Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Scope

What is the scope of this case? MastCell ^Talk 15:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this process should work to be the final word, the final time that any abortion topic is arbitrated. The topic is so poisonous it will keep coming back unless harsh measures are instituted. That means the scope should be broadened to address the underlying problem of politically motivated editors making Wikipedia their battleground. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wait for an answer from an Arbitrator before posting evidence. I don't care about the naming dispute per se, and if that's the limit of this case's scope, then it's not worth the bother. On the other hand, I will probably post some evidence if the scope includes the wider issue of editor behavior on abortion-related articles. At the moment, as best I can tell, participants are mostly just trying to get ArbCom to endorse their personal view of a specific content dispute. Which is not surprising, but not encouraging either. MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of edit warring about image of what is aborted

For convenience, I'm putting this evidence here, and will link to it from the main evidence page.

In the first half of 2009, there was a huge RFC at the abortion article talk page, here, titled "Should we allow a discernible image of what will be aborted in a typical abortion?" Opinions were closely divided, but I counted a slim majority in favor.

On April 29, 2009 the editor "Yobmod" inserted an image of an aborted embryo to illustrate spontaneous abortion. Yobmod wrote: "the majority seem to be for the image, and it is not a political issue, it is an educational one."[1]

On April 1, 2010 the editor "Difu Wu" inserted an additional image, of an aborted fetus (more developed than an embryo), to illustrate induced abortion which typically happens later in pregnancy than spontaneous abortion.[2]

On June 15, 2010 the editor "Jmh649" removed the embryo image but left the fetus image. [3]

Around this time, the talk page had a discussion about whether two images was too much. [4] Editors like me went along with removing the embryo image because miscarriage is not at the core of what people think of as abortion, plus removal of the embryo image would tend to make the image of induced abortion (the fetus) a more secure part of the article.

On May 11, 2011 the editor "Friend of the Facts" removed the fetal image of induced abortion.[5] He said: "Lets try to keep Wikipedia neutral. No pov stuff like this that just detracts from the article". The image had been in the article one year, one month, and ten days.

On May 12, 2011 I reverted the image back in.[6] I wrote: “Revert. Per the FAQ, 'in the first quarter of 2009, various encyclopedic images related to abortions that show an intact embryo and fetus have been introduced to the article'".

From May 12-May 26, 2011 there was a talk page discussion about the image,[7] which did not indicate any consensus to remove it.

On May 12, 2011, the image was reverted out by the editor OrangeMarlin,[8] then reverted back in by the editor DMSBel,[9] then reverted out again by OrangeMarlin,[10] then reverted back in by the editor Haymaker,[11] then reverted back out by the editor KillerChihuahua.[12]

On May 13, 2011 the article was protected for a week by the editor Jmh649,[13] who had already removed the embryo image, and now froze the article so that included neither the fetus nor the embryo image. Jmh649 wrote: "Changed protection level of Abortion: An ongoing edit war. As I am not involved with this issue will protect the page so discussion can occur.( do not care one way of the other )." Actually, Jmh649 said on June 28, 2011 that “I do not agree with how the image is used on Wikipedia”.[14]

On June 20, 2011 the editor "Pastel Kitten" reinserted the fetus image of induced abortion.[15] She wrote: "Why did this disappear? I was looking all over for it, there's nothing wrong with it..." OrangeMarlin then reverted it out ("Deleted a long time ago").[16] Pastel Kitten then reverted it back in,[17] writing: "And was any consensus reached? No. Why should you be allowed to have your way? It's an utterly incredible photograph."

On June 21, 2011 the editor GandyDancer reverted the fetal induced abortion image out of the article.[18] She wrote: "please read and discuss reasons that this photo was deleted before you restore it – thanks". I then reverted the image back in,[19] writing: “Revert per WP:BRD. Pastel Kitten is correct that this longstanding image was edit-warred out of this article without consensus. Many reasons were given by many editors for keeping it.”

On June 25, 2011 the editor JJL removed the fetal induced abortion image,[20] saying: “rm pic that is nominated for deletion”. N.B. The deletion discussion resulted in a "keep" and it's archived here. Later on June 25, 2011 the editor Michael C. price reverted the image back in, writing: "Don't 2nd guess the deletion result."[21] Later that day, the editor Friend of the Facts reverted the image out of the article,[22] writing: "This was talked over and it's not neutral and there were worries about the ethics of using it here. The lead thing is a big deal right now so let's leave this can of worms closed."

On July 26, 2011 I wrote: "Re-inserting image, but hidden for now. Deletion debate is over at Commons. The image was in this article for over a year. No consensus favored removal.'[23] Later that day, the editor Friend of the Facts inserted a POV tag to accompany the image,[24] writing "Reinsertion of disputed POV image while article is under protection for edit warring." Shortly thereafter, the editor Michael C. Price un-hid the image,[25] writing: “It was commented out, but since you've POVed let's see it.” Later that day (July 26), the editor MastCell removed the image and also removed the POV tag,[26] writing: “rm image, rm POV tag; should probably tackle one major dispute at a time and come to some sort of consensus on the lead before reopening this can of worms”.

That's the evidence, and you can draw whatever conclusions you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]