parties have a 1000 word limit on their evidence (not 500 words as claimed); (B) rebuttals to evidence can be made on the Evidence talk page; and (C) none of this is relevant to whether the remedy imposed is still necessary. Decline. AGK  [•] 11:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline A request like this needs to present a compelling case that if the sanction were lifted the user would be able to provide positive contributions in the areas they are currently not allowed to edit in. This request does exactly the opposite. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline. T. Canens (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to the history here, the combative attitude shown here does not give me any confidence that allowing Anythingyouwant back into a highly charged topic area is a wise idea. Decline. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline per Salvio. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Abortion
Original

Initiated by  Haymaker (talk) at 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * 
 * 

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Haymaker
I was edit-warring on this topic back in the day and was topic-banned by the above Arbitration Case. I'm not really interested in this topic any more and I have kept my nose clean for the last 2+ years. I would like to not have this decision hanging over my head and when I see cases of clear-cut vandalism on my watch-list, clean them up. I asked the admin who notified me of the topic ban and he said this was the place to go to ask about this. Haymaker (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @NativeForeigner: All things being equal, I'd like to be out from underneath them all together. I noticed that in the past some users had sanctions lifted for a probationary period of time. If a full reprieve seems like a bridge too far at this time, would a probationary trial be possible? Haymaker (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Thryduulf
There is a slight difference between reinstating a suspended topic ban (as proposed by Salvio) and topic banning again under discretionary sanctions if required (as proposed by WTT). That difference is that in the event of a topic ban being necessary in future, Haymaker will have had one ban under Salvio's proposal but two bans under WTT's. I am unaware that this would make any practical difference (and I think it unlikely the Haymaker will cause further trouble, making this is completely academic) but even more minor differences have turned out to have practical implications down the line. This is therefore just a heads-up for others to be aware the two proposals are not identical. I don't have an opinion on which I prefer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Moved a comment by Haymaker to their section from the arbitrator section below. Please make comments only in your own section, ping people if necessary. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Adjusted majority to indicate AGK being inactive on this item. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Are you asking for us to fully abandon it, or to make an exception for minor/trivial edits? NativeForeigner Talk 17:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes, I agree with Salvio. NativeForeigner Talk 23:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BANEX, reverting obvious vandalism is already an exception to a topic ban; that said, considering you have not been blocked for over two years and that, in general, I'm in favour of second chances, I'd be amenable to supporting the standard provisional suspension, i.e. the topic ban is lifted, but for a year it can be reimposed by any admin in the event of fresh misconduct within the original area of conflict. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also support a provisional unban, like Salvio suggested. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Haymaker


For reference, the current restrictions on is:

Proposed:


 * The indefinite topic-ban of from the abortion-related pages is lifted.


 * Enacted --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Proposed. I've left out the information regarding the probation as Abortion is still under discretionary sanctions so Haymaker can be re-topic banned with ease. I would support this if anyone wants to put it in though. Copy edits or changes welcome. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 10:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good point about the discretionary sanctions. I'm willing to support this without the explicit probationary period. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Worth a try. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand Floquen's concerns but think that with the Abortion DS also in effect reinstating the topic ban will not be a difficult issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While I understand and sympathize with every word Floq has written below, the discretionary sanctions already in place make the risk minimal. If Haymaker doesn't behave themselves in this area they'll be kicked back out of it soon enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per him and him and her and him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * For some reason the word "vacate" sticks in my craw, but at least I can recognize I'm being too picky and overcome it. Something more difficult to overcome is my cynicism about "I'm no longer interested in this topic, but this topic ban is hanging over my head"; we've seen that recently, and believed it, and grey areas were almost immediately explored when the topic ban was lifted.  Looking at the sheer quantity of abortion-related edits before the case, and the 45 edits made in the last 2+ years since then, I find it too hard to believe that resuming editing in the abortion area is not your intention. I don't believe this topic ban is a significant hindrance to your editing other topics. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * I hate myself for becoming the type of person who asks this kind of question, but... is "vacated" really a good word for describing this? Doesn't that imply the previous decision was wrong?  Would "lifted" (or something else) be better? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (Supposedly inactive now but I can't help myself.) I think "terminated" would probably be the best word to use here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also my understanding that "vacated" indicates a defect in the thing being vacated, and that "terminated" works the best due to indefinite not meaning permanent. I've made the change; if anyone strongly disagrees feel free to revert me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "...from abortion-related topics is terminated"? Can we keep trying? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not my place to re-word something I['m opposing, but I've changed it to "lifted", due to the unfortunate unintended double meaning (as someone noted in one of the mailing lists). Even "vacated" would be better than "terminated" here. Happy to be over-ruled with something better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Point well-taken on the entirely inadvertent double meaning of terminate. (Compare Judge Posner's jibes at the off-found law-review phrase "Roe and its progeny.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: WP:ARBAB
Original request

Initiated by  Robert McClenon (talk) at 19:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * WP:ARBAB
 * Link to relevant decision

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by User: Robert McClenon
There is edit-warring in progress at Crisis pregnancy center. My question is whether the article is subject to Discretionary sanctions under the WP:ARBAB decision because a major objective of these centers is to discourage abortion, and whether the edit-warriors can reasonably be alerted of the discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved EvergreenFir
The wording on the ruling makes it pretty clear that yes, it is. CPCs are related to abortion even narrowly construed. 4.1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages† articles related to abortion, broadly construed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

WP:ARBAB: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * EvergreenFir is correct. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What he said, this is pretty obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed with my colleagues. AGK  [•] 12:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Crisis pregnancy centers are inextricably linked to the abortion issue, and are absolutely covered under the corresponding sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What they said. L Faraone  18:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Abortion (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Anythingyouwant at 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(Previously known as User:Ferrylodge) (This began as a clarification request but an amendment request was added.)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Anythingyouwant
According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed." The reason I ask now for clarification is because today I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a Jeb Bush article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard." Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know. Am I supposed to avoid these types of pages altogether, or are these types of pages not included in the ban, or does it depend upon which parts of these pages I edit? I have made lots and lots and lots of edits to this type of page over the past four years without saying anything remotely related to the A-word. I assume that this topic ban is a lifetime ban given the reaction of ArbCom members to my May 2014 request for amendment, and given my firm position on the matter, and therefore whatever response you give to my present request for clarification will presumably be part of this lifetime ban.

In case you want to know, my firm position on the matter is that I have no intention of faking contrition. Your committee's allegation that I "manipulated sources to present a POV contra sourcing guidelines" remains utter bullshit; I did nothing wrong with regard to Black's Law Dictionary aside from quoting an earlier edition that I did not realize had later been revised, and I made no objection whatsoever to the editor who installed the revised definition (other than earning that editor's explicit thanks by correcting an error of his). Let me be 100% clear about how very far I am from contrition: if this proceeding had involved real names (and thus real reputations), I would have sued every last one of ArbCom's members for slander (that's just a historical fact rather than a threat of any kind). ArbCom ignored my objections against violations of your own length-limitations on evidence, and ignored my stated intent to not violate those rules myself. I stand by virtually everything I said on November 22, 2011 shortly after you voted to topic ban me. If you allow my lack of contrition to affect your answer to the present request for clarification, that will not be surprising, but it would be unfair. The only mistake I regret is not being sufficiently careful about editing an article talk page in 2011 three weeks after I edited a policy page; I should have been more cautious about any appearance of impropriety, even though I was completely up front and honest at the policy page, and even though the change to the policy page was innocuous as of the time I mentioned it at the abortion talk page (an admin had edited my policy change during the three-week interim). I only edited the policy page based on prior advice from an ArbCom member that, "This is Wikipedia, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals." I had no idea that the policy change would be relevant weeks later at the article, nor did I understand the policy change as advancing my position; it was just meant to promote procedural fairness. I should have asked an admin for explicit guidance about it at the time. For years prior to the 2011 ban, your committee subjected me to endless harassment at Arbitration Enforcement, and all of those endless frivolous complaints at AE were denied, see for example these diffs: ,,,, etc. When these messed-up accusations came during the ArbCom case, I was worn out from endless bogus complaints, and perhaps I should have responded fully to the bogus accusations that exceeded the evidence limits, in view of your committee's apparent disregard of those limits. I remain deeply disappointed by this whole matter. I sincerely try my best to follow the rules here, and will follow any decision you make now regardless of whether I agree with it. That's all I have to say at this time relative to the present clarification request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)<BR />

I see that my replies to the comments of others have been hidden. You guys are too much! Perhaps you will allow a reply to Thryduulf....Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC) The comments have been moved out of the little hidden box.
 * @User:Bishonen, thanks for referring me to WP:TBAN which I had not been referred to and had not read before. According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed."  It would have been very easy for them to say "topic area" or "edits" instead of "pages", and easy for them to wlink to WP:TBAN.  If you are correct (which you very well may be), I'd like ArbCom to confirm it.  Thanks.  I don't know if clarification requests are affected by an editor's level of contrition, and so explaining that level was the purpose of the rest of my initial comment here.  According to plain English, a page is either abortion-related or it isn't, and, if it is, then plain English seemingly dictates that I may not edit it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, how about waiting until things get out of hand? I sincerely want to know whether, as Bishonen suggests, I am perfectly free to edit abortion-related pages as long as my edits are not about abortion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Thryduulf, since you now suggest arbitration enforcement action against me regarding this matter, is there anything I can do at this point to avoid such action? I have carefully avoided abortion-related articles like fetus and pre-natal development and feticide and the like for four years just to be careful.  But I understand from Bishonen's comment below that it's fine for me to edit pages like those as long as I don't bring up abortion.  I would like ArbCom to confirm that now, because I do not want to land at arbitration enforcement for editing articles like those.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Thryduulf said "you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit." That is painfully obvious. Am I allowed to edit fetus and pre-natal development and feticide if my edits are not about abortion?  That seems to be what Bishonen was saying about Political positions of Jeb Bush.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Thryduulf, you seriously want to respond to this request for clarification by essentially saying: "We won't tell you whether you can make non-abortion edits to articles like Political positions of Jeb Bush and feticide and pre-natal development except to say that you shouldn't if you're unsure"? Sheesh.  Let me put it this way: only a nutcase would think that a non-abortion edit to any of those articles violates my topic ban, and so I intend to feel free to make such edits unless you advise otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:DGG, you object to a long quotation that I put in a footnote. Not to worry!  I now understand from WP:TBAN that I shouldn't have made the edit at all.  Finding out about that was the main purpose for me coming here, and now I know.  I sincerely apologize for this inadvertent error, and it will not happen again.  Before coming here I did not realize that I am totally free to make non-abortion edits to articles like feticide, but barred from making abortion edits to articles like Political positions of Jeb Bush.  Now I know, and can therefore comply more fully and completely with your [expletive deleted] topic ban.  Incidentally, I'm a big fan of long quotes in footnotes; see, e.g., the footnotes in the lead of Carly Fiorina.  YMMV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Bishonen, it seems to me that Pre-natal development and Political positions of Jeb Bush are both abortion-related to some extent. But both also have lots of material that is not abortion-related, and I have come here with the express purpose of finding out whether I can edit the latter.  So far, arbitrators say "don't edit it if you're unsure".  Well, I am sure that a reasonable person reading my topic ban and WP:TBAN would say that a non-abortion edit to either article is okay.  Is it wise for me to use a "reasonable person" standard?  I think so.  The Bush article has a whole section titled "Abortion" but the fetus article does not, so why do you think I'm completely banned from the latter but not the former?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Seraphimblade, User:Doug Weller, User:Bishonen, per your comments, I will construe my topic ban as pertaining to "any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion" unless the consensus of arbitrators changes. That was the language in the sanction that this committee imposed on me eight years ago, and is apparently what you wish the most recent topic ban said too.  As always, you folks meet my expectations.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Guy Macon, you have posed this question for me to answer: "You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still don't know whether an edit in a section labeled 'Abortion' with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban?" No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban.  I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it.  Anything else?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Guy Macon I see that you have revised your question: "You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still didn't know when you opened this discussion whether an edit in a section labeled 'Abortion' with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban?" I think you know perfectly well that the answer to that revised question is also no.  The reason why I opened this discussion is because I knew at that time that the matter might raise an issue.  I hope you ask better questions of other people.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @Everyone, I have restored the section in question to exactly how it was before I touched it yesterday. Some one edited the section since then, and so I explained and apologized to them.  I don't see what more I can do about it.  Ever since 2007, you people have assumed the worst possible faith on my part.  There was never any possible way I ever could have gotten out from under.  It doesn't matter how many years go by without blocks and without the slightest violation of the topic ban, and of course not one word that I say matters because I am presumed to be a venal liar.  So sanction me all you want for making a possible mistake and immediately coming here for clarificaton.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:DGG I didn't ask for any guidance here about whether it's generally wise or unwise to include long quotations or short quotations or no quotations within footnotes, and I intend to keep on editing articles outside the scope of this topic-ban just as I have always done because I do not consider anything in this proceeding to be a warning not to do so.  My own opinion is that extended quotations from reliable sources (within footnotes) are often fine at Wikipedia when they neutrally provide useful information to readers about a subject.  The mere fact that a Wikipedia article might discuss one subject using an extended quotation and another subject without using an extended quotation is no ground for objection, IMHO.  I chose to add a long quotation from Bush that supplemented other material in the section; the site I used was very easy for anyone to access by themselves, but it's very often convenient to provide quotations and other information in a Wikipedia article even though readers could instead access it via other websites.  I write such footnotes all the time, and I just want to make it clear that I do not understand anything in this proceeding as a warning to stop.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:GorillaWarfare, I said above: "According to plain English, a page is either abortion-related or it isn't, and, if it is, then plain English seemingly dictates that I may not edit it." That's why it was unclear to me what the rules were regarding the Political positions of Jeb Bush.  If that's an "abortion-related page" then the plain language of the topic ban indicates that I can't edit it in any way.  If it's not an "abortion-related page" then the plain language of the topic ban indicates that I can edit it like any other article.  So now I've come here and been told that Political positions of Jeb Bush is an abortion-related page if I make abortion-related edits to it, but is not an abortion-related page if my edits are not abortion-related, and furthermore articles like fetus are abortion-related even if my edits have nothing to do with abortion.  None of this was apparent from the plain language of the topic ban, and so now it is apparent which is why I came here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:GorillaWarfare, I have not requested an amendment here, as indicated by the heading I chose. Frankly, I do not anticipate that an amendment will ever be granted (given the information that has been hidden above), and so I don't plan on ever asking for one.  Yes, I agree that my ban (as clarified here) extends also to pages and sections of pages that relate to abortion.  And a question for you: do you want the topic ban to extend to pages that say or imply nothing about abortion, like pre-natal development?  Another arb said below that it does extend to all pregnancy-related articles, which seems kind of weird given that the topic-ban could have easily said so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Given the stuff that's hidden above, will it be futile for me to ever request that this topic-ban be lifted?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I am only human, and I cannot promise to never make innocent mistakes such as when I cited a dictionary definition that I did not realize had been revised, and such as when I obeyed ArbCom limits on evidence even though the accusations were 100% beyond those limits.  I am never going to admit to ArbCom's accusation that I "manipulated" a reliable source.  I already explained that I would be more careful about editing Wikipedia policy, but will never agree with the ArbCom accusation that I had some nefarious intent, and have explained why I did what I did.  These were the only two items that ArbCom cited against me in 2011 as far as I recall.  I cannot even recall the details from 2007 anymore, but I note that every single one of the AE actions against me from 2007 to 2011 (that I linked in the hidden section above) resulted in no action against me, and very probably should have resulted in action against those who made unpersuasive accusations.  So please remove the topic ban, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether you are considering my request (bolded just above) to remove the topic ban, or not. I don't know whether a reply to that request will be forthcoming, or not.  Please let me know.  Not only am I willing to avoid the behaviors that led to the restriction, but actually the many exonerations at Arbitration Enforcement from 2007 to 2011 (linked in the hidden section above) prove that willingness.  So does the lack of blocks since 2009.  Although I am willing to avoid "the behaviors that led to the restriction", I cannot guarantee that I will be successful in avoiding garden-variety unintentional errors that are made all the time by Wikipedia editors.  I just made an error like that today. I apologize for making them, including using the outdated definition from a dictionary that was cited against me by ArbCom in 2011.  But if you're waiting for me to confess to an intentional manipulaton of sources, then that wait will have no end; the error was completely unintentional, other editors make errors like it all the time (as did the editor who revised this particular outdated definition that I inserted), those errors get corrected through a collaborative editorial process, and then everyone hopefully moves on.  In the future, if a particular article prompts me to edit a policy, then I won't later cite the revised part of the policy at the same article even if years and decades have gone by, without first consulting with an admin to make sure that it's okay (this was the other specific charge that ArbCom made against me in 2011).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Bishonen
I believe the WP:TBAN policy makes it clear what a topic ban is and what it applies to: "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Italics in original. In other words it's fine for you to edit most of the article Jeb Bush, but not fine to edit any part of it broadly related to abortion, such as the sentence you inadvertently inserted (in a section called "Abortion", yet). I don't see that there's any doubt about that, and that's what you request clarification of, in your first six sentences. The rest of your text above seems to be about something else — not really about clarification at all. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
 * @Anythingyouwant, you seem to have read my policy quote quite selectively, since you think I said your topic ban doesn't cover pages such as fetus and pre-natal development and feticide and the like. Of course it covers them. In their entirety. It seems you focused so hard on the words "as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" that you actually missed the first part, "a topic ban covers all pages… broadly related to the topic". Fetus,  Pre-natal development and Feticide are "pages broadly related to the topic", as you know, since you yourself refer to them as "abortion-related articles". Please read all the green words carefully and in their context, and avoid tunnel vision.
 * @L235, it seem obvious that you shouldn't have collapsed Anythingyouwant's replies to me and Boris with the other stuff. Those replies were relevant to the clarification request. I'm tempted to move them out of the box myself, or send bold superclerk Bishzilla to do it, because I'm pretty sure you simply made a mistake. The responses weren't indented (as IMO they ought to have been), which perhaps caused you to miss that they weren't part of Anythingyouwant's original irrelevant text. Please fix. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
 * @Anythingyouwant again: I'm done trying to explain to you, because it seems you prefer not to understand. You're starting to remind me too strongly of Ferrylodge's lawyerly demeanour in this RFC a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. I'll not address you again. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
Editors under sanction are allowed to show their displeasure and let off some steam, but this isn't the place. Suggest this be closed as unactionable before things get out of hand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Guy Macon
Anythingyouwant, you don't have to agree with the decision to topic ban you -- in fact you can continue indefinitely maintaining that Arbcom was completely wrong -- but you do need to show two things. First, you have to agree to abide by the decision whether you agree with it or not. From your comments here, I believe that you have done that. Second, you need to have the ability to understand the topic ban well enough to abide by it. This is the part I am having trouble with. In this edit, you posted a comment under the section heading "Abortion" that contained a link to a page titled "Much of the Republican 2016 Field Has Actually Moved to the Right on Abortion" and a quote about defunding Planned Parenthood.

Despite the above edit being clearly about abortion, in your statement above you blatantly mischaracterized your edit with this description:


 * "I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a Jeb Bush article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard." Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know."

Seriously? You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still don't know and still didn't know when you opened this discussion whether an edit in a section labeled "Abortion" with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban? Competence is required.

My recommendation is that this be brought to AE and and that AE impose a one-to-three-month block and a stern warning that the next time you post any edit about abortion the block will be far longer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In response to Anythingyouwant's reply in his section ("No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban. I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it. Anything else?") I have rephrased the question above. Anythingyouwant needs to have the ability to tell that this edit was about abortion without having to ask. If an admin thinks he really had a doubt, then the only logical conclusion is that he lacks the competence required to abide by the topic ban and needs to be indefinitely blocked. If an an admin thinks he knew that the edit was a violation of his topic ban (this is what I believe) then a one-to-three-month block should suffice to convince him that we will not tolerate such behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing
IMO AGK hits the right note here. Yes, a breach of the ban. But the guy did the right thing, owned up and asked what he should do next. What do you want him to do, self-report to AE? Everyone should take a deep breath, step back from the brink and move along. I'd advise that you don't do it again. GoldenRing (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Abortion: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * I was directed to leave the first two paragraphs but hat everything else, so that's what I did, but I see I should've exercised a bit more discretion. I'll move the replies outside of the collapse in a second. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Abortion: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The policy as quoted by Bishonen is perfectly clear. Editing a section of an article called "abortion" for a reason not listed at WP:BANEX is a clear violation of a topic ban from abortion, doubly so given the content you edited was directly related to abortion. You are not appealing your topic ban, so there is nothing to do here and it should be closed quickly with no prejudice to raising anything at WP:AE about this matter. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit. If you edit those articles in future you may be sanctioned at AE. I do not "suggest" you be sanctioned for this breach of your topic ban, I am simply saying that this clarification request does not prohibit anyone initiating a discussion if they so choose, nor should it prejudice the outcome if such a discussion is initiated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know how I could make it any clearer than what Bishonen has said - if it is related to abortion you cannot edit it, if it isn't you can. If you are not certain whether something is covered by your topic ban, assume it is - stay clear, do not test boundaries. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree that BishoIen has expressed policy clearly, but apparently it isn't yet clear that you can not edit any part of an article related to abortion, or anything or section related to abortion in an article which doesn't focus on abortion. If you have any doubts, don't do it. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nor was the material added in an altogether neutral manner. I think it was appropriate to add material showing his current view (the other material in the section was older); the three references you added were suitable (2 of them from sites generally considered liberal, one neutral) But you chose to add a long quotation from Bush that partially repeated other material in the section. (Other refs in the article do not have a quote in the ref, and the site you used was very easy for anyone to access by themselves, rather than being, for example a paid or print-only site.)  DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * to clarify, I am saying that there is a purpose in our general position that topics bans should be  being interpreted broadly--it is difficult to retain a truly neutral POV even in what one thinks to be unexceptional edits.  DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So far as articles like fetus, feticide, etc., those are far too close to the subject. Yes, edits of those articles would be violations of the topic ban. On Political positions of Jeb Bush, on the other hand, it would be alright for you to edit parts of the article that cover his positions on, say, taxes or foreign policy. It would not, however, be appropriate for you to edit any page in any manner related to abortion, including any political figure's political statements or positions on it, except under the exceptions as provided by WP:BANEX. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seraphimblade -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This was plainly a breach, though I respect the user for bringing it to our attention themselves on this occasion. For that reason I would be minded to excuse this one violation alone, on the understanding that our guidance here was perfectly clear and that it won't happen again. AGK  [•] 23:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much exactly per AGK. Hopefully the scope of the TBAN is now more clear. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 09:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is quite clearly a breach; I am somewhat confused as to why this was not clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand how you may have misunderstood that previously, but now that Bishonen has provided the "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." quote from WP:TBAN, do you agree that your ban extends also to pages and sections of pages that relate to abortion? If so, it seems that no explicit amendment would be necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if "amendment" was unclear—I meant that if you agree with what seems to be the general interpretation, amending your original topic ban to explicitly include this doesn't seem necessary. Regarding pre-natal development, there are edits you could make to that page that don't involve abortion (for example, the content of the fertilization section as it currently stands is fairly removed from the abortion topic). However, other edits to that page could very easily fall within the topic area. Generally your best bet is to steer clear of anything that could be interpreted to relate to abortion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think just about any restriction can be successfully appealed if the appellant is willing to avoid the behaviors that led to the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to try the standard "parole" here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The course of this discussion has made it very clear to me that the restriction should stand, and be interpreted to mean any matter that relates to abortion or that might be relevant in any way to the debates on the subject. It very certainly includes information about a politician's views on the subject. I would not be willing to try any form of parole; the only change we might want to make is to see if we can make the wording stronger and more inclusive, but I think that's not necessary, because our discussion here has already said it.   DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Abortion (November 2015)
Original discussion

Initiated by RGloucester at 16:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * diff of notification EdJohnston
 * diff of notification Bbb23

Statement by RGloucester
I'm here to request clarification on a technical matter related to sanctions enforcement for this arbitration case.

According to remedy 4.1, the previous community discretionary sanctions for abortion-related pages were superseded by ArbCom standard discretionary sanctions. All existing sanctions issued under the community regime (1RR and otherwise) were then added to the new log for the ArbCom regime, and labelled "inherited". Despite this, administrators have continued to log 1RR violations at the old community sanctions log, and not at the log created by ArbCom. In January of this year, I was confused by this situation. A discussion between administrators and myself led to no firm answer, but I had no time to pursue the matter. Therefore, I have filed this request.

My two questions are as follows:


 * 1) Should 1RR-related sanctions issued after the abortion case was closed be transferred to the AC log, in the manner that those issued before the case were?
 * 2) Should the community log be marked historical?

I am much obliged for you assistance in this clarification. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the 1RR violations should be logged at the main case page, as they are not discretionary sanctions. It is clear that ArbCom did take over (or intended to take over) the 1RR, given that the community sanctions issued for 1RR up until the case were labelled "inherited" and added to the main case page. It is possible that some kind of procedural error occurred here in the drafting of the case. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Topic wide 1RR is not part of DS. It is a revert restriction. Both revert revert restrictions and DS are types of general sanctions. DS allow administrators to institute 1RR on specific pages in a topic area, but that's not the same thing as an ArbCom or community revert restriction. They have separate regulations, depending on the case. If 1RR violations are to be recorded in the DS log, the name should be changed from "DS log" to a broader "general sanctions log" (including all types of topic wide sanctions) or "sanctions log" (including editing restrictions), depending upon how the Committee desires to expand its scope. For more information, see WP:Arbitration/Active sanctions. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
The four arbitrators who have replied so far think that these 1RR violations should be recorded in WP:DSLOG. That seems fine to me. It is logical that the abortion 1RR restriction should be viewed as a discretionary sanction. One nuance should be raised. We are used to discretionary sanctions requiring an alert before use, but 1RR doesn't fit precisely into that paradigm. People are routinely blocked for 1RR even if they haven't been explicitly notified using alert. As authority for this, you can see (for example) WP:TROUBLES: "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." I've noticed that the admins who block for these 1RR violations (on Troubles, Abortion or ARBPIA) generally use Template:uw-aeblock, which means they see themselves as blocking on Arbcom authority, not the community's.  Making it a routine practice to put 1RR violations into DSLOG will make all these actions consistent. EdJohnston (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bbb23
My gosh,, you have a long memory. I'm impressed. I don't have much to add to what was said on 's Talk page back in January. From my comments there, it's obviously not clear (to me). Apparently, it wasn't clear to Ed, either, who is more involved in AE than I. Although not a big deal in terms of enforcing the Arbcom decision, this seems like an ideal request for clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Abortion: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Procedural note here, it looks to me like the Committee, in the Abortion case, took over only the community imposed discretionary sanctions, not the community imposed 1RR. Therefore the community sanctions page appears to be the correct venue to record 1RR vios until/unless the Committee takes over the 1RR restriction, in which case they'd be logged on the main case page as they aren't discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That may have been a misinterpretation from the clerk or admin who created it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Abortion: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * There should be only one log being used, and IMO, it should be the central DS log created earlier this year. Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course - and mark the community log historical. Doug Weller (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Courcelles and Doug. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ed, I'd agree with your adding the 1RR violations in there too, and I doubt anyone on the committee would object. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Abortion (September 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 21:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * 

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
It appears in 2011, the community added sanctions for the entire abortion topic area. This included a topic-wide 1RR.

ArbCom later took over the Abortion sanctions in WP:ARBAB. They authorised DS for the topic area.

In 2015, a clarification request was made asking whether 1RR was to be made a case remedy, as it was enacted by the community. 5 arbs agreed to this. I don't believe that was a majority at the time, and there was no motion made, and there remains no amendment to the original WP:ARBAB case to specify 1RR exists for the topic area, and if so, what the scope of 1RR should be. Thus I don't believe that ARCA duly resulted in any change to the status quo. At the time, a clerk noted that ArbCom did not take over the 1RR.

I have brought this to ARCA following advice from clerks at their noticeboard. The talk notice, ArbCom sanctions - abortion, and the editnotice AbortionGSEN indicates the 1RR is a ArbCom remedy. However, General sanctions/Abortion/Log says it has been superseded, whilst General_sanctions says "See this November–December 2015 clarification request, whereby the previous community 1RR was incorporated into the ArbCom DS". A topic-wide 1RR can't really be part of a DS?

Can the Committee please clarify:
 * Has the Committee terminated the 1RR remedy from the community's 2011 abortion sanctions?
 * If yes, has it been replaced by an ArbCom topic-wide 1RR remedy?
 * If yes, should a motion be passed to amend WP:ARBAB, adding such a remedy and deciding on its scope?
 * If no, (but the 1RR from the community is still terminated), then I presume 1RR should be applied on an article-by-article basis? And in such a case, what's to happen to any 1RR enforcement blocks/sanctions prior to this ARCA?

Just a note that split logs overlapping with an ArbCom DS aren't completely abnormal, e.g. WP:GS/IPAK. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * indeed, but what about any 1RRs after the case?I don't believe it's possible for that topic-wide 1RR to be a DS, as I think Thryduulf's statement implies, since (as the ARCA above is suggesting) 1RR case remedy and 1RR DS have totally different requirements. Even if that difference is desired here, it would not be compatible with the community authorisation. DS is somewhat the opposite of NOTBURO in general, such a decision needlessly complicates the system even more and creates inconsistencies with eg IPAK imv. I don't feel like this question should be overcomplicated: do we need a topic-wide 1RR for abortion or not? If so, please just amend the case and make it a normal 1RR like every other case, for consistency and clarity, rather than make abortion a special case. If we don't need one, then some kind of collective statement clarifying that ArbCom doesn't have a 1RR in place would seem helpful to put the matter to rest. Personally, considering WP:AELOG (zero topic 1RR sanctions in 5 years; two DS 1RR sanctions in 2019), I feel the 2nd option is better.

Statement by Callanecc
This is hazy in my memory but my thinking is something like this. In the case, ArbCom didn't mention the community-imposed 1RR restriction but did take over the community-authorised discretionary sanctions (number 2 in the ANI proposal). The Committee needs to take affirmative action to override the community and they didn't in this case. Additionally, they also imposed 1RR on individual editors which wouldn't have been necessary if they took over the 1RR restriction. The clarification request from 2015 asked where community-imposed 1RR violation be logged and the agreement amongst the arbs was that only 1 log should be used (for simplicity and NOTBURO). I see three options for the Committee here: (1) take over the community-imposed 1RR restriction (effectively as a drafting slip from the original case), (2) vacate the community-imposed 1RR restriction (effectively taking it over as a drafting slip in the original case, then vacating it as no longer needed), or (3) leaving the status quo (1RR stays as a community-imposed restriction but is logged at WP:AELOG for simplicity (and NOTBURO)). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear
Personally I find it amazing that the ARBCOM at the time felt they had the authority to make retroactive decisions with regard to general sanctions, but that's neither here nor there.

The question might be worth asking, but I would note, that if ARBCOM has not implemented a 1RR remedy, then I'm not sure they have the authority merely to terminate a community one as a sanction. There is of course a question against this that they could have implemented one in 2015, and removed it now, which would have had the same effect. However, they missed that boat: just doing it at once is akin to ARBCOM just deciding they felt a community sanction was a bad idea and canning it, rather than as part of a conduct method. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
The 2015 clarification request asked a very specific question - where should violations of the 1RR be logged. The five arbs who answered (I was one of them) said in the central DS log. This, and the other comments in the discussion, imply that everyone was, and should continue to, treat it as a discretionary sanction under the provisions of the arbcom-authorised discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be worth making explicit that any existing specific remedies placed under the DS authorisations, including 1RR restrictions applied to specific articles are not affected and that it also does not preclude the placing of any new 1RR restrictions in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Abortion: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



Abortion: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Is the community-authorized 1RR restriction still necessary? A look through WP:AELOG for the past number of years shows 1RR applied to certain articles as a discretionary sanction (such as Talk:Abortion in the United States), but it doesn't show anyone being sanctioned for violating the general 1RR restriction. I suspect that this blanket remedy is no longer being used, and if my assumption is correct, perhaps we should vacate it for simplicity and consistency. – bradv  🍁  23:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, this is a bit of complex question. The way it reads to me is that the ArbCom replaced the general sanctions with discretionary sanctions, but did not address the 1RR. Therefore I would say community-imposed 1RR in the topic area remains in place. The clarification request was about where sanctions should be logged, and it seemed to be agreed that the DS log made sense so there weren't two separate logs for the same topic area, but I wouldn't say that as a result of that clarification request the ArbCom took over the 1RR—that would have to be done more formally, I think. As for what to do now, the ArbCom could either decide to formally take on the 1RR restriction as an amendment to the abortion case, or we could leave it as is. Given the general disuse, I'm leaning towards the latter. However I would oppose us vacating the community-imposed 1RR, as I think that's a decision that should be left to the community. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To my eyes, The discretionary sanction remedy states All sanctions enacted prior to this case under the terms of the community authorization shall be logged under this case as though they had been enacted under the new authorization. I would therefore have thought that the 1RR application should be considered under the Arbcom banner. What's more, as DS are in place, I would prefer a blanket 1RR is removed, and applied where needed. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong view on the specific clarification that is being requested, other than to suggest we not do anything that makes the rules governing discretionary and general sanctions any more complicated than they already are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Abortion

 * Enacted - Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Proposed, in the absence of any evidence that this is still required or commonly used. – bradv  🍁  15:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Per bradv. No indication that DS is not sufficient. Regards So  Why  18:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) we seem to be the right place for determinng conflicts between procedures like this one.  DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)   Maxim (talk)  19:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) The procedural question (whether we have the authority to vacate the 1RR restriction or whether the community should be asked to do so) is a close one, but based on the history that's been summarized above, I think the ArbCom decision is broad enough to allow us to make this change. I would be hesitant to do something that could even arguably be construed as overruling the community if the 1RR rule were still being actively used, but it seems that it isn't and that this is more of a "clean-up" request than anything. If any problems recur, 1RR can be restored as needed under the authorization for discretionary sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) I understand the logic of the opposes but I basically agree with NYB, this is more along the lines of cleaning up an old mess, as opposed to overruling community will. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) I understand the position of those opposing, while recognizing there have been no additional concerns raised following a note to AN about this open motion. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 12:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) weakly (I nearly voted in the oppose column) but it strikes me as simplifying things slightly by taking over the 1RR Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) I also see this as uncontroversial tidying, and it's cleaner if we do it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) I believe this was the intention and reasonable housekeeping <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Per my above comment, since this was imposed by the community I think the decision whether to vacate it should be left to the community as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with GW in this instance. If it's a community sanction they can remove it themselves. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Should we should note at WP:AN that this is being considered? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (clerk) I've gone ahead and left a note. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)