Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed decision

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

Remedy 4
Might I suggest for implementation that General sanctions/Abortion/Log is shut down and redirected to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion? NW ( Talk ) 15:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly does this even mean? Is it similar to the remedies in WP:ARBCC that replaces the community sanctions with the standard arbcom sanctions? Or is it simply making sanctions made under the current community sanctions AE actions? If it's the former, the wording is horrendously unclear. If it's the latter, this pretty much obliterates the consistency we just gained from the recent omnibus amendment motion. T. Canens (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The intent was the former; I'm open to wording changes that will improve the clarity. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed principle 15

 * "Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."

We are shooting ourselves in the foot with this sort of wording (and I know we have similar wordings in some policies or guidelines). To give an example, at Sue Gardner's talk in London a few days ago, a woman editor brought up the Russian Wiktionary entry for "woman", which at one time was illustrated with what she described as a vintage porn image that she thought was quite offensive and "inappropriate". I think most of us would agree that the picture she put in instead is "more appropriate". 

The question is, if there is a dispute about it, on what grounds is someone like her supposed to argue that the previous image was "not appropriate", if we specifically say that offensiveness should have no bearing on the matter? The previous image undoubtedly showed a "woman" (arguably it showed more of her than the replacement image). By saying what we are saying, we are automatically slanting the playing field against editors in her situation. People can wiki-lawyer forever and a day that the nude image is just as "appropriate" or better than the clothed one, because the only thing that speaks against it is potential offensiveness, and that, we say, is not an argument anyone should make or listen to. There is a more sensible approach in Wikipedia:Offensive material, which basically states that potentially offensive images have to "earn their keep" in a way other images do not. -- J N  466  16:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What we're trying to say here, is the fact that some people may find it objectionable is not and should not be the sole factor on whether an image should be removed. In your example, no one should complain should a more suitable picture be substituted in its place. However, that is based on the fact that a better picture would be more useful to readers of the article, and not based on the fact that she is highly disrobed in the picture. SirFozzie (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the trouble: the fact that a nude image is objectionable as the lead image for a "woman" entry in one of our projects is the sole and only reason speaking against its appropriateness. And we say in so many words that that argument carries zero weight within Wikipedia.
 * No other argument can really be made against a well-executed nude image. Discounting offensiveness, a nude image is as "encyclopedically useful" and accurate as a clothed lead image, arguably even more so (showing more of the woman, and less of the clothes). Do we want to be totally insensitive? How would you argue that a nude image is inappropriate if policy directs you to disregard offensiveness completely? -- J N  466  18:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the same applies to muhammad images on Muhammad and the nude image on pregnancy and so on. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Its also worth noting that this is definitely ruling on content - personally I think Arbcom ruling on content is a necessary evil that has to be done from time to time, but if you are going to do so you need to take a middle ground position - this isn't one. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbcom isn't ruling on content; it's acknowledging the community norms on content, by way of quoting from policies, that explains how contravening those norms (e.g., editwarring to remove an unfavored image) is a conduct issue. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You basically are ruling on content. Additionally while you are addressing my point you are completely ignoring Jayen466's point which is very strong.
 * If you make this ruling you are arguing that having a naked women at woman is fine. It isn't.
 * If you are a school admin and there is a naked women on the article on woman and someone complains to you about it you don't really have much choice but to block Wikipedia - if someone access it at work they will at best be annoyed that they have been forced to view NSFW content and they won't be able to use such pages for work purposes.
 * There is also the prudishness of visitors even those at home, you can't access porn in front of your kids, and even without them you might be offended - the country that is #1 on readership is still over-excited about a nipple being shown in 2004 for about a second.
 * That leaves the audience as adults without children and college students - its hardly the free encyclopaedia for everyone. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're arguing from your proposed changes to (or implementations of, whichever) these principles. That's fine, except that's not how ArbCom works.  I and my peers work from policies as currently written, not from them as we--or you--want them to be. I didn't write the words there: I just copied them into a principle. Jclemens (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the policy is total nonsense don't argue in favour of it. You don't have to make this a principle. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've raised the point at WT:NOT. Please note that two of the support rationales given to date, i.e.
 * "The value of the information must be weighed carefully. The information must be germane and useful to the article. SirFozzie (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)"
 * "Weakly agree. I'd suggest the central question is whether the offensiveness is outweighed by the encyclopedic value. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)"
 * seem to follow rationales that differ from the wording of the principle itself (though they are fully in line with Wikipedia:Offensive material). Both support rationales appear to take offensiveness into account. The first one does so by saying that the value of the information must be weighed carefully, which I read to mean more carefully than in cases of non-objectionable content. The second does so by saying that offensiveness must be outweighed by encyclopedic value, which means that offensiveness has to be an integral part of the discussion (something the proposed wording disallows).
 * Note that one way to demonstrate educational value is, or ought to be, the use of the same kind of image in reputable sources.
 * If reputable sources use a shocking picture (e.g. rape of Nanking, Holocaust), then so should we. (This applies even if there is only a significant minority of reputable sources using such images – per WP:NPOV, we must present significant minority views, even if offensive.)
 * But if they don't (e.g. Goatse), then neither should we, and EOD.
 * Anything else is inconsistent with the sourcing and verifiability principles (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV etc.) this project and all its content are built on. -- J N  466  08:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're asking for ArbCom to arbitrate content, by adding "case law" to harmonize the various principles on the topic in your favored manner. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your interpretation, but do not agree that it is our job to do so. Nor would I agree that every principle must be comprehensive in every possible implication.  This is not a decision on Goatse, which is not before the committee (nor do I expect it to be) in large part because the community has little good-faith disagreement over how to handle such cases. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything I said in my last post above was just presented for reflection. I wasn't trying to write your principle for you. We are in the unfortunate situation that WP:NOT is at variance with WP:Offensive material, Manual_of_Style/Images and the WMF board resolution on controversial content. I agree that it is not arbcom's job to harmonise them, but it's problematic to formulate a case law principle saying that offensiveness should not form any part of discussions. (I assure you the goatse discussions were legendary in their day, with the community split right down the middle. I can find the links for you if you like.) Cheers, -- J N  466  15:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note change to Manual of Style/Images. For those interested, a history of the goatse discussions incl. links is given in the box at the top of Talk:Goatse.cx. -- J N  466  22:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no way by not having this as a principle Arbcom would be arbitrating content - you're removing talking about content at all. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, the core issue is something that affects the encyclopedia as a whole, and which is certainly something AtbCom can clarify. It would be nice to get some statement from the committee to the effect that (and here I'm cribbing from what I wrote over at wt:NOT):


 * Wikipedia aims to be useful and accessible to the broadest population of readers. Controversial or potentially objectionable content should be presented in a way that neither avoids nor aggravates the given controversy or offense.

That is simply core project principles clarified; it's not a statement about content except to the extent that the five pillars are.

I hate to say it, but a good number of editors on project need to be reminded that the target population of Wikipedia is the world-wide general public. If that means that the aesthetic tastes and preferences of Wikipedia editors need to be curtailed in order to make the encyclopedia enjoyable and accessible to our readers, then so be it. -- Ludwigs 2 01:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Too open for interpretation and (2) That is not ArbCom's job. They act on policies as written at the particular moment in time - in their roles for ArbCom, I can guarantee you that none of them are going to simply wade in and support your proposed change to NOT. Final note, isn't canvassing for such (support) a no no? Is the above canvassing? R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  21:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lugwigs2 has views on topics like censorship and what is/is not offensive that are not always supported by consensus (in some cases consensus has been very clearly opposed to his views). I haven't got evidence to back this up, but my gut feeling is that this is an attempt to bypass the hassle of trying to get consensus for his views (when there is no consensus) by having ArbCom declare them from above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These may be supportive of such a view. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  23:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, Robert: So, you're entire argument boils down to "Ludwigs2 is stupid and unpopular." Charming...


 * Let me know when you have something interesting and relevant to say. -- Ludwigs 2  23:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, my argument is that your proposal does not have the consensus of the community, and that as some of your previous proposals in this area were rejected it is possible that it might never get consensus. Neither whether you are popular or not (I have no idea, other than you haven't got half the AN/I regulars baying for your blood after nearly every edit so you're not the bottom of the heap) nor how intelligent you are (I don't know you anywhere near enough to make a fair assessment of that) are at all relevant. Proposing things that don't get consensus doesn't equate to unpopularity - I do it all the time (see WT:NFCC for the most recent one) and don't consider myself either particularly popular or unpopular. Thryduulf (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf: Allow me to state the obvious: one cannot develop consensus without discussing the issue. I do understand that many people are opposed to this line of thinking - I'd have to be stone deaf not to understand that - but I also understand a number of other things:
 * There are a good number of editors who support my side of this dispute. I have good reason to believe that most wikipedia editors would support my side of the debate (because most people are reluctant to offend others without due cause), but most wikipedia editors wouldn't enter into this discussion for love or money.
 * I have common sense and ethics on my side, whether or not you realize it. That is demonstrable.
 * I have the interests of the encyclopedia on my side; unlike most I understand the damage that can be done to the project's reputation and editing environment by this kind of casual disregard for cultural mores.
 * The main problem I have in these discussions, truth be told, is that people who don't like what I'm saying keep trying to get me to shut up rather than address the issues I'm raising. If you and Robert and etc would stop with the nonsense (e.g. accusing me of doing this or that bad thing, telling me everyone disagrees with me, trying to use policy to beat me over the head...); if you would sit down and actually engage what I'm saying, I'd probably convince you I'm right (maybe not, but probably; I know the strength of my own arguments).  But the fact is I cannot get my opponents to sit still long enough to complete a thought; they skim right over what I say and go right back to repeating their own inner dialog, loudly and vociferously.  A dead-sure buzz-kill for any reasonable discussion...


 * I don't mind that you disagree with me; I mind that you don't listen. I always listen to my opponents.  Now you don't have to listen if you don't want to, but you don't have any right to ask me to stop pointing out something that is this eminently sensible just because you don't like hearing it.  Sooner or later something like what I'm suggesting is going to happen (whether because of me of because of some other source is of no matter), because something like this must happen if Wikipedia is ever going to stop being a frat-boy encyclopedia.  isn't that what we all want?  -- Ludwigs 2  05:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Frat boy encyclopaedia" - well put. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Remedy 5
I am a little bit disappointed about remedy 5. To me, it seems a little vague. I also don't think this remedy acknowledges the fact that there has been discussions over the naming dispute for almost a year (that I have observed) and I am curious as to what the committee feels another discussion will accomplish. Could this be explained a little bit more to me, please? I feel that after nearly four months of this case being open, a decision pretty much states "let's discuss it again" is inadequate. Topic bans can eject editors who have opposing views, but editors come and go all the time, and I don't feel this remedy sufficiently addresses concerns that have been raised by quite a few editors, including myself. ArbCom doesn't rule on content, no, but the committee is also there to implement a decision or process when the community has been unable to resolve the issue themselves. I don't feel this remedy does that. The committee could appoint 3-5 admins to review the previous discussions and then decid, or something like that. I don't feel another 10 week discussion will help. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  20:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I think the aim is to replicate the move request of People's Republic of China to China - the big advantage there was that its extremely one-sided in the sense that once data started being gathered it all pointed in one direction and the article title's policy is deterministic enough that a line could be drawn showing the policy which was followed by the closing administrators. Although even though the evidence was ridiculously one-sided in the China case there was still a fair bit of opposition.
 * With this case the evidence is a bit confusing and will probably come down to what the person in question thinks "significant majority" in WP:POVTITLE means and what set of evidence you take - based on the evidence presented so far (including what "significant majority" means at WP:POVTITLE) I can see arguments in favour of any of the 3 name sets that have been considered being plausible and in good faith.
 * On that basis I'm going to bow out of further discussion on the grounds that I don't actually care that much. That approach has advantages in borderline cases, arguably such as this one. However in this case there is a significant risk of an NPOV violation if the evidence doesn't add up - there aren't many names that reliable sources object to explicitly on grounds of neutrality. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Steven, one of the things I noted about the discussions was that there were bits and pieces of evidence about how various names aplied to policy etc. scattered about and hte discussions were relatively unstructured in places. One thing I have found is that if you want to get more than about five people commenting (which we do here!), one needs to rigorously structure the page to get a clear picture of the weighting of various arguments. Thus what hould happen is a comprehensive list of sources detailing the prevalence of the names used to describe the pro-life/pro-choice movements around the world - everything from google to official government and news sources, to scholarly peer-reviewed literature in an evidence section, and then everyone votes below on how the names fit the criteria (eg COMMONNAME vs POVTITLE) and strength of arguments. A lack of structure is an easy trap to fall into - you rapidly end up with a wall of text that discourages the general community from commenting, which we need to avoid. Hence, let's do it properly once and for all (well, three years anyway). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with this approach is that its quite clear from the evidence gathered so far (although it is flawed) that you aren't going to get a clear cut answer.
 * All you are going to get is another tedious discussion and/or deciding on neutrality by a vote.
 * In the China case, even though the evidence is overwhelming you barely got a plurality to agree with the evidence rather than follow their preconceptions - I fail to see how a different outcome is plausible here when the evidence is going to be significantly less clear. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to concur with Eraserhead here. I also feel that due to the nature of the dispute, a vast majority of the community will not want to get involved and it will largely be a rehashing of what has already been said by the parties before. Maybe I feel a little offended. While this should have no real bearing on the decision here, I feel I conducted the MedCab in an appropriate manner, not one to be called "all over the place" or unstructured. I just think there's a better way to get to the same decision, but don't think this is it. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  01:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Look Steve, I think I can speak for everyone when I say we're grateful and glad for folks trying to mediate these disputes, we really do, and I wish I could have formulated a way forward which didn't look like it was invalidating work done so far. Sometimes these sort of debates take some time and different stages to get there. I'll delve into the past debates and explain what I mean. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to make this section about me. I only wished to air my concern about another lengthy move discussion, given what I observed at various requested move discussions in the past as well as at the MedCab. As long as a final resolution (or for an extended period of time) is brought to the matter, then I'm fine with that. It's not that I felt invalidated or anything. I'm a big boy and don't need everything I do to be validated. :) It's more my concerns about what another move discussion could do to the tempers and climate of the affected articles. That said, I trust the committee has discussed this in length and trust that you have a good idea on how you will go about this final discussion. As long as the committee is convinced that there's no other way, then that's good enough for me. It's really none of my business anyways :) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  03:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And to augment what Cas said... how much longer would you rather have us dithering about without posting anything on the topic? We've been looking for a better answer to this one for a while, but when this is the only thing where no one seems to have any better ideas (no, I will not post an "arbcom decides by fiat" remedy, even knowing it would never pass) we need to move forward somehow. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that the nature of this dispute has caused some division within the Arbitration Committee. I never considered ArbCom making a final ruling on the matter, perhaps instead I thought that they would propose a remedy asking a few uninvolved administrators to spend X amount of time reviewing the previous discussions and then determine a consensus from those discussions (such as Chase me ladies did at the MedCab case). I feel I have aired in the past my concerns about another lengthy discussion occuring oncemore, but understand it is likely inevitable. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  03:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The first move proposal at pro-life involved more than 60 users and the close was keep/no consensus to move. Subsequent proposals had less and less participants. Since a large discussion has already taken place, wouldn't it make more sense to just move it back to pro-life? NYyankees51 (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay then - beginning with this February request was an almighty wall of text which I'd guess does a great job of losing the editor come to read and make an opinion, rather than one whose mind is already made up. I see one table on uk newspapers, one on dictionaries, and other bits and pieces. The evidence has to be more systematic than this, at least looking at newspapers from Australia, Canada and New Zealand as well as the US and UK. As well, seeing what government departments and peer-reviewed journals write. I'll see the other bits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * this one has no data at all that I can see, just alot of established opinions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And this also has some facts but they are spread out in a mountain of text. The page is set out for dispute resolution (which is its brief) but not for determining a consensus. The correct way would be very well structured Evidence section, where editors can review all the data in one place to see which of COMMONNAME or POVTITLE trumps the other, followed by a vote on symmetry of names, followed by a vote on preferred names. I am happy to set this up and monitor. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Steve and Eraserhead1, have I misse a page somewhere which had a more systematic coverage of external sources and names used? If so, please alert and link here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't missed anything significant. I see your point in regards to having another structured discussion. I see it more as working smarter as opposed to harder, it would take the deciding administrators a very long time to read over all the discussions that have occured and make a decision as opposed to reviewing a new discussion. I defer to your views in this instance. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  03:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, been in this situation before - before the discussion begins, you lay out a shitload of formatting, thinking, "Geez I look like some sort of super order-obsessed control freak"...but then as soon as a few comments...and comments on comments..and comments on comments on comments....and then you're really glad you laid it out (if not wishing you'd made some more sub sub headings etc...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I don't think that the Abortion MedCab wasn't formatted that badly, but of course I have seen some room for improvement, which is something I've implemented in the Holodomor mediation case. As long as the discussion is structured well and closed by users who have experience in dispute resolution then I'm happy. :) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  04:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, y'see it all depends on the brief - the medcab is conflict resolution, so a brief about consensus finding will require a different format. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, MedCab has traditionally been used to help parties come to a consensus amongst themselves, generally through collaboration. It's not generally used for determining a consensus on a matter, though often this can be one of the results of a MedCab. My thoughts elsewhere about the creation of binding process for sticky content disputes that have been unresolvable with conventional methods of content dispute resolution stand, and perhaps your proposed method of working through this naming dispute could be implemented on a slightly wider scale (for other disputes that cannot be resolved after MedCab or MedCom). I think it's something I'll mull over and discuss with a few people as well as the other MedCab co-ordinations, see of we can't make some changes at MedCab to make it more effective. Too many disputes get kicked up to Arbcom. I would like to participate in this proposed discussion (the final requested move, so to speak). I feel I can provide some background on the matter which would be of use.  Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  06:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Casliber, there was no further structured discussion. I see your point and I'm certainly prepared to agree to disagree. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Steve, yes, I think a few facilitators, data organisers and folks acting as de facto clerks will be very helpful to the process, and it is all a learning curve which is rather steep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The relative lack of evidence for editors without an opinion to read, and the wall of text that the discussion presented, likely skewed the result by discouraging those without a pre-existing conviction of what the page should be. Hence it needs to be properly structured so editors can vote depending on the strength or weakness of evidence presented. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure I agree with Casliber, but he does have a strong point - so far the evidence hasn't been laid out particularly well. We can certainly do as good a job as we did laying out the evidence of the "China" move with a list of sources like this and possibly a table of pros and cons like this.
 * There is definitely a good case for presenting the evidence well - so we can see what title is actually appropriate. I'd suggest getting User:GTBacchus involved to help with this. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely - thanks for reminding me about that one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic bans
Can we get some standardized wording? Right now it's a mess:
 * "topic banned from Abortion and related articles." (R6.1)
 * "topic-banned from abortion-related articles, broadly construed" (R7.1)
 * "banned from editing abortion-related articles and subject matter" (R9, R12.1)
 * "banned from editing abortion-related articles" (R13.1)

Unless, of course, the goal is to make AE admins' lives even more difficult, in which case please ignore this post. T. Canens (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That definitely needs cleaning up. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. My preference is "topic-banned from abortion-related articles, broadly construed". I'll go ahead and change the others. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The standard wording I hoped for was "pages", so that it would explicitly include talk pages. NW ( Talk ) 22:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We should be unambiguous if possible. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll change 'articles' to 'pages'. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks... the distinction between "page" and "article" has come up before and caused substantial confusion (see this AE thread, and my subsequent request for clarification, which didn't clarify anything). MastCell Talk 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah good points made here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I object
Mildly. To the proposed findings of fact summarizing my edits. In 6 years of editing I have been blocked 6 times, 3 of those times were between February and March of 2011 and all of these involved abortion related articles but they also mostly involved User:roscelese. At the same time, most of Roscelese's blocks involved me. We both deserved what we got, but for whatever reason, that is the nature of that conflict.

I have not been blocked since March and since Ros and I came to a mutually agreed interaction ban I have not gotten so much as a warning and I don't think she has either. 1RR is not a huge deal and I won't be crushed if it happens but I believe findings of fact regarding my editing are not entirely correct and the proposed remedy unnecessary as I have kept my nose clean since March. - Haymaker (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am recused with respect to Roscelese. I will ask my fellow arbs to review your complaint. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Beginning looking, I'm seeing some of the same behaviour at James O'Keefe, namely here followed by here, and I don't see any talk page discussion. More looking to come. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure the original source would have used the term "abortion doctors" here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Source says "anti-abortion" and you've changed to "pro-life" here on 27 October 2011. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the original source says here for this revert. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding this and this change, the movement is known as pro-life, but I am not sure whether the law is as well. Not familiar with how pervasive the term is but suggests this is pushing it. Especailly as the source in the second one says anti-abortion Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, another one here, though not sure how the source words it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Similarly, here at this edit, when the source says anti-abortion Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't see a reference for this change but again is a law. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 - to the very best of me knowledge, there is no guideline on when to use pro-life/anti-abortion/pro-choice/pro-abortion
 * 2 - how does 1RR impact this?
 * I have edited many articles relating to abortion since March and hope I did not imply that I hadn't, but rather that since March I haven't been in any trouble - Haymaker (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re your (1), it's a question of how you are pushing a name beyond what the sources say. Obviously there is a fair case for the movement to be called pro-life, but when you extend that to laws and contra what references say, that looks like veering too far from source wording. What this then means is your contributions to an area have to be vetted on an ongoing basis, which is a net negative to the project. You're right about 1RR, although the 7,8 November ones are problematic, I am getting the impression that we need to adjust the remedies. It is Sunday daytime here and I am pretty busy IRL - I will be back later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't write pro-life/anti-abortion/pro-choice/pro-abortion based on the language of the sources. About 450 articles use the term "anti-abortion" and about 1700 use the term "pro-life", many of them contra to the terminology in the references.  This has been the source of a good deal of friction (this is possibly the essence of the problem described in first bullet point in 3.2.1) and perhaps we should write the terms used by the references but for now, no such conventions exist. At present, I err on the side of WP:COMMONNAME. - Haymaker (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on the context - clearly there is a lack of consensus which needs to be nutted out regarding the movement name, but not the bills themselves. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to be simple but, says who? Many (but by no means all) current US media stories describe some types of bills as "pro-life".  Here in we have the problem, you believe they ought to be described as one, I believe the other, our sources go both ways... - Haymaker (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, pro-abortion/pro-choice is at approximately 70/1,050 with a few pro-abortion-rights/anti-abortion-rights and other variations. The encyclopedia is leaning pro-life/pro-choice (as am I) but we truly are in an unfortunate no-mans land with reasonable people on both sides with no consensus or guidelines.  I believe we are better served by the common name but I am open to other descriptors and know that most everyone on the other side is also in it for a better encyclopedia. - Haymaker (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits/demerits of Haymaker's behavior elsewhere, I have been told that this case involves user conduct in the pro-life, pro-choice, and abortion articles, not user conduct in the general topic of abortion. Am I misunderstanding? Haymaker has not done anything problematic at those three articles. Also, the above exchange between Haymaker and Casliber is a discussion of content not conduct - doesn't ArbCom deal strictly with conduct? I am still new to the arbitration process so forgive me if these are dumb questions, but I don't believe Haymaker is being given a fair shake here. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have blinkers and we have to make an informed decision about an editor's ability to contribute constructively and their presence to be a net positive on the encyclopedia and its editing environment. The we don't resolve good-faith content disputes but when content gets warped through gaming, this is a conduct problem. A general confrontational level of edits is what I've seen so far as well as the problems above in the most recent six weeks. It will be up to a team of arbs to decide. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that Casliber has picked up on the problem with referring to laws and such as "pro-life." Besides that it is not what the sources say, it just so happens that there's a specific consensus - from a discussion in which Haymaker participated - against describing laws with this sort of language! Fancy that. I believe it can be found in the archives of Talk:Opposition to the legalization of abortion. The decision was to describe the laws instead, eg. "a law that would ban abortion after 24 weeks," "a law that would oblige doctors to read a script of medically discredited claims about fetal pain to a woman seeking an abortion," or where no more information is available, "laws to restrict abortion [rights/access]." I'm also puzzled at NYY's suggestion that ignoring both WP:V and consensus is merely a content issue. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just looked through 6 years of Talk:Opposition to the legalization of abortion. There is not nor was there ever such a consensus.  I will be shocked if any article on this encyclopedia reads "a law that would oblige doctors to read a script of medically discredited claims about fetal pain to a woman seeking an abortion". - Haymaker (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't you two have an i-ban? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which was why I was very surprised to come over here by chance (in the course of checking out what MastCell was up to) and find that I was being blamed for Haymaker's misconduct. But the wording of the ban, I find, exempts ArbCom stuff. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Just don't antagonize each other. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm disappointed that this only began to concern you after I commented, rather than when, unbeknownst to me, Haymaker was blaming his edit-warring and other improper conduct on me. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rest assured Ros, I was more than content not to dwell on our relationship before this. - Haymaker (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He wasn't interacting with you. I became concerned because you showed up without being named in this case. Not saying you're not allowed to defend yourself, I just know the history between you two. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Concerning the interaction ban I'm late to the party but I have reviewed the terms of the interaction ban, without consulting the other two involved administrators, and I find that "except on...Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party...or similar pages where their comments are requested" (emphasis mine) makes this conversation within the bounds of the interaction ban.--v/r - TP 15:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point - hopefully everyone's moved on from this page now anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin's absence
The decision for OrangeMarlin which is currently passing states, “potential remedies are suspended until he returns to editing. He is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee upon his return and before participating in the topic area.” According to this, OrangeMarlin is returning right now. Does this change anything, or is ArbCom still going to pass a remedy based on his absence at a time when that’s no longer the case?

Personally, I find his statement "I’ve got trouble to cause" a bit ominous. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * While I'm recused on OM due to past interactions, I can say the Committee are aware of his return, and I believe Elen has already made him aware of the possible findings and asked if he would like to respond. I'm sure the voting members of the Committee will take that into account. SirFozzie (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * At the very least, I think the current decision about him ought to be re-worded. The current wording, which assumes that OrangeMarlin is still absent and will remain so indefinitely in the future, will be obsolete by the time the case closes.


 * This might sound overly cynical of me, but it seems like a strange coincidence that after being absent from Wikipedia for four months, OrangeMarlin returned within a few hours after the decision to not sanction him due to his absence received support from a plurality of arbitrators. I believe him that he really was in the hospital, but it would be an effective strategy for someone to deliberately delay their return for longer than necessary, until they could see that the decision to not sanction them due to their absence was likely to pass.  Whether OrangeMarlin is actually doing that or not, I think ArbCom should consider how much it looks that way, and whether they want to send the message that doing this is an effective way to avoid sanctions. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or should we just drop the pretense, and automagically give everyone who says they have real-world medical problems a "get out of ArbCom free" pass? That seems to be the direction we're heading, and I don't see any collective will within the committee to change it. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to topic-ban him on the basis of his prior behavior, that's an understandable and reasonable position. But I don't think I can find the words to adequately express my disappointment in both of you for implying that the illness in question was somehow staged in order to impact an ArbCom case. MastCell Talk 05:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was staged, and I frankly don't think ArbCom should ever be in the position of trying to figure out if an illness, family emergency, deployment, etc. is real or feigned. Each editor should have a finite amount of "slack" time--perhaps two weeks--to defer their response, and then each case should proceed without the benefit of that input.  I have no reason to think that OrangeMarlin's illness is feigned, but I can think of one editor this year whom I am virtually certain was lying to the committee about his or her health status.  Both were treated equally by the committee, which is fundamentally a good thing, in that we don't need to be in the business of collecting doctor's notes from case participants.  I just believe that there's enough delay already built in to the ArbCom process that allowing "health reasons" as a case delay trump card does more of a disservice to the community than it does benefit participants. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I also didn’t mean to imply that I think his illness was staged. The only thing I’m suspicious about is whether after he had recovered enough to resume participating, he deliberately delayed his return until he could see that arbitrators were voting to not sanction him because of his absence.  As I said above, the real problem is that by the time the case closes, this part of the decision will be obsolete.  The decision states “potential remedies are suspended until he returns to editing”, yet he’s returned already. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there's a difference between someone who conveniently disappears whenever there's too much heat on them (I can think of one problematic user who ducked an ArbCom case claiming health issues and then continued causing issues as an IP, leading to a community ban), and someone who has legitimate health issues (which we've heard from several people who have no reason to pass on tales. The remedy directs that they are not to resume editing in that area until talking to the Committee, and while I promise to keep out of any such discussions, I feel fairly confident from reading other arbs votes that considering the amount of evidence, that I feel it likely that a topic ban will be confirmed. We'll see how it goes, however. SirFozzie (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would such topic ban be handled by motion if it occurs after the conclusion of this case? Or are you thinking along other lines? Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I speak only as a recused arbitrator here (on the user in question), but I think the methodology here is that if OM wants to edit in this topic area, he has to contact the Committee and answer the evidence gathered here. Then the unrecused members of the Committee will judge his response and the evidence submitted as part of this case and come to a decision on how to handle it. It sounds like a motion would be the easiest way to handle it, yes. SirFozzie (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with SirFozzie; the arbitration committee is not handing out free passes, but it is not going to hand out judgements on people who have been unable to participate. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well spoken, MastCell. Can we have some sense of proportion here? I find Captain Occam's posts, all of them, full of strange assumptions about human beings and health issues — especially the assumption that people are machines with only two states, "on" and "off". "Overly cynical" hardly covers it. Orangemarlin has been very ill and is now presumably convalescent. It was nice (IMO) to see him posting a little wave, full of piss and vinegar as Antandrus would put it, on his own page, on 18 November. But that doesn't necessarily or even probably mean that he's ready to spring into full action. (He hasn't edited since.) What the fuck do the petty argufication processes on a website matter if you measure them against illness/recovery in the real world? A quarrel on the internet? Bishonen &#124; talk 23:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Looking some more at these pages, I'm not feeling much more charitable about arbitrator Jclemens's input on the issue, either. His bad-tempered query to John V earlier today on the project page, ..Orangemarlin has posted his return to the project on his talk page, so your statement about his ability to participate appears to be at odds with that statement, is no better as regards the on/off issue I just alluded to than Captain Occam's "suspicion". "Ability to participate" is not one and indivisible in the case of people of flesh and blood. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC).
 * I'm sorry you don't like me taking fellow (and in this case lame duck) arbs to task for ducking the issue. Issue: OM has behaved in an incontrovertably incivil manner.  My take: Who cares if he's ill, not ill, retired, not retired, unable, unwilling... none of that matters.  His conduct speaks for itself, and there's nothing he could possibly say that would excuse it.  He could apologize for it, I suppose, which would speak to sanctions, but that could just as easily be a part of an appeal.  I'm OK if other arbs don't want to sanction OM for his behavior, but I'd like them to at least own up to their own "soft on incivility" preferences, rather than pretending OM has been absent throughout the case (he hasn't) or hasn't returned to editing (he has).  The fact that the appropriate sanctions for his behavior are failing in favor of a deferral isn't bothersome to me, but the anemic support for the FoF which clearly sets forth the incivility that OM (and him on behalf of his anatomy) has engaged in does disappoint me. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You call me a lame duck? How civil of you. :P  Gosh, that would result in a brawl where I come from. ;-) If you are referring to the meaning in politics, you're also a lame duck, and you're lack of appreciation of audi alteram partem is worrying. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, you two, if this continues it may give the impression that the arbitration committee lacks unanimity.HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, please, you can't fight in here this is the war-room. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In America, Lame Duckishness is a technical term and not particularly a pejorative; it's your own status by virtue of choosing to not stand for reelection, and not mine at the moment, since I am standing. In the not necessarily unlikely event that I am voted out, I will be a lame duck between the announcement of the results and the termination of my term. If it's somehow considered incivil in Australia, which is not communicated in our article, you have my apologies for that.
 * On the more substantive side, your interpretation of "hear both sides" requires hearing both sides, rather than simply giving each side an opportunity to be heard. That results, in reductio ad absurdum, to no editor ever being sanctioned as long as he chooses not to respond to the case against him.  That, sadly, is the direction we've been heading, and one that results in overlong delays in cases or lack of resolution. I believe that's a trend that needs reversing, and I'm willing to take a stand on the matter even while up for reelection, because it's the right thing to do. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * take a look at lame duck ;-) I definitely mean what you see at audi alteram partem, which very clearly says opportunity.  It is part of natural justice, and has an extremely large corpus of case law which addresses the situation we have been confronted with.  You insist that Orangemarlin has had an opportunity, and on that point I disagree. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (sigh) I wish the term lame duck had not been brought up. To me it does have a negative connotation. Remedy 6.1 serves as a de facto topic ban but one with discretion and some good grace about his condition - which I don't want to discuss too much further. He's made two (2) posts and I suspect activity will remain low. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Jclemens: I wish I hadn't used the word "bad-tempered", since you have focused on that rather than engaging with my material objection about sick/well not being on a toggle. The state of having "returned to editing" after serious illness has many shades, as I daresay many wikipedians and even arbitrators know from personal experience. I have a little more information about OM than has appeared in public, but not as much as you and the rest of arbcom have; it's notable how different conclusions can apparently be drawn from the information available to you, if we compare your own insistence that one edit (+spelling correction) means "Back". (Hey, the borked machine just moved a piston, it's back !) with Brad's humane approach, or with Casliber just above. (Not trying to tempt you into rudeness about Brad and Casliber here!) Anyway, would it be correct to say you decline to address my point because it doesn't matter? ("Who cares if he's ill, not ill, retired, not retired, unable, unwilling", as you so forthrightly say.) Because you take it to be merely one of the smokescreens behind which "'soft on incivility' preferences" skulk and dare not speak their name? Never mind, those questions are fairly rhetorical, no need to reply unless you want to. I won't go back and forth any more on this, I can see the bored audience passing the popcorn, I'm done. (Done in this place, I mean. Perhaps I'll put a link to this discussion on your re-election talkpage.) Bishonen &#124; talk 12:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure why you and others don't understand my points, but I'll try to articulate them again:
 * Editors are responsible for their own editing, essentially indefinitely, but especially in a proximate ArbCom case. Whether they're inebriated, emotionally disturbed, mentally incompetent, suffering physical pain, facing their own mortality... none of these external circumstances (and to be clear, I am not implying that any or all of these apply to Orangemarlin, although I know of several other cases where one or more has applied...) absolve an editor from the responsibility to edit in an appropriate manner, which includes collegiality.
 * Edits speak for themselves. While the courtesy of participation in the process has a strong and appropriate tradition in Western justice, the bare facts of edits do not require an editor to interpret them.  Thus, there is no particular reason to hold up evaluation of edits just because an editor isn't around to comment on them.  Even if they could comment on them, the other side of the equation is...
 * Mitigating circumstances only speak to punishment, not findings. There's no real dispute over what happened.  I suppose Orangemarlin could have plead WP:GOTHACKED, but I don't think anyone thinks that would be remotely credible, and even if it was, that is something that can be worked out in a request for amendment, rather than just being suspended indefinitely, because...
 * Justice delayed is justice denied Far too long has gone by in this case already. The value in the sanctions on Orangemarlin lies not in his prophylactic absence from the topic, because we are all agreed that he hasn't edited it in months.  The value, rather, is in the community's behavioral standards enforcement arm, ArbCom, condemning the behavior.  I greatly respect NewYorkBrad, but his oppose of the Finding of Fact regarding Orangemarlin is in my estimation the worst decision for Wikipedia that he has made.  I set forth a deferment of punishment remedy that would allow Orangemarlin to have a say before he was actually sanctioned, while clearly condemning his incivility.  The option to condemn the incivility but suspend the punishment has been rejected by enough arbitrators that it will not pass, and justice will not be done in this case by the time it closes. Setting a tone that incivility will not be tolerated means that anyone who breaches that line be dealt with appropriately and even-handedly, regardless of their number of friends, regardless of "compassionate" factors, regardless of past missteps by previous ArbComs, and regardless of whether or not they participate in the case.
 * I'm sorry for those of you who think that Wikipedia's social aspects, including protecting other long-term editors from reprisals, is more important than remaining an encyclopedia that must thrive on civility and mutual respect. There are many of you who are astounding content contributors (and I'm speaking to far more than just you, Bish), but the second- and third-order effects of protecting other editors is to enable toxic environments, drive off new contributors, and ultimately contribute to the decline in editor retention that Sue Gardner talks about here. There's nothing vengeful or punitive here, just dispassionate analysis of the findings, consequences, and implications. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The dispassionata analysis by WMF is concerned about the rise of templating as a main culprit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC).
 * ... And if that were an issue before us as a committee at the moment, I would be addressing it as well. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Casliber, yes. However, haranguing me and people like me as contributing to enabling toxic environments, driving off new contributors, and ultimately contributing to the decline in editor retention appears to be Jclemens's own dispassionate analysis.


 * @Jclemens: I do understand your points, and as I said, I won't address them further; I don't want this to become more of a pitched battle than it is already, and we have both expressed our views sufficiently. However, although I said I was done.. now that I've read your resounding conclusion, where you get tolerably personal, even to the point of echoing Jimbo Wales' notorious accusation of me here (unapologetic withdrawal of "toxic personalities" in favour of "toxic environment" here and here) and this 2009 RFAR, I'll just mention something personal, too (about myself, not you). Perhaps too personal in this forum, but what the hell. If you had clicked on my contribs or my talkpage before (generously) saluting me as one of the "amazing content contributors", you'd probably have noticed that it's been a long time since I contributed any content at all, or much of anything else, being as I am convalescent after a long-time illness followed by some big-ass major surgery. I don't mean you ought to have clicked on those! — there's certainly no obligation do that before replying in a discussion — I just thought I might clarify here that the perception of me as a contributor of quality content (which has become something of a cliché in those limited circles who are aware of me at all) is out of date, pehaps obsolete. Just as Orangemarlin's days of protecting the wiki against our indefatigable pseudoscientific SPAs (and frequently losing his temper in the process) are, well, at least in abeyance. Try not to tell people again that you feel sorry for them for their misconceptions. Do you really call that "civility and mutual respect"? Being an arbitrator doesn't entitle you to unlimited condescension. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Indeed, I don't routinely review other users' pages unless there's a particular reason to do so, nor do I review recent accolades or activity trends. Neither condescension nor irony was intended, and it would be hypocritical of me to hold anyone else's reduced encyclopedic contributions against them. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Principle 17
I've been reading over principle 17, and it just doesn't seem to fit. I understand boilerplate principles are often used, but in this instance don't feel the principle supports the remedies imposed. With the current remedy, it basically states that it's not ArbCom's job to settle content disputes (which is true) but at the same time, remedy 5 or 5.1 is a way that ArbCom is settling this content dispute. Might I suggest my proposed principle from Workshop, which actually was the principle used in the Ireland article names arbitration case. For convenience, the proposed principle, which can be copied in to the PD for voting, would be:

Role of the Arbitration Committee
17.1) The occurrence of protracted, apparently insoluble disputes—whether they involve conduct, content, or policy—is contrary to the purposes of the project and damaging to its health. The chief purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to protect the project from the disruption caused by such disputes, and it has the authority to issue binding resolutions in keeping with that purpose.

''The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. However, in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision.''

I feel that it is more appropriate given the circumstances, and the similarities of the proposed remedies compared to the Ireland article names case. We have an issue here that we have been unable to resolve using conventional methods of content dispute resolution, and all other avenues have been exhausted, making the proposed resolution method necessary. The current principle I don't feel supports the proposed remedy, and I feel that my alternative does. Regards, Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  08:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Err, it has - as a remedy, remedy 5 (and 5.1). The method isn't an exceptionally exceptional one, just advising that more structure is needed and to try it one last time. I don't think the way this works needs a principle to support it as such. Casliber (talk · contribs)


 * I am a little confused. We have remedies 5 and 5.1, but principle 17 doesn't really seem to fit th remedy. In the Ireland article names case, where this principle was used, a remedy was decided that a discussion would take place, with the decision being binding for 2 years. We have a similar situation here. It seems to fit the situation, IMO. Do you disagree?  Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  09:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the place I first brought a remedy such as this up was at Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria, where I tacked it on the end and we didn't have a direct principle for it. My own view is that inserting a principle to support the remedy at this stage is unnecessary, as dispute resolution and problem solving is part of what we do. But others may have a different view. We'll see if anyone else comments here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I more saw it as the existing principle somewhat contradicting the remedy. In a nutshell, the principle states that ArbCom does not deal with content disputes, though the remedy is indirectly doing just that. This principle just seems to fit better.
 * On another note, I have noticed a serious error in FoF 1. While I have noticed typos, the main error is in the title names. It states: ...In essence, support for "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" citing WP:COMMONNAME as a guidline, or Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion citing, in the main, WP:POVTITLE.
 * This is incorrect. The arguments were between the titles Pro-choice movement and Pro-life movement, with supporters citing WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE. The alternative was Abortion-rights movement and Anti-abortion movement, supporters mainly citing WP:NPOV, though WP:COMMONNAME was also cited. The current titles, Support for/Opposition to legalized abortion, were two titles I came up with and proposed at MedCab in what I felt to be a compromise between the two. This needs to be looked at and fixed up. I'll take a look at the rest later. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  10:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Steve, the remedy is not arbcom dealing with content but directing the community to do so. The suggestion was that Pro-life and Pro-choice had problems if WP:POVTITLE applies, hence the detractors were using the policy to show how and why the names were invalid. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I apologise for being disagreeable here Cas. I still feel this principle is more valid than the current one. ArbCom is indirectly dealing with the content issue, indeed, while not making a ruling on the content itself but setting up a structured discussion which the end result will be binding for three years (the "exceptional method" referred to in the proposed principle). This principle just seems to fit better, and there is precedent to use this alternative. Part of the problem here is that the community has no binding resolution for content disputes, so I intend to deal with this issue at an RFC or at the VP. As for the second part of your comment, I'm scratching my head by what you mean, but perhaps that's due to it being 1.30am. Could you clarify? I am still seeing the issues with FoF 1. It needs to be rewritten to present the facts accurately, and another FoF, perhaps "Previous discussions" should be written, outlining the previous move discussions as well as thw Medcab, etc. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  14:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Aaah right, I see what you mean. My bad - I missed a step which I hope to have remedied with this edit Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Almost, but not quite. Change to "...In essence, support for "Pro-life movement" and "Pro-choice movement" citing WP:COMMONNAME amd WP:POVTITLE as guidelines, or Abortion-rights movement and Anti-abortion movement citing WP:NPOV but also WP:COMMONNAME." Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  22:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Another, perhaps more helpful way of putting it is that ArbCom doesn't make content rulings, but certainly can deal with content problems. We're not trying to say which names are right for the articles, but we're providing a method by which this determination can be made (and then kept stable for long enough that the dust settles). &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct, we're not trying to answer what the name for the article SHOULD be, we're just setting up a framework by which the community can come to a decision, and then enforcing that it stay that way for a while to give folks a break from the endless arguments. SirFozzie (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I thought, Coren. Outside of ArbCom, perhaps a binding RFC or something is an option we need to add to our methods of DR, and I'll think it over for a few days. I feel this principle details arbcom's ability to set up such bindings discussions as opposed to the current one. On one hand, the principle states ArbCom doesn't settle content issues/problems, on the other hand, the remedy does just that in a way, by setting up this discussion. Its up to you guys. I'm more bothered about FoF 1, though. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  14:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have added it. As it doesn't conflict with 17, I have numbered it 18. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Steven, do these changes address your concern? John Vandenberg (chat) 10:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost. The arguments for anti-abortion/abortion-rights movement cited NPOV as well as COMMONNAME, not POVTITLE. POVTITLE was cited by those supporting Pro-life/Pro-choice.  Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  14:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * POVTITLE was also cited by the opposers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind pointing out where you read that? I may have missed it, but most of those in favor of anti-abortion/abortion rights cited NPOV as well as common name. I only saw POVTITLE referred to by those supporting pro-life/choice. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  20:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I cant see it either. POVTITLE is a component of the COMMONNAME policy, which justifies using POV-laden titles when they are the "common" name.  I can't see anyone saying that "Abortion-rights movement" and "Anti-abortion movement" are more POV than Pro-life and Pro-choice—quite the opposite actually.  I have removed this summary of the arguments. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I can't find the exact diff that added it but if you look at an older version of the page from September, and look under Non-neutral but common names, you'll see an explanation of why pro-life and pro-choice aren't used because of criterion 3 there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was added here, on August 14, as a result of this discussion. I note however that this inclusion was done after the MedCab case was closed, and after the titles had been moved to the ones I suggested. Dunno if that changes anything, though. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  04:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh great, another wall of text....ok hang on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, POVTITLE is not in out findings on the PD page, so I don't see that anything needs to change. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, John removed mentions of policies cited from the PD, so I think this issue is settled. There's still 5.1 that needs to be addressed, though. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  20:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright already :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation
ArbCom seems to be inclined to say that I have "manipulated" sources to advance a POV. This is a completely false accusation, and seems to be based on some accusations regarding Black's Law Dictionary that MastCell made after he already exhausted his 500-word limit on evidence. Because that evidence was presented by MastCell after I already reached my 500-word limit, I have not had an opportunity to present counter-evidence. I specifically asked ArbCom whether I could do so many days ago, and was not allowed to do so. So all I will say is that the charge is utterly false and baseless. I will add that the charge is not in good faith, it omits evidence that would very obviously disprove it, and I am very sad to see ArbCom fall so easily for it. WP:Honesty bars omission of exculpating evidence, but apparently no one cares about that: "Withholding of information that contradicts other information, or filtering out data-points that do not match one's assumptions, is dishonesty by omission."

Therefore, as things stand now, I consider this proceeding to be something of a farce.

I also deny that I edited any policy to advance my position in a content dispute. I edited the policy to clarify it based on experience. After the policy edit had been reviewed and modified by a neutral editor, and when (to my surprise), there was still a dispute at the article in question twenty days later, I did allude to the policy edit, but if ArbCom believes that it still would have been improper even if twenty years had passed instead of twenty days, then I suggest you put that in a policy somewhere to make people aware. Regarding the part of my policy edit that I later referred to at the article talk page, I see you have not bothered to mention that MastCell reviewed it and found it acceptable (unlike another part of my policy edit which he removed).

If this proceeding were remotely impartial, it seems to me that you might have mentioned that the ArbCom sanction in 2007 did not include any block or ban, and my record has been completely clean since then: no blocks or bans, et cetera regarding this topic area for more than four years. But of course, such information would not support a permanent topic ban, now would it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your editing on abortion-related topics was raised at WP:AE several times after your previous ArbCom case:
 * December 2007: The reviewing admin, AGK, actually banned you: "It has now become clear that Ferrylodge is editing the Roe v. Wade article in an attitude that is having a derogatory and negative effect on the article... In my capacity as a neutral, uninvolved administrator, and in accordance with the (ArbCom remedy), I instigate a ban on Ferrylodge from that article for disruptive editing: he simply is harming this article." He elaborated that he was concerned by "the entire atmosphere around your editing, over both a recent and long period of time". However, you were let off the hook with a promise to be good in the future ; the details were apparently worked out by IRC or email.
 * February 2008: I brought a complaint about a series of increasingly combative and disruptive posts. You were let off the hook because the behavior in question was confined to the talk page, and it was determined that your sanction applied only to article-space.
 * February 2009: Tznkai brought a complaint about your behavior on Talk:Abortion. You responded that you were simply "opposing blatant and politically motivated censorship", adding: "No one forced Tznkai to engage in a talk page discussion with me. Apparently she did not enjoy the discussion. Nor did I." One admin (Shell Kinney) opined that you were "stepping over the line in a few places", but "the stepping over the line was all into the realm of incivility and personal attacks and not in ways that would trigger the Arb case." A second admin, Sandstein, saw nothing in the complaint that would trigger sanctions . You responded by reiterating that the lack of a image of an abortus in the article was the "worst kind of propagandist whitewashing", and you pledged to keep pushing to include such an image. And you have, for more than 4 years now.
 * You've also been blocked twice for edit-warring in the interim on other U.S. political/culture-war topics (Mitt Romney and Clarence Thomas). So while it is technically correct to say that no blocks or bans were logged, the backstory is a bit more complex, and arguably indicative of a long-term issue. MastCell Talk 19:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * MastCell, I am retired, and with much happiness after our years-long interaction at multiple articles. Yes, I have had to deal with unsuccessful accusations from you (and from some others) in the past, and you can amass a very impressive-looking list of them, as you always do.  But as I said, I have not been blocked or banned in the topic area in more than four years, which my block log plainly shows.  Your accusations against me regarding "manipulation" of sources are contrary to WP:Honesty, totally baseless and immune from rebuttal, and now you have your victory, so let it rest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Talking about omission of facts, in this edit to a policy page you note in the edit summary that it is "pertinent to an article I edited today" which looking at your contribs that day was abortion. Now at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence you're downplaying the connection in an argument which appears (to me anyway) of being circular). I am sorry but I don't buy it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The title of this talk page section refers to the following unanimous finding of ArbCom which you now elide: "He has manipulated sources to present a POV contra sourcing guidelines." This charge is outrageously false.  The link that ArbCom gives is to an incident regarding Black's Law Dictionary.  ArbCom has refused to respond to my request that I be allowed to provide evidence about this incident at the evidence page, so I've emailed you a bit of the evidence today.  There was nothing remotely, vaguely, tangentially inappropriate in my conduct there.  Nothing happened.  ArbCom and MastCell can string together all the impressive-looking diffs you want, and it amounts to zero. The other editor involved in that discussion THANKED ME for correcting his misquote of Black's, which is all that happened there.  I never objected to quoting a more recent edition of that book, and I also explained at the article talk page many weeks ago that I quoted the 1979 edition because that's the one I own.  ArbCom's unanimous trumped-up accusation on this score is devoid of anything approaching substance.  It's absolute blithering nonsense on stilts.
 * Regarding the policy edit that you refer to, at least I can understand why that could raise a doubt or two on your part. I have never denied that it was motivated by my experience at the abortion article.  On the contrary, I explicitly said here at the workshop that "I have edited only one policy page related to anything about abortion".  I haven't tried to downplay that the abortion article motivated the policy edit.
 * I have been admonished in the past not to edit policy pages based on mere hypotheticals, and ever since then I have always tried to do so based on hard experience. My intent was simply to improve this policy, not to affect anything at the abortion article.
 * If I do edit Wikipedia ever again, I will make sure to never cite or mention a policy edit that I myself have made to any policy, except at that policy page and associated talk page. I am not aware that such a requirement is written anywhere in Wikipedia policy, but I would be more than happy to impose it on myself, or have it imposed by ArbCom.
 * I was up front at the policy page that the edit was motivated by an article I edited. Subsequently, a neutral uninvolved editor reviewed the policy edit, and modified it a bit.  Ultimately, three weeks passed.  To my surprise, the dispute was still ongoing at the abortion talk page.  So perhaps foolishly I alluded to the policy edit, in support of keeping the word "death" until there's consensus what to change it to; I supported changing "death" to "demise", so I figured perhaps naively that the policy edit was not in support of my position in the content dispute.  I hadn't intended or planned to cite the policy edit at the article talk page, and that intent formed three weeks after the policy edit --- and when I did so it was after a neutral editor had reviewed it, and it was in support of someone else's position (and against my own position) in the content dispute.
 * Look, obviously if I had to do it over again I wouldn't cause all this trouble by citing my own policy edit. But from what I hear ArbCom saying, the policy edit itself wasn't problematic, but rather that I cited it three weeks later, which leads me to ask (again) whether I was forbidden forever from citing it?  After three weeks had passed, I decided to treat this provision of policy like any other, but maybe I was mistaken to do so.
 * If you're interested, you can look at the history of the policy page, and see that MastCell objected to (and removed) a part of my edit other than the part I had already cited at the article talk page. So, the policy snippet that I alluded to at the article talk page was very obviously not some outrageous self-serving policy edit, but rather could be construed (even by someone who is not exactly in love with me) as plausibly valid.  And before I even alluded to my policy edit at the article talk page (as I mentioned above) another neutral uninvolved editor (not MastCell) had reviewed and slightly modified the policy edit to improve it.
 * Anyway, I remain extremely outraged by ArbCom's gross misreading of the discussion regarding Black's Law Dictionary. I didn't remotely manipulate any source, and no careful reader could possibly reach any other conclusion.  I also find it outrageous that my request to provide evidence was ignored by ArbCom, and that you apparently assign no weight whatsoever to the fact that I received no blocks or bans in this topic area during the 2007 ArbCom sanction or in the four years since.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Remedy 5.1
Having a look over the remedy, it doesn't seem to acknowledge all the issues with the previously proposed article titles. My main concern is this sentence. "During that time, editors should collect systematic evidence of the frequency with which various names for these topics are used in various English-speaking countries and present that evidence in an organised, structured and easy to navigate manner.".

It seems a bit narrow to me. The arguments for and against the Pro-life/choice vs Abortion-rights/Anti-abortion were varied. How common the names were was only one of the arguments presented, among others. Perhaps the remedy could be altered to just detail that there would be a discussion and evidence should be presented for their preferred title, along with the policies that support it. Allowing only the presentation of evidence as to how commonly a proposed title is used doesn't allow for compromises (such as the one I proposed and was implemented at MedCab), which is a completely uncommon name for the articles but takes into account neutrality and the evidence that I went through and was presented with at MedCab, that in my observations showed that there was no clear common name. I take a teeny bit of offence to the italicisation of the word structured. It suggests that the MedCab case was unstrucutred. On reflection, I don't think it was that disorganised. It may have been structured differently to how some here would do it, but I don't feel that's any reason to call it unstructured. Regards, Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  21:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed completely, common-ness shouldn't be the only criterion. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The remedy mandates that one type of evidence is collected and presented. If there are other useful sets of data needed to make an informed decision, they should be collected and presented too. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but the wording of the remedy somewhat indicates that only evidence on the commonness of the article titles should be presented. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  02:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

O-kay, how about adding the bolded bit then:


 * During that time, editors should collect systematic evidence of the frequency with which various names for these topics are used in various English-speaking countries, as well as any other material which is relevant to the appropriateness of any proposed title, and present that evidence in an organised, structured and easy to navigate manner.

does that cover it? It was not structured enough Steve, not anyone's fault, but sometimes needs more.Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, that would work. Eh, perhaps it wasn't structured enough. Not really worth debating over. Either way, I've proposed a process we could perhaps implement to stop this sort of mess (and a three month arbitration case) happening again. You'll find that at Wikipedia_talk:ARBCOM. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  03:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeated discussion
Perhaps a more nuanced version would be to include something to the effect that the more recent a consensus the less likely it is to change in the absence of significant new evidence or changes in facts. Alternatively, or perhaps additionally, I think the whole "repeated discussion is disruptive" vs "consensus can change" can be expressed pseudo-mathematically as "The length of time since the previous discussion multiplied by the number of new and changed arguments is inversely proportional to the likelihood of a new discussion being seen as disruptive."

While not strictly a linear relationship, I think it works as a rule of thumb. If there is (almost) no time since the last discussion and/or there are (almost) no new arguments then there is a near zero chance of consensus changing, so the discussion is almost certainly going to be seen as disruptive (unless started by a new user in good faith). Conversely, if the last discussion was some time ago and there are a significant number of changed facts/more evidence/different arguments then while consensus might not change, it's unlikely to be seen as disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was beginning to think we needed something after John's oppose, I suspect we arbs are all reading an implied "recent" into it, which might need to be spelled out....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"broadly construed"
This phrase bothers me, as it appears that I and a bunch of other pro-life editors are soon to be at its mercy. Could I, for instance, edit the page History of the United States in the future? - Haymaker (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The way "broadly construed" is meant to be read is "broadly but reasonably" (it's a fairly standard phrase in these decisions). If you're editing History of the United States, it's obviously reasonable to write about McCullough v. Maryland or Robert E. Lee. If you're editing the section about the 1970s, it would be fine to write about the Vietnam War. You should avoid writing about Roe v. Wade or NARAL though. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nicely summed up NW. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Legit. If that's the way things go I like to think I'm a good judge of what is reasonable but look where I am now.  If I have periodic questions as to where that line is could I trouble arbitrators with them? - Haymaker (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be that you not explore the edges. There's only more trouble there, and there are plenty of other things to write about. PhGustaf (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I like to think that I have a few things to contribute to this encyclopedia, some in subject areas that overlap. - Haymaker (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Clarification is available for genuine, necessary requests for clarification. It should not, however, be overused. Common sense, though seemingly in short supply some days, is the best guide for this type of issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "common" in "common sense" seems today to be construed as meaning ordinary or unremarkable, but of course, its origin more accurately comes from those ideas which are held "in common" by all parties. But the inability to identify points of common thinking between the parties on this issue is the entire reason we are here.  Accordingly, anyone hoping that "common sense" will or should provide guidance to the partisans on either side of this issue will almost certainly be disappointed. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard
Can I ask why User:Anthony Appleyard isn't included here? Surely his administrative actions at the articles were, at a minimum, questionable. I'm not asking for him to be de-sysoped or blocked or anything (I don't want that for anyone) but it should at least be addressed. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I included him as a party to the case, looked at the actions he took and his other edit history, and decided that his mistakes were not unreasonable, although they were unfortunate and unhelpful, so I drafted an "Administrators reminded" remedy, which was then firmed up a bit as an "administrators instructed" alternative, which has passed. Anthony Appleyard isn't the only party to this case whose mistakes did not rise to the level of being named and sanctioned. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the explanation. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)