Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence

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

Scope
What is the scope of this case? MastCell Talk 15:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this process should work to be the final word, the final time that any abortion topic is arbitrated. The topic is so poisonous it will keep coming back unless harsh measures are instituted. That means the scope should be broadened to address the underlying problem of politically motivated editors making Wikipedia their battleground. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to wait for an answer from an Arbitrator before posting evidence. I don't care about the naming dispute per se, and if that's the limit of this case's scope, then it's not worth the bother. On the other hand, I will probably post some evidence if the scope includes the wider issue of editor behavior on abortion-related articles. At the moment, as best I can tell, participants are mostly just trying to get ArbCom to endorse their personal view of a specific content dispute. Which is not surprising, but not encouraging either. MastCell Talk 04:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been significant criticisms of editors refusing to get the point made by VsevolodKrolikov and HuskyHuskie, and comments about the move process made by me and NYyankees51, and canvassing by Sven Manguard.
 * Part of the evidence made by various people (including myself) is about article titles, but that is something that should be sorted by this case. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just point out that Sven thought my notification to him about this case's opening was canvassing and posted that rebuttal. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 10:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to be a pest, but I'd like to bump this. Is there any general guidance about the scope of this case that an Arbitrator could provide? MastCell Talk 03:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * MastCell: Speaking from a clerk's view, user conduct related to issues being looked at is always valid for evidence if the conduct is not conductive to collaboration. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 10:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While ArbCom does primarily and rightly focus on conduct issues, systemic violations of content policy are something that the Community in general is pretty bad at dealing with. I'm curious to know how much detail I should go into what I perceive to be content policy violations. NW ( Talk ) 13:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * MastCell, I don't mean my evidence to be primarily an argument for my position being correct. I mean for my evidence to show that engaging in negotiation (which is what mediation means) is pointless if nothing one side says (even if there is a prima facie strong case for its importance) is taken into consideration by the other side. One doesn't need to transgress actionable wikiquette to interact tendentiously; it's inevitable where most editors are still being pretty "careful" at this stage of dispute resolution, that the details of content disputes are brought up in order to illustrate how ordinary negotiation and dispute resolution processes have been exhausted. Of course I believe I am right about the content issue - but that's not what we're here for. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just added and I too am unclear on what this case covers. I'm not especially interested in the issues about the image(s) or how the various groups are called. My involvement was mostly in the re-wording of the lede sentence at Abortion. What is being asked of me w.r.t. this case? JJL (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of edit warring about image of what is aborted
The evidence is here for those who may be interested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this page meant to be a repository for evidence one cannot fit within the word count? Personally, I'd rather see excess evidence placed in userspace, and have this page reserved for discussion of posted evidence, but I guess that's a question for the clerks. MastCell Talk 04:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is now moot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not moot. This information needs to be presented on the Evidence page otherwise arbitrators will miss it.  A table would be a good way to present it. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I initially put it at the Evidence page, but a Bot notified me that it exceeded the word limit, so instead I put a link at the Evidence page. I would be glad to put the full chronology back at the Evidence page if there is a waiver from the word limit,  but I don't have experience making tables.  Also, I'm driving from Maryland to Connecticut today, and am therefore only occasionally online via iPhone (as I am now).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this about pro-life/pro-choice titles and the abortion article?
Forgive me if this has already been answered or is common knowledge, but I am highly confused - is this a big arbitration encompassing the pro-life/pro-choice titles and the abortion article? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * User conduct in those areas, primarily. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare
Why NuclearWarfare is allowed words count number more than other involved parties? Sole Soul (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked the Committee for permission. NW ( Talk ) 03:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)