→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/8/1/1): this should be removed |
NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) →User:Δ: removing as declined |
||
Line 194:
*'''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 ''[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names|Ireland article names]]'' than ''[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia|Macedonia]]'' given the stability issue about how the dispute is framed in the first place. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</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.--[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 12:51, 4 August 2011
Requests for arbitration
Abortion
Initiated by Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... at 02:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Steven Zhang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Lionelt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kenatipo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- DeCausa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- CWenger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- LedRush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- TheFreeloader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Haymaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Objectivist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- HuskyHuskie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- VsevolodKrolikov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Note- There is a larger list of parties at the Requests for mediation. 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.
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eraserhead1&diff=prev&oldid=442783332
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese&diff=prev&oldid=442783438
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NYyankees51&diff=prev&oldid=442783462
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lionelt&diff=prev&oldid=442783567
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DeCausa&diff=prev&oldid=442783615
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kenatipo&diff=prev&oldid=442783728
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LedRush&diff=prev&oldid=442783866
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheFreeloader&diff=prev&oldid=442783903
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haymaker&diff=prev&oldid=442783980
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CWenger&diff=prev&oldid=442784008
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&diff=prev&oldid=442784311
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unscintillating&diff=prev&oldid=442784320
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anythingyouwant&diff=prev&oldid=442784326
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&diff=prev&oldid=442784336
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare&diff=prev&oldid=442784409
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Objectivist&diff=prev&oldid=442784431
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HuskyHuskie&diff=prev&oldid=442785854
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
- RFC on Abortion talk page
- Move discussion
- Abortion move titles MedCab
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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed_Pacifist_2. 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 Abortion article, and the recently renamed (as a result of the Mediation Cabal case) Support for the legalisation of abortion and Opposition to the legalisation of abortion. 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. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- 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. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 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. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 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. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- @Jclemens, something similar to Macedonia would probably be effective in this instance. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 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. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- @DeCausa, clarified my original intent for adding parties to this case. Hope it clears it up. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 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 search engine test 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 1,330 results for pro-life, 1,180 results for anti-abortion, 436 results for pro-choice and 2,550 for abortion rights. 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 Tree shaping arbitration. 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. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 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 Tree shaping 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. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 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. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 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. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- @Penwhale, actually, they have not. That one is an old case. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 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. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 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 Wikipedia truly is. Like all of us here I hope, I am here to try to make Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's true purpose, building an encyclopaedia and providing the right to free knowledge for everyone. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 12:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by NuclearWarfare
I have not been involved with the issue of the title of the pro-choice/pro-life articles. Honestly, I think something along the lines of User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Mediation-Arbitration Referrals Subcommittee or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 is necessary to solve that, as it's getting kind of ridiculous right now.
Steve also mentions the dispute over the lead sentence of Abortion, which I am far more familiar with, as it has wasted hours of my life allowed me to gain invaluable insight in how to find quality reliable sources. Despite the rather ridiculous amounts of edit warring 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. NW (Talk) 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? NW (Talk) 04:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Ohms law
Nevermind. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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 Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Misuse of mediation?, which I posted just prior to becoming aware of this RFAR. Regards, @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. |
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. --Floquenbeam (talk) 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. --Floquenbeam (talk) 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 request for formal mediation. The fight over the titles has dragged on for six months now ([1] [2] [3]), 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. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Objectivist
I don't especially care about the titles of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia). Thank you! V (talk) 06:48, 3 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? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 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. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 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 WP:NPOV takes priority over WP:COMMONNAME and its pretty clear from the extensive data gathered in the mediation cabal case that WP:POVTITLE 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. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 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 WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on this matter without suggesting any other possible alternatives other than pro-life from some people here and that does need to be addressed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 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. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by DeCausa
I think Arbcom involvement is appropriate. I agree with Eraserhead1 and Steven Zhang. I was involved in this debate a few months ago but have largely dropped out, out of despair. There are a handful of ideologically motivated editors that have relentlessly pusued their POV and see the title issue as being about advancing their position rather than an encyclopedic matter. The new Medcom request is the latest example. It's difficult to see how this will ever be resolved with the involvement of these editors. IMHO, some topic bans are needed, and Arbcom is the place to handle that. I don't intend to get back into this issue, but the proposal by Steven Zhang and The Cavalry's determination, were neutral, conformed with policy and, IMHO, had broad acceptance by the less ideologically motivated editors (subject to some relatively minor terminology quibbles). DeCausa (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- @JohnVandenberg: "the Medcom request is still in flight...the parties should be given a few days to get back to peaceful work or walk away". This has been going on for months and the ideologically motivated input of certain editors will guarantee it won't be resolved "peacefully". Any view of the track record of this issue over the last 6 months will demonstrate that.
- @Jclemens: How Arbcom can help is by taking out of the process the ideologically motivated editors who have disrupted a resolution based on a neutral encyclopedic perspective. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Question for Steven Zhang
Having now noticed the criterion for being named as a party (i.e. being a "major" contributor, with others being left out) I'm puzzled as to why I am a party. I was involved somewhat at the beginning of the year, but largely dropped out. I possibly made 2-4 posts in the MedCab. There are several editors who've made more posts than me who aren't named. Could Steven Zhang clarify please. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 13:30, 3 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 Wikipedia 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.LedRush (talk) 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.LedRush (talk) 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.LedRush (talk) 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.LedRush (talk) 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.LedRush (talk) 11:44, 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 WP:commonname 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 simply ignored, 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. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 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 itVsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:37, 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.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- @kenatipo If you're unclear of what user behaviour refers to, comments such as this I would guess might come under issues of user behaviour.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:57, 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. --Kenatipo speak! 17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- @Vaselinokov: "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. --Kenatipo speak! 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???? --Kenatipo speak! 04:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Born2cycle
(this statement has been pruned; the original long/detailed statement is here)
I have not been involved in this particular issue until yesterday.
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, WP:AT.
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 WP: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 WP:AT, as was done in this case in moving Pro-life movement to Opposition to the legalisation of abortion.
WP:AT was ignored here:
1. Though WP:POVTITLE is very clear about how WP:COMMONNAME and neutrality complement each other in title selection (in short, following most common usage in reliable sources is being neutral), in his statement 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.".
2. Many, including the mediator[4] and closer made statements suggesting that simply because "Pro-life" is ambiguous it should not be used, ignoring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
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 WP:COMMONNAME as well as WP:CRITERIA because the article content demonstrates these issues are dominated by American influence, and these terms are more natural, recognizable, concise than his invented titles, and they are more consistent with similar "Movement" titles.
4. WP:TITLECHANGES: "do not invent names as a means of compromising".
Mediator: "This is a contentious topic, ...This one is going to require a compromise".
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. "
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 personal preference. 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.
Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC) (pruned) --Born2cycle (talk) 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.
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, WP:TITLECHANGES specifically says not to do that. There is nothing in the relevant part of WP:TITLECHANGES -- 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.
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.
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.
Now here's the most important point. There is nothing, nothing, in consensus as reflected in policy that indicates these articles should be at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalisation of abortion. I mean, WP:CRITERIA does not support these titles. WP:COMMONNAME does not. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not. WP:D does not. Even WP:POVTITLE 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 possible 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 Climatic Research Unit email controversy is probably a tie, but all of these are examples of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
As for Tree shaping, 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 applicably here, as accepted short-hand terms do exist for these topics, and they are pro-choice and pro-life, of course. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:54, 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 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 User:DeCausa back on May 1[5] to unite these two articles into Abortion debate, thus ending this mess fairly and equitably. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Recuse. NW (Talk) 02:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was a MEDCOM request here 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 current request, I highly doubt it would be accepted. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/1/3/2)
- 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)? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Recuse. Risker (talk) 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. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 3 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. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Recuse as closing admin on the MEDCAB case. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Recuse. –xenotalk 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.
However, I think the driving precedent in this case is more likely to be Ireland article names than Macedonia given the stability issue about how the dispute is framed in the first place. — Coren (talk) 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.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)