Case clerk: Penwhale ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Jclemens ( Talk) & Coren ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
1) It is widely recognized that both of the very-commonly-used-and-referenced titles, "pro-choice" and pro-life", were created as propaganda tools. That way opponents of "pro-choice" could be equated with slavers, and opponents of "pro-life" could be equated with murderers. It is to be expected, because of natural human laziness, that those titles will remain in common use simply because they are very short. Nevertheless, if Wikipedia is not a battleground, then it is essential to reject both propagandistic titles. It is also a fact that deliberate abortions occur whether they are legal or not. Therefore even the current titles, which mention "legalized abortion", are not as accurate as they should be. I therefore propose that the titles should be something like "Abortion: Proponent Views" and "Abortion: Opponent Views" --even these are not as accurate as they should be, because the definition of abortion sometimes includes spontaneous miscarriages, which can happen totally independently of anyone's viewpoint on the subject. However, these titles have the advantage of being reasonably brief and quite accurate, and, if each title was accompanied by an explanatory sentence or subtitle (very common in Wikipedia), it could be indicated that the page so titled is relevant to deliberate abortions only. V ( talk) 17:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
2) Anythingyouwant is restricted from making any article space edits in abortion and pregnancy topics, broadly interpreted. Anythingyouwant may take part in talk page, wikiproject, and noticeboard discussions on these topics, but any uninvolved administrator may ban Anythingyouwant for disruptive behavior. This replaces the November 2007 arbitration against Ferrylodge/Anythingyouwant: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge_restricted. Binksternet ( talk) 03:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopaedia, and this effort is best achieved with an atmosphere of collaboration, camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. The use of Wikipedia for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.
3) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is a non-negotiable, fundamental policy, and requires that editors strive to (a) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not given undue weight, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source.
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.
3.1) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is a non-negotiable, fundamental policy, and requires that editors strive to ensure articles (a) accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not given undue weight, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source. Articles with content of a medical, religious or philosophical nature, as well as matters of public policy and debate must additionally ensure that significant alternate viewpoints on the subject are accurately represented and encompassed to ensure compliance with NPOV.
4) Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.
4.1) Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. In a few cases where there is no single term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, it may be preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
5) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked, or when discussion has broken down. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process through discussion, collaboration and consideration, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict and using the dispute resolution processes to game the system is not an appropriate way of resolving conduct disputes.
6) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.
7) The occurrence of protracted, apparently insoluble disputes—whether they involve conduct, content, or policy—is contrary to the purposes of the project and damaging to its health. The chief purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to protect the project from the disruption caused by such disputes, and it has the authority to issue binding resolutions in keeping with that purpose.
The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. However, in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision.
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.
1) Articles relating to the area of abortion are placed under discretionary sanctions. At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, they may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project, including page protection. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.
This remedy supersedes the general sanctions that were put in place by the community.
2) Abortion and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility.
This remedy supersedes the existing general sanctions put in place by the community.
3) All editors who are party to this case, or edit in the area are instructed to read the principles outlined above, review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them. The committee notes that failing to correct such behaviour in future may lead to further sanctions.
4) Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the dispute, writing from a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilising reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
5) At the closing of this case, a new body of dispute resolution will be convened. This body would only review disputes which have gone through all avenues of dispute resolution, including the Arbitration Committee, and these disputes must be referred to itself by the Arbitration Committee. It will consist of five editors, at least three being administrators, and will all have extensive experience with dispute resolution processes. They will spend one month considering the background of the dispute, and will implement a decision based on past discussion which will be binding for a period of one year. A unanimous consensus is required for resolution.
@PhilKnight, then make it a one off. I truly think having another RFC here would be counterproductive. The Senkanu Islands case could also use something like this. I agree a permanent DR body of this nature should be discussed at the Village Pump (indeed I may propose something there) but I think a finding like this is needed here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 18:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
@ PhilKnight, I think this permanent body is a good idea, but it is rather radical, per Wikipedia's mission, is it not? I think its creation would require extremely widespread input from the community, and the outcome of such input is far from certain. And the matter at hand certainly cannot wait for it to happen. Still, I like it, as (per KillerChihuahua's comments somewhere around here) it would probably be best not to put this into the hands of an abortion-specific anything, as the matter really requires fresh editorial input. Half of our problem has been the ability of small numbers of editors to command ostensible consensus, by which I mean, from what I can see they actually do properly invoke consensus, but I wonder if they would command this consensus if there was a wider degree of involvement from the community. Oh, and I've made one small suggestion on your essay's talk page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 00:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Edit-warring away from the last conseneus version of an article, without establishing a new consensus, can be very disruptive and may be blockable under normal Wikipedia policies without any 3RR (or even 1RR) violation. However, reverting to the last consensus version is distinguishable from such conduct, even if it occurs repeatedly. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This suggestion glorifies a past version in the face a new challenge requiring a new consensus. The past version may well have a serious problem in its sources or interpretation, or simply because of newly published data, but this suggestion puts a major stumbling block in the way of the editor wishing to correct the problem or update the article. We should not adopt this suggested solution. Binksternet ( talk) 02:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
2) Sanctioning an article is not always helpful. If it was, then sanctions would be imposed at all articles. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
3)Consensus is a core Wikipedia policy. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes, and for other changes at least a lesser consensus is required. Controversial articles can become unstable and descend into chaos if this principle is disregarded. However, the Arbitration Committee will not say whether this principle has been disregarded in any particular case, nor take any action against people merely for disregarding this principle, nor restore any part of an article to the most recent version that was supported by consensus. None of that is ArbCom's job. Nor may individual editors repeatedly revert non-consensus edits, which would be unacceptable edit-warring.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 10:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:BRRR is a tendentious and disruptive editing style. It undermines a core Wikipedia principle:
WP:Consensus. ArbCom can identify
WP:BRRR and impose sanctions against it, without making any content decision.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 22:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
1) General sanctions were imposed at the abortion article only as a result of activity elsewhere at Wikipedia, and were not a consequence of editing at that article. [4]
2) More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes in a Wikipedia article, but this summer there has never been any kind of consensus about how to make any particular edit to the lead sentence, especially the part of that sentence prior to its last word ("death"). That lead sentence was stable from 2006 to 2011, but has been repeatedly edit-warred this summer consistent with the essay WP:BRRR, and contrary to WP:Consensus.* Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC) *Please note for the record that I edited WP:Consensus this summer, but not in any way that affects the accuracy of this proposed finding of fact. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
3) Removal of a POV tag has occured at the abortion article even though the issue is actively and adamantly disputed. [6]
4) The abortion article has been frozen by an involved admin in his preferred version that excluded an image of what is aborted. [8] That admin had previously removed such an image, [9] and said subsequent to freezing an image out of the article that he disagreed with its use in the article. [10]
5) As detailed at the evidence page, the article now contains no discernible image of what is aborted during a typical induced abortion. This is a result of edit-warring instead of consensus. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
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.
This remedy supersedes the general sanctions that were put in place by the community at the abortion article without talk page discussion and without cause. [20] Complaints about users frequently go unnoticed down the memory hole, because they're typically posted at the offending user's talk page, or at some noticeboard (wiquette, edit-warring, ANI, et cetera). If such complaints could alternatively or additionally be posted at a dedicated noticeboard for this article, then uninvolved admins (and others) would be able to more easily see what's going on, see what the history of user issues at this article has been, give a response, and/or take action. Preferably the Noticeboard would list at the top at least two uninvolved admins who are currently monitoring the Noticeboard (admin actions could be critiqued at the Noticebord too). Each section would be titled with one or more username, and nothing else. Anyone listed in a heading would have to be notified. Any administratve action taken as a result of (or in connection with) a Noticeboard section, or even separate actions without any prior Noticeboard activity, should be noted in a section of the Noticeboard (immediately below the heading). Failure to do so would require some disincentive, such as removal of administrative action from a block log. Other than this new Noticeboard, I don't think any general or special sanctions should be put in place at the abortion article right now (though it may be advisable to hand out some blocks and/or revert the article to the most recent consensus version that existed prior to edit-war). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
2) The lead sentence will now be reverted to the last consensus version (which existed from 2006-2001). This does not constitute any endorsement of it, nor discourage edits to it that are based on consensus. All editors are warned that they can be blocked for edit-warring away from consensus. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
3) The image was in the article over a year, following extensive discussion. It was removed by censorship and edit-warring without consensus. There must be some remedy other than freezing the article so the image is out permanently (notice that the POV section tag has also been edit-warred out, as described above in findings). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) There are solid, valid arguements for both sides in this matter. Both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV are relevant to this dispute.
2)Unfortunately, these two important policies, in this case, are in conflict, leading to this protracted dispute even as most of the parties attempt to exercise good faith. If both sides are correct in their arguments, attempting to persuade the other that they are "wrong" is bound to be unsuccessful.
1)These articles are undeniably about the same topic, namely, whether or not abortion should be a legal procedure, or under what circumstances it should be legal.
2)This ongoing argument about the name is taking away from the development of the actual text: as of a month ago, 2/3 or more of the edits on these articles and their respective talk pages over the previous year had been spent just on arguing the titles, instead of improving the articles themselves.
We should merge these articles into a single article at Abortion debate. This idea was touched upon six months ago by User:Amakuru and put forward as a serious proposal three months ago by User:DeCausa. Contrary to what some might fear, I believe this would reduce the net POV of the subject's coverage on Wikipedia, since both sides would continually check the other's contributions (See Federalist No. 10, by Madison.) With the topic covered at only one article, it would be easier to monitor editors who are POV warriors, which will make them all more cautious about what they write. Is it a perfect solution to this dilemma? No, but it’s damn close.
@ Jclemens. First of all, I acknowledge my complete ignorance of this process, so I take you at your word that to do this oversteps ArbCom's authority. But may I share some thoughts? You say that a mediation involving only the most interested editors cannot truly be said to represent community consensus. I can certainly get behind that. But how do you propose to obtain a wide community consensus? A few weeks ago, I thought trying to reach consensus by holding a discussion with the editors of the month was a sure route to failure, so in order to get participation in the mediation I contacted additional editors, but only those people who had edited this article over the previous 12-13 months. The result? I got my ass jumped for being disruptive because I was involving people who are not regularly and actively involved in the issue. How will you obtain this wider community consensus? And more importantly, who will decide when that consensus has been achieved and what that consensus says? On such a massively controversial topic like this, will a regular sysop be allowed to close the discussion? Would you expect a closure by any single individual to be respected, even if they were a 'crat or whatever else is higher than that? Don't you think that such a closure would ultimately have to be done by a highly respected group . . . say, like ArbCom? So then what happens to this being out of your jurisdiction? The content issue is going to end up falling on you guys anyway, as far as I can tell.
Here's the big problem, not only as I see it, but as I believe you and others tacitly acknowledge in your other comments: Anything ArbCom "normally" does is unlikely to work here. I read about things like enforcing 1RR, and as one person noted elsewhere, that only leads to "slow motion edit warring". And you write, Prohibition on using IP addresses or any other username to make edits to affected articles" would go into effect here; well, of course that makes sense, but with all respect, isn't that already at WP:SOCK? Sir, there are zealots on both sides of this debate, and they won't be stopped by these kind of measures. Outright banning of editors won't solve the problem, because there's no shortage of zealots to take their place. Most good classroom teachers learn early on that having a list of rules that says "Don't do this", and "Don't do that" can easily be rendered ineffective if a sincere respect for rules is not extant, and that's the situation here. The solution must be something radically different. The merger solution is different because it robs the POV-warriors of the one thing they (inexplicably) value most: their own pet article where they can define the terms of the argument in the way that suits them best. Does this exceed ArbCom's boundaries? Clearly it does, given that your fellow arbitrator (is that what you guys are called? Sorry if I got that wrong) has proposed a new body to deal with such issues as this. But right now, as far as I can see, ArbCom is the only game in town.
I've seen some references to the "Macedonia" situation. I'm unfamiliar with the Wikipedian history of this matter but am well-versed in the intensity of that naming issue in the Balkans, even today. May I suggest, that however vicious that debate was, that it would be unlikely to be as difficult to quell as this one? The passions may be equally intense, but there are simply, for practical purposes, an infinite number of people that will fight this abortion battle. Some do it because they love to fight, and you can get rid of them. But most are simply passionate in what they believe, and they'll continue to make this miserable as long as your solution is "Don't chew gum in class." Is the content matter here out of ArbCom's jurisdiction? Everyone seems to agree that it is, yet it was content, first and foremost regarding the names of these articles that brought us here, and you guys took the case. (The first step in finding a solution is identifying the problem, and, as asinine as it sounds (and is), this issue over article names is not a mere symptom, it is a cancer unto itself.) I'd say that the WP:IAR genie is already out of the bottle on this one, and halfway measures won't change a thing. Only a compromise (in this case equally loathed by both sides) can hope to stem the wasted energies being expended here. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 03:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
1) I would request that an uninvolved editor with successful WP:FA experience to do a quickie merge of the content of both articles into Abortion debate
2) All relevant redirects (e.g., Pro-choice, Anti-abortion, etc.) would be to Abortion debate and would be indefinitely move protected, as would Abortion debate itself.
3) This doesn't require any initial sanctions on any editors. I would then simply warn all parties that their participation in this fiasco makes them subject to intense scrutiny and quick blocking for any POV warring on the article. It'll be much easier to monitor bad behaviour with everyone working on the same article.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
1) While many articles deal solely with scientific content or with philosophical/religious content, many public policy topics, including abortion, involve both descriptions of scientifically observable facts and religious or philosophical reactions to those observable findings. In order for a topic to be covered in an encyclopedic fashion, each sort of source must be used appropriately in such an article.
2) The Wikipedia community has repeatedly preferred to keep images of a controversial nature that illustrate an encyclopedic topic, especially when internal or external groups have objected to them. Past discussions include various Mohammed images, the Virgin Killer album cover, and ejaculation images. . Given the extensive community cohesiveness on this point, edits that remove a controversial image from an article other than for legal compliance (depiction of minors involved in sexual activity, copyright violation) without previously obtaining a clear consensus to do so are per se disruptive.
3) Per WP:LEAD, the opening paragraphs of a Wikipedia article should be an "introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects", "able to stand alone as a concise overview", and "written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article." While lead of an article, or its first sentence in particular, is an important facet of an article to improve, improvements to the lead of an article should fundamentally flow from the content of the article, itself compliant with Wikipedia content policies, and not from efforts to use it as a POV football.
N+1) {text of Proposed principle}
1) There are three separate areas of contention all under consideration, joined together in this one case due to topic and participant overlap:
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.
3) During the period of time under review, at least one sockpuppet of a previously banned user had been contributing to the discussion at Talk:Abortion in violation of that ban. (c.f. Talk:Abortion/Archive_43)
4) Subsequent attempts at discussion of a topic previously settled by community discussion are often initiated by those not initially achieving their desired outcome. Those satisfied with the previous outcome are less likely to re-engage in subsequent discussions, creating an inappropriate bias toward change in subsequent discussions of the topic.
5) User:Orangemarlin has been repeatedly incivil on Talk:Abortion: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. The incivility towards specific editors extends to his talk page: [30], [31]. Orangemarlin edit warred, violating 1RR on the first sentence: First revert [32] Second revert, 3:40 later with a deceptive edit summary [33]. Orangemarlin participated in the edit war over image content in Abortion: [34].
6) User:Michael C Price has been repeatedly incivil in Talk:Abortion: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41].
7) User:Gandydancer has repeatedly used incivil hyperbole and sarcasm in discussions at Talk:Abortion: [42], [43], [44].
N+1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) Definition: "public policy" topics that are currently subject to ongoing political debate, broadly construed. This would include, at a minimum, climate change, death penalty, political campaigns at any level and BLPs of politicians, reproductive health, government health care, and any other hot-button topics identified by any administrator.
Effects: While the public policy probation is in effect, an editor subject to it would have a set of restrictions designed to be a "short leash" without being an outright topic ban:
This may be a solution in search of a problem, but I get the feeling that if we topic ban people from abortion, there's going to be a sizable percentage of those who don't leave Wikipedia entirely who will simply find other "culture war" BATTLEGROUNDs to take their efforts.
Love it? Hate it? See a fatal flaw, but one that can be fixed? Jclemens ( talk) 01:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that the fact that most examples that come readily to mind are American is mostly a result of much of the editors being Americans more than anything particularly different about US culture. — Coren (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd also like to make a plea against a "discretionary sanctions" remedy. They don't work on these sorts of topics. They didn't work on climate change, and the community-imposed version hasn't worked here. "Zero tolerance" blocks for incivility have an unmitigatedly disastrous track record. Additionally, the corps of active admins at WP:AE is severely depleted, and complaints frequently sit open and unaddressed until they become stale. I hope that something besides discretionary sanctions comes from this case, although I acknowledge that I don't have any brighter ideas at the moment. MastCell Talk 05:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
2) IP editing prohibited: The articles and corresponding talk pages relating to Abortion shall be indefinitely semi-protected such that no non-autoconfirmed editor (including IP address editors) shall edit them. Editors in good standing who wish to edit such topics under accounts not linked to their identity may do so under the provisions of WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.
N+1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
This section contains proposed findings of fact (or lack thereof) related to ALL of the named parties in each case. These have been alleged by a party or an arbitrator, but do not currently rise to the level of evidence necessary to include them in a proposed decision. The community, especially including the named parties, is invited to augment these preliminary allegations with diffs, or provide mitigating explanations for the behavior documented.
Filing party, part of Medcab. No inappropriate behavior has been brought to the committee's attention.
TBD
Jclemens is recused with respect to this editor
TBD
No one has presented evidence of misconduct within the scope of this case ( pro-life, pro-choice, and abortion). Also, those users who have presented evidence against me have agreed that my editing has improved in the past year. NYyankees51 ( talk) 00:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Jclemens is recused with respect to this editor
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
No evidence of misconduct has been alleged. SarekOfVulcan has provided evidence, and no sanctions are contemplated at this time.
Potential incivility [45] on March 18th: “Reliable sources flatly contradict both lies.” See also the assertions elsewhere on this page and the evidence page. Anythingyouwant, under his previous username Ferrylodge, has been previously sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for his involvement in Arbitration-relation disputes.
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Jclemens is recused with respect to this editor
Anthony Appleyard's involvement in the article move process was sub-optimal: Pro-Life:
Alpha Quadrants first close: [47]
Anthony Appleyard proposal 1: [48]
Proposal 1 self-close, 1 May: [49]
Proposal 1 self-reopen, 2 May: [50]
DrKiernan close of proposal 1: [51]
Anthony Appleyard proposal 2: [52]
Pro Choice
WMO proposal 1: [53] Closed: [54]
Kwamikagami proposal 2, 9 Feb: [55]
Anthony A close as move on 21 Mar: [56] (11 to 7 in favor)
Reversal motion 1, Roscelese, 1 May: [57]
Anthony A close reversal motion 1, 13 June: [58]
AA starts reversal motion 2, 15 June: [59]
Comment: Under no circumstances should an administrator close a discussion to reverse their own action; that is the definition of INVOLVED, even if they maintain no editing in or around the topic in which that decision was made. Further, subsequently opening another discussion on the same topic is not a self-revert of the closure, which would have been the proper way to remedy an inappropriate close.
Editor (recused arb) participated in and closed the MEDCAB effort, added as a party to provide evidence only, no allegations of poor behavior, no sanctions being considered.
TBD
Reverts evidence specifically criticizing his actions. While the evidence was in the wrong place and his assertion of WP:BAN appears correct, it is never appropriate for an accused person to remove an accusation themselves: [60]
De-Tags Abortion, potentially inappropriately: [61] De-tags, removes image: [62]
Potential incivility: [63] on June 19th: “You're not going to convince me with sophistry, misrepresentations, and anecdotes, because this isn't a high-school debating society.”
I'm much more exercised about the "never acceptable" edit. Once again, I directly contacted the Committee via their mailing list at the time of that edit, and received what I took as explicit approval for the edit at the time I made it. I wasn't naive enough to expect support from the Committee simply because I was following policy (and apparently my cynicism was amply justified). That's why I took the extra step of proactively addressing the edit with the Committee. MastCell Talk 21:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
See above.
I'd prefer to address any remaining issues regarding this editor outside the scope of a formal arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
BOLD edit: [66] Reverted+tag by LionelT: [67] JJL immediately redid reverted edit with deceptive edit summary: [68]
TBD
TBD
Potential incivility [69] on July 1: “Glad I'm not an awkward dishonest pro-choicer.”
See the evidence provided above.
TBD
Incivility [70] on July 3: “It's a well-established fact that if a decision has stood for 6 years any johnny-come-lately that thinks they know better than a decision that has stood the test of time (6 years) and been reaffirmed again and again and has no new information to add, should stand! This was true when the wemmon-folk wanted the right to vote and the nee-gras said they didn't like being slaves and it's still true today, by gawd.”, [71] again on July 3: “Anyone should understand that 3/5 was a great compromise compared to making the darkies zero or one, since that was out of the question. Sound logic and worked perfectly till some upstarts upset the applecart. Really, who doesn't long for the days when logic ruled and the women-folk and the darkies knew their place, other than them, of course.”, and [72] on July 20th: “RoyBoy has an odd idea that a handful of Wikipedia editors has the authority to pronounce the editors of just about every dictionary and the editors of every encyclopedia inaccurate. By his standards, lets go straight to the evolution article and insist that the planet is only 8 thousand years old -after all we need only produce a dozen Wikipedia editors to show that all those scientists are simply inaccurate. Easy as eating pie!”
TBD
TBD
TBD
1) Wikipedia aspires to be a serious, respectable reference work. Its representation of controversial topics should thus reflect the coverage one would expect from a such a reference work.
2) Strong personal views on a controversial topic do not disqualify a user from editing in that topic area, provided that they are able to comply with Wikipedia's policies and expectations. However, if users' personal viewpoints on a topic overwhelm their ability to edit within policy, then they may be restricted from editing. In this setting, edit-warring, tendentious editing, attempting to game the system, or other forms of disruptive editing may indicate that an editor is unable to put aside their personal convictions sufficiently to productively edit a Wikipedia article.
3) Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a venue to promote specific political or social agendas. Users who consistently promote one side of a topic (or narrow range of topics) should be particularly scrupulous to ensure that they edit within this site's policies and guidelines. Violations of policy in the service of agenda-driven editing may lead to restrictions of editing privileges.
4) The Committee has generally declined to settle good-faith content disputes. Where such disputes are complicated by user-conduct issues, the Committee may address those issues.
5) In many naming and content disputes, there is no One Right Answer. There may be more than one reasonable approach. Insisting on one alternative to the exclusion of other reasonable alternatives can eventually become disruptive.
4) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are meant to codify existing best practices. While edits to policy pages are often prompted by specific editing experiences, it is inappropriate to alter policy pages to further one's position in a specific dispute.
5) Agenda-driven editing, in which users advocate a specific personal ideology at the expense of Wikipedia's policies and goals, is a substantial impediment to the project's mission of creating a serious, respectable reference work. Where it is clear that editors have consistently engaged in agenda-driven editing, they should be handled as expeditiously as we handle other threats to the encyclopedia's integrity such as vandalism.
6) While Wikipedia does not provide medical advice, it is nonetheless a widely used resource for medical and health information. Because of the potential for real-life harm arising from inaccurate medical information, editors have a responsibility to ensure that Wikipedia's medical coverage accurately and proportionately reflects expert opinion and does not contain inaccurate or misleading medical claims.
I think we should take this seriously as an ethical concern - for example, reverting such potentially harmful material should be in the same protected category as reverting clear BLP violations, and editors who consistently add inaccurate or misleading medical information should be sanctioned accordingly. But I accept that the issue is, at best, a small subset of the abortion dispute and thus perhaps outside the scope of this case. MastCell Talk 22:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
6) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a platform for advocacy. Article talk pages are intended to provide space for editors to discuss specific content changes to the associated article, and should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.
7) All content on Wikipedia should be verifiably based on a reliable source, without editorial spin. Particularly on controversial topics, editors should seek out the highest-quality available sources and strive to accurately and proportionately convey their content. Where sources disagree, editors should strive to use the best available sources and resist the temptation to search selectively for sources which support their personal ideology.
The best example I have at my fingertips is this thread on the impact of legal restrictions on abortion incidence. I try to approach these disputes by starting with what I think are the best available sources, and asking others to kick in additional sources. You can see where things go from there. And notice that despite plenty of stonewalling, no one actually produces additional reliable sources. This pattern has been repeated quite a few times, often by the same handful of editors. MastCell Talk 23:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
In general we have to insist on a clear dividing line between what academic research says, and what advocates and campaigners think about that research or the questions the research examines. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 03:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
8) The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process.
The same happened when NuclearWarfare dug up a long list of definitions of abortion - instead of forming a jumping-off point for constructive discussion, people started filibustering and trying to get their favorite dictionaries featured while denigrating the dictionaries whose definitions they disliked. MastCell Talk 23:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
1) The current case involves a loosely connected group of abortion-related disputes, including a dispute over appropriate naming conventions for the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements and the question of fetal "death" in the lead sentence of the abortion article.
2)
Anythingyouwant (
talk ·
contribs) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages, and has inappropriately edited policy pages a policy page to further his position in a content dispute.
3) DMSBel ( talk · contribs) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages.
3.1) DMSBel ( talk · contribs) has a history of tendentious editing on topics related to human sexuality, leading to a topic ban from those areas. Since that topic ban, he has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages.
3.2) DMSBel ( talk · contribs) has a history of tendentious editing on topics related to human sexuality, leading to a topic ban from those areas. Since that topic ban, he has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages and used them as a soapbox from which to voice his personal views on abortion.
It's probably worth noting what I think are prescient comments from the earlier topic-ban discussion, by User:Cyclopia: "It is true that ejaculation has been by far and large the main subject of DMSBel crusade, yet I wouldn't be surprised, given the pattern at other articles, if an article ban would simply move his crusade on some other article (like the one you linked). The problem with DMSBel is much deeper: he is the textbook case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He has a critical problem in understanding what consensus really is and/or in recognizing it. About the apology, I think it is sincere but I am not sure, given again the pattern, that he will held up his promises." MastCell Talk 19:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And they're along the lines of this gem: "Come on Wikipedians? The Fetus is a baby, the baby is alive and the baby is a person. Abortion kills an unborn baby. We are pussy footing round the whole issue, which is worse than just coming out and being honest about it - no roe v wade said this or said that. We all know, all of us here. We all have to face it."
And this, directed at other editors trying to calm him down: "At least we will start to see POVs more clearly. Yours is that a mother can kill her unborn baby if it is going to be a burden... Every kid coming out of high school knows abortion kills a baby."
I defy anyone to actually resolve a content dispute or reach a meaningful consensus in the face of this unrelenting avalanche of tendentious commentary. MastCell Talk 23:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
4) Haymaker ( talk · contribs) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages.
5) NYyankees51 ( talk · contribs) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages.
The scope of this case, as MastCell and I understand it, is user conduct on the pro-life, pro-choice, and abortion articles. So I am confused as to why I am being considered for a topic ban. I haven't done anything that I can remember that comes close to warranting a topic ban. I made an uncivil comment to a now-banned antagonistic editor on the pro-life move proposal in February, but that doesn't warrant a topic ban. Yes, I have been blocked for violating 1RR, but if I remember correctly none of the three were on these three articles. And I violated 1RR because I didn't understand that a partial revert constitutes a revert that counts towards 1RR. So essentially my conduct at the articles I got blocked at wasn't different than other editors - they simply knew how to avoid 1RR and I didn't. This is not to defend edit warring, this is to say that my blocks, while deserved, could have easily happened to someone else. I have not been blocked for edit warring in over three months now.
Yes, I tendentiously edit abortion-related articles, but that in and of itself is not against policy. I must be tendentiously uncivil and unconstructive, and MastCell acknowledges that I am not, at least not on purpose. A yearlong topic ban seems excessive and wouldn't better the encyclopedia. NYyankees51 ( talk) 02:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
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.
1) Anythingyouwant ( talk · contribs), Haymaker ( talk · contribs), DMSBel ( talk · contribs), and NYyankees51 ( talk · contribs) are restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.
Most editors (and most people) have some opinion about abortion. I've tried to focus on instances where opinionated editors have advocated their personal belief system at the expense of this site's policies and expectations. The four editors I've singled out all have clear and longstanding track records of problematic editing behavior, on top of a clear personal agenda on the subject.
Are there "pro-choice" editors who meet similar criteria, with a similar history of abusive editing in service of their agenda (as exemplified by multiple blocks for edit-warring, topic bans, sanctions, etc)? I didn't identify any at a brief glance, but if you have, then we could discuss them. MastCell Talk 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
1.1) Anythingyouwant ( talk · contribs) is restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.
1.2) Haymaker ( talk · contribs) is restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.
1.3) DMSBel ( talk · contribs) is restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.
1.4) NYyankees51 ( talk · contribs) is restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.
2) All editors on abortion-related topics are reminded that whatever their personal beliefs, their participation on this project is contingent on being able to comply with this site's policies. All editors are asked to review their own participation to ensure that it remains constructive and focused on the production of a serious, respectable reference work rather than on promoting a specific agenda.
3) Because of the controversial nature of the subject and the history of editing disputes, editors of abortion-related topics are reminded to adhere to this site's best practices. Any uninvolved administrator may topic-ban any editor who demonstrates that their personal viewpoint on the topic overwhelms their ability to edit within policy. Examples of behavior which might trigger a topic ban include: tendentious and repetitive argumentation, repeated incidences of edit-warring, attempts to game the system, or consistent abuse of article or talk pages as a soapbox.
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
1) One of the problems with issues like Abortion is that they provide people with the opportunity to continually debate and to filibuster progress in an article. Some of us enjoy a reasonable amount of debate, but Wikipedia isn't really the venue for it. I think if people are making the same point more than twice or so and have been asked for either sources or detailed policy evidence have failed to provide it then that's disruptive and those users should get sanctions against them.
The current position allows those of us who enjoy debate to get too much practice at it, and doesn't achieve results in a timely manner and drives away those who don't enjoy debate from controversial topics which is bad as they need more impartial people.
Wikipedians (rather, a subset of Wikipedians) are really bad at just letting something go. Once they sink our teeth into something, they don't let go. Those sorts of folks are, over time, increasingly over-represented on controversial topics. I considered listing, in my evidence, a roll call of sane, reasonable editors who have either left Wikipedia entirely or left the topic over the past several years because of this sort of endless, circular debate and filibustering.
The problem with "consensus", as practiced on Wikipedia, is that it doesn't scale to high-profile, controversial articles. If you have a group of n like-minded, agenda-driven editors active on a topic, then that group can obstruct efforts to build a consensus indefinitely. The value of n, in my experience, is quite small, probably <5. MastCell Talk 19:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
1.1) Continually making the same point in discussions filibusters progress, is disruptive and prevents the project forward. Making the same argument in the same discussion more than three times will be considered disruptive to the project and blockable by an uninvolved administrator.
1) Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Core wikipedia policy - Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The presence of the word "death" in the opening defining sentences of the article have been a focus of dispute.
As presented elsewhere. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare ( talk · contribs) has provided a summary of definitions for "abortion" from a selection of medical dictionaries and major obstetrics and gynecology textbooks with a clear consensus for the word death not to be used in the definition.
Per his evidence, clear use of broad secondary and reinforced with tertiary sources. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
First, a caveat. I've edited the abortion article a fair amount over the years, so I am not a neutral party.
1) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import conflicts, or carry on ideological battles Wikipedia editors are expected to write articles from a neutral perspective, and to assume others are doing the same, rather than trying to "balance" against a conflicting ideology.
Adapted from WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:AGF A reaction to the tendency to see the article in the lens of "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" rather than something more productive.-- Tznkai ( talk) 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Case clerk: Penwhale ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Jclemens ( Talk) & Coren ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
1) It is widely recognized that both of the very-commonly-used-and-referenced titles, "pro-choice" and pro-life", were created as propaganda tools. That way opponents of "pro-choice" could be equated with slavers, and opponents of "pro-life" could be equated with murderers. It is to be expected, because of natural human laziness, that those titles will remain in common use simply because they are very short. Nevertheless, if Wikipedia is not a battleground, then it is essential to reject both propagandistic titles. It is also a fact that deliberate abortions occur whether they are legal or not. Therefore even the current titles, which mention "legalized abortion", are not as accurate as they should be. I therefore propose that the titles should be something like "Abortion: Proponent Views" and "Abortion: Opponent Views" --even these are not as accurate as they should be, because the definition of abortion sometimes includes spontaneous miscarriages, which can happen totally independently of anyone's viewpoint on the subject. However, these titles have the advantage of being reasonably brief and quite accurate, and, if each title was accompanied by an explanatory sentence or subtitle (very common in Wikipedia), it could be indicated that the page so titled is relevant to deliberate abortions only. V ( talk) 17:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
2) Anythingyouwant is restricted from making any article space edits in abortion and pregnancy topics, broadly interpreted. Anythingyouwant may take part in talk page, wikiproject, and noticeboard discussions on these topics, but any uninvolved administrator may ban Anythingyouwant for disruptive behavior. This replaces the November 2007 arbitration against Ferrylodge/Anythingyouwant: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge_restricted. Binksternet ( talk) 03:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopaedia, and this effort is best achieved with an atmosphere of collaboration, camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. The use of Wikipedia for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.
3) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is a non-negotiable, fundamental policy, and requires that editors strive to (a) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not given undue weight, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source.
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.
3.1) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is a non-negotiable, fundamental policy, and requires that editors strive to ensure articles (a) accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not given undue weight, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source. Articles with content of a medical, religious or philosophical nature, as well as matters of public policy and debate must additionally ensure that significant alternate viewpoints on the subject are accurately represented and encompassed to ensure compliance with NPOV.
4) Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.
4.1) Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. In a few cases where there is no single term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, it may be preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
5) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked, or when discussion has broken down. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process through discussion, collaboration and consideration, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict and using the dispute resolution processes to game the system is not an appropriate way of resolving conduct disputes.
6) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.
7) The occurrence of protracted, apparently insoluble disputes—whether they involve conduct, content, or policy—is contrary to the purposes of the project and damaging to its health. The chief purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to protect the project from the disruption caused by such disputes, and it has the authority to issue binding resolutions in keeping with that purpose.
The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. However, in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision.
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.
1) Articles relating to the area of abortion are placed under discretionary sanctions. At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, they may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project, including page protection. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.
This remedy supersedes the general sanctions that were put in place by the community.
2) Abortion and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility.
This remedy supersedes the existing general sanctions put in place by the community.
3) All editors who are party to this case, or edit in the area are instructed to read the principles outlined above, review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them. The committee notes that failing to correct such behaviour in future may lead to further sanctions.
4) Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the dispute, writing from a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilising reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
5) At the closing of this case, a new body of dispute resolution will be convened. This body would only review disputes which have gone through all avenues of dispute resolution, including the Arbitration Committee, and these disputes must be referred to itself by the Arbitration Committee. It will consist of five editors, at least three being administrators, and will all have extensive experience with dispute resolution processes. They will spend one month considering the background of the dispute, and will implement a decision based on past discussion which will be binding for a period of one year. A unanimous consensus is required for resolution.
@PhilKnight, then make it a one off. I truly think having another RFC here would be counterproductive. The Senkanu Islands case could also use something like this. I agree a permanent DR body of this nature should be discussed at the Village Pump (indeed I may propose something there) but I think a finding like this is needed here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 18:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
@ PhilKnight, I think this permanent body is a good idea, but it is rather radical, per Wikipedia's mission, is it not? I think its creation would require extremely widespread input from the community, and the outcome of such input is far from certain. And the matter at hand certainly cannot wait for it to happen. Still, I like it, as (per KillerChihuahua's comments somewhere around here) it would probably be best not to put this into the hands of an abortion-specific anything, as the matter really requires fresh editorial input. Half of our problem has been the ability of small numbers of editors to command ostensible consensus, by which I mean, from what I can see they actually do properly invoke consensus, but I wonder if they would command this consensus if there was a wider degree of involvement from the community. Oh, and I've made one small suggestion on your essay's talk page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 00:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Edit-warring away from the last conseneus version of an article, without establishing a new consensus, can be very disruptive and may be blockable under normal Wikipedia policies without any 3RR (or even 1RR) violation. However, reverting to the last consensus version is distinguishable from such conduct, even if it occurs repeatedly. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This suggestion glorifies a past version in the face a new challenge requiring a new consensus. The past version may well have a serious problem in its sources or interpretation, or simply because of newly published data, but this suggestion puts a major stumbling block in the way of the editor wishing to correct the problem or update the article. We should not adopt this suggested solution. Binksternet ( talk) 02:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
2) Sanctioning an article is not always helpful. If it was, then sanctions would be imposed at all articles. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
3)Consensus is a core Wikipedia policy. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes, and for other changes at least a lesser consensus is required. Controversial articles can become unstable and descend into chaos if this principle is disregarded. However, the Arbitration Committee will not say whether this principle has been disregarded in any particular case, nor take any action against people merely for disregarding this principle, nor restore any part of an article to the most recent version that was supported by consensus. None of that is ArbCom's job. Nor may individual editors repeatedly revert non-consensus edits, which would be unacceptable edit-warring.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 10:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:BRRR is a tendentious and disruptive editing style. It undermines a core Wikipedia principle:
WP:Consensus. ArbCom can identify
WP:BRRR and impose sanctions against it, without making any content decision.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 22:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
1) General sanctions were imposed at the abortion article only as a result of activity elsewhere at Wikipedia, and were not a consequence of editing at that article. [4]
2) More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes in a Wikipedia article, but this summer there has never been any kind of consensus about how to make any particular edit to the lead sentence, especially the part of that sentence prior to its last word ("death"). That lead sentence was stable from 2006 to 2011, but has been repeatedly edit-warred this summer consistent with the essay WP:BRRR, and contrary to WP:Consensus.* Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC) *Please note for the record that I edited WP:Consensus this summer, but not in any way that affects the accuracy of this proposed finding of fact. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
3) Removal of a POV tag has occured at the abortion article even though the issue is actively and adamantly disputed. [6]
4) The abortion article has been frozen by an involved admin in his preferred version that excluded an image of what is aborted. [8] That admin had previously removed such an image, [9] and said subsequent to freezing an image out of the article that he disagreed with its use in the article. [10]
5) As detailed at the evidence page, the article now contains no discernible image of what is aborted during a typical induced abortion. This is a result of edit-warring instead of consensus. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
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.
This remedy supersedes the general sanctions that were put in place by the community at the abortion article without talk page discussion and without cause. [20] Complaints about users frequently go unnoticed down the memory hole, because they're typically posted at the offending user's talk page, or at some noticeboard (wiquette, edit-warring, ANI, et cetera). If such complaints could alternatively or additionally be posted at a dedicated noticeboard for this article, then uninvolved admins (and others) would be able to more easily see what's going on, see what the history of user issues at this article has been, give a response, and/or take action. Preferably the Noticeboard would list at the top at least two uninvolved admins who are currently monitoring the Noticeboard (admin actions could be critiqued at the Noticebord too). Each section would be titled with one or more username, and nothing else. Anyone listed in a heading would have to be notified. Any administratve action taken as a result of (or in connection with) a Noticeboard section, or even separate actions without any prior Noticeboard activity, should be noted in a section of the Noticeboard (immediately below the heading). Failure to do so would require some disincentive, such as removal of administrative action from a block log. Other than this new Noticeboard, I don't think any general or special sanctions should be put in place at the abortion article right now (though it may be advisable to hand out some blocks and/or revert the article to the most recent consensus version that existed prior to edit-war). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
2) The lead sentence will now be reverted to the last consensus version (which existed from 2006-2001). This does not constitute any endorsement of it, nor discourage edits to it that are based on consensus. All editors are warned that they can be blocked for edit-warring away from consensus. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
3) The image was in the article over a year, following extensive discussion. It was removed by censorship and edit-warring without consensus. There must be some remedy other than freezing the article so the image is out permanently (notice that the POV section tag has also been edit-warred out, as described above in findings). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) There are solid, valid arguements for both sides in this matter. Both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV are relevant to this dispute.
2)Unfortunately, these two important policies, in this case, are in conflict, leading to this protracted dispute even as most of the parties attempt to exercise good faith. If both sides are correct in their arguments, attempting to persuade the other that they are "wrong" is bound to be unsuccessful.
1)These articles are undeniably about the same topic, namely, whether or not abortion should be a legal procedure, or under what circumstances it should be legal.
2)This ongoing argument about the name is taking away from the development of the actual text: as of a month ago, 2/3 or more of the edits on these articles and their respective talk pages over the previous year had been spent just on arguing the titles, instead of improving the articles themselves.
We should merge these articles into a single article at Abortion debate. This idea was touched upon six months ago by User:Amakuru and put forward as a serious proposal three months ago by User:DeCausa. Contrary to what some might fear, I believe this would reduce the net POV of the subject's coverage on Wikipedia, since both sides would continually check the other's contributions (See Federalist No. 10, by Madison.) With the topic covered at only one article, it would be easier to monitor editors who are POV warriors, which will make them all more cautious about what they write. Is it a perfect solution to this dilemma? No, but it’s damn close.
@ Jclemens. First of all, I acknowledge my complete ignorance of this process, so I take you at your word that to do this oversteps ArbCom's authority. But may I share some thoughts? You say that a mediation involving only the most interested editors cannot truly be said to represent community consensus. I can certainly get behind that. But how do you propose to obtain a wide community consensus? A few weeks ago, I thought trying to reach consensus by holding a discussion with the editors of the month was a sure route to failure, so in order to get participation in the mediation I contacted additional editors, but only those people who had edited this article over the previous 12-13 months. The result? I got my ass jumped for being disruptive because I was involving people who are not regularly and actively involved in the issue. How will you obtain this wider community consensus? And more importantly, who will decide when that consensus has been achieved and what that consensus says? On such a massively controversial topic like this, will a regular sysop be allowed to close the discussion? Would you expect a closure by any single individual to be respected, even if they were a 'crat or whatever else is higher than that? Don't you think that such a closure would ultimately have to be done by a highly respected group . . . say, like ArbCom? So then what happens to this being out of your jurisdiction? The content issue is going to end up falling on you guys anyway, as far as I can tell.
Here's the big problem, not only as I see it, but as I believe you and others tacitly acknowledge in your other comments: Anything ArbCom "normally" does is unlikely to work here. I read about things like enforcing 1RR, and as one person noted elsewhere, that only leads to "slow motion edit warring". And you write, Prohibition on using IP addresses or any other username to make edits to affected articles" would go into effect here; well, of course that makes sense, but with all respect, isn't that already at WP:SOCK? Sir, there are zealots on both sides of this debate, and they won't be stopped by these kind of measures. Outright banning of editors won't solve the problem, because there's no shortage of zealots to take their place. Most good classroom teachers learn early on that having a list of rules that says "Don't do this", and "Don't do that" can easily be rendered ineffective if a sincere respect for rules is not extant, and that's the situation here. The solution must be something radically different. The merger solution is different because it robs the POV-warriors of the one thing they (inexplicably) value most: their own pet article where they can define the terms of the argument in the way that suits them best. Does this exceed ArbCom's boundaries? Clearly it does, given that your fellow arbitrator (is that what you guys are called? Sorry if I got that wrong) has proposed a new body to deal with such issues as this. But right now, as far as I can see, ArbCom is the only game in town.
I've seen some references to the "Macedonia" situation. I'm unfamiliar with the Wikipedian history of this matter but am well-versed in the intensity of that naming issue in the Balkans, even today. May I suggest, that however vicious that debate was, that it would be unlikely to be as difficult to quell as this one? The passions may be equally intense, but there are simply, for practical purposes, an infinite number of people that will fight this abortion battle. Some do it because they love to fight, and you can get rid of them. But most are simply passionate in what they believe, and they'll continue to make this miserable as long as your solution is "Don't chew gum in class." Is the content matter here out of ArbCom's jurisdiction? Everyone seems to agree that it is, yet it was content, first and foremost regarding the names of these articles that brought us here, and you guys took the case. (The first step in finding a solution is identifying the problem, and, as asinine as it sounds (and is), this issue over article names is not a mere symptom, it is a cancer unto itself.) I'd say that the WP:IAR genie is already out of the bottle on this one, and halfway measures won't change a thing. Only a compromise (in this case equally loathed by both sides) can hope to stem the wasted energies being expended here. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 03:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
1) I would request that an uninvolved editor with successful WP:FA experience to do a quickie merge of the content of both articles into Abortion debate
2) All relevant redirects (e.g., Pro-choice, Anti-abortion, etc.) would be to Abortion debate and would be indefinitely move protected, as would Abortion debate itself.
3) This doesn't require any initial sanctions on any editors. I would then simply warn all parties that their participation in this fiasco makes them subject to intense scrutiny and quick blocking for any POV warring on the article. It'll be much easier to monitor bad behaviour with everyone working on the same article.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
1) While many articles deal solely with scientific content or with philosophical/religious content, many public policy topics, including abortion, involve both descriptions of scientifically observable facts and religious or philosophical reactions to those observable findings. In order for a topic to be covered in an encyclopedic fashion, each sort of source must be used appropriately in such an article.
2) The Wikipedia community has repeatedly preferred to keep images of a controversial nature that illustrate an encyclopedic topic, especially when internal or external groups have objected to them. Past discussions include various Mohammed images, the Virgin Killer album cover, and ejaculation images. . Given the extensive community cohesiveness on this point, edits that remove a controversial image from an article other than for legal compliance (depiction of minors involved in sexual activity, copyright violation) without previously obtaining a clear consensus to do so are per se disruptive.
3) Per WP:LEAD, the opening paragraphs of a Wikipedia article should be an "introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects", "able to stand alone as a concise overview", and "written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article." While lead of an article, or its first sentence in particular, is an important facet of an article to improve, improvements to the lead of an article should fundamentally flow from the content of the article, itself compliant with Wikipedia content policies, and not from efforts to use it as a POV football.
N+1) {text of Proposed principle}
1) There are three separate areas of contention all under consideration, joined together in this one case due to topic and participant overlap:
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.
3) During the period of time under review, at least one sockpuppet of a previously banned user had been contributing to the discussion at Talk:Abortion in violation of that ban. (c.f. Talk:Abortion/Archive_43)
4) Subsequent attempts at discussion of a topic previously settled by community discussion are often initiated by those not initially achieving their desired outcome. Those satisfied with the previous outcome are less likely to re-engage in subsequent discussions, creating an inappropriate bias toward change in subsequent discussions of the topic.
5) User:Orangemarlin has been repeatedly incivil on Talk:Abortion: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. The incivility towards specific editors extends to his talk page: [30], [31]. Orangemarlin edit warred, violating 1RR on the first sentence: First revert [32] Second revert, 3:40 later with a deceptive edit summary [33]. Orangemarlin participated in the edit war over image content in Abortion: [34].
6) User:Michael C Price has been repeatedly incivil in Talk:Abortion: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41].
7) User:Gandydancer has repeatedly used incivil hyperbole and sarcasm in discussions at Talk:Abortion: [42], [43], [44].
N+1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) Definition: "public policy" topics that are currently subject to ongoing political debate, broadly construed. This would include, at a minimum, climate change, death penalty, political campaigns at any level and BLPs of politicians, reproductive health, government health care, and any other hot-button topics identified by any administrator.
Effects: While the public policy probation is in effect, an editor subject to it would have a set of restrictions designed to be a "short leash" without being an outright topic ban:
This may be a solution in search of a problem, but I get the feeling that if we topic ban people from abortion, there's going to be a sizable percentage of those who don't leave Wikipedia entirely who will simply find other "culture war" BATTLEGROUNDs to take their efforts.
Love it? Hate it? See a fatal flaw, but one that can be fixed? Jclemens ( talk) 01:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that the fact that most examples that come readily to mind are American is mostly a result of much of the editors being Americans more than anything particularly different about US culture. — Coren (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd also like to make a plea against a "discretionary sanctions" remedy. They don't work on these sorts of topics. They didn't work on climate change, and the community-imposed version hasn't worked here. "Zero tolerance" blocks for incivility have an unmitigatedly disastrous track record. Additionally, the corps of active admins at WP:AE is severely depleted, and complaints frequently sit open and unaddressed until they become stale. I hope that something besides discretionary sanctions comes from this case, although I acknowledge that I don't have any brighter ideas at the moment. MastCell Talk 05:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
2) IP editing prohibited: The articles and corresponding talk pages relating to Abortion shall be indefinitely semi-protected such that no non-autoconfirmed editor (including IP address editors) shall edit them. Editors in good standing who wish to edit such topics under accounts not linked to their identity may do so under the provisions of WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.
N+1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
This section contains proposed findings of fact (or lack thereof) related to ALL of the named parties in each case. These have been alleged by a party or an arbitrator, but do not currently rise to the level of evidence necessary to include them in a proposed decision. The community, especially including the named parties, is invited to augment these preliminary allegations with diffs, or provide mitigating explanations for the behavior documented.
Filing party, part of Medcab. No inappropriate behavior has been brought to the committee's attention.
TBD
Jclemens is recused with respect to this editor
TBD
No one has presented evidence of misconduct within the scope of this case ( pro-life, pro-choice, and abortion). Also, those users who have presented evidence against me have agreed that my editing has improved in the past year. NYyankees51 ( talk) 00:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Jclemens is recused with respect to this editor
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
No evidence of misconduct has been alleged. SarekOfVulcan has provided evidence, and no sanctions are contemplated at this time.
Potential incivility [45] on March 18th: “Reliable sources flatly contradict both lies.” See also the assertions elsewhere on this page and the evidence page. Anythingyouwant, under his previous username Ferrylodge, has been previously sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for his involvement in Arbitration-relation disputes.
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Jclemens is recused with respect to this editor
Anthony Appleyard's involvement in the article move process was sub-optimal: Pro-Life:
Alpha Quadrants first close: [47]
Anthony Appleyard proposal 1: [48]
Proposal 1 self-close, 1 May: [49]
Proposal 1 self-reopen, 2 May: [50]
DrKiernan close of proposal 1: [51]
Anthony Appleyard proposal 2: [52]
Pro Choice
WMO proposal 1: [53] Closed: [54]
Kwamikagami proposal 2, 9 Feb: [55]
Anthony A close as move on 21 Mar: [56] (11 to 7 in favor)
Reversal motion 1, Roscelese, 1 May: [57]
Anthony A close reversal motion 1, 13 June: [58]
AA starts reversal motion 2, 15 June: [59]
Comment: Under no circumstances should an administrator close a discussion to reverse their own action; that is the definition of INVOLVED, even if they maintain no editing in or around the topic in which that decision was made. Further, subsequently opening another discussion on the same topic is not a self-revert of the closure, which would have been the proper way to remedy an inappropriate close.
Editor (recused arb) participated in and closed the MEDCAB effort, added as a party to provide evidence only, no allegations of poor behavior, no sanctions being considered.
TBD
Reverts evidence specifically criticizing his actions. While the evidence was in the wrong place and his assertion of WP:BAN appears correct, it is never appropriate for an accused person to remove an accusation themselves: [60]
De-Tags Abortion, potentially inappropriately: [61] De-tags, removes image: [62]
Potential incivility: [63] on June 19th: “You're not going to convince me with sophistry, misrepresentations, and anecdotes, because this isn't a high-school debating society.”
I'm much more exercised about the "never acceptable" edit. Once again, I directly contacted the Committee via their mailing list at the time of that edit, and received what I took as explicit approval for the edit at the time I made it. I wasn't naive enough to expect support from the Committee simply because I was following policy (and apparently my cynicism was amply justified). That's why I took the extra step of proactively addressing the edit with the Committee. MastCell Talk 21:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
See above.
I'd prefer to address any remaining issues regarding this editor outside the scope of a formal arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
BOLD edit: [66] Reverted+tag by LionelT: [67] JJL immediately redid reverted edit with deceptive edit summary: [68]
TBD
TBD
Potential incivility [69] on July 1: “Glad I'm not an awkward dishonest pro-choicer.”
See the evidence provided above.
TBD
Incivility [70] on July 3: “It's a well-established fact that if a decision has stood for 6 years any johnny-come-lately that thinks they know better than a decision that has stood the test of time (6 years) and been reaffirmed again and again and has no new information to add, should stand! This was true when the wemmon-folk wanted the right to vote and the nee-gras said they didn't like being slaves and it's still true today, by gawd.”, [71] again on July 3: “Anyone should understand that 3/5 was a great compromise compared to making the darkies zero or one, since that was out of the question. Sound logic and worked perfectly till some upstarts upset the applecart. Really, who doesn't long for the days when logic ruled and the women-folk and the darkies knew their place, other than them, of course.”, and [72] on July 20th: “RoyBoy has an odd idea that a handful of Wikipedia editors has the authority to pronounce the editors of just about every dictionary and the editors of every encyclopedia inaccurate. By his standards, lets go straight to the evolution article and insist that the planet is only 8 thousand years old -after all we need only produce a dozen Wikipedia editors to show that all those scientists are simply inaccurate. Easy as eating pie!”
TBD
TBD
TBD
1) Wikipedia aspires to be a serious, respectable reference work. Its representation of controversial topics should thus reflect the coverage one would expect from a such a reference work.
2) Strong personal views on a controversial topic do not disqualify a user from editing in that topic area, provided that they are able to comply with Wikipedia's policies and expectations. However, if users' personal viewpoints on a topic overwhelm their ability to edit within policy, then they may be restricted from editing. In this setting, edit-warring, tendentious editing, attempting to game the system, or other forms of disruptive editing may indicate that an editor is unable to put aside their personal convictions sufficiently to productively edit a Wikipedia article.
3) Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a venue to promote specific political or social agendas. Users who consistently promote one side of a topic (or narrow range of topics) should be particularly scrupulous to ensure that they edit within this site's policies and guidelines. Violations of policy in the service of agenda-driven editing may lead to restrictions of editing privileges.
4) The Committee has generally declined to settle good-faith content disputes. Where such disputes are complicated by user-conduct issues, the Committee may address those issues.
5) In many naming and content disputes, there is no One Right Answer. There may be more than one reasonable approach. Insisting on one alternative to the exclusion of other reasonable alternatives can eventually become disruptive.
4) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are meant to codify existing best practices. While edits to policy pages are often prompted by specific editing experiences, it is inappropriate to alter policy pages to further one's position in a specific dispute.
5) Agenda-driven editing, in which users advocate a specific personal ideology at the expense of Wikipedia's policies and goals, is a substantial impediment to the project's mission of creating a serious, respectable reference work. Where it is clear that editors have consistently engaged in agenda-driven editing, they should be handled as expeditiously as we handle other threats to the encyclopedia's integrity such as vandalism.
6) While Wikipedia does not provide medical advice, it is nonetheless a widely used resource for medical and health information. Because of the potential for real-life harm arising from inaccurate medical information, editors have a responsibility to ensure that Wikipedia's medical coverage accurately and proportionately reflects expert opinion and does not contain inaccurate or misleading medical claims.
I think we should take this seriously as an ethical concern - for example, reverting such potentially harmful material should be in the same protected category as reverting clear BLP violations, and editors who consistently add inaccurate or misleading medical information should be sanctioned accordingly. But I accept that the issue is, at best, a small subset of the abortion dispute and thus perhaps outside the scope of this case. MastCell Talk 22:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
6) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a platform for advocacy. Article talk pages are intended to provide space for editors to discuss specific content changes to the associated article, and should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.
7) All content on Wikipedia should be verifiably based on a reliable source, without editorial spin. Particularly on controversial topics, editors should seek out the highest-quality available sources and strive to accurately and proportionately convey their content. Where sources disagree, editors should strive to use the best available sources and resist the temptation to search selectively for sources which support their personal ideology.
The best example I have at my fingertips is this thread on the impact of legal restrictions on abortion incidence. I try to approach these disputes by starting with what I think are the best available sources, and asking others to kick in additional sources. You can see where things go from there. And notice that despite plenty of stonewalling, no one actually produces additional reliable sources. This pattern has been repeated quite a few times, often by the same handful of editors. MastCell Talk 23:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
In general we have to insist on a clear dividing line between what academic research says, and what advocates and campaigners think about that research or the questions the research examines. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 03:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
8) The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process.
The same happened when NuclearWarfare dug up a long list of definitions of abortion - instead of forming a jumping-off point for constructive discussion, people started filibustering and trying to get their favorite dictionaries featured while denigrating the dictionaries whose definitions they disliked. MastCell Talk 23:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
1) The current case involves a loosely connected group of abortion-related disputes, including a dispute over appropriate naming conventions for the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements and the question of fetal "death" in the lead sentence of the abortion article.
2)
Anythingyouwant (
talk ·
contribs) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages, and has inappropriately edited policy pages a policy page to further his position in a content dispute.
3) DMSBel ( talk · contribs) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages.
3.1) DMSBel ( talk · contribs) has a history of tendentious editing on topics related to human sexuality, leading to a topic ban from those areas. Since that topic ban, he has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages.
3.2) DMSBel ( talk · contribs) has a history of tendentious editing on topics related to human sexuality, leading to a topic ban from those areas. Since that topic ban, he has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages and used them as a soapbox from which to voice his personal views on abortion.
It's probably worth noting what I think are prescient comments from the earlier topic-ban discussion, by User:Cyclopia: "It is true that ejaculation has been by far and large the main subject of DMSBel crusade, yet I wouldn't be surprised, given the pattern at other articles, if an article ban would simply move his crusade on some other article (like the one you linked). The problem with DMSBel is much deeper: he is the textbook case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He has a critical problem in understanding what consensus really is and/or in recognizing it. About the apology, I think it is sincere but I am not sure, given again the pattern, that he will held up his promises." MastCell Talk 19:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And they're along the lines of this gem: "Come on Wikipedians? The Fetus is a baby, the baby is alive and the baby is a person. Abortion kills an unborn baby. We are pussy footing round the whole issue, which is worse than just coming out and being honest about it - no roe v wade said this or said that. We all know, all of us here. We all have to face it."
And this, directed at other editors trying to calm him down: "At least we will start to see POVs more clearly. Yours is that a mother can kill her unborn baby if it is going to be a burden... Every kid coming out of high school knows abortion kills a baby."
I defy anyone to actually resolve a content dispute or reach a meaningful consensus in the face of this unrelenting avalanche of tendentious commentary. MastCell Talk 23:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
4) Haymaker ( talk · contribs) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages.
5) NYyankees51 ( talk · contribs) has tendentiously edited abortion-related pages.
The scope of this case, as MastCell and I understand it, is user conduct on the pro-life, pro-choice, and abortion articles. So I am confused as to why I am being considered for a topic ban. I haven't done anything that I can remember that comes close to warranting a topic ban. I made an uncivil comment to a now-banned antagonistic editor on the pro-life move proposal in February, but that doesn't warrant a topic ban. Yes, I have been blocked for violating 1RR, but if I remember correctly none of the three were on these three articles. And I violated 1RR because I didn't understand that a partial revert constitutes a revert that counts towards 1RR. So essentially my conduct at the articles I got blocked at wasn't different than other editors - they simply knew how to avoid 1RR and I didn't. This is not to defend edit warring, this is to say that my blocks, while deserved, could have easily happened to someone else. I have not been blocked for edit warring in over three months now.
Yes, I tendentiously edit abortion-related articles, but that in and of itself is not against policy. I must be tendentiously uncivil and unconstructive, and MastCell acknowledges that I am not, at least not on purpose. A yearlong topic ban seems excessive and wouldn't better the encyclopedia. NYyankees51 ( talk) 02:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
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.
1) Anythingyouwant ( talk · contribs), Haymaker ( talk · contribs), DMSBel ( talk · contribs), and NYyankees51 ( talk · contribs) are restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.
Most editors (and most people) have some opinion about abortion. I've tried to focus on instances where opinionated editors have advocated their personal belief system at the expense of this site's policies and expectations. The four editors I've singled out all have clear and longstanding track records of problematic editing behavior, on top of a clear personal agenda on the subject.
Are there "pro-choice" editors who meet similar criteria, with a similar history of abusive editing in service of their agenda (as exemplified by multiple blocks for edit-warring, topic bans, sanctions, etc)? I didn't identify any at a brief glance, but if you have, then we could discuss them. MastCell Talk 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
1.1) Anythingyouwant ( talk · contribs) is restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.
1.2) Haymaker ( talk · contribs) is restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.
1.3) DMSBel ( talk · contribs) is restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.
1.4) NYyankees51 ( talk · contribs) is restricted from editing abortion-related topics, broadly construed, for one year. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces, with the exception of responding to dispute resolution initiated by another editor and addressing these editors directly.
2) All editors on abortion-related topics are reminded that whatever their personal beliefs, their participation on this project is contingent on being able to comply with this site's policies. All editors are asked to review their own participation to ensure that it remains constructive and focused on the production of a serious, respectable reference work rather than on promoting a specific agenda.
3) Because of the controversial nature of the subject and the history of editing disputes, editors of abortion-related topics are reminded to adhere to this site's best practices. Any uninvolved administrator may topic-ban any editor who demonstrates that their personal viewpoint on the topic overwhelms their ability to edit within policy. Examples of behavior which might trigger a topic ban include: tendentious and repetitive argumentation, repeated incidences of edit-warring, attempts to game the system, or consistent abuse of article or talk pages as a soapbox.
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
1) One of the problems with issues like Abortion is that they provide people with the opportunity to continually debate and to filibuster progress in an article. Some of us enjoy a reasonable amount of debate, but Wikipedia isn't really the venue for it. I think if people are making the same point more than twice or so and have been asked for either sources or detailed policy evidence have failed to provide it then that's disruptive and those users should get sanctions against them.
The current position allows those of us who enjoy debate to get too much practice at it, and doesn't achieve results in a timely manner and drives away those who don't enjoy debate from controversial topics which is bad as they need more impartial people.
Wikipedians (rather, a subset of Wikipedians) are really bad at just letting something go. Once they sink our teeth into something, they don't let go. Those sorts of folks are, over time, increasingly over-represented on controversial topics. I considered listing, in my evidence, a roll call of sane, reasonable editors who have either left Wikipedia entirely or left the topic over the past several years because of this sort of endless, circular debate and filibustering.
The problem with "consensus", as practiced on Wikipedia, is that it doesn't scale to high-profile, controversial articles. If you have a group of n like-minded, agenda-driven editors active on a topic, then that group can obstruct efforts to build a consensus indefinitely. The value of n, in my experience, is quite small, probably <5. MastCell Talk 19:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
1.1) Continually making the same point in discussions filibusters progress, is disruptive and prevents the project forward. Making the same argument in the same discussion more than three times will be considered disruptive to the project and blockable by an uninvolved administrator.
1) Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Core wikipedia policy - Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The presence of the word "death" in the opening defining sentences of the article have been a focus of dispute.
As presented elsewhere. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare ( talk · contribs) has provided a summary of definitions for "abortion" from a selection of medical dictionaries and major obstetrics and gynecology textbooks with a clear consensus for the word death not to be used in the definition.
Per his evidence, clear use of broad secondary and reinforced with tertiary sources. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
First, a caveat. I've edited the abortion article a fair amount over the years, so I am not a neutral party.
1) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import conflicts, or carry on ideological battles Wikipedia editors are expected to write articles from a neutral perspective, and to assume others are doing the same, rather than trying to "balance" against a conflicting ideology.
Adapted from WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:AGF A reaction to the tendency to see the article in the lens of "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" rather than something more productive.-- Tznkai ( talk) 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)