Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Standard. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neutral point of view

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

Support:

1. Again Standard, but one of the key points in this case, that in some cases NPOV has not been reached at any time. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Article sourcing

3) Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. This is arguably overstated in some situations, but the essence is sound. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Misuse of sourcing

4) Misuse of sourcing guidelines by editors in a field is highly problematic. This is so not least because it can throw all past contributions to the area into question. Reviewing past contributions for compliance with sourcing guidelines can be extremely time-consuming and is hence a considerable drain on editor time and resources.

Support:

1. ... Once someone starts misusing sources to push a POV, I find it impossible to trust their editing any more. It is one of the things that can poison the well of good faith. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. This is a new one, and one that I'm not sure is optimally worded, but the sentiment is sound: don't WP:GAME, or even outright falsify, sources or AGF goes out the window. Many Wikipedia sins can be forgiven, but twisting the truth is fundamentally incompatible with our mission. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Per JClemens,   Roger Davies ^talk 22:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. I think that misuse of sources the the greatest encyclopedic "sin" there can be. The foundation of the reliability of our articles is that the content is supported by references, and represents what the authorities in a field are stating on the subject. Misrepresenting sources to push an agenda while hiding under apparent references is an act of academic dishonesty that has no place in a repository of knowledge. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Consensus

5) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to any and all pages on Wikipedia, from articles to templates to project space.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Conduct and decorum

6) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I recognize that it must be extraordinarily hard for editors with strong views about abortion to live up to these strictures in such an emotionally charged area as this one—and yet the very intensity of feelings that surrounds every aspect of the abortion controversy makes it essential that they use their best efforts to do so. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Dispute resolution

7) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked, or when discussion has broken down. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process through discussion, collaboration and consideration, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict and using the dispute resolution processes to game the system is not an appropriate way of resolving conduct disputes.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fair criticism and personal attacks

8) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia, as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Edit Warring

9) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Support:

1. I always describe it as an engine. You run it above the redline (3RR) and you will almost always end up with a busted engine (blocked). Run it too close to the red line for too long (editwarring but abiding by the letter of 3rr if not the spirit), you may also end up with a busted engine (blocked). SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I never describe it as an engine. More seriously, I'm not sure this isn't overstated; there are some situations (even outside BLP) when it is necessary or appropriate to remove "clearly problematic content" as often as it appears. But those situations aren't part of this case, and the essence of the principle is sound. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Talk pages

10) The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject, nor for proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, and so forth (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Although more general discussion may be permissible in some circumstances, it will not be tolerated when it becomes tendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwise disruptive.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. (I might suggest a minor copyedit to "will not be tolerated".) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. With really trivial CE,   Roger Davies ^talk 22:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Policy pages

11) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are meant to codify existing best practices. While edits to policy pages are often prompted by specific editing experiences, it is inappropriate to alter policy pages to further one's position in a specific dispute.

Support:

1. Inappropriate to say the least. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. To change a policy page, and link to the newly changed policy, is completely unacceptable behavior. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. While I support this, the longer the separation between the edit and the argument, the less problematic the linking. I, for example, routinely make a habit of linking to essays I've written in talk page discussions: part of the reason I wrote them was so I wouldn't have to restate my opinions on a matter. It's not a big jump to imagine that if I pushed through a policy clarification I'd cite it in every applicable context. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Single purpose accounts

12) Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Per my comment on paragraph 6. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Lead sections

13) In accordance with WP:LEAD, the opening paragraphs of a Wikipedia article should be an "introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects", "able to stand alone as a concise overview", and "written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article." While the lead of an article, or its first sentence in particular, is an important facet of an article to improve, improvements to the lead of an article should fundamentally flow from the content of the article, itself compliant with Wikipedia content policies, and not from efforts to advance any particular point of view.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. New formulation, but one that should not be particularly novel in scope or meaning. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Topics covering multiple perspectives

14) While many articles deal solely with scientific content or with philosophical/religious content, many public policy topics, including abortion, involve both descriptions of scientifically observable facts and religious or philosophical reactions to those observable findings. In order for a topic to be covered in an encyclopedic fashion, each sort of source must be used appropriately in such an article. Care must be taken with weighting and appropriate use of sources, such as avoiding undue prominence in the lead section or elsewhere.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Minor copyedit, added link. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. My wording, and one of the key things I wanted to get across when I volunteered to draft this case. Ultimately, however, this is nothing more than a specific instantiation of our general expectations of civility, dialogue, and comprehensiveness in sourcing. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Indeed, a lede is almost never the appropriate place for complicated discussion of secondary aspects of a topic. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Offensive Content

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.

Support:

1. The value of the information must be weighed carefully. The information must be germaine and useful to the article. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. 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) reply
3. I would have preferred a stronger statement that the community has a long-standing position of taking a dim view of attempts to bowdlerize the pictures in Wikipedia, (c.f. the workshop) but that did not have support among the rest of the committee. I'll note that the verbiage here is drawn verbatim from our policy and guideline pages on the topic. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. The encyclopedic value of the content and its relevance to the article is what that really counts. - Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. I agree that "being objectionable" isn't grounds to include or exclude contents. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. While I fully understand and can agree with the core of what is being said here, I fear that it sets up a false dichotomy. Depending on circumstances, material may not be appropriate to include in an article because it is offensive or objectionable. This does not, of course, mean that material (images or text) that anyone, or even any group, find disturbing or offensive or objectionable must necessarily be excluded; it does mean that the off-putting nature of such material to some readers and potential readers is one relevant factor in making a consensus-driven editorial decision as to what to present and how. In other words, WP:NOTCENSORED, often cited in such contexts, is the beginning rather than the end of a discussion. I will try to formulate an alternative version of this principle. See also related discussion on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Weakly - I don't see this as germane to any findings below, and feel this unnecessarily complicates an otherwise more straightforward review of what is encyclopedic vs unencyclopedic. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. I think this comes off as overly proscriptive compared to general principles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. This is attempting to reduce the complexity of editorial judgment to a single criterion. The fact that certain material is "objectionable" may not be a valid reason for removing it in and of itself and when the material is considered in isolation; but, in most practical scenarios—for example, when selecting one of two items that are otherwise equally germane and useful—editors may indeed choose to consider the objectionable nature of one of the items as a factor when determining which is to be used in an article. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Per David and Kirill,   Roger Davies ^talk 22:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Per Casliber. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain

Comments:

Repeated discussion

16) Subsequent attempts at discussion of a topic previously settled by community discussion are often initiated by those not initially achieving their desired outcome. Those satisfied with the previous outcome are less likely to re-engage in subsequent discussions, creating an inappropriate bias toward change in subsequent discussions of the topic.

Support:

1. argumentum ad nauseam, if you'll forgive my poorly constructed fake-Latin. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Also, the constant disagreement exhausts existing editors and puts off new editors from venturing into this area. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I'll support for now, but I may try to formulate a more nuanced version, balancing the tension between the need to avoid repetitious discussion and going over old ground (even when new users come to a page), and recognizing the precept that sometimes consensus can change. Would the formulation we adopted here possibly be a useful addition here? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Still haven't figured out a good way to deal with this that also allows for WP:CCC. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Consensus can change. It's just not going to change by repeated rehashing of the same argumentation over and over again, especially when the issues are the same and entrenched positions are imported from the "real world". —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. It is also often argued that prior 'consensus' decisions become entrenched and are a bias for the status quo. These competing elements need to be subjected to analysis and weighed accordingly before we declare that one side has an advantage. A more nuanced version is needed otherwise this will be used against constructive attempts to ignite change. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

   On the substance of this comment, I agree. I think the version of this we've used in the past (linked in my comment above) is more nuanced, and I'd ask that this wording be read in the context of that one. But we shouldn't frankly overestimate the extent to which the editing community hangs on every nuance of the principles we adopt; and in that context it's not worth holding this overlong case open for another week while we re-vote this. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

   This principle is too declarative, without evidence. I am happy to merely be the dissenting view so that future arbitrators need to view this PD before re-using the wording that ends up adopted in this case. However if we wanted to address it quickly, this principle could be moved to a FoF and revised such that "a topic" is replaced with "pro-choice and pro-life", resulting in a declaration about one single topic rather than a general principle about the project. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

17) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

1. We focus on conDUCT not conTENT, mostly. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Agree, we deal with user conduct, not article content. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 20:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. With a strong emphasis on good-faith. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. This is the wording we often used, and it isnt worth putting forward a new wording at present, so I am supporting. However the comments on the talk page demonstrate why this principle needs to be rewritten next time. It is bad form to define something by what it is 'not' (the title of this principle should be changed) and the focus should be that arbritration is not intended to be a venue to relitigate the content dispute, and the arbitration committee should avoid trying to resolve the content dispute. It is our role to address past bad behaviour in content disputes, and to ensure the ongoing content dispute is carried out in line with our policies and best practises, and to provide tools for admins to better manage bad behaviour in the future. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

    I'd be glad in the future to consider a better-worded or better-thought-out articulation of the principle, if proposed. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Guiding the community in protracted disputes

18) 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.

Support

1. procedural principle which supports remedy 5/5.1 below. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Works. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Jclemens ( talk) 00:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Agree with this. Obviously, the emphasis is on the word 'method' - the committee doesn't impose a content decision, but can establish a framework to enable the community to resolve the content dispute. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. noting that the decision on the content itself does not come from the Committee. All we are providing is the latticework for the editors to settle this dispute via RfC and then to keep that nomenclature for a time. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. nice addition. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. This is a good addition to the decision. As a proposed copyedit, in the heading, I would prefer "Guiding" to "Directing". Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Nicely put. I'm also entirely in agreement with Brad's suggestion (or perhaps "Helping the community in protracted disputes", if we want something even less sonorous).   Roger Davies ^talk 16:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed_decision#Role_of_the_Arbitration_Committee - this principle is not at odds with principle 17, and can hence be numbered 18. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Changed to "Guiding...", considered "Shepherding..", "Herding..", "Steering..."... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Locus of disagreement

1) This case addresses longstanding disputes regarding editing of articles on the topic-area of abortion. Specific disputes in this area have included at least three separate areas:

• Move discussions concerning the articles formerly titled "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice", commencing on or about 3 February 2011, lately resulting in a Mediation Cabal case where Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion was a compromise solution. It is to be noted that the evidence about the frequency of the terms used in the US and other English-speaking countries was presented in a somewhat unorganized manner.
• Edit warring over the image(s) contained in Abortion commencing on or about 11 May 2011.
• Edit warring over the inclusion of the word "death" in the lead sentence of Abortion commencing on or about 8 June 2011.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. (Added "longstanding".) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. ... with deleting some stray italics. Jclemens ( talk) 04:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. I've removed the attempt to summarise the arguments made at MedCab [1]. I also don't like the last sentence about organisation of the evidence, as this MedCab isn't particularly unorganised. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 21:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discretionary sanctions adopted by the community

2) Since 26 February, 2011, the entire topic area has been placed under discretionary sanctions by the community: ANI discussion Before the commencement of this case, 7 editors had been sanctioned: Log, including User:WikiManOne/ User:BelloWello who has been banned from the encyclopedia for disruption.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Copyedited the title. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Jclemens ( talk) 04:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 12:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Banned user participation

3) During the period of time under review, at least one sockpuppet of a previously banned user had been contributing to the discussion at Talk:Abortion in violation of that ban. (cf. Talk:Abortion/Archive_43)

Support:

1. As has this case. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I'm not sure a separate finding on this is necessary, but it is a true statement. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. This provides the justification for semi-protection of relevant articles, NYB. Jclemens ( talk) 05:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. It goes to show the continuing disruption. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The editing by User talk:67.233.18.28 is also worth mentioning as justification for limiting discussion to confirmed users. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 12:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Orangemarlin's conduct

4) User:Orangemarlin has been repeatedly uncivil on Talk:Abortion: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The incivility towards specific editors extends to his talk page: [8], [9]. Orangemarlin edit warred, violating 1RR on the first sentence: First revert [10] Second revert, 3:40 later with a deceptive edit summary [11]. Orangemarlin participated in the edit war over image content in Abortion: [12].

Support:

1. It saddens me that so much of the committee is unwilling to call egregious behavior... egregious. Orangemarlin was made aware of the case, and declined to participate. Off-wiki reality does not excuse yet another clearly "guilty" (inasmuch as this is not a real judicial proceeding, yet evidence is presented and fault is being assessed) party escaping a just and appropriate reward for their behavior. Likewise, I am aware of past ArbCom conflicts with Orangemarlin, but that was substantially before my time and no factor, for good or ill, in my assessment of Orangemarlin's behavior. If we can't sanction Orangemarlin--no, wait, if we can't even come to the agreement that his behavior was entirely inappropriate and inexcusable--then we really have no moral authority to sanction any other party in these disputes. Jclemens ( talk) 05:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. While it may represent a valid reason to tailor a remedy to the circumstances, I don't agree that being unable to participate in a case is, in itself, a sufficient reason to avoid making appropriate findings of facts – especially when the editor unable to participate is but one of many parties. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. I think that while extenuating circumstances suggest a lack of remedies on this topic, the finding of fact is valid. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 20:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Let's call this spade a bloody shovel. His medical situation is not relevant to finding that his behaviour was completely out of order, given that in this case the problematic thing the actual words he used on wiki, not any subtle and arcane thinking behind them that we can't ask him about. His medical situation may be relevant to deciding on a sanction. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Given Orangemarlin's absence for the past several months and other aspects of the situation, I do not think it warranted to include a finding about him. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply

   I understand Jclemens' position as he has expressed it and I respectfully but completely disagree with it, for reasons I believe should be clear to anyone aware of the relevant circumstances. I will be supporting the remedy appropriately tailored to the unusual and unfortunate situation. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

2. Per Brad. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Per Brad.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. While I dont doubt that this is accurate in so far as it goes, our findings should be based on a holistic analysis of the situation at the time. The only mention of "civil" on /Evidence is about FerryLodge; nobody on /Evidence claims Orangemarlin is uncivil. In addition Orangemarlin has been unable to participate in this case, so we cant make an informed decision taking into account his own 'defense'. Further to this the arbitration committee often takes into account when an editor shows an appreciation for their mistake and declares that they intend to rectify this; again without Orangemarlin having had an opportunity to do this during the case, it would be inappropriate for the committee to refuse to give Orangemarlin the opportunity to provide some input into the arbitration process. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Recused on Orangemarlin, due to past interaction. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. I've supported remedy 6.2, and consequently I'm abstaining here. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. I've supported remedy 6.2, and consequently I'm abstaining here. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. As per remedy 6.2 - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments:

John Vandenberg, are you suggesting that a case finding be limited to what parties actually post on /evidence? That certainly seems like a novel interpretation to me. Did you see that one editor was criticized on /evidence for tarring all the editors who disagreed with him with Orangemarlin's misconduct? I'll note that the evidence on Orangemarlin was posted to /workshop for weeks before being included in the proposed decision, without objection, and 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. Jclemens ( talk) 14:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

I do prefer FoFs to be based on the /Evidence, and note that arbitrators do add /Evidence from time to time in order to fill in the blanks esp. where there is insufficient participation in the case. While Orangemarlin is back now, we do not want to keep this case open to allow the parties to submit and respond to new /Evidence. We can look at this aspect whenever he wants to return to this topical area of the project. The last part of this FoF was contested on the Workshop. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Michael C Price's conduct

5) User:Michael C Price has been repeatedly uncivil on Talk:Abortion: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Jclemens ( talk) 05:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. I think this editor's intention is to edit within policy, but a pattern of inflammatory comments is especially unhelpful when it comes to a deeply sensitive topic-area like this one. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. per NYB John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 12:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Michael and I were previously involved in an editing dispute, so I'll recuse. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Gandydancer's conduct

6) User:Gandydancer has repeatedly used uncivil hyperbole and sarcasm in discussions at Talk:Abortion: [20], [21], [22].

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Jclemens ( talk) 05:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Similar comment to 5. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Not helpful, but it is a fairly common form of exasperation. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Anythingyouwant's conduct

7) Anythingyouwant, under his previous username Ferrylodge, has been previously sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee in November 2007 for his involvement in Abortion-related disputes. The basis for this included disruptive editing at pregnancy and abortion related articles. [23] [24] He has manipulated sources to present a POV contra sourcing guidelines. [25] He has edited the page on consensus on July 10 [26], giving the reason for an article he edited that day (presumably abortion which was the only contentious one [27], and then referred to it-as-policy 20 days later, hence manipulating policy pages to further a point in a dispute. [28] The policy change was removed by KillerChihuahua. [29]

Support:

1. (In Arbitration-relation disputes), should this be abortion-related?) SirFozzie ( talk) 15:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply

   So modified. Jclemens ( talk) 05:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply

2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Jclemens ( talk) 05:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. I have reservations about one of the diffs, but that doesn't affect the thrust of the finding. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Support with reservations. I'm willing to accept that the policy change was not malicious, however it was not ideal. When the policy was mentioned in the dispute, it should have been better described as a recent addition to policy, without discussion on the policy talk page, and added by the participant in the dispute. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC) I've added "The policy change was removed by KillerChihuahua." John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

NYyankees51's conduct

8) NYyankees has engaged in an exchange that suggests a battlefield mentality. [30]

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Jclemens ( talk) 05:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Though I think this finding would benefit substantially from the addition of additional diffs or evidence; I am reluctant to base it on what could, from the citation, be an isolated or stay content. I also don't particular care for the terminology of "battlefield mentality" that appears in some of our decisions, though that is just a longstanding semantic preference on my part. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Insufficient evidence. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 12:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Geremia's conduct

9) Geremia ( talk · contribs) has edit-warred [31] [32], in one case edit-warring to keep material at odds with secondary sources [33] in violation of medical article sourcing policies, and elsewhere pushed for sourcing at variance with sourcing guidelines in medical articles [34] (namely pitting primary sources against secondary sources), and used tagging inappropriately [35]. For a fuller explanation see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_NuclearWarfare.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Jclemens ( talk) 05:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. As with some of the other paragraphs, I don't necessarily agree with each and every diff cited, but I do agree that there is an issue here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 12:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

DMSBel's conduct

10) DMSBel ( talk · contribs) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages. He has engaged in a battlefield mentality, [36] [37] [38] including edit warring [39] [40], and tendentious editing on the talk page, [41] with a total of 686 edits to talk:abortion between June and September 2011. [42] DMSBel ( talk · contribs) has a history of tendentious editing on topics related to human sexuality, leading to a community topic ban from those areas in January 2011. [43]

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Jclemens ( talk) 05:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. I can endorse the overall thrust of the finding, but I do not place heavy reliance on the community discussion from January. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. per NYB John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Haymaker's conduct

11) Haymaker ( talk · contribs) has edited disruptively in topics related to abortion (see block log [44])

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Jclemens ( talk) 05:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Noting Casliber's comment,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Support taking into account the additional material discussed by Casliber on the talkpage. It would probably be desirable to reword the finding on this basis. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I ask the drafters if they have any comment regarding Haymaker's comments on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

I am recused with respect to User:Roscelese, so I would prefer other arbs handled this one. Jclemens ( talk) 20:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

I have only started looking though the most recent six or so weeks' worth of edits to verify Haymaker's objection, and have found problematic behaviour including reverting without discussion, veering too far from source material. This means the editor's controbutions have to be monitored on an ongoing basis and are hence a net negative. I can summarise and add to here if the other arbs wish. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

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

IP editing prohibited

1) The articles and corresponding talk pages relating to Abortion shall be semi-protected for a period of three years from the conclusion of this case, such that no non-autoconfirmed editor (including IP address editors) shall edit them. Editors in good standing who wish to edit such topics under a single additional account not linked to their identity may do so under the provisions of WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.

Support:

1. and just as a quick aside, those who do use alternate accounts had better be scrupulous about not mixing their accounts. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. This is highly unusual, however based on the discussion on the workshop page, I think it's justified in this instance. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Yes, we try to be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but given the partisan, incessant disruption, I do not see how we can continue to be "the encyclopedia where anyone can edit anything at anytime". Jclemens ( talk) 05:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Necessary for now (hopefully not forever.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Given how contentious the editing area is, there is little choice. Given that new editors do have an alternate method of participating (namely, creating an account), this is not overly onerous. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. With the clarification below as to affected articles, now agree with this. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I understand the impetus for this remedy, and it probably reflects what will happen as a practical matter anyway, whether we pass it or not. However, three years of semiprotection is a long time, and I'm reluctant to eliminate administrator discretion over a protection level for that long. Also, as Kirill indicates, we need to be more clear about which articles are covered. I'm open to reconsidering my vote if these aspects are addressed. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 1.1 below,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. The range of articles for which we authorize discretionary sanctions is purposely broad, so as to allow administrators the necessary leeway in addressing disruption which spreads to secondary and related topics. Using this approach for a sanction which requires action a priori is simply not feasible; instructing administrators to semi-protect any article that might be "related to abortion" would result in thousands of tangential topics (including, arguably, every individual ever to undergo the procedure) being unnecessarily semi-protected for years at a time. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 00:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Per Wikipedia:SEMI#Guidance for administrators, this remedy is to prevent long-term disruption, not to set a precedent to end editing by anonymous/IP editors. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

   Prefer 1.1 - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

5. Three years is too long. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

• Which specific articles does this refer to? Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
• Need to specify articles, Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The articles covered should be the same ones as in 4 and 4.1. Feel free to harmonize wording if desired. Jclemens ( talk) 03:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

IP editing restricted

1.1) Any uninvolved administrator may of their own volition place any articles related to abortion, broadly construed, and the corresponding article talk pages, under semi-protection so that no non-autoconfirmed editor (including IP address editors) may edit them for a period of up to three years from the date that this case closes. The details of any semi-protection applied under this provision are to be logged below.

Support:

1. This hopefully addresses the opposes to 1 sufficiently to reach consensus,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. I like this too. More flexible and in line with our policies. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. PhilKnight ( talk) 09:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 19:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Iff 1 fails. I can understand the rationale here, but this risks spreading the dispute to increasingly tangential articles in waves, and is less likely to provide the same disincentive to socking. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Prefer this one. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Only choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer above. SirFozzie ( talk) 22:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Given the evidence of repeated, IP-based disruption, this allows for that to continue into new topics and articles, one by one, until administrators come and play whack-a-sock. I don't think that serves to improve the topic's toxic environment. Jclemens ( talk) 00:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrators reminded

2) Administrators dealing with proposed moves are reminded that such requests in controversial areas are likely to generate more controversy, and small errors may needlessly contribute to a problematic discussion climate.

Support:

1. A bit of a schmozz in that we're reminding something that any administrator with clue should recognize, but I can support. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Half-hearted support. We all make mistakes. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I wouldn't have included this, except I spent a lot of effort was expended trying to sort out exactly what happened, and when all was said and done... it appears to all have been because of carelessness in a topic of inflamed tensions. Jclemens ( talk) 05:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. This should go without saying, yet I fear it does not go far enough. I support this, but second choice to the alternative below. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Equal preference with 2.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Equal to 2.1,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Bit noddy. Prefer 2.1-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. per EotR John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrators instructed

2.1) Administrators are instructed to only move or rename pages relating to the topic of abortion (broadly construed) in the presence of a demonstrable community consensus (such as the result of a proper Requested Move discussion).

Support:

1. I think, in this case, that an ounce of prevention is worth three pounds of future remedies. Prefer to 2. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. I can support this, but I have seen no evidence that anyone involved requires this level of instruction, nor that they have failed to learn from past mistakes. Jclemens ( talk) 00:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

   It's preventative; we know a rename in this topic area is stepping on a landmine. I'd rather have administrators be able to point at this remedy and say "no can do, please raise a consensus first" than end up reigniting the area with a well-meaning "no brainer" move. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

3. Yes. Need to proceed carefully and with as broad a consensus as possible. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Equal preference with 2. I should add that in theory, this could undesirably lock in a prior improper move, if there is majority support for the pre-move title but not quite a consensus to move back. However, I won't oppose for this reason since this appears to be just a theoretical scenario at this point. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Mailer Diablo 08:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Equal to 2,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 14:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Equal to 2, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 20:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. First choice. The other is a bit noddy. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. First choice. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. SirFozzie ( talk) 22:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Only choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Editors reminded

3) Because of the controversial nature of the subject and the history of editing disputes, editors of abortion-related topics are reminded to adhere to this site's best practices. All editors are reminded that whatever their personal beliefs, their participation on this project is contingent on compliance with this site's policies. All editors are asked to review their own participation to ensure that it remains constructive and focused on the production of a neutral reference work rather than on promoting a specific agenda.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Whole-hearted support. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Fundamentally, if there's a conflict of ideas, good-faith editors should want both sides presented in as neutral and balanced a way as possible... such that the self-perceived superiority of their own views might become evident. Or does truth have something to fear from honest inquiry? Jclemens ( talk) 05:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discretionary sanctions

4) The community-placed use of discretionary sanctions for the topic area is endorsed and adopted by the committee. Sanctions enacted prior to this case are incorporated into this decision, and future sanctions issued shall be logged in a manner that does not artificially distinguish between community- and committee-enacted discretionary sanctions.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Agree with approach. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. second choice Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. There may be a better way to word this, but I was hoping to get at a way to pick up where the community left off, which was about as far as it could go without ArbCom assistance. Jclemens ( talk) 05:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice, prefer 4.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 4.1; we should not compromise our recent efforts to standardize discretionary sanctions by adopting an external document. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Given that we now have a standardized remedy, and that Brad's comment below make a compelling point, I prefer 4.1. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer 4.1,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Better to stick to standard remedy -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

• Something that is not clear to me here is whether the decision means to endorse the community's existing sanctions regime, or to say that it was appropriate but to now supersede it with discretionary sanctions under the Arbitration Committee's aegis. (One practical consequence of the difference is whether future enforcement requests would go to AN/ANI or AE.) Compare the opening remedies in the Climate change case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Discretionary sanctions

4.1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles related to abortion, broadly construed. This authorization supersedes the earlier authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community. All sanctions enacted prior to this case under the terms of the community authorization shall be logged under this case as though they had been enacted under the new authorization.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Assuming that this will address NYB's issues as well. I grant that the wording of 4 may not have been clear enough. Jclemens ( talk) 22:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Equal preference. PhilKnight ( talk) 22:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. In preference to 4. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. SirFozzie ( talk) 01:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. First choice. This addresses my comment about 4. Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. simpler and more streamlined Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 20:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Systematic discussion and voting on names for Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion

5) From the closing of this case, there shall be a structured discussion on the existing names vs Pro-life/Pro-choice. Editors shall spend one month collecting systematic evidence of frequency of use in various English-speaking countries (from Google to peer-reviewed literature) and present in an organised, structured and easy-to-navigate manner. After one month, voting will begin and remain open for two months. Voters are to digest the presented evidence and its relation to wikipedia's article naming policies and offer their opinion. The page will be coordinated by one more more arbitrators and administrators and concluded ten weeks after the closing of the case. The decision will be binding for a period of three years from that decision.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply

   PhilKnight ( talk) 19:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply

   Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply

2. I share the desire of those who wanted a more elegant solution; the lack of a better approach here was part of the discussion and delay in the case's progress. Jclemens ( talk) 05:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Given how contentious the area is, I'd rather we keep a closer eye on it than not. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice, prefer 5.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 5.1. We can legitimately establish this process, but should not play a direct role in its outcome. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Per Kirill - this is what I had meant to write but neglected to append with. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Per Kirill,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Too prescriptive -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer 5.1. PhilKnight ( talk) 22:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Per Kirill John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Systematic discussion and voting on article names

5.1) A structured discussion on the names of the Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion articles shall begin following the conclusion of this case and continue for one month thereafter. 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.

After one month has elapsed from the conclusion of this case, a community vote on the titles for the articles in question will begin. Voters shall be asked to digest the presented evidence and its relation to Wikipedia's article naming policies, and to offer their opinion on the titles to be used. The vote will be coordinated by one or more administrators appointed by the Committee. The vote will remain open for two months, and its result will be binding for a period of three years from the date it concludes.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Equal preference. I don't think the distinction is all that big a deal, so I'm fine with either. Jclemens ( talk) 22:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. PhilKnight ( talk) 22:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Iff 5 fails. I prefer the former, but at least one of the two must pass. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. First choice, though I am still concerned we are micromanaging the proposed process a little bit too heavily. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. First choice - Brad, the structuring is very necessary when previous discussions are taken into account. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Much better, although I would prefer instruction to present evidence, because that makes it clearer that it is an on wiki activity -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Also works for me. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. I am not especially keen on the ArbCom determining in advance that the result will be binding for three years, as the community decision may not be conclusive, and the content and world around us can change within those three years. However I think this approach is worth a shot, and an /Amendment can be requested if the period of three years turns out to be inappropriate. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

added the subordinate clause - ", as well as any other material which is relevant to the appropriateness of any proposed title, " - straightforward addition. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Orangemarlin topic-banned

6) Orangemarlin is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed.

Support:

1. First choice. Well, first choice of presented options. I have decided not to put forward an outright ban because it is apparent there is no support for it, which is a shame. Jclemens ( talk) 05:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 6.2 6.1 PhilKnight ( talk) 19:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer the following. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 6.2 6.1 - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. In favor of 6.2 6.1 because of extraordinary circumstances. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Prefer 6.2 6.1 Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Prefer 6.1,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. No. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Recused from Orangemarlin, due to past interaction, although I must say that I am wary of sanctioning editors who have legitimate reasons to have not participated in a case. The next remedy goes a long way towards fixing that, but I still have concerns. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. I cannot bring myself to oppose this remedy. I understand the compassionate reasons that led to this remedy failing, and empathize enough that I will not support it, but I think that opposing it is the wrong solution. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Orangemarlin instructed

6.1) Because Orangemarlin has been unable to participate in this arbitration, including answering findings of fact about his editing in the topic-area of Abortion, 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.

Support:

1. Prefer this approach. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. Jclemens ( talk) 05:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. This is the appropriate remedy here based upon circumstances known to the Committee. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Per Brad. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. I would have much preferred an explicit directive that Orangemarlin must not edit in the topic area unless and until the matter has been otherwise clarified with the committee. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Per Brad,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Recused from Orangemarlin, due to past interaction. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Michael C Price topic-banned

7) Michael C Price is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed in one year.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 05:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. The FoF might be just on the marginal side, but this dispute needs all the help it can get. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Not sure the FoF rises to this level. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Per David,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. This is a close call for me, but my inclination is to give this editor a final chance to edit properly on this topic, with the clear understanding that discretionary sanctions would likely be imposed very quickly if he continues the pattern of nasty comments. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I don't think it rises enough to the level to warrant a topic-ban, in the absence of other findings. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 12:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Michael and I were previously involved in an editing dispute, so I'll recuse. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments:

• Placeholder really, undecided whether it rises enough to the level to warrant a topic-ban, in the absence of other findings. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Michael C Price admonished

7.1) Michael C Price is admonished for incivility and adopting a battleground approach. He is strongly advised to avoid incivil and battleground-type statements in future.

Support:

1. If 7.1 7 doesn't pass, this as a minimum. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. Jclemens ( talk) 22:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. With the clear understanding that discretionary sanctions are available and likely if the improper comments continue. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Second choice-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Only choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 12:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. (prefer 7.1 7, if these are not concurrent) SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 7.1 7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. In favor of 7.1 7 —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Recused. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Gandydancer advised

8) Gandydancer is advised to subdue the tone of comments in heated discussions.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Was looking for better wording than this... but whatever. While I appreciate sarcasm, I am not aware of any instance where sarcasm, especially biting sarcasm that is thinly-veiled-NPA violation, has ever contributed to an open, collaborative editing environment. Jclemens ( talk) 05:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Kinda' awkward wording, but the sentiment is right. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. With the clear understanding that discretionary sanctions are available and will be imposed if problematic comments continue. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 8.1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. In favor of 8.1. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer 8.1,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Gandydancer topic-banned

8.1) Gandydancer is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed in one year.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 22:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Like I said above, this topic is in dire need of fresh blood that does not have a long history of heated disputes. The findings are marginal enough that in a less disruptive case, I would have probably gone with the advice above; but it's too late for that. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Second choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. weakly - I don't think the finding rises to the level of this, however if consensus swings I'd be open. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Similar comment as with respect to Michael C Price above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Anythingyouwant topic-banned

9) Anythingyouwant ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Jclemens ( talk) 05:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. In view of this editor's history, this is warranted. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Haymaker restricted

10) Haymaker ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted to 1RR in abortion-related pages, broadly construed.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Jclemens ( talk) 05:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. With the clear understanding that additional sanctions including a topic-ban remain available under the discretionary sanctions remedy if problems continue. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 10.1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. In favor of 10.1. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 10.1 -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Haymaker topic-banned

10.1) Haymaker ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed in one year.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. yes, on the basis of recent edits. I will propose adding to findings. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Equal with 10. SirFozzie ( talk) 00:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice, prefer 10. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Second choice. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Second choice, but also works. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm going to hold off on this one until Haymaker's question about Roscelese is answered. While recused on the latter editor, I wouldn't want to increase any alleged disproportionality by supporting this. Jclemens ( talk) 22:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

I did start looking, and I have found problematic behaviour independent of an interaction with Roscolese. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply

NYyankees51 reminded

11) NYyankees51 ( talk · contribs) is reminded to maintain a collegial and non-adversarial manner in posting in what is a very delicate topic area.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Jclemens ( talk) 05:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. With the clear understanding that discretionary sanctions are likely should problems continue. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I cant see the justification for singling out NYyankees51 in this case. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 12:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Geremia topic-banned

12) Geremia ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed.

Support:

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Jclemens ( talk) 05:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Second choice, prefer 12.1, by a narrow margin. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 12:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Geremia admonished

12.1) Geremia ( talk · contribs) is admonished not to adopt a battleground mentality and to abide by sourcing guidelines for medical articles.

Support:

1. Second choice. Jclemens ( talk) 05:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. (prefer 12.1 12 if this is a (this or that) remedy) SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 12.1 12. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. as preceding Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. support previous instead Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer 12.1 12 - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Prefer 12.1 12. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Not sufficient given the acrimony of the dispute. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Prefer 12,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Prefer 12 -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 12:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

DMSBel topic-banned

13) DMSBel ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed.

Support:

1. First choice SirFozzie ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. equal Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. Jclemens ( talk) 05:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. First choice. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Second choice - 13.2 is first choice-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This topic ban is not broad enough. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

DMSBel indefinite site-ban

13.1) DMSBel ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. He may appeal this sanction after one year.

Support:

1. In this case, I can support either restriction whole-heartedly. This is a bare second choice. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Third choice. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. equal Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Jclemens ( talk) 05:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Don't think it rises to the level of a complete ban. : Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. I'd support a one-year ban, but I don't think we should be issuing indefinite bans quite so casually. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. A one year ban might be acceptable; regardless, the topic ban may well suffice. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Per above. Prefer new 13.2,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Excessive at this time, in my view. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

DMSBel one-year site-ban

13.2) DMSBel ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Support:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. feasible. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. First choice. —  Coren  ^(talk) 14:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. First choice-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. SirFozzie ( talk) 00:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. I'm not seeing a lot of difference between "indefinitely banned, can appeal in one year" and "banned for one year, will be re-banned after return if problems recur", so consider this equal preference. Jclemens ( talk) 03:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Mailer Diablo 13:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. First choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Excessive at this time, in my view, though preferable to 13.1, and I understand the supporters' rationale for supporting. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Enforcement by Block

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the most recent block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Jclemens ( talk) 05:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Mailer Diablo 16:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 21:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
8. In addition, of course, the editors named in this decision—like all other editors—are subject to discretionary sanctions in this topic-area under remedy 4.1, if warranted by additional inappropriate editing or comments following the case. ¶ Should we include the usual language about keeping a log? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
9. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Log any block, restriction, ban, article/talk page semiprotection, or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the rationale for doing it.

General

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass

Principles 1-14, 16, 17

Findings 1-3, 5-11

Remedies 1, 2 (superceded by 2.1), 2.1, 3, 4.1, 5 (superceded by 5.1), 5.1, 6.1, 7, 7.1 (superceded by 7), 8, 9, 10, 10.1, 11, 12, 13, 13.2 (superceded by 13)

Enforcement 1

Proposals which do not pass

Principle 15

Finding 4

Remedies 1.1, 4, 6, 8.1, 12.1, 13.1

No failing enforcement

Updated: 05:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps}
Addendum: Requesting preferences for Remedies 5/5.1 and 13/13.2 - both are close enough in votes and some AC members have seen them as alternatives. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

By my count 10.1 is superceded by 10 (5 to 4). Paul August ☎ 01:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

• Not currently. 10 is 7-4, where as 10.1 is 9-0 with 4 voicing "second to 10" - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

My reading is that given the current votes, 10 is preferred by 5 arbs (PhilKnight, Jclemens, David Fuchs, Mailer diablo, and Newyorkbrad), while 10.1 is only preferred by 4 arbs (Kirill Lokshin, Coren, Roger Davies and Elen of the Roads). Paul August ☎ 01:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
2. I think at this time that everything likely to pass has. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Noting the final few words of the current wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed_decision#Orangemarlin_instructed, he can contact us if/before he wants to edit the topic area. The acrimony by leaving this case any moment longer is exceeding any benefit by fine-tuning further segments above. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Close. I do not believe that Orangemarlin's single edit of a week ago, read in context, equates to an intention to return to editing this topic area. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Orangemarlin has said he is back, and this has made a number of statements (FoFs and remedies) out of date or inaccurate. I would rather fix this now, since the case is not closed. Jclemens ( talk) 03:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments