Revision as of 04:45, 14 August 2011

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion: Ignore Propaganda and simply be accurately descriptive

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages), it could be indicated that the page so titled is relevant to deliberate abortions only. V (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

In general ArbCom deals with conduct issues, and doesn't make decisions about content. In this context, it's unlikely that ArbCom is going to rule on the appropriateness of these terms. PhilKnight (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Well, in view of the fact that so much behavior considered "bad" was related to arguments about a couple of article titles (I actually don't know most of the details because I haven't edited anything on the Abortion-article pages for a fair number of months), I was expecting this Arbitration process to finalize and lock-down-with-no-more-discussion-about-it some titles (and indicated something to that effect as a comment on the Mediation Request page (since removed when the request was denied). Tempers could be expected to cool if that topic of argumentation can no longer be argued! Of course, persons deserving of arbitration will make themselves known in due course, as they misbehave over something else.... V (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the difference with the Ireland case is that while Republic of Ireland is slightly more descriptive it is longer, and if you search on the BBC's website for Ireland without northern ireland 8 of the top 10 hits are for cricket and Rugby which are "all Ireland" sports. Thus overall both options are reasonable picks and so a straw poll is sensible.

With regards to Macedonia, there is clearly a lot of the historic country not ruled by the current country known as Macedonia so the current position seems the most sensible and therefore Arbcom ruled to that affect.

With regards to this case if pro-life and pro-choice are considered neutral then those are probably the best titles to lock down on, if pro-life and pro-choice aren't considered neutral then maybe it is worth an RFC to consider the names beyond the current ones (possibly excluding pro-life/pro-choice), or maybe the current titles should be locked down at least for a few months with the possibility of a binding RFC later. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Steven Zhang

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Reasonably standard. While normally a stock standard principle is used, I felt it necessary to emphasise the need for collaboration, which at times is severely lacking on Misplaced Pages, especially at disputes which end up at Arbitration. Steven Zhang 10:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Purpose and role of the Arbitration Committee

2) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. This doesn't imply that ArbCom is actually going to directly rule on conduct, but instead set up a process that will eventually establish a Request for Comment or a poll or something similar which results in a content decision. PhilKnight (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disputes regarding article titles

3) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Taken directly from Tree shaping, as it is definitely relevant to the dispute here. Steven Zhang 02:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Discretionary sanctions

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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If ArbCom sets up a process to make a content decision, then at least for the duration of that process, it would probably make sense to either have discretionary sanctions or article probation in place. That said, I wouldn't explicitly mention 0RR, which usually isn't a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Taken partly from Macedonia. I have modified it a bit to add the element of protection as a possible way to resolve an issue, edit warring is a no-no and it needs to be clear that disruptive behaviour on these articles will not be tolerated. Additionally, I think discretionary sanctions would assist in providing long term stability to the articles. Steven Zhang 10:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Having a blanket sanctions regime over multiple articles seems less useful than looking specifically at each article and considering what would fit best. Sanctions at the abortion article were already imposed without any notice or discussion at the abortion talk page, and were explicitly imposed as a slopover from imposing them at another related article, without any conduct at the abortion article being justification for the sanctions: "the article history doesn't show any sign of the editing patterns that led to the sanctions being imposed in the first place". Since then, the sanctions have not prevented problems from arising at the abortion article, and the sanctions have not helped at all. I also have doubts that the sanctions have been applied fairly (see previous diff, and this one: ). I support lifting sanctions at this particular article, and trying a different approach.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of sanctions imposed on abortion-topic edit warriors and politically motivated activists who use the articles as a battleground. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that blocks and bans imposed on abortion-topic edit warriors and politically motivated activists who ignore policy and use the articles as a battleground are fine, but it's easier said than done, and I'm not sure sanctions always help. The existing sanctions have made the problem worse, not better, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that 1RR hasn't helped much; it's just made for slow motion edit warring. I don't think across the board discretionary sanctions would help because one misstep could be very costly and people would be afraid to be bold. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Anybody who is afraid to be bold is very likely aware of his own vulnerability to sanctions; his own status as a political activist editor. Me, I would not be afraid to be bold, as I have created about 120 new articles and taken a significant editing role in about 120 more. I have personally advanced 25 articles to GA or FA status. All of these ~240 articles are in a very wide range of subjects. I know I am part of building the encyclopedia rather than skewing it for political ends. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The article is already under (community-imposed) discretionary sanctions almost exactly identical to those proposed here. This remedy would essentially simply endorse the status quo, which doesn't seem to have been effective to date. MastCell  04:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Article probation

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think either discretionary sanctions or article probation is needed, not both. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Taken from Prem Rawat. Might be redundant to discretionary sanctions, but I thought I would add it anyways. Steven Zhang 10:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As I described above, I'm not convinced that the current sanctions should have been installed at the abortion article, and they seem to have caused rather than solved problems. Why would more sanctions help?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think sanctions will help halt the editors who come to Misplaced Pages purely to push their political aims, allowing editors with wide interests to continue building the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that such editors should be halted, but that can be done by routine Misplaced Pages procedures. There was no big problem at the abortion article before the current sanctions were imposed without reason or discussion. I have a problem giving increasingly huge discretion to admins, given that they are not infallible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's actually remarkably difficult to deal with even the most obvious agenda-driven editing on this topic. The last time I bothered, it took six months and Arbitration case to deal with a single, obviously disruptive agenda account. I don't think it's realistic to think that "routine Misplaced Pages procedures" are effective at handling this kind of editing. MastCell  04:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Anythingyouwant

Proposed principles

Edit-warring for a new version that lacks consensus is blockable wthout need for special article sanctions

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Edit warring is edit warring, period. The second sentence of this proposal seems to indicate that reverting back to a consensus version is exempt from this requirement. See WP:CCC. Steven Zhang 04:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change. But if it hasn't changed, and an editor keeps trying to make the change anyway, what's wrong with the other editors preventing the tail from wagging the dog?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The better solution would be applying protection to the article, as opposed to continuous edit warring. Steven Zhang 04:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This principle is in direct conflict with existing policy. "Being right" or "believing that one's preferred version is the 'consensus' version" are generally not considered justifications for edit-warring. MastCell  04:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not find your quotes in the policy that you have cited and linked. You yourself have been one of the primary edit-warriors at the abortion article MastCell (e.g. see the evidence that I've linked at the evidence page). I would have no problem with your edits if they were in defense of a consensus version, or in defense against those seeking to change longstanding material without consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Placing an article under sanctions does not always help

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Of course it does not always help. The logic about if sanctions were useful they would be universally applied is a bit silly. We have policies and guidelines that govern Misplaced Pages, sanctions are only imposed when despite these problems ensue. Steven Zhang 03:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Steven Zhang, you're incorrect when you say "sanctions are only imposed when despite these problems ensue". The present sanctions at the abortion article were imposed when no problems were existing or ensuing. The responsible admin said so explicitly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

The already-existing general sanctions at the abortion article were imposed when they were not needed

1) General sanctions were imposed at the abortion article only as a result of activity elsewhere at Misplaced Pages, and were not a consequence of editing at that article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lead sentence of abortion article has been subject to frequent edits without consensus

2) More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes in a Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

POV tag has been removed by admin despite blatant continuation of dispute

3) Removal of a POV tag has occured at the abortion article even though the issue is actively and adamantly disputed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Involved admin has frozen article in preferred version

4) The abortion article has been frozen by an involved admin in his preferred version that excluded an image of what is aborted. That admin had previously removed such an image, and said subsequent to freezing an image out of the article that he disagreed with its use in the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Stable image in abortion article for over a year has recently been repeatedly removed without consensus

5) As detailed at the image 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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Set up user conduct notice board solely for the abortion article

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. 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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We should look specifically at each article and consider what would fit best, instead of a blanket remedy over multiple articles. Sanctions at the abortion article were imposed without any notice or discussion at the abortion talk page, and were explicitly imposed as a slopover after imposing them at another related article. The admin who did it acknowledged: "the article history doesn't show any sign of the editing patterns that led to the sanctions being imposed in the first place". Since then, the sanctions have not prevented problems from arising at the abortion article, and the sanctions have not helped at all. I also have doubts that the sanctions have been applied fairly (see previous diff, and this one: ). I support lifting sanctions at this particular article, and instituting a user conduct noticeboard as proposed. No new article sanctions or probation are needed at this point, and we should see if they are needed before imposing them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Revert lead sentence to 2006-2011 version and admonish editors to edit based on consensus

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

ArbCom will never make a ruling such as this. It's purely a decision based on content, and ArbCom won't do that. Steven Zhang 02:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, then ArbCom should block everyone who has edit-warred away from the consensus version. That's the basic problem here. Do you think ArbCom should effectively freeze the edit-warred version in stone by not restoring the consensus version, and not penalizing the edit-warriors? This article has been under sanctions and yet admins did absolutely nothing. ArbCom should do nothing also? I also disagree with you that I've asked for a content decision. I've not asked what content ArbCom would like or prefer. I've simply asked ArbCom to undo the effect of edit-warring-without-consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: