| Revision as of 23:53, 10 August 2011 view sourceAnythingyouwant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,258 edits →Statement by Anythingyouwant: Q ArbCom← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:56, 12 August 2011 view source Penwhale (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users7,574 edits →Abortion: rm, openingNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| <br clear="all"/> | <br clear="all"/> | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} | ||
| == Abortion == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> '''at''' 02:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| *{{userlinks|Steven Zhang}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Eraserhead1}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Roscelese}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|NYyankees51}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Lionelt}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Kenatipo}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|DeCausa}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|CWenger}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|LedRush}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|TheFreeloader}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Haymaker}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|SarekOfVulcan}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Anythingyouwant}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Binksternet}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Objectivist}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|NuclearWarfare}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|HuskyHuskie}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|VsevolodKrolikov}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Chaos5023}} | |||
| :''Note''- There is a larger list of parties at the ]. I have added users that I observed to contribute on the MedCab case at least more than a few times. If I've missed anyone please let me know. | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Eraserhead1&diff=prev&oldid=442783332 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Roscelese&diff=prev&oldid=442783438 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NYyankees51&diff=prev&oldid=442783462 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lionelt&diff=prev&oldid=442783567 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:DeCausa&diff=prev&oldid=442783615 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kenatipo&diff=prev&oldid=442783728 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:LedRush&diff=prev&oldid=442783866 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:TheFreeloader&diff=prev&oldid=442783903 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Haymaker&diff=prev&oldid=442783980 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:CWenger&diff=prev&oldid=442784008 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&diff=prev&oldid=442784311 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Unscintillating&diff=prev&oldid=442784320 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Anythingyouwant&diff=prev&oldid=442784326 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Binksternet&diff=prev&oldid=442784336 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare&diff=prev&oldid=442784409 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Objectivist&diff=prev&oldid=442784431 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:HuskyHuskie&diff=prev&oldid=442785854 | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Steven_Zhang&diff=443893048&oldid=443877139 (in re Chaos5023) | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| === Statement by Steven Zhang === | |||
| I am presenting this case to the Arbitration Committee, as I have unfortunately done so in the past after a mediation (see ]. I don't do this lightly (I hate RFAR) however I feel it's the only way forward in this situation, and in the best interests of the community, as the general sanctions these articles are under have been ineffective. This would encompass all abortion articles, however mainly the ] article, and the recently renamed (as a result of the Mediation Cabal case) ] and ]. It seems to me that while there are still niggly content issues with the articles, the major player is is user conduct. In my opinion as a mediator, the reason things aren't progressing is due to polarised opinions on the matter. This isn't something that can be resolved through discussion and consensus building. I feel that the conduct of all parties needs to be reviewed, and remedies implemented to provide long term stability to the articles. Edit warring has been an issue, with editors doing one revert a day to get around 1RR, so a temporary injunction to address this for the term of this arbitration case should maybe be looked at. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| '''Note:''' Since this RFAR has been filed, a slow-mo edit war has continued at the Abortion article. While not in violation of 1RR, these edits continue to be made. Because of polarised views, talk page discussion is having little or no success. Please see the diffs I have provided, where in the lead , , and in a separate issue, , , and again changed from . This is part of the reason why I initially proposed 0RR as a temporary injunction, though I realise the scope was too broad. A temporary injunction needs to be implemented here. There are users making these edits that are not listed as parties, so an injunction topic banning all listed parties from editing articles related to Abortion would be ineffective. The same applies to restricting listed parties to 0RR on abortion articles until the case is accepted, or resolved via motion. The only workable solution I can think of is full protection until a resolution is made on this case, whether by motion or acceptance of the case. | |||
| ;{{anchord|Proposed injunction by Steven Zhang}} | |||
| 1) Due to continued edit warring on the ] article , even while an Arbitration case is pending, it is placed under indefinite full protection, pending resolution of this case either by motion or Arbitration finding. No administrator may lift this protection without the express permission of the Arbitration Committee. | |||
| I think this is the only way forward pending acceptance by the Arbitration Committee. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 22:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ;{{anchord|Responses to comments}} | |||
| @Ohms law, I've only added parties to this case that I noticed contributed a bit to the MedCab, or on talk pages. It's not intended to drag users into the dispute that don't belong in it, and that can be sorted out by the clerks or arbitrators. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@NuclearWarfare, the larger issue as I see it here (In regards to the Abortion titles dispute) is contrasted and polarised opinions, not a lack of structure in mediation discussions. As the mediator, I of course am biased in favour of my own handling of the dispute, but am unsure if mediation over the titles again will achieve a desired result. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 04:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@John Vandenburg, I definitely agree that walking away would be the best course of action here, and I do apologise for filing here, but done so only after it was evident that the MedCom case would not be accepted (a significant majority of parties disagree) and that other resolution would be required. Because it seems that soon after the MedCab was closed, discussion continued about titles, and then a MedCom case was filed, that these issues will just go around in circles until resolved. This is the reason I filed the case. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 06:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@Jclemens, something similar to ] would probably be effective in this instance. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 06:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Ugh'''. This is why I hate RFAR :) (more comments below) | |||
| *@Coren, while Ireland article names would likely be the precedent for accepting this case, I feel that remedies such as discretionary sanctions to replace the community probation the Abortion articles are currently under, may be required in order to bring stability to these articles in the future. Findings from Tree shaping may also come into play here, as there is no consensus that either combination of abortion-rights/anti-abortion or pro-life/pro-choice is actually more common, per COMMONNAME. My rationale will follow in a separate reply. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@DeCausa, clarified my original intent for adding parties to this case. Hope it clears it up. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@Born2cycle, as your statement largely refers to myself and Arbitrator TheCavalry, I think a decent reply is required. I apologise to the clerks in advance if this is too long, if so, feel free to move it to a subpage of mine and replace this text with a link. Firstly, I notice in your statement, you only reference the moving of Pro-life, and not Pro-choice. Any particular reason, or do you not see an issue with the moving of Pro-choice? How odd. You state that I ignored POVTITLE, and that per COMMONNAME the articles should be at Pro-life. This was addressed in Mediation. This is not a case of Bill Clinton or William Jefferson Clinton. The statistics of which names were common was reached by a plain google search, without the ] being applied. COMMONNAME also says that "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." The large issue at hand here is that we should not treat all sources as equal. By using the most reliable and respected sources in this situation, as presented at the MedCab case by VsevolodKrolikov (I can find a diff if required), we don't have a common name at all. Just today, I did a basic, unfiltered Google News search. I got , , and . I don't see a strong argument for common name for either title here, and this is the reason I proposed an alternative, such as was found in the . Sure, the policy on title changes does say to not just change the name for the sake of resolving a dispute, but as has been presented, there's no common name for these articles. It's reasonably split down the middle. Initially, I did propose to ignore these policies, but in the end, they weren't ignored. No common name exists in '''reliable sources''' and in these situations descriptive titles are often required. I don't feel myself or TheCavalry did anything that wasn't completely above board. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@Born2cycle, one last comment, as I feel something I said has been taken out of context. Indeed, I did say "This is a contentious topic, and opinions are clearly split pretty much down the middle. This one is going to require a compromise, and I don't think it's going to involve either of the names", however I feel some clarification is required in regards to this. Firstly, this comment was said at the start of the mediation, when I had done a quick skim of the previous move discussions, and not after the mediation discussion had taken place. Indeed, compromise is often required to resolve difficult disputes. Not all disputes are resolved through collaboration, unfortunately. You are, of course, correct when it comes to the policy on title changes. In normal circumstances, article titles should not be changed simply to resolve a dispute. The issue I saw at the time, and continue to see, is there is no agreement on which titles for the articles are more common as documented in reliable sources, and this has been discussed ''ad nauseum''. One of the principles in the '']'' case was that " In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists...Instead, it is 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." I think this would be appropriate in this situation, and was a factor in my comments on the case. In the end, I don't think the decision that was made ignored the above policies you have pointed out, and I feel I have provided the reasons for that above. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 02:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@Kenatipo, nope, this case is to review the conduct of people actually involved in this dispute, on a large scale, not just edit warring. Has nothing to do with the massive list of parties at MedCom. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 23:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@Sven, I actually note quite a few objecting to the MedCom do so as they feel that a resolution has already been reached, and not refusing as they disagree at being listed as a party. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 23:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@Penwhale, actually, they ]. That one is an old case. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 06:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@All Parties, I do have comments on the posts that have been made since my last posting but think in this situation it is best to keep my mouth shut, and let ArbCom do their job, as that is the reason I brought this case here in the first place. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 12:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@LedRush, I was going to leave your comment unreplied to, but I seek clarification. As you said, "But we have accepted short terms. It's just that a minority of vocal ideologues have decided that they don't like it" however based on the discussions, it's unclear what minority you are referring to. I would encourage you to read the comments of Elen of the Roads before replying to this post, and remember what the purpose of Misplaced Pages truly is. Like all of us here I hope, I am here to try to make Misplaced Pages a better place. I try to do that by resolving disputes between users. Sometimes I'm successful. Sometimes I'm not. I just hope that all parties here realise that the reason I've brought this here is not to punish anyone, but to bring this dispute some final resolution so we can all move forward with Misplaced Pages's true purpose, building an encyclopaedia and providing the right to free knowledge for everyone. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 12:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@Newyorkbrad, | |||
| **1) From my perspective, yes, the main issue is the titles of the articles, though the main article on abortion has also been an issue and hence why I have added it to this RFAR. | |||
| **2) Yes, they have, at the respective talk pages for Support of/Opposition to legalised abortion, as well as on several user talk pages. | |||
| **3) The ugly truth about Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process is that there is no process to bring a final resolution to protracted debates other than the Arbitration Committee, and in normal cases only to address conduct issues. I feel the precedent for action by the Committee in this situation is from the '']'' case, namely "...''in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision''". I think that is what is required in this case. I personally don't care as to the outcome of the committee's discussions and findings, I would just like to see some resolution. | |||
| **4) Perhaps two remedies could be implemented by motion in lieu of a full case. The Committee should consider whether providing some binding resolution on this case would be for the benefit of the project. As I said above, I have no vested interest in this dispute (apart from seeing it through to the end and wanting the issues to be resolved), so whatever the Committee decides on is fine by me, as long as it will stick. I would strongly advocate for the Committee to supersede the general sanctions placed on these articles by the community with discretionary sanctions, such as those in the Macedonia case. Rejecting the RFAR in lieu of a motion should obviously be done with a caveat, that is, if these motions are unsuccessful at resolving the dispute, a full arbitration case would be opened. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@MastCell, Agreed. Best way to deal with this is not to sanction users but to get a structure for dealing with issues going forward, as all other methods of DR have been exhausted. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 02:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *@ArbCom, just to make myself perfectly clear, as I feel it may be unclear and wish to clarify for the record. My reasons for bringing this case are to seek a resolution to this dispute, as I have listed above, ArbCom is the final step in the dispute resolution process, to be used when all other methods of resolution have either failed or are not viable options. I feel that in this situation this is the case. I bring it here to seek a resolution, and not to sanction individual users (though in the end that may be part of a resolution). These articles need a long-term plan to bring them stability, and this is something I think ArbCom can help facilitate. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 19:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by NuclearWarfare === | |||
| I have not been involved with the issue of the title of the ]/] articles. Honestly, I think something along the lines of ] or ] is necessary to solve that, as it's getting kind of ridiculous right now.<p>Steve also mentions the dispute over the lead sentence of ], which I am far more familiar with, as it has <s>wasted hours of my life</s> allowed me to gain invaluable insight in how to find quality reliable sources. Despite the rather we have seen over the last two months, I think that the editors who have not been pushed away from the article have come to a rough agreement on the article. Hopefully. I don't think review by the Arbitration Committee would hurt a great deal, but neither do I think it's entirely necessary at this time. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :@Casliber: Maybe an admin-mediator with more power than a normal MedCom member or a mediator with significant content experience to help the discussion move along? But I think that would have been more helpful four weeks ago; I don't see a need for one now. Maybe some sort of agreement that one will be appointed in two weeks if the dispute isn't settled by then? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 04:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Ohms law === | |||
| {{hat|1=Nevermind.}} | |||
| My "involvement" in this is limited to providing my opinion during an earlier mediation attempt. Now I'm being dragged into this and attempting to be dragged into the attempt to create a super-mediation case by one of the other participants in the dispute. To say that being named as a party in either is annoying would be an understatement. | |||
| Please also be aware of ], which I posted just prior to becoming aware of this RFAR. Regards,<br/>— ] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">(] • ])</span> 03:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| @Steven: that's why everything about this is disruptive. Just a smidgeon of forethought may have avoided my type of objection, but everyone involved in this is so gung ho to start flaming each other that all reason has apparently gone out the window (which speaks volumes about the need for an arbcom case here, with the proper parties, really). All of this simply because I replied to an RFC with my opinion. Just great, people.<br/>— ] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">(] • ])</span> 03:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| === Observation by really-glad-I'm-not-involved Floquenbeam === | |||
| 0RR?? Editors would be free to insert something ridiculous into any abortion-related article, and ''no one'' could remove it until they get consensus to do so? I understand you may think that 1RR is not working well, but imposing 0RR on everyone editing a large group of articles is destined to fail. You'd be better off just full-protecting the articles for the duration of the case. --] (]) 03:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| @Casliber: Abortion articles are already under 1RR. | |||
| @world: I'm not babbling, a suggestion for 0RR was originally suggested but was later removed, I was responding to that. --] (]) 04:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by NYyankees51=== | |||
| I'm not familiar with arbitration, so forgive me if I'm not supposed to make a statement. I filed ]. The fight over the titles has dragged on for six months now ( ), with three move proposals and an informal mediation. I would like to note that the initial proposal at pro-life resulted in what seemed to be, to me at least, a clear consensus to keep the title of pro-life. Requests were opened again and again by people who favored changing the title. This was highly disruptive; they were pushing the issue until they got the result they wanted. Now here we are. Again, I don't know how arbitration works so I don't know if this is a better or proper solution as opposed to formal mediation. I just want to draw attention to how we got here. ] (]) 03:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response to Newyorkbrad's questions | |||
| 1. Yes, it is primarily about the titles of the articles. Though I'm not sure why the ] article, where there is a dispute about the lead sentence, was included in this request, since that is a different issue involving mostly different editors. | |||
| 2. Yes, at ], ], ], and ]. | |||
| 3. I'm not familiar with the arbitration process, so I won't try to answer. | |||
| 4. I still think we can accomplish something at the formal mediation. The only problem is editor fatigue. But again, I'm not too familiar with arbitration. I don't think editor conduct is the issue. Things have gotten heated, though there has been nothing exceedingly improper. So if arbitration is going to focus on editor conduct, I don't think it's a good solution. ] (]) 19:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Objectivist=== | |||
| I don't especially care about the titles of Misplaced Pages articles, except where a title can be extraordinarily misleading. "Pro-Life" appears to be such a title (per the definition of "hypocrisy"), and I will now explain why, an argument that so far as I know is generally unknown...it is categorized as "Original Research" here. | |||
| :Consider a simple "model economy" in which the population and the resources needed to sustain that population are well-matched. And, as in the real economy, there are people who are "middlemen" in terms of converting resources into goods for that population to consume. They operate businesses that hire laborers to do the converting, and they sell the goods, to be able to pay for the labor. Standard stuff. | |||
| :But what happens if more people are added to that model economy, '''without''' simultaneously increasing the available resources? Per the Law of Supply and Demand, there will be increased competition for the available labor slots, which generally means wages would fall. Simultaneously, per that same Law, there will be increased competition for goods, which generally means prices would rise. Does anyone benefit? Certainly! The middlemen who hire labor and sell goods end up with greater sales receipts and lower labor costs, resulting in greater profits. '''This is actually the fundamental mechanism, the world over, explaining how the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.''' | |||
| :Now of course some people will say that there is now an Opportunity for someone to open up new resources to compete with those middlemen. '''BUT''', in the Real World, it is well known that businesses try to stifle competition, and try to lock down resources and create monopolies (witness the diamond cartel), as an alternate way to increase prices and profits. There is no guarantee that the possible Opportunity can actually be implemented. But there is every guarantee, per the Law of Supply and Demand, that if the middlemen can successfully cause the population to increase faster than the supply of resources, they will profit from it, while simultaneously causing laborers to have a tougher time making ends meet. The proof of this is to be found throughout the last half of the 20th Century, in which, at its start, one laborer's income usually sufficed to support a family, and now the incomes of two parents are all-too-often barely enough. The price of ordinary labor has most certainly '''not''' kept pace with the price of resources/goods! | |||
| :Those middlemen can '''claim''' to be "pro-life" and oppose abortion, but what they '''act''' like is that they are pro-profit-only. They most certainly can directly personally benefit from increased competition for limited labor slots and limited goods. They '''apparently''' care '''nothing''' about the Quality of Life for all that extra Life they want the economy to include! If they were '''really''' pro-life, they would be willing to ensure that the cost of labor was '''always''' sufficient to sustain a decent life. Yet many of those same business-oriented "pro-lifers" oppose Minimum Wage Laws! | |||
| :The Evidence of History is that resource-availability must increase '''faster''' than the rate of population increase for the overall Quality of Life of a population to increase. Even though that would naturally mean, per the Law of Supply and Demand, that wages would go up, to attract laborers who have many choices, and prices and profits would go down as goods flooded the markets, and the poor would get richer faster than the rich ... as has actually happened in History when a new resource (e.g., big sections of North America) suddenly became widely accessible for exploitation. | |||
| :Notice how important it must be for middlemen/businessmen to try to keep secret the wider consequences associated with claiming to be "pro-life". They don't want the foundations of their argument to be revealed as being equivalent to quick-sand, so of course they must automatically deny the validity of (or even try to suppress) any argument that points out the above wider consequences --or any other wider consequences, some of which are even worse for pro-lifers than that one. I've never seen the above argument published in a Reliable Source, yet it seems to me it should be simple and obvious to anyone with a decent background in economics. '''''It should not be'' original-with-me research!''' | |||
| Getting back to the overall topic of this Request Page, I want to clearly indicate that '''however''' it finally closes, the titles of all the appropriate abortion-related articles need to be locked down in such a way that anyone who wants to change them should be directed to some sort of Final Decision page, where it is clearly stated that no other input will be accepted regarding title-changes (unless something truly extraordinary and relevant happens outside of Misplaced Pages). Thank you! ] (]) 06:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :@HuskyHuskie --uniting the two articles could in theory be a fine idea, except that in practice it is normal for an article to refer to split-off separate sub-articles when it grows to be too long. And even if that typicality was ignored in this case, there would '''still''' be arguments about the names of the subsections of the united article! | |||
| :'''To ALL:''' Hey! Maybe the two existing articles should be called "Debate Side X" and "Debate Side Y", with a coin toss deciding which side of the debate gets which name! Then '''nobody''' can claim they got some sort of "short end of the stick" with respect to the title names! ] (]) 15:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Extending my previous "hypocrisy" explanation, I'd like to point out The Very Simplest Way To Prove That Many Pro-Lifers Are Hypocrites. Just start by recognizing that throughout just about all human societies across History, it is generally expected that if someone wants something-or-other, that person should pay for it. So, if pro-lifers want various unborn humans to be born, instead of aborted, simply insist that those pro-lifers should "put their money where their mouths are", and make them pay for '''all''' costs associated with prenatal care, childbirth, and child-rearing, for every abortion that they desire to prevent. Then we shall see how many "pro-lifers" change their tune! --especially if they are businessmen as described above, wanting to '''gain''' money from ---not '''pay''' money for-- all that human life they want to be born! ] (]) 18:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::What does this have to do with the present arbitration case? Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Would a clerk please remove this irrelevant commentary. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Read the first two sentences''' under "Statement by Objectivist" for your answer. What I wrote is '''entirely''' relevant to the proposed article title "pro-life" --I'm proving that that title is not anywhere near as accurate as claimed; it is mostly pure propaganda being pushed by an ignorant (albeit extremely vocal!) minority of the population. (By the way, it is not an "attack" of any sort to say that someone is ignorant; it is a simple Truth that '''everyone''' is ignorant of something-or-other. Pro-lifers are merely ignorant of various facts, which, if they knew those facts --or stopped denying that they are indeed facts-- and included them in their reasoning, they would no longer be pro-lifers.) | |||
| :::If you like, for the sake of thoroughness, I'll be happy to reiterate the explanation that while "pro-life" might be a '''trifle''' accurate '''in the short term''', in the long term that penny-wise/pound-foolish policy is actually "pro genocide" toward most of the human species (by promoting the faster arrival of a Malthusian Catastrophe, with its typical associated 99% death rate of a starving animal population, or, in this future case, the human ]). No, indeed, "pro life" '''cannot''' be a valid/accurate/correct long-term name for a Misplaced Pages article describing opposition to abortion! ] (]) 23:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Roscelese === | |||
| Agree with Floquenbeam and Casliber that 0RR is a terrible idea. Even 1RR cuts with one edge as it heals with the other: it helps cut down on edit wars, but it means that even the most ludicrously POV stuff can't always be reverted. Would it be a good idea to elect a team of respected and experienced editors to help deal with content issues? ] (] ⋅ ]) 04:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :@all: This is not the venue to complain about not getting the titles you wanted, or even to complain about people complaining that they didn't get the titles they wanted. That discussion is going on in more than enough venues as it is. If you have nothing to say about a long-term solution to the conduct problems on abortion-related articles, just stick to the half-dozen other places where the titles are being discussed, thank you very much. ] (] ⋅ ]) 16:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement Eraserhead1 === | |||
| Unfortunately I think this is the right venue. I looked at my talk page initially and saw the message pointing here first and was about to urge you to decline but I've changed my mind. | |||
| Its obvious to anyone who is prepared to take a step back that pro-life and pro-choice have POV issues and that even though the new titles aren't perfect they are better as they meet that. Its also obvious that ] takes priority over ] and its pretty clear from the extensive data gathered in the mediation cabal case that ] doesn't apply in this case. Overall Chase me I'm the cavalry made an excellent closing statement on the matter and I am fully satisfied by it. | |||
| I honestly don't see what formal mediation can do to improve the decision that has already been made other than waste a huge amount of time. Given that other people seem to continue to want to revisit this I think Arbcom is the right venue. -- ] <]> 07:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Overall I think the primary issue here is a refusal to get the point from some of the contributors. I among others have debated the matter extensively at the mediation cabal page and tried to explain why pro-life and pro-choice don't meet the projects policies - there does seem to be quite a bit of ] on this matter without suggesting any other possible alternatives other than pro-life from some people here and that does need to be addressed. -- ] <]> 07:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Sven on Steven's point, I have declined the formal mediation because I don't see how its possibly going to accomplish anything. The only person who has bought anything new to the table at all is Born2Cycle and he's only one editor and the ground he is covering has been covered - even if it has been less well articulated before. -- ] <]> 07:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response to NewYorkBrad | |||
| :::@NewYorkBrad. 1) As far as I'm concerned yes. I made some arguments in the original move discussions and primarily got involved to try merging the articles to resolve the issues and then when it became clear that some form of escalation (the MedCab case) was required. 2) I have discussed it a little further with Born2Cycle. Part of that is that he hasn't been involved with the previous discussions as he wasn't invited to participate. I've just suggested agreeing to disagree so I presume that discussion is over so its possible it won't continue. 3) I think that's probably not a bad idea. As it then allows discussion to talk about article content. 4) A motion would be fine by me and hopefully everyone can live with that. -- ] <]> 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Born2Cycle, what if the Arbitration committee rules by motion that the current titles are the ones to stick with? Are you happy to walk away with just a motion stating that? Personally I'm happy to go with whatever Arbcom rule in their motion, even if it means reverting the articles titles to their locations at the start of the year. -- ] <]> 20:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by DeCausa === | |||
| I think Arbcom involvement is appropriate. I agree with Eraserhead1 and Steven Zhang. I largely dropped out of this issue earlier in the year and won't participate any further. ] (]) 09:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by LedRush === | |||
| NYYankees51 is essentially right on all points. What has happened is a group of idealogues has pushed their political agenda for about 8 months now. After failing a few times to get the pro-life article moved, they tried again through a mediation process. Despite the fact that the old titles are about as NPOV as the others, and despite the overwhelming evidence of WP:Commonname, and despite the fact that the current titles are highly inaccurate and unwieldly, many people joined the POV-pushers merely as a way to end the endless debates. That is not how Misplaced Pages should work. We should not allow a small group of people to circumvent WP procedures and policies to get their way at the expense of a clear and precise encyclopedia. Many, like myself, have become disillusioned with the process and have removed themselves from it.] (]) 14:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :@Roscalese, since the current situation is a result of the misconduct by others in the naming debates, this is an appropriate forum to discussion such issues.] (]) 16:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :@VsevolodKrolikov - If you are not talking about me, I apologize in advance. But if you are, could you please either point to the place where I say that Commonname was ignored, that there was no reasonable challenge to the evidence of commonname, or that the problems with the descriptive title were never addressed or strike your comments? Of course there was evidence given against commonname, but, in my opinion, the evidence was small in comparison to the overwhelming evidence for it. Commonname as a policy was discussed (and therefore not ignored), but the policy was not followed, in my opinion. And while the problems of name were discussed, the concerns with them were considered less important than making the change.] (]) 17:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::@VsevolodKrolikov - I have explicitly contradicted your assumptions of bad faith and flat out untruths said about me. Please redact your statements as they pertain to me.] (]) 11:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::@StevenZhang - You said that tree shaping is ok when "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists...Instead, it is 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." But we have accepted short terms. It's just that a minority of vocal ideologues have decided that they don't like it and, after failing to get a move twice immediately before the mediation, pushed the issue against wikipedia policy and common sense.] (]) 11:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::@VsevolodKrolikov - I see. So when I explicitly say that others have made reasonable arguments against commonname, but that I believe the evidence is overwhelmed by other evidence (as others have argued to great effect), I must be lying. And you know this because you have peered deep into my soul and analyzed what "silence" means after others had deliberately misrepresented my view on this matter. Got it.] (]) 14:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by VsevolodKrolikov === | |||
| That the parties now trying immediately to overturn the informal mediation outcome had agreed to that process in the first place is very problematic. What's more, they are doing this by severely misrepresenting the informal mediation discussion and its closing. They claim that policies such as ] were either ignored (they weren't, in both debate and closing), that there was never reasonable challenge made to the evidence backing up a commonname claim for "pro-life" (there was), and that the issue of a descriptive title (what they call "invented") was never addressed, when it was. The evidence against pro-life as a common name (major mainstream media stylebooks reject it as POV) was clearly substantial enough to at least be taken into consideration by those interested in mediation, even if it was ultimately rejected. But it was neither critiqued nor disputed. It was ], over and over again. Comments in there and on other pages lead me to believe that there was little intention on the part of a few editors ever to accept a mediated outcome that did not end in precisely what they wanted. I am also concerned that one or two editors seem pretty open about editing wikipedia for POV purposes (something also mentioned in the closing). This is not a healthy state of affairs. ] (]) 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : @LedRush. Your own description of the evidence for "pro-life" as "overwhelming" is an example of simply not acknowledging ''any'' counterarguments and counterevidence (leaving aside interpretations of common name that would count even raw google hit ratios as enough evidence of commonname status). If a lot of major media outlets describe "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as non-neutral and to be avoided, the very least you could do is acknowledge this as a problem (it's mediation after all), rather than blithely say that these titles are "just as NPOV as all the others". It is a clear example of not listening, although I stress you are far from alone in this. Given this and the immediate call for formal mediation directly after a clear closing at informal mediation, I really struggle to believe that the informal mediation was entered into in good faith on the part of those now challenging it. The point of process is to regulate how we resolve disputes and win and lose arguments with grace so as to maintain the project's good health. It's important to respect it] (]) 01:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: @LedRush I won't redact my comments. Instead here are some diffs illustrating the problem. I provide a link from the NPR ombudsman detailing how NPR, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Enquirer all avoid using pro-life (and pro-choice) as descriptors (] had already detailed much of this, as well as also avoiding pro-life). LedRush this as the "decree" of a ''minority'' of RSs. So, I quite reasonably presume that LedRush would want to see a majority before being persuaded of anything, I a list of the top ten newspapers by circulation, showing that a clear majority of them do not use pro-life/choice as descriptors, with several explicitly because of the perceived non-neutrality of the term. That is, the term is out of favour with many major media organisations, and for neutrality reasons (In fairness I note that the WSJ evidence presented has recently been shown to be faulty; WSJ seems to use pro-life and anti-abortion interchangeably - but it doesn't alter the overall picture of major media usage). LedRush's response? Neither critique nor concession, but silence. I would like to say to ARBCOM that I absolutely don't think this sort of thing is actionable per se, but it's an illustration of the pointlessness of another round of mediation. If things have got to mediation, and one "side" is still refusing to acknowledge that there is any kind of problem that needs addressing - and then the mediation goes against them and they ''still'' neither recognise any substantive problem exists with their preferred outcome, nor, in effect, the outcome of mediation to which they agreed, then we have a behavioural problem that needs resolving somehow (I have a lot of sympathy with HuskyHuskie's view). I stress that LedRush is not alone in this and do not intend to single him out.] (]) 14:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: @ LedRush. Wow. An explanation of why you did not (and have yet to) respond to what seemed to be meeting your own stated criteria for relevant evidence would have been enough to end this conversation. I'm not accusing you of "lying". That's just odd.] (]) 14:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : @SvenManguard - it is not true that the only people refusing to participate in formal mediation are those who do not count themselves involved. There are some of us who object to the request for mediation per policy because the previous step had resulted in a clear result. There are also those who have accepted but under protest for much the same reason.] (]) 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : @kenatipo If you're unclear of what user behaviour refers to, comments such as I would guess might come under issues of user behaviour.] (]) 03:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response to Newyorkbrad | |||
| * ''(1) Is the proposed case primarily focused on the article titles, or are there broader issues?'' | |||
| As far as I can see, it's basically about the titles. | |||
| * ''(2) Have the problems discussed in the request continued since the mediation was closed?'' | |||
| Yes, insofar as the problem is the continued distraction of editors from building content and the raising of wikistress levels. Discussion on the dispute has continued in various places. However, there was a whole month to get out all the issues in mediation; these subsequent discussions are inevitably a rehash of that mediation. Once we get past issues of not hearing, I think it boils down to (a) the extent to which NPOV is primary in article titling (including the use of descriptive titles to meet NPOV) and (b) the threshold and quality of evidence needed to establish the existence of a "common name", and the interplay between (a) and (b). That will just go round and round in circles until a binding process establishes an outcome. (The mediation process that addressed these issues and found consensus has been rejected by a number of editors who had originally agreed to that process.) | |||
| * ''(3) Is the inevitable outcome here the creation of a binding article-title decision process, as the Committee did in the Ireland names case and noted with approval in the dashes-versus-hyphens in title dispute?'' | |||
| I think so. I do think removing the issue from Misplaced Pages would allow everyone to contribute to building the encyclopedia both in this topic area and elsewhere. Given the manner of the rejection of the mediation closing by some parties, I am not persuaded that further prolonged mediation attempts will do the encyclopedia or the community any good. | |||
| * ''(4) If the answer to (3) is yes, do we need a full-fledged arbitration case to get to that, which might raise the general unhappiness level still further, or should we act by some sort of motion?'' | |||
| A motion, absolutely. As can be witnessed by the comments from named parties in the request for formal mediation, people are getting tired and frustrated over disputes on this single issue. Trust is breaking down, and that needs to be nipped in the bud as soon as possible.] (]) 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Puzzlement by kenatipo === | |||
| I'm not at all clear what Steven Zhang is proposing here. This forum addresses conduct problems, right? Is SZ proposing that the Arbitration Committee review the conduct of all 62 listed editors for edit-warring? The proposal seems very vaguely stated. --] | |||
| <sup>]</sup> 17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :@<s>Vaselinokov</s>: @VsevolodKrolnikov:''"focus on what the other chap is DOING that breaks our rules, not on what he is SAYING that offends your sensibilities/religious convictions/politics etc."'' Thanks, Elen of the Roads. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| So, what Steven Zhang is proposing is that the listed 19 editors be investigated by an ArbCom committee for edit-warring and ... saying things on talk pages and at informal Mediation that hurt other people's feelings???? --] <sup>]</sup> 04:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :@VsevolodKrolnikov: some of you <s>bolsheviks</s> Russians have no sense of humor! --] <sup>]</sup> 16:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by kenatipo === | |||
| It looks like we have 2 issues: | |||
| 1. Did ''Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry'' properly close the informal Mediation Cabal on changing the name of the ] article? No, he didn't, and Born2cycle's statement gives the reasons. | |||
| 2. ''Steven Zhang'' would like the conduct of <s>19</s> 18 editors investigated: "Generally, the Arbitration Committee will review the the background to the disputes brought to RFAR, as well as evidence presented. Conduct by users is also investigated, with issues such as edit warring, personal attacks, or using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox or battleground, as well as being unable to be objective and neutral are considered. If they find reason that these issues are causing significant issues on the articles these users edit, they may impose topic bans, prohibiting the users from editing articles related to the dispute. At times they impose site bans, prohibiting editing anywhere on the Misplaced Pages project, and sometimes they impose discretionary sanctions on articles related to the conflict, so in future if issues remarries administrators can take action to solve these issues. Arbcom does a lot of discussion and thought before imposing these measures, and generally only as a last resort or when in Wikipepdia's best interests." My only comment about this proposed ''witch hunt'' is that it looks like somebody's feelings got hurt. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved Born2cycle === | |||
| ''(this statement has been pruned; the original long/detailed statement is ])'' | |||
| I have not been involved in this particular issue until yesterday.<p>I believe that this is an excellent case for ArbCom to take because much of it exemplifies a recurring behavior problem associated with article title decision-making: the ignoring of policy, particularly, ].<p>We've had title conflicts like this before. We've resolved them before. We've developed consensus about how to resolve them, and we've reflected that consensus in policy, at ], precisely so that conflicts like this would be avoided in the future. That's why I think it's a behavior problem to blatantly ignore the key relevant guidance given in policy at ], as was done in this case in moving ] to ].<p> | |||
| ] was ignored here:<p> | |||
| '''1.''' Though ] is very clear about how ] and neutrality complement each other in title selection (in short, following most common usage in reliable sources ''is'' being neutral), in the closing admin implied that there is a conflict between neutrality and the name suggested by COMMONNAME, and that we should follow neutrality since it's a pillar and COMMONNAME is not. Policy clearly states the near opposite: following COMMONNAME ''is'' being consistent with neutrality because ''"True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental."''.<p> | |||
| '''2.''' Many, including the mediator and closer made statements suggesting that simply because "Pro-life" is ambiguous it should not be used, ignoring ].<p> | |||
| '''3.''' The mediator admits that "pro-life/pro-choice" are of most common usage: "As for common usage, of course there's going to be more usage for pro-life and pro-choice", but he dismisses them due to them being American usage. This ignores ] as well as ] because the article content demonstrates these issues are dominated by American influence, and these terms are more ] with similar "Movement" titles.<p> | |||
| '''4.''' ]: "do not invent names as a means of compromising". <p>Mediator: "This is a contentious topic, ...This one is going to require a compromise".<p> | |||
| '''5''' Mediator, admitting ignoring policy:''"in a normal situation ignoring policies is not something I'd advise against in a normal situation, but in this instance, there is a lot of dispute over the name of the article, and in situations like this, we agree that this would be a situation where invoking IAR would be appropriate. "'' | |||
| <p> | |||
| I implore ArbCom to rule that renaming articles on a basis that involves such a blatant disregard for consensus as reflected in policy is unacceptable behavior, as it opens the floodgates for anyone to move just about any article with little more basis than ]. It's one thing to invoke IAR when the existing rules fail, but here all that has failed is the following of the existing rules. | |||
| <p> | |||
| Thank you. --] (]) 21:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| (pruned) --] (]) 21:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * @Steven Zhang, I mentioned only pro-life for a) brevity and b) it seems to be getting more attention so I chose it, but none of my points are specific to pro-life, they consistently apply to countless other cases, and certainly to pro-choice.<p>If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if none of the common names is clearly the most common, and consensus cannot be established to pick one of them for the title, that's reason to use none of them and use something else entirely, even invent a rather long and clumsy "compromise" title? I'm not aware of any ''policy-based'' justification for that view. Again, to the contrary, ] specifically says ''not'' to do that. There is nothing in the relevant part of ] -- ''do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view'' -- that makes it apply only when there clearly is a most common name, and not apply when there isn't a clear one.<p>By the way, how did we get here? As far as I can tell, there have been numerous RM proposals, with and without RFCs, to move these articles, and they've all failed to develop consensus in support of the proposed moves.<p>Now, consensus has always been that articles are not moved unless there is clear consensus in support of the move. When an article is at A and others want to move it B, but neither is clearly the most common name, generally the article stays at A, unless clear consensus develops in support of B (maybe it's more ''concise''). That's just the way it is, for better or for worse. Deciding to move it to C, or should I say CDEFGH, instead, is highly unusual, and, again, certainly not supported by consensus as reflected in policy, except when consensus clearly favors the move to CDEFGH. And when the 3rd name is not indicated by consensus as reflected in policy, as was the case here, then you really need an overwhelming consensus in favor of moving to that 3rd name, invoking IAR.<p>Now here's the most important point. There is nothing, ''nothing'', in consensus as reflected in policy that indicates these articles should be at ] and ]. I mean, ] does not support these titles. ] does not. ] does not. ] does not. Even ] does not. ''Nothing''. Therefore you really need a particularly strong consensus to support such a move, and that clearly was not there. TheCavalry essentially admitted as much, by noting in his closing that the consensus is only "relatively clear". What's bizarre is that he claims the contrived titles stem from "relying on those who were able to debate using sensible interpretations derived from policy". How these titles could possibly be derived from policy ''at all'' remains a complete mystery to me. I don't know of any titles that ''contradict'' policy ''more'' than these do, though I admit that the ridiculous ] is probably a tie, but all of these are examples of ], not precedent.<p>As for ], you quote, "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists". That's just one of those topics that has no accepted common name. That's not applicable here, as accepted short-hand terms ''do'' exist for these topics, such as ''pro-choice'', ''pro-life'' and ''anti-abortion''. --] (]) 08:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ;Born2cycle's response to Newyorkbrad | |||
| *''(1) Is the proposed case primarily focused on the article titles, or are there broader issues?'' As explained above, I think there is a broader issue - and that is the behavior of ignoring policy in order to come up with a contrived title that contradicts policy rather than follow ] specifically designed to avoid the very kind of conflict that has been created here by those who insist on moving an article without first developing consensus in favor of that move. | |||
| *''(2) Have the problems discussed in the request continued since the mediation was closed?'' Well, the article continues to sit at a title that contradicts consensus as reflected in policy more than any other title I know, and those who made the consensus-ignoring move refuse to reverse their mistaken-ridden decision. '' | |||
| *''(3) Is the inevitable outcome here the creation of a binding article-title decision process, as the Committee did in the Ireland names case and noted with approval in the dashes-versus-hyphens in title dispute?'' '''No.''' We already have an article-title decision process, and it's documented at ]. The process for proposing and discussing title changes is documented at ]. If these were followed, we wouldn't be here. The problem here is not a lack of rules, but a lack of rule following (perhaps due to a lack of rule knowledge, understanding and appreciation). I see no need to create ever more rules. If the processes and rules were followed, and they failed, that would be different, but that's not what happened here.<p>So what I would like to see from Arbcom is something along the lines of a finding that admins closing RM discussion should simply decide whether the move proposal has consensus support, or not. The practice of a moderator inventing a new "compromise" ''contrived'' title, totally ] ("do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view"), and a closing admin adopting that title, needs to be firmly rejected. That kind of behavior is not conducive to building a good encyclopedia, and that needs to be made clear to those involved in no uncertain terms. | |||
| *''(4) If the answer to (3) is yes, do we need a full-fledged arbitration case to get to that, which might raise the general unhappiness level still further, or should we act by some sort of motion?'' Acting by motion should suffice. --] (]) 19:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Sven Manguard === | |||
| I really wasn't involved in this at all until I got notified that because I edited one of the involved articles sometime within the last year (it would have to have been though Huggle) that I was considered involved enough for an invite to a RfC. Having been stupid enough to fall for the invite, (yes, it was stupid of me for going anywhere near that mess), I was then listed as a party in a mediation. | |||
| In an effort to be as neutral as possible (i.e. to make sure no one can claim they were excluded), people with almost no involvement in this have been asked to participate, and then having participated, were asked to participate even more, this time in a formal process. With only the most altrusitic of intentions, this practice has made a bad situation worse, because by involving people that really have no interest in being involved, and then taking it to a forum (mediation) that can only be successful if everyone listed as involved participates, the mediation was doomed from the start. | |||
| I have not, for the record, even read the result of the RfC, becasue it's not in an area I follow. However I urge the Arbs to let the solution that was recently put into place have time to sink in, and therefore I urge them do decline this case. Rapid process hopping/escalation makes sense in some cases, where a solution cannot be found in the processes along the way to ArbCom, however we already found a solution, all the way back at RfC, and now two escalations past RfC we're on the verge of blowing past the solution without giving it a chance. To me, that's wrong because it undermines the entire purpose on intermediary steps. | |||
| :@Elen of the Roads - People are screaming blue at the Mediation because they didn't consider themesleves involved. The people who were actually involved all seem to be lining up to accept this. The Mediation would have worked had NYyankees51 not included a bunch of people that were not really involved. ] ] 19:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by HuskyHuskie === | |||
| I don't know the difference between arbitration and mediation or what is the proper venue or what. I pretty much care about one thing, and that is this: '''I want the article titles for these two articles to be settled and locked in, so that people will spend their time improving the articles instead of wasting time arguing about the titles.''' Beyond that, I think it would be nice if the titles were parallel (Anti-abortion/Abortion rights, or Pro-life/Pro-choice, or even Steven's well-intentioned if inelegant solution). But, for the record, I still believe the best solution to this would be that made by ] back on May 1 to ''unite'' these two articles into ], thus ending this mess fairly and equitably. ] (]) 02:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by MastCell === | |||
| <small>Mostly addressed to Newyorkbrad's questions...</small> | |||
| If the case is opened, I hope the Committee views this naming dispute as a ''symptom''. The underlying problem isn't what to call these articles. I can think of three or four possible naming systems, including those being fought over. All of them are reasonable and accurate, and there's clearly no One True Naming Convention for the pro-choice/pro-life articles. The real problem is the unreasoning intransigence with which the naming dispute has been litigated. | |||
| The abortion articles are beset with agenda-driven editors, more so now than at most points I can remember in the past. I won't bore ArbCom with my personal list of such editors, at least not here and now, and I'm sure others have different lists. I think any experienced admin or editor can identify these accounts for themselves fairly quickly. The point is that reasonable, sane people are rapidly driven away from these disputes by the hard core of agenda-driven editors who sink their teeth in and just won't let go (see ]). Thus, ''any'' dispute - whether over naming conventions, or the lead sentence of our ] article (as a heads up for your next case...) turns into an endless war of attrition. | |||
| If this case is taken, then the single most productive thing that could come of it is not a clarification of naming policy, but a means for limiting the damage caused by agenda-driven editing to these articles. We could brainstorm the details. Maybe after two edit-warring blocks you're topic-banned from abortion for a few months. Maybe if your last ''1,000 edits'' are all dedicated to prosecuting one side of a single abortion-related dispute (this is not hypothetical), you're asked to branch out a bit. | |||
| Whatever the details, I think that's the direction that a case needs to take if it's to be useful in the long run rather than as a band-aid. The scope would be "disruptive and agenda-driven editing on abortion articles", and the desired outcome would not necessarily be sanctions against specific editors, but a framework for controlling such editing going forward. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Anythingyouwant=== | |||
| Hello I must be going, so I'll chime in briefly. Regarding the article naming issue, I hope ArbCom will not finalize or otherwise salute the results of the informal mediation, which ended up (perhaps inadvertently) characterizing one side of the issue as unsupportive naysayers. Regarding sanctions at the abortion article, they were imposed without any notice or discussion at the abortion talk page, and have been enforced selectively and unfairly.. Finally, regarding the abortion article, I hope to address the issue of censorship soon; we had a huge RFC in 2009 about how to show readers what is aborted in a typical abortion, and subsequently | |||
| was in the article for over a year. This image was removed without consensus this summer via edit-warring, in no small part because of POV typified by the following remark by an editor who was involved at that article: "It's just a bunch of fucking cells you sanctimonious obsessive little fuck." | |||
| . Hopefully that editor is recuperatimg nicely from recent surgery. Normal Misplaced Pages articles include pertinent images, and we all know that Misplaced Pages has leaned over backward in this regard. Anyway, I hope this helps ArbCom as you try to see the big picture.] (]) 00:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Steven Zhang....It's unclear to me if ArbCom will be wading into the various issues surrounding the lead sentence of the Abortion article, or other issues at that article such as edit-warring for purposes of censorship (as I mentioned above). If so, then freezing the article until the case is over might make sense. If not, then not. The root issue regarding the lead sentence is whether the stable 2006-2011 version was changed by consensus, or instead was changed by edit-warring without consensus. Incidentally, I'm kind of leery of the suggestion to simply impose new rules going forward at the abortion article, without looking at editor-conduct, because doing so could lock in the recent "ill-gotten gains" of edit-warring without consensus (both with regard to the lead sentence as well as image censorship).] (]) 03:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::@ARBCOM, several involved parties have not been listed above, especially if this case will not be limited to the article-name-controversy. Please indicate whether it would be necessary or helpful to expand the list.] (]) 23:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by AGK === | |||
| Elen of the Roads, you are correct that mediation would fail if it included those editors who are vociferously protesting at being named as a party. However, we could simply exclude those parties from mediation, because they (self-professedly) have no significant involvement. I opined as much, in my role as the chairman of the MedCom, at the request page. I do not see how this dispute warrants the involvement of the Arbitration Committee at this juncture. ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 16:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Quantling === | |||
| Please consider adding me to the list of involved parties. | |||
| I object to the phrase "''legalization'' of abortion" because it is referring to the ''process'' of making abortion legal in a place where it is or has been illegal. However, I don't believe either article title should exclude discussion of places where abortion has always been legal. At the very least, let's change those titles to "Support for / Opposition to legal abortion". —] (] | ]) 14:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| *'''Recuse'''. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *There was a MEDCOM request under the name Abortion, which was rejected by AGK on July 26. Considering there are at least 10 editors (out of, at current posting, 41 responses) rejecting/objecting with the ], I highly doubt it would be accepted. - ] | <sup>] and ]</sup> 06:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*Uninvolved comment: I believe that the titles definitely contributed to editor conduct issues. I hate to suggest it, but a full case should probably be opened, even if the decision is only based on titles. - ] | <sup>] and ]</sup> 10:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *This has met the acceptance threshold and will be opened within 24 hours barring any changes. - ] | <sup>] and ]</sup> 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Recuse''' as I consider myself involved with regard to one of the parties, with whom I have a long-standing content disagreement regarding the ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 21:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/1/3/2) === | |||
| *'''comment''' - I agree with Floquenbeam's note about 0RR and agree 1RR a better bet. A question for NW - is there anything else, such as any other motion, that the arbitration committee could pass which would help the situation short of either (a) opening a full case or (b) nothing ''(given you've mentioned there is a rough consensus happening)''? ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Recuse'''. ] (]) 04:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I don't doubt that there are user conduct issues all around. I also don't doubt that there are incredibly polarized opinions on the matter. What I also am unsure of is how ArbCom is going to solve a dispute here. I've contributed a few opinions on the naming dispute--should I recuse on that basis? If all of us who've ever touched abortion or associated topics recuse, it will be a might small panel of arbs, I expect. ] (]) 05:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Accept'''. Nothing appears to have been resolved, reading the above comments, so I find myself concurring with my colleagues who suggest it appropriate to hear the case. ] (]) 04:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. The Medcab decision is very recent, and the Medcom request is still in flight. This may need arbitration, which will probably result in a lot of bans and/or topic bans, but the parties should be given a few days to get back to peaceful work or walk away. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 05:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Recuse''' as closing admin on the MEDCAB case. ] (]) 12:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Recuse'''. –]] 13:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept'''; this is one of those cases at the boundary of content and behavior where the primary problem is the acrimony ''around'' a content problem. This is partly due to how divisive the fundamental issue is (and thus how frayed tempers can get), and partly due to the weakness of our normal editorial process when faced with uncompromising parties that cannot reach true consensus as a matter of principle.<p>However, I think the driving precedent in this case is more likely to be '']'' than '']'' given the stability issue about how the dispute is framed in the first place. — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept '''- MEDCOM is never going to work with half the 'parties' screaming blue murder about being listed as such. Can we give participants some guidelines for submission of evidence - for example, stick to the word limit, any lengthy attempt to convince Arbcom that name X is right/wrong will be removed on sight. Clearly you cannot reach a consensus because this is not an academically neutral topic, people have strong opinions, so focus on what the other chap is DOING that '''breaks our rules''', not on what he is SAYING that offends your sensibilities/religious convictions/politics etc.--] (]) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept'''. Arbitration is part of Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process, and if we decline a case, there must be a plausible alternative, and in this instance, I'm not sure there is. Also, strongly agree with Elen in regard to evidence, which should be focused on user conduct, as opposed to arguments about article content or article titles. ] (]) 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Questions for parties: (1) Is the proposed case primarily focused on the article titles, or are there broader issues? (2) Have the problems discussed in the request continued since the mediation was closed? (3) Is the inevitable outcome here the creation of a binding article-title decision process, as the Committee did in the Ireland names case and noted with approval in the dashes-versus-hyphens in title dispute? (4) If the answer to (3) is yes, do we need a full-fledged arbitration case to get to that, which might raise the general unhappiness level still further, or should we act by some sort of motion? I'll vote in a couple of days when the parties and others can provide responses (brief please) to these questions. ] (]) 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept'''. - ] 16:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:56, 12 August 2011
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Requests for arbitration
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.