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 may edit, for voting.

1) I am disconcerted by the fact that Kiril issued judgement recommending that I be completely banned for a full year (exceeding even MastCell's request) before I had even completed posting my response and workshop statements of principles and recommended findings of fact. Nor did MastCell even comply with the rules of limiting her post to 1000 words, as I did.

As this is a contentious issue, I am fearful that such a rush to judgment may reflect a lack of sufficient neutrality on the part of Kirill. Sorry, Kirill, no ill-will intended but your harsh decision did come awfully fast.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

(Proposed by Strider12)

I've shortened my evidence at the request of one of the clerks. I have it at about 1200-1300 words at present. I'll shorten it further if that's deemed appropriate or necessary. MastCell ^Talk 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I must say that comments like this don't inspire confidence that Kirill can be a neutral arbitrator. The evidence and workshop have barely begun and already a declaration of guilt? Sbowers3 (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is damning that this party has engaged in disruptive editing, so there is no lack of neutrality here. If you (or anyone) feel the the other party engaged in disruptive and unseemly behaviour, then please provide further evidence (in the form of diffs on the evidence page) so that it may be examined. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) The goal of this project is to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for advocacy or furtherance of a specific agenda is disruptive and contrary to the project's goals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Mostly from WP:SOAP, and the central issue here. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But I deny that I have been using it for advocacy or furtherance of an agenda. Instead, I discovered two very biased articles that omitted a great deal of reliable information and attempted to contribute to them and learned how some editors who are agenda driven will seek to block balancing material. Jumping into a contentious issue is probably not a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but this is an issue where I have a lot of reliable sources to draw upon, so I dug in and began educating the editors through both entries into the articles and through the talk pages where I introduced literally scores of reliable sources not included in the pages. That is not advocacy, or original research, it is source based research.[1]Strider12 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the diffs I've cited, which are a representative sample of a larger pattern, demonstrate that "educating other editors" is a very euphemistic description of your activity. I think it is also evident to anyone who reviews your contributions to Wikipedia over the past 6+ months that they consistently serve to advocate for a narrow agenda. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asserting that through my many citations and our many conversations (some of them quite civil and in your words even "interesting"), you have not learned anything from me about this subject? You truly already knew everything I've brought to the table you didn't think to recommend them for the article?

Also, why does my persistent desire to introduce relevant peer reviewed findings to a highly unbalanced article have to be characterized as advocacy of "a narrow agenda"? You may recall that I pointed you to the literature showing that teens who abort are significantly more likely to finish high school. I did not try to hide that benefit. Also, when you brought up relief after an abortion, I agreed wholeheartedly, that the common finding in the literature that feelings of "relief" are common and should not only be included but should be given prime position in the introduction. Unlike (for example IronAliceAngel) I've NEVER objected to the inclusion of a source denying a link between abortion and mental health. Look at the record. Doesn't the lack of objections to material from the opposite viewpoint help to demonstrate that I am not as agenda driven as you think?

I just want to see findings regarding evidence of risks fairly included--as well they should be, especially since this started out as an article on the topic of "post-abortion syndrome" and the claim that there are such risks. The slant that the claims were all baseless, certainly justified trying to insert the evidence underlying the claim. Ironically, I am so free of a "narrow agenda" that while I object to IronAliceAngels stated "purge" of all the Reardon material, I have refrained from trying to reintroduce any of his material totally to avoid conflict over it. Instead I've tried to focue on bringing in evidence, mostly from pro-choice researchers and experts and even the APA review, demonstrating that even without Reardon there is substantial evidence of a link between abortion and mental health problems which is not otherwise being revealed in the article.

Honestly, do you really think my edits are as biased and agenda oriented as IronAngelAlices's? Have you peeked in on what she is doing with Priscilla Coleman? I didn't even try to edit it, but just posted a comment.[[[2]] Do you not agree that it's another hatchet job of loose cites and broad inferences and accusations, just like she had done to the Reardon bio which drew me into this all in the first place? Why haven't you gone after her to quite things down? You've indicated a number of times that you would not object to a number of my edits. But then she takes them out anyway and as you never put them back in, she does it again and again. If any single person sparks the edit warring, it's her. In my view, she might be reigned in if you were to get on her case instead of mine. But because you are all over me (because you disagree with my POV and empathize with hers), she feels free to do as she will.--Strider12 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have had some interchanges that were interesting, enlightening, and civil. I also think you have a fairly deep knowledge of the subject. That's not the problem; it's your approach to collaborative editing, which is utterly maddening and counterproductive. IronAngelAlice is no angel (so to speak); I haven't "gone after" her because I'm not a policeman nor do I want to play one on Wikipedia. I don't go around looking for misbehaving editors to "go after". I try to edit articles; when an editor renders that impossible and proves unwilling to edit within the confines of policy and consensus, then I pursue dispute resolution. This is the final step of dispute resolution. The previous ones have failed. MastCell ^Talk 03:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) So-called single-purpose accounts are legitimate and valued members of the Wikipedia community. However, accounts whose narrow focus is coupled with strenuous advocacy for a specific agenda at the expense of Wikipedia's core policies are disruptive and hinder the goal of producing a serious and respected reference work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There's nothing wrong with SPA's per se, but "agenda accounts" are a problematic subset. MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell projects on me the characterization that I have a "narrow focus [on] strenuous advocacy for a specific agenda." In fact, I am merely trying to provide relevent materials that would balance the articles and to moderate some of the most extremly biased edits of IronAliceAngel and Marginred, who launched the purge of Reardon. Again, I doubt MastCell would disagree that some of these other editors are as, or even more, passionate about "one side" of this debate than I am. That I have become "stuck" in these two articles is largely because my contributrions keep getting deleted without cause. If there were not such partisan and relentless efforts to exclude well documented material that conflicts with the Stotland/Planned Parenthood perspective, there wouldn't be any need for my continued efforts to educate the editors on the breadth of the literature and number of experts (including pro-chioce experts) who disagree in an effort to BUILD CONSENSUS for retaining these clearly relvent and reliably sourced materials. (It's not as though I don't bother with the talk page and just blow in every two weeks to add back in deleted information. I AM trying to educate, convince, and persuade both the activists who are editors and the new editors.

Also, it is notable that the number of edits by MastCell[3] on abortion and mental health and David Reardon are not significantly different than the number of my edits. In other words, she appears to be spending as much, or more time, on these articles as I. How can she complain that I am too focused on these article if she is just as focused on them?

Finally, neither of us are as focused on these pages as IronAngelAlice who started the purge[4] and [5] yet MastCell has done nothing (that I know of) to curb IAA's clearly disruptive edits through ArbCom. (Nor have I, in part because (1) I'm a newbie and I didn't want to bother learning how to file complaints, (2) I just want to focus my time on contributing material, not going after editors, and (3) I didn't learn until just yesterday that IAA was also 131.216.41.16.--Strider12 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If there were not such partisan and relentless efforts to exclude well documented material that conflicts with the Stotland/Planned Parenthood perspective, there wouldn't be any need for my continued efforts..." I parse this argument as: "If people would just stop disagreeing with me, I'd go edit other articles, but until then..." I also find the assertion that you are above "going after other editors", as well as your characterization of yourself as a newbie at this point, to be incorrect. I don't think anyone has much reason to be proud of their conduct on those pages over the past 6 months, myself included, but I have come the conclusion that no meaningful progress can be made on the page while you continue to conduct yourself as you have been. I also see no reason to believe that you're interested in changing your approach. You have demonstrably made no effort to build consensus (quite the opposite), and you do, in fact, "blow in every two weeks to add back in the deleted information" without such efforts. I provided an example of this behavior here. MastCell ^Talk 03:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to pull together all the diffs to support the following, but for months you keep shifting standards for what you consider acceptable material. First I try adding material from peer reviewed sources like Wilmoth, Gissler, and Soderberg. Generally, you say no, that's cherry picking without context and insist that the definition of secondary sources prefers popular articles the Baezlon advocacy piece in NY Times Magazine. So, when I comply with that demand and find newspaper sources, a Washington Post article quoting Fogel as an expert commenting on Koop's letter, you find a new excuse to say "no that isn't allowed" because Fogel has no peer reviewed studies. Who are you to set yourself above wp:sources to dictate who is an expert, which peer reviewed journals are reliable, and which secondary sources are reliable? Remember how you cut material from a book because you didn't recognize the publisher? Another example, even though you insist Stotland is a top expert, you also insist her peer reviewed case study which I try to reference should be kept out because it doesn't rise to some "high standard" of other evidence you prefer. YOUR own expert's case study NOT allowed?!?! I hope you can see that from my perspective all this comes across as you "moving the goal posts" -- or shifting from one standard to another as convenient -- just to obstruct material that disagrees with the slant you and IronAngelAlice are defending by means of excluding inconvenient evidence. I am clearly bringing forth unquestionably reliable sources, relevent material and writing my entries in as NPOV a fashion as possible, yet you always have an excuse to cut my sources or drag out the argument for a month or more. I shouldn't have to argue a mile for every inch of gain. As I have met my obligation to provide a verifiable citation, doesn't common sense, good faith, and respect for other editors suggest that you should leave my material in while YOU go off and investigate it instead of insisting it is blocked until (if you ever get around to it) you decide it is acceptable?--Strider12 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My objections to your edits have been fairly consistent, I believe. If you feel otherwise then diffs would be helpful. I don't have "MY own experts"; that's a strawman and typical of the battleground approach you take to editing. I think the above paragraph displays a deeply flawed understanding of how collaborative editing functions on Wikipedia, besides rehashing the old allegations of bias, purging, etc for the 1,000th time without offering any actual evidence, because you don't have time for something that mundane. As to the book, I continue to feel that an appendix of a partisan pro-life tract published by a completely obscure pro-life publishing house is not a sufficiently good source for a controversial claim about a living person, and I believe WP:BLP supports this. As usual, you were invited to seek outside opinions, go to WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N, or do any number of potentially constructive things, but you haven't. You've just made the same aggressive, belittling arguments time and time again. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) Wikipedia is based upon collaborative good faith editing and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Directly from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and a very apt description of the problem. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my view, there has been a distinct lack of "collaborative good faith" extended toward my edits, especially by IronAliceAngel and MargeinRed who, MastCell will perhaps agree, often instantly delete my edits with spurious reasons and a failure to even read the sources. As frequently noted, I respect that MastCell does actually read the sources and recognize that our disagreement is more about questions of WEIGHT and secondary sources.

On the other hand, MastCell's focus on correcting my edits with virtually no restraining of very ill-informed and biased edits by other editors, contributes to an atmosphere undermining my efforts to establish collaborative good faith. The rapid and complete deletion of not just a single cited fact, but literally scores of well researched and cited references, leaves me no choice but to come back around and reintroduced instantly deleted material on a periodic basis in order to allow new editors joining the article a chance to see the material and comment upon it.

My reading of WP:consensus indicates that one is allowed reintroduce material, such as the quote from Fogel (which was triggered MastCell's Arbcom request), in an effort to elicit the opinions of more editors. As reflected in the arbitration request,[6] MastCell was the ONLY editor that explained any objections to the Fogel quote. As MastCell does not have sole veto power over content, I felt I had a right to reintroduce the material, which we had discussed at length, because only she had objected to it. If "the point" that I "refuse to get" is that a single editor has a right to veto the reintroduction of material that she feels gives undue weight to a disfavored perspective (ie. psychiatrists who perform abortion and agree it impacts women's mental health), then this may be true since I have been unable to see this point reflected in policy or openly declared on the talk page by editors electing MastCell Editor-in-Chief. Absent such a bequest of authority on MastCell, I should not be sanctioned simply for trying to introduce, and reintroduce, clearly relevent material from a reliable source (the Washington Post).--Strider12 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the page, it says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it." People delete stuff I write all the time. Ranting about other editors being the "thought police", "Stalinists", "purgers", "vandals", "disruptive blankers", "Planned Parenthood interns", and so forth is not a valid form of dispute resolution. It's an understandable reaction for a newbie, but you are no longer a newbie. You've had plenty of time and guidance about how things work here. Yet you still go on abusing other editors as "purgers", accusing them of "disruption" every time they disagree with your edits, trying to sneak the same disputed material in every few days without discussion, and so forth.

You've been repeatedly pointed to WP:V, which indicates that the burden is on the person seeking to add content. You do not have the "right" to continually reinsert a disputed edit "to elicit the opinion of more editors." You do that on the talk page. You do that through 3rd opinions and content RfC's. You know this because you've been told about it repeatedly. Instead, you make an edit; the only editor to comment raises a series of content-based objections; you repeatedly reinsert the edit without addressing those objections because "only one editor has objected"? Do you really not see the problem here? 100% of the editors commenting on your edit disagree with it. You can either make at least a token effort to change my mind (it has happened, though not when I'm addressed as a "purger" engaged in "disruptive blanking"), or you can get other opinions. You did neither and just kept inserting the edit every couple of days, leading me to believe you expected me to either miss it or get tired. The seventh time you did this, on top of everything else you've done over the past 6 months, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Believe it or not, I'm willing to listen and I don't shoot things down just because you propose them ([7]). But I'm not willing to deal with your tactics anymore; something has to give. MastCell ^Talk 03:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

4) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Strider12 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive and tendentious editing designed to use Wikipedia as a platform to advocate for a specific agenda. This activity includes, but is not limited to, canvassing, edit-warring, agenda-driven and non-neutral editing, personal attacks, wikilawyering, attempting to game the system, and refusal to seek or abide by consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A summary. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deny all of the above. In addition, as seen in the table in my Evidence.

nearly all of the evidence provided by MastCell is very dated and unfairly reprsents newbie mistakes as current behavior.  

Moreover, even in regard to these early diffs, MastCell's charges are based on assumptions of motive, mischaracterization of events and statements, and projection. Most of these are addressed elsewhere, in my evidence and comments above. But to specific charges I add:

• Personal attacks.
  • I am guilty of only one instance of a personal attack, this from first month after facing much abuse and content deletion by IAA and all my comments about the purge were continually ignored or dismissed ([8]I remarked "You are the antithesis of encyclopdia editors....you are candidates for George Orwell's thought police." Strider12 (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC). Notably, I even entered this general abuse into a thread that had been completed in August (demonstrating what a newbie I was). I apologize for this abusive language. My only excuse is that by then I had faced enough snippy comments from other editors that I assumed such handwaving, characterizations, and accusations were actually common.
  • All other instances of "personal attacks" claimed by MastCell are misrepresentations as a careful reading of the entire text and context will show. At most I can be accused of using extreme examples to show how unreasonable some her claims were. ie.--consensus should not simply be granted to an organized group of Holocause deniers who claim that their majority view is sufficient to justify deletion of irrefutable evidence. The point being that consensus may apply to presentation but should not be used to exclude unwanted facts.
• Wikilawyering. The only "wikilawyering" I know I learned from MastCell who points me to policy pages, which I read, and then come back and argue that she is misreading. Is she the only one who is supposed to be able to interpret and raise policy issues? Again, I'm relatively new, but I would think what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
• Canvassing. See [9] Once again, an example of how MastCell doesn't forgive newbie mistakes but is seeking to exploit them to banish me from an article regarding subject about which she has holds passionate beliefs. Ever since warned by her not to canvass after that first instance, I have carefully avoided it. That claim aside, the evidence page, I see that NCDave has indicated that MastCell is herself "guilty" of canvassing.
• Gaming the System. I don't even know what this means. But I have to wonder if it might not include (1) using one's greater experience in the system to obstruct inclusion of disliked FACTS from peer reviewed studies (not opinions) or (3) exploiting one's experience with arbitration request get a persistent newbie kicked off of Wikipedia simply because that editor persistently questions your definition of secondary sources and keeps bringing forth dozens of sources which undermine a your favored judgment of where the WEIGHT of opinion actually lies.
• "Refusal to seek or abide by consensus" The talk pages make evident that I am CONSTANTLY seeking consensus. I do not see how the requirement to "abide by consensus" means that must defer to MastCell's vetos. Frequently, as in the Fogel case which triggered this arbcom request, ONLY MastCell stated any objections( her lone veto Unwarrented Blanking of Material and I waited for additional comments before reintroducing the material[10]. If MastCell is claiming that once she objects to material I am permanently obligated to cede my right to reintroduce material or issues as provided by WP:Consensus, I respectfully disagree...not only for myself, but on behalf of all editors who desire to include relevent material.--Strider12 (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors "purgers" who enthusiastically engage in "disruptive blanking" because they're "biased" "Planned Parenthood interns" - those are all personal attacks, and they're all things you do right now, not 6 months ago. As to newbieism, you were quoting policy to other editors as early as your 9th edit. Canvassing was also not solely a newbie mistake, as you canvassed sympathetic editors to your RfC with predictable results. I notified editors involved in the dispute with you that I'd filed an RfC; it is required for certification of the RfC that such editors sign off on it, and in fact all of these editors had independently discussed opening an RfC on you. Comparing that notification to your canvassing is, quite simply, wikilawyering. I've addressed your mischaracterization of the Fogel situation above. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That IronAngelAlice and MargeinRed openly discussed a "purge" and implemented is documented and not disputable.[11] That you refuse to condemn that and have actively worked on their side to obstruct introducing material from peer reviewed sources that agree with the purged "Reardon" perspective is also evident.

Regarding the RfC. I really don't know all the rules governing canvassing. But I assumed that since you served me with an RfC and had requested people engaged in the article to participate it was appropriate for me to also contact people who were actively involved on the pages and had supported the reasonablness of my edits. In NCDave's case, I merely responded on MY OWN TALK PAGE to NCDave's encouragement that I should continue trying to add good content (which he supported being in the article, as just one of many editors who have supported my edits) and noted that he might want to comment regarding the RfC.[12] Also, since Ferrylodge had also been active in the articles and supportive of my edits, and was also the target of your wikilawyering efforts to block people who bring evidence you don't like from teh article,[13] I let him know that I supported his right to participate, and yes I hoped he would support mine. If these two examples are "canvassing" -- okay, I'm sorry. I won't do it again. I didn't realize that RfC rules expected editors stand alone in response to "evidence" brought forward by gangs who oppose that editor's POV. An odd rule, in my opinion, but I will abide by it if that is the case.

Regarding my 9th edit, that isn't evidence that I am familiar with policy. I'm just familiar with common sense, so yes, I researched policy in the face of a bizarre conversation with IronAngelAlice, aka 131.216.41.16. Read the whole thread,[14]. Her very biased intro was filled with leaps of logic and illogic, claiming that the Elliot Institute is not a "real" institute because it doesn't own any buildings! Yes, that prolonged early struggle did lead me look into policy to try to coax her away from her extremely biased edits.

Actually, it was this prolonged struggle over the claimed that "it's not an institute if it doesn't owns buildings" that got me thinking about the problem that can arise if an enthusiastic high schooler starts editing these articles. Therefore, I admit having "131.216.41.16" in mind when I made the suggestion, in my own SANDBOX for the article, that it probably still contained unbalanced and inaccurate material "inserted by high school students or Planned Parenthood interns." Ironically, the idea of a possible Planned Parenthood intern's involvement was inspired by the sheer rapidity with which IronAngelAlice and Marginred were reverting my edits....as if they were being paid to guard the article's 24/7. I must say that since I learned that IronAngelAlice and 131.216.41.16 are the same person, I realize I should have learned about RfC's and arbitration to stop her disruptive, biased, and often "silly" (as in lacking any rigor of logic) edits months ago. My apologies to Planned Parenthood. I'm now sure she is not in their employ.--Strider12 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Strider12 (talk · contribs) is banned from all pages relating to abortion, broadly construed, for a period of [6 months–1 year].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would provide an opportunity to contribute to other areas of the encyclopedia and get away from WP:SOAP and WP:COI issues. I think it will also give the article a chance to grow, since there are a number of interested editors being stifled by the noxious atmosphere prevailing at present. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. There are issues with the proposed remedy itself ('all articles' = talk pages too), and the very basis of this proposal. As an aside, I do wish to comment on various parts of this entire case but cannot do so until a week from now - hopefully the case is still active by then so that I can make further comments, and elaborate this oppose. By then, I'd expect the other party would have made their submissions too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Strider12 (talk · contribs) is placed on probation indefinitely. Should she make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, personal attacks, inappropriate canvassing for support, or assumptions of bad faith, she may be blocked from editing for the periods of time specified in the enforcement section.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think that some sort of ongoing remedy will be necessary after the topic ban expires. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. It is unnecessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Violation of the probation remedy will result in blocks of escalating length of 1 week or less. After the third block, subsequent blocks will be for 1 month or longer.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

General suggestions? MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)Peer reviewed articles are among the most reliable and best verified sources.[15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Peer Reviewed articles are generally "secondary sources," at least in regard to any synthesis and analyses of "primary source" material (namely raw data and eyewitness accounts and the like) provided in the article.[16] As the methods and analyses of the author(s) have been subjected to peer review by experts in their fields, these peer reviewed articles are by definition reliable.[17]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See lenghty thread Peer_Reviewed_Studies_as_Reliable_Secondary_Soruces and re: Primary Secondary Sources Also, comments from other editors regarding this issue in general:

• Lab notebooks are clearly a primary source, as are preliminary notes put together on the subject. A report in Science Digest is clearly a secondary source. What about a peer-reviewed article by the researcher himself? I would say that it is closer to a secondary source than a primary, both in nature, and in its utility: it provides expert interpretation of the raw facts, and has gone through a fact-checking process that is not under the control of the author. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• To quote: "Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation or evaluation of information or data from other sources." I read that unequivocally to mean that a peer-reviewed paper is a secondary source derived from the lab results, which are the primary source. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

-- the above are from Strider12

You are attempting to advance one side of a scientific controversy out of proportion to its representation among experts in the field by selectively citing from the peer-reviewed literature. This is wrong. I could fairly easily create an article which cites only "reliable" peer-reviewed literature and concludes that HIV cannot possibly be the cause of AIDS. To do so would be a gross abuse of WP:NOR and WP:SYN, because it would involve substituting an editorial interpretation of the peer-reviewed literature for that of experts in the field. Similarly, the problem here is not that peer-reviewed sources are "unreliable", but that they are being abused to circumvent WP:WEIGHT. MastCell ^Talk 04:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am attempting to collect reliable facts into the article. Naturally, I'll be inclined to collect facts that I am most familiar with and believe most important to a balanced article. I encourage you and other editors to add facts from peer reviewed material from any other source, including those from researchers who draw different conclusions. If I were deleting facts you and others wanted to include, while pushing my side, you would have a just complaint. But I am not deleting anyone elses material...especailly from peer reviewed sources. I respect that facts are facts and opinions are opinions. You again seem to be proposing that your view of what the WEIGHT of expert opinion is should be used to filter which facts are allowed into the article. For example, since Stotland says there is "no evidence" of post-abortion trauma, then no peer reviewed studies finding evidence should be allowed. WEIGHT pertains to viewpoints, not facts, as discussed elsewhere.--Strider ^♫♫ 21:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all strawmen; as you are aware, I don't have any special reverence for Stotland, nor have I ever said that "no peer-reviewed studies finding evidence should be allowed." I object to the manner in which you highlight and promote specific studies which agree with your agenda as a means of making an end run around clear statements of expert opinion. That is quite different than refusing to allow any peer-reviewed studies.

You continue to fixate on verifiability as the only criterion for content, and to characterize "deleting" as somehow uniquely heinous. Verifiability cannot be applied in a vacuum; it requires reference to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Someone who comes to an article on a controversial medical topic and adds a bunch of studies supporting one side of the debate, while disdaining all secondary-source summaries of expert opinion and all conflicting studies, is not improving the article. They are making it less neutral and engaging in WP:SYN, regardless of how verifiable the sources are.

Using your approach, I could very easily write a Wikipedia article making an apparently convincing case that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, citing only peer-reviewed, verifiable sources. Then I could say: "You aren't allowed to disruptively blank anything I've added because it has sources. Just add some sources about how you think HIV is the cause of AIDS." That's not how good, neutral articles are built. MastCell ^Talk 06:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) It is disruptive for editors to exclude material from peer reviewed source based on the argument that the data, analyses, syntheses, or conclusions are inaccurate or conflicts with other sources. It is not the place of editors to delete verifiable sources offering peer reviewed analyses and synthesis simply because the editors believe the conclusions are invalid. Instead, if some editors find the fact (not truth) hard to swallow, those editors can contribute to the article by finding and presenting other reliable sources contradicting the first reliable source.WP:V

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unless the source has been publicly disavowed by the publishers due to fraud, the fact that it is published in a peer reviewed journal establishes its reliablity and editors should generally refrain from deleting the material, and especially the citation. The material is otherwise subject to editing, of course.--Strider12 (talk)

Comment by others:

4) Peer Reviewed articles are preferable secondary sources for interpreting materials related to scientific issues. Articles from the popular press are secondary sources when quoting an expert but are generally tertiary sources regarding scientific facts and in summarizing expert opinions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Articles in the popular press should not be relied upon as sources of fact in preference to the peer reviewed studies themselves. This is especially true with regard to any controversial issue where the aticle has the slant of a advocacy.

While notable articles in the popular press should be allowed, if properly identified as such in the text (not just the footnotes), in order to document the controversies surrounding this issue, they should not be treated as reliable secondary sources in regard to synthesis of highly technical issues, which is what peer reviewed journals are for.

Part of the conflict with MastCell has been that she has relied on advocacy articles by Baezlon and Mooney to justify the exclusion of material from peer reviewed articles which disagree with the "majority view" reported by reporters.--Strider12 (talk)

Comment by others:

5) NPOV and WP:WEIGHT address proportionate representation of all viewpoints. It does not suggest that the facts and evidence (such as factual research findings) upon which experts form their viewpoints should be presented only in proportion to the majority viewpoint. Empiracle facts (such as statistically validated research findings) should never be deleted simply because a reader may conclude they do not resonate with opinions of some, or even the majority, of experts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In many cases of reversion, I was not even trying to insert the opinions of experts from their peer reviewed papers, only their reported facts. Such material, however, was repeatedly deleted because it conflicted with what some editors insist is the "majority view," namely that "there is no evidence of post-abortion syndrome," a claim drawn from a 1992 commentary. Facts should not excluded simply because they fail to reinforce the conclusions of certain experts. While editors may select representative viewpoints and determine the balance of viewpoints, they should never delete scientific facts, such as citations to peer reviewed, statistically validated studies linking abortion to depression, or suicide, etc.--Strider12 (talk)

Comment by others:

6) In regard to issues of science, popular press articles should not be relied upon for determining the weight of the majority opinion of experts in the field unless reporting on a statistically valid poll of experts. The quote of an expert in the press asserting that most experts agree with this or that position may be included in the article, but it should not be treated treated as an expert's opinion, not as a factual statement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Science is about facts, not consensus statements, which is one reason why scientists issue few consensus statements.--Strider12 (talk)

Really? Like the scientists at the National Institutes of Health Consensus Program (http://consensus.nih.gov/), which is designed specifically to issue consensus statements? Granted, this is a bit far afield, but the existence of scientific consensus as a concept is surely not at issue here? MastCell ^Talk 04:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus statements have some value...but they do not change or determine facts. There was, for a time, a consensus view that the theories of Pastuer and Einstein and many others were simply wrong. Moreover, in the abortion debate there is no unbiased measure of what the consensus of expert opinion is. The APA report from 1990 was a position paper by the APA which in 1967 formally announced a political position in favor of abortion. As stated many times, I agree it is a notable statement and should be prominently included in the article, but it is not a definitive statement of either the facts nor expert opinion. It was written by only six members of the APA, all from the population and reproductive rights division...the most adamantly pro-choice portion of the APA. To consider this 18 year old position paper as THE defining measure of the weight of opinion that should determine if any of the dozens of studies published since that time have place in the article is simply to enshrine a single POV as THE standard for the article.Strider ^♫♫ 01:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in rehashing the same arguments over content that we've been having for the past 6 months in this venue. You evince a basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia's role. If, at one time, there was a "consensus" that Einstein was wrong, then hypothetically Wikipedia would have properly reflected this consensus and described Einstein's views as minority ones. When Einstein's views became more accepted by the scientific community, then Wikipedia would have been updated to reflect their acceptance. Wikipedia reflects expert opinion on a subject - it doesn't try to correct it by citing a handful of selectively chosen studies to show how the American Psychological Association got it wrong. Consensus statements are quite useful because they are a clear indication of how experts in the field interpret available primary evidence. Hence, they are very useful for properly representing views in proportion to their acceptance by experts in the field, as WP:WEIGHT mandates. MastCell ^Talk 04:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Einstein isn't the best example since he offered only an untested theory with an equation. Unlike the sources I'm citing, he did not have statistically validated experimental data...facts. Again, I am arguing about the right to include facts not just viewpoints or theories. My point is that claims of consensensus neither prove there is consensus nor justify exclusion of facts. As even you note, even if there was only minority support for Einstien's equations, the article at that time should still have included his equations.

Moreover, you are misreprenting the APA paper and misquoting policy. The APA paper is not at all a synthesis of expert opinion on par with a Cochrane report of medical literature, nor is there such an expert synthesis anywhere on the subject of abortion and mental health. Indeed the APA conclusions fly in the face of Surgeon General Koop's conclusion that all the studies up to that time were so flawed that it was impossible to draw any definitive conclusions. That activists within the APA, with an official position in favor of pro-choice advocacy, were essentially arguing with Koop and others to draw a more firm conclusion than Koop felt the evidence warrents. This only underscores that even at that time there was no true consensus of expert opinion. In recent years, Fergusson's study and the Royal College of Psychiatrists are at least siding with Koop and probably leaning toward the view that negative reactions are more common than previously thought.

In the absence of such a synthesis of such a level as the Cochrane report, the only NPOV representation possible of the studies is to include a range of the most significant findings...especially the studies published since the APA paper. As even you have finally admitted, there is a clear and compelling evidence that there is consensus on the one point that some women experience significant emotional problems following abortion and that the true area of disagreement is in identifying how many and what level of negative reactions are "severe." I have shown that fact is admitted within the APA report...even though it was never disclosed in the article for months until I after became involved and kept pushing for its inclusion. To sum up

1. There is no expert synthesis on this subject of a level which justifies the exclusion of peer reviewed studies you don't like.
2. At its heart this is a content dispute, not a user conduct dispute.
3. You have taken the side of IronAliceAngel in resisting the addition of any material in the article that conflicts with your favored POV, and
4. In order to obstruct the inclusion of reliable material that would balance the article (or in you view tilt it away from you POV}, you have misapplied policy arguments against my edits, misconstrued my edits as disruptive, and engaged in wikilawyering, wikistalking, newbie biting and generally refused to grant GF and a collaborative spirit.
5. I'd be glad to work with you if you would be willing to help work the reliable sources I bring forth into the article rather than to endlessly argue for justifications to exclude them.

It's that simple.--Strider ^♫♫ 21:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not going to argue sources and content issues here, regardless of how you mischaracterize them. It is not a content dispute - notice that I have not presented any evidence regarding content, only evidence on the negative impact that your behavior has had on the editing environment. I have sometimes agreed with IronAngelAlice and sometimes fairly strongly disagreed with her; I haven't "taken her side" because I would rather we not have "sides". I actually took great pains to avoid "biting" you as a newbie, although new editors are often blocked for conduct far less egregious than yours in your first month here. The Wikistalking charge is patently ludicrous, as detailed above. As to your last point, I'll link my comment here. MastCell ^Talk 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

7) The claim that all or most scientists, psychologists, and/or physicians deny any mental health effects of abortion cannot and should not be decided based on the claims of a small number of experts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8) It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand.[18]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

9) The complete removal of citations to pertinent reliable sources (especially peer reviewed material) constitutes disruption. This is especially true in regard to (a)controversial issues and (b) scientific or technical matters. While it appropriate to condense repetitive material, even to the point of reducing an new entry to simply a secondary citation to the source attached to a previously identified fact, the COMPLETE deletion of a reliable source is uncivil and disruptive. It is uncivil because the source was added by an editor who identified as significant. GF suggests respect for that judgment and a deference to allow the reference to remain in the article for other editors to review and comment on it. Leaving the source in the body of the article, in at least a minimal way, is also a service to readers looking for sources and to active, occasional, and editors yet to come who may use, reuse, and reconfigure all the material is written or rewritten.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is one of my major complaints. As a tertiary source, Wikipeida should be a good launching pad for both readers and editors to research the topic through the cited secondary and primary sources. This listing of citations is especially valuable in a technical subject with much peer reviewed literature. Deleting citations in their entirity is not only disrespectful to the contributing editor, it also deprives readers and editors the opportunity to investigate source materials further.

This is especially disruptive when such deletions occur almost immediately, as has frequently happened in this dispute. I certainly agree that over time, as the number of sources expand and the article is reorganized, some sources may be reasonably deleted if they are considered to be outdated, repetitive, or less significant in comparision to more accurate, comprehensive or complete sources. But such deletions should be done carefully so as to avoid any bias.

The principle above may be condensed in some fashion, but it spells out a principle of both respect for editors and respect for the bibliographic value of a tertiary source such as Wikipedia to become a great source for finding citations to nearly all the relevent literature on any topic.

The complaint that "unlimited" citations to studies becomes unwieldly is easily handled by breaking an article into sub-articles dealing with narrow areas of the topic.--Strider12 (talk)

Comment by others:

10) Encyclopedic means comprehensive. As Wikipeidia articles are not limited by word count,[19] the preference should generally be toward inclusion of reliable material, particularly facts such as research findings and expert viewpoints which contribute to the completeness of the article and increase it's value as both a primer and a detailed, even systematic review of the literature.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ideally, Wikipedia will end up encompassing (or at least referencing) all human knowledge...it might even be the "all human knowledge" data base on the starship Enterprise!. While that is unlikely to occur, nonetheless it reminds us that every article should be open to becoming an ever updated systematic review of all the academic literature on a given subject. While again, editors may at some point wisely decide that not all sources are needed because some are too dated, duplicative, or whatever, but the trend should be toward inclusion rather than premature exclusion of sources, at least peer reviewed sources.

An argument raised by those opposed to including a listing of findings from key studies is that it would make the article overly long. However, to many readers, citations to key studies and a summary of key studies would be extremely valuable. Moreover, I don't believe every study deserves much discussion, or perhaps any discussion, though there is almost always a place where a study can be included as a relevent citation reinforcing other citations. Also, if the article becomes overly large (because it is becoming more comprehensive), it is a relatively simple process to break the article into different related articles dealing with more narrow issues is preferable to deleting reliable information. I'm fine with condensing the material, but I also believe it is important to (a) put all the material in (even if only by citation) so editors can see and work with it on an ongoing basis. This is especially helpful for new editors on the article as they would otherwise need to re-research the issue to find a deleted source or go back through all the past deletions or talk pages to catchup on what has been deleted because of a "consensus" which may no longer be valid.

Bottom line: the argument that we should exclude certain studies (especially those not favored by 'one side' for the sake of keeping the article brief, is a self-serving argument that weakens the value of the encyclopedia and is perhaps most often intended to simply bury inconvenient facts.-Strider12 (talk)

Comment by others:

11) "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from primary and secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."[20]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

MastCell's complaint that I am attempting to put too many peer reviewed sources into the article impedes development of a well researched source-based article.-Strider12 (talk)

Obviously, my complaint is not that you're putting too many peer-reviewed sources in the article. That's a blatantly self-serving strawman argument. My complaint is that you are selectively citing from the peer-reviewed literature to advance a point of view out of proportion to its representation among experts in the field. But you knew that, from the past 6 months of circular talk-page discussion. MastCell ^Talk 04:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All editors must "select" what they believe is important from a source. All editors also cite the source so others may check it to see if (a) what was selected is accurate and (b) if there are any other relevent facts or conclusions from the source that might also be included. Go ahead and add material from the sources I cite if you believe it is important. I honestly don't object. I feel what I select from these reliable sources is factual, objective and balanced. If I've missed something (or hidden something) just go the source and find more to add to put it into better balance. Deleting it in its entirety is just disrespectful and disruptive.Strider ^♫♫ 22:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is quite simple. Quality, neutral encyclopedia articles are not built by adding a bunch of studies which support your POV and then challenging others to add studies supporting their POV's. That might be one angle to take on a talk page, but you view it as the only acceptable way to edit the article itself. It results in an unreadable mess, and virtually every other editor on the article has complained about the format which your editing has forced on the article. MastCell ^Talk 04:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The bottom line is quite simple:" the core of your complaint arises from a content conflict in that you, along with IronAliceAngel and Sarangue Honey, oppose my including statistically validated facts that undermines your view of the "consensus" viewpoint. My argument is also a content based issue, arguing that all neutral articles are built on facts, and statistically validated facts from peer reviewed journals qualify as verifiable content. Also, your standards for excluding content shift (in this case, toward an argument for "readability") and are not embraced by Wikipedia editors in general. As you know, the abortion breast cancer article, on which you have worked, is built on descriptions of "a bunch of studies"...as are other articles.

I'm all for creating a more readable article, but this is done by finding ways to work in reliable content, not by finding ways to exclude content that might "confuses readers" with statistically validated facts because they fail to support a particular viewpoint---even if it were, as you claim, the "majority view."--Strider ^♫♫ 03:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the core of my complaint is not a "content conflict", or it wouldn't be here at ArbCom. It's a behavioral issue. Content conflicts are resolved by other means. MastCell ^Talk 04:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What content resolution efforts have you sought to help us through this? Practically as soon as you joined the articles (I was at both first) you started accusing me of being a troubled tendentious editor for bucking against the articles as IronAngelAlice had larglely fashioned to her POV. My understanding, from you, was that content disputes can only be settled by "consensus" of editors involved, that I was forbidden to seek help (canvass) outside editors. And since IronAliceAngel, MararineRed, yourself, and occasionally others who share your POV defined the "consensus" of editors and agreed that my material should be kept out, that was the end of it. As I understood it, and still understand it, my only option was argue for my content on the talk pages, insert new or revised content in perhaps even a more rigrous NPOV fasion, and hope that if new editors eventually came along and saw how much reliable material was being kept out of the article, perhaps the "consensus" to block this material would begin to break down. It's hard not to notice that it was only after more previously uninvolved editors did start to hang around that you filed the RfC and then this ArbCom request...perhaps because a number of them were beginning to support the reasonableness of including the sources I cited.--Strider ^♫♫ 21:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You start off with an incorrect assertion. You were not "at both articles first". I seem to have been editing abortion and mental health as early as 2 October 2007 (didn't look back further), while your first edit there was 20 November 2007, in which you rebutted an article from JAMA with material from a partisan pro-life website. Also, you suggest that you were forbidden to "seek help", as if the only way to get outside input is to canvass friendly editors to "jump in and help me out in a revert war, and bring some friends." Otherwise, you nicely summarize the problem: confronted with a consensus that your edits were inappropriate, you responded by continuing to make the same edits and arguments endlessly in hopes that editors more favorable to your arguments would appear. That's sort of the definition of tendentiousness and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I filed the RfC and RfArb because it became apparent that nothing else was working, after 6 months. If you review the last month or so of talk page discussion, I think you'll find that your last assertion is incorrect - editors were not "beginning to support the reasonableness" of your edits, but expressing ongoing frustration and disagreement with your approach. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

12) Consensus is important for organizing an presenting reliable material in good proportion to the the subject matter. However, demands for consensus should not be exploited as a means of preventing inclusion of well sourced empiracle and evidence (as opposed to opinions) on the basis that such facts may favor or disfavor one viewpoint or another. Facts should be allowed speak for themselves. Expert opinions and majority and minority opinions offer context for interpreting the facts...not a scale for determining which facts are allowed into the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

On controversial articles, the great danger is that demands for "consensus" become partisan. In regard to peer reviewed studies, it is relatively easy to distinguish between facts and opinions. Excluding findings from peer reviewed studies simply because they undermine a viewpoint is antithetical to good scholarship and NPOV. Science is about laying all the facts on the table, not identifying claims of consensus.[21]--Strider12 (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) At least in most instances, Strider12's contributions to articles have included (a) pertinent material, (b) drawn from reliable, peer reviewed sources of high quality, and (c) presented in good accord with NPOV principles, avoiding both synthesis and original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Entering into contentious articles when first joining the Wikipedia community Strider12 made early mistakes in accusing other editors of being POV-pushers, often in response to her being so accused. Strider12 is also guilty of sarcasm and other similar minor infractions against civility[22] which contributed to the uncollaborative spirit of all involved in the article. But Strider12's talk page contributions since January of 2008 display a reasonable effort to avoid any such uncivil behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

And I apologize for any ways I've contributed to the contentious environment by not curbing my tongue (or fingers, in this case).-Strider12 (talk)

The table below shows that I have steadily been improving on all fronts--even if one assumes MastCells accusations are all acccurate...and they are not. MastCell's only prior attempt at conflict resolution, an RfC against me, was begun in late February.

Date Distribution for MastCell's Evidence

MastCell's Evidence	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr
Edit-warring	-	1	2	9	-	-
Canvassing		7	-	3	-	-
Complaints about past purge	-	1	-	1	-	-
Uncollaborative attitude	3	7		1	1	-
Misrepresentation of sources	-	3	4	-	-	-
Possible conflict of interest	-	-	-	-	-	-
Rewriting Foundation-level policy	-	1	-	-	-
Wikipedia as a battleground	-	2	3	-	-
Refusal to "get the point"		4	4	-	-	-
Wikilawyering	-	-	10	2	-	-

This is a flatly inaccurate representation of my evidence. Let's just look at the first row; your table claims that all of my edit-warring evidence is from February or earlier. This is incorrect. I link evidence of ongoing "slow" edit-warring in March, which in fact triggered this Arbitration request. I won't dig further at this point, because I don't think it's worthwhile, but this table should be taken with a gallon of salt. Diffs are evidence; this table is not. It also ignores the evidence I presented in response to Sbowers3's comment, demonstrating by looking at a few days in March that this is very much an active behavioral issue. To claim that these were "newbie mistakes" is convenient but flatly contradicted by the actual evidence. MastCell ^Talk 03:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) As the peer reviewed author of many studies, medical reviews, and books related to the associations between abortion and mental health[23], David Reardon is one of the most published experts in that field and a reliable source for articles related to that field. The August purge of at least 22 sources associated with Reardon, and the ongoing campaign to prevent material from this source being in the article is disruptive. While MastCell was not involved directly in the purge, neither did she condemn it or make any active efforts to correct it by replacing the deleted material. Instead, her edits and talk indicate general support for restricting inclusion of material from this and similar reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While you're at it, I'm sure other bad things have happened on pages I've edited which I've similarly failed to vocally condemn. Why stop here if you're listing the injustices on Wikipedia which I've failed to prevent? MastCell ^Talk 04:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who made a major point of your complaint that I have repeatedly pointed out the past purging, and also falsely implied that I have accused you or other editors of purging material. The fact is that IronAngelAlice and SarangueHoney openly discussed and implemented what they themselves described as a "purge." To continue complaining that I have pointed this out without ever condemning it yourself suggests that you are less concerned about balance and the biased edits of all editors than you are about protecting the POV of those who did, by self description, engage in a "purge".--Strider ^♫♫ 15:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "purge" was apparently used once, by someone else, in passing, before I became active on the article. Yet you incorporate it in an accusatory fashion in over 70% of your talk-page comments directed at me over the course of 6 months. That behavior is utterly counterproductive if your goal is to edit collaboratively and achieve consensus. Demanding that other editors condemn a stale discussion which had nothing to do with them, as a prerequisite for deigning to work with them, is utterly counterproductive. Attacking every other editor on the article as biased until they jump through this hoop you've set up is utterly counterproductive - yet you continue to do exactly these things, even here. Newbie mistakes, eh. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

4) MastCell's rapid and complete deletions of Strider12's contributions of reliable, pertinent material were disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If MastCell had NPOV complaints, it would have been more productive for MastCell to fix my edits with modifications, additional material, or by posting inline fact check notes requesting more information, or by any number of means other than completely deleting the material in its entirity, including the citations, thereby depriving other editors the opportunity to see them in the text to work on and comment upon. -Strider12 (talk)

This is backwards. If other editors (and it was not, and was never, just me) dispute your edits, it "would have been more productive" for you to discuss the issues on the talk page, try to persuade, and failing that to seek outside input via WP:3O or WP:RfC. As you well know. The entire purpose of the article talk page is for editors to see and comment on disputed text, yet you seem to feel that a great injustice has occurred if you're not allowed to force it into the article right away. MastCell ^Talk 04:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I do notice from a brief glance at the article's editing history that MastCell is the next editor after nearly all of Strider12's edit-chunks. The talk page is kind of difficult for me to understand as an unrelated party (I found out about this RfArb from the Signpost), but it looks like nearly every entry Strider12 has made to the Abortion and mental health article has been at least partially reverted by MastCell in the last 2 months. This may be warranted reverting, but the speed and consistency that MastCell has shown in cleaning out Strider's actions is a little concerning, since I don't see any accusations of the material being false, simply "added without seeking consensus". CredoFromStart ^talk 16:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I would suggest looking at the data a bit more closely. For example, I just looked at the past 500 edits to abortion and mental health as of 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC). This goes back about 3 months. Of the times Strider12's edits were followed immediately by a revert, the reverters were as follows:

• User:IronAngelAlice: 13 times
• Me: 12 times
• User:Photouploaded: 5 times
• User:Saranghae honey: 4 times
• User:Andrew c: 2 times
• User:Orangemarlin: 2 times
• User:Kuronue: 1 time
• User:The Evil Spartan: 1 time

So Strider12's edits are frequently reverted, but by a fairly wide range of other editors. This suggests to me that she is consistently trying to add material which lacks consensus and to which a number of editors object, as I described in my evidence (in fact, I think I might add this). This does not support your claim that "nearly every edit" by Strider12 was reverted by me. It might also be interested to examine how many of Strider12's edits consisted of repeatedly reintroducing the same disputed text, and to examine the concurrent talk page discussion (hint: lots of accusations of "purging"). By the way, I totaled these fairly quickly, so double-checking of my work is encouraged. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... after re-reading my posting it may seem like i'm indicating wikistalking was occuring. If so I did not mean it that way. I withdraw the above until I can make sure I'm making an accurate statement. CredoFromStart ^talk 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears 3 editors have been involved in disruptive edit-warring - not just Strider12 alone. I see no evidence to suggest that there was either a dire urgency to add or remove the content that was subject to such edit-warring. However, both parties are requested to address this concern asap in your evidence, and please ensure diffs are provided for all instances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... what? I have provided diffs to support all of my contentions in the evidence section. I see a ton of accusations about me here, in a fairly obvious attempt to direct attention away from Strider12. I don't see any evidence that I've been disruptive. I don't see any evidence that I've "edit-warred disruptively", here or elsewhere. What, exactly, is the basis for your apparent claim? That I've reverted a editor who tendentiously reinserts non-neutral and advocacy-driven material, while pursuing all available steps of dispute resolution to no avail? MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5) MastCell's failure to reprimand deletions of Strider12's reliable and pertinent contributions by less experienced editors contributed to an atmosphere of "ganging up" against Strider's edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Hmmm... I failed to reprimand people who removed Strider12's edits. This could be rewritten just as validly as: "Strider12's insistence on inserting and reinserting disputed and agenda-driven material while attacking other editors and refusing to seek consensus contributed to an atmosphere of 'ganging up' against Strider12's edits." Of the two, the latter rings a bit truer. MastCell ^Talk 04:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

6) MastCell has engaged in wikistalking as seem here and (to be filled).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I wrote in my sole comment on that thread: "I would strongly oppose any alteration in policy made at the behest of a single-purpose tendentious agenda account and designed to benefit her in a specific content dispute." I stand behind that comment, and I don't feel a need to apologize for commenting on a major policy-page thread involving a dispute in which I was directly involved. In fact, you probably ought to have notified me as a courtesy that you were shopping the dispute at WT:NOR, especially as you caricatured my position via heavy use of strawman arguments.

If you take a specific content dispute we're having, and forum-shop our dispute in vague terms on a major policy talk page, then it is not "wikistalking" for me to comment there on my side of the dispute. You seem to be throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. I have occasionally seen a party to an ArbCom successfully use the "best defense is a good offense" strategy, but this proposal is really a stretch. MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a new editor (in my third month), I believe I had a right to seek to comment on and clarify policy for myself and others regarding "reliable secondary sources" since you had repeatedly used your definition of this as a reason for excluding peer reviewed studies. Surely you had a right to comment on the same issue, but to immediately enter the conversation with the charge that I am "single-purpose tendentious agenda account" was simply inappropriate. I consider this a personal attack on my motives and my sincere efforts to contribute to the Project, which appeared to be done in an effort to undermine GF in my solicitation of comments on a issue policy with which you and I disagreed. You have, of course, made similar charges repeatedly on the talk pages of the article and my own talk page, but to bring this into a new forum was in very bad taste and an act of Wikistalking. According to WP:Stalk: "If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter." In my book, an apology would be in order.--Strider ^♫♫ 04:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you have a right to pose a question at WT:NOR. However, if in posing that question you caricature my position through heavy use of strawman arguments and slant the question to get the answer you need to "win" a specific content dispute, then you might reasonably expect me to object. That is simply not Wikistalking. My point could probably have been made more effectively without characterizing you as a tendentious single-purpose agenda account, though that was and is an accurate description of your behavior here. I would be more inclined to apologize if you were not indiscriminately throwing out ill-considered accusations like "Wikistalking" as a means of distracting from and excusing your activities. MastCell ^Talk 05:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

6) MastCell has been steadily engaged in "biting a newbie" with a different POV and now continues to use Strider's newbie mistakes as an excuse to portray an ongoing content dispute as a conduct complaint.

Comment by parties:

I began editing in November. MastCell's first conflict resolution attempt was an Rfc begun February 20.[24] All conflicts since then have been entirely content based disputes.

Date Distribution for MastCell's Evidence

MastCell's Evidence	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr
Edit-warring	-	1	2	9	-	-
Canvassing		7	-	3	-	-
Complaints about past purge	-	1	-	1	-	-
Uncollaborative attitude	3	7		1	1	-
Misrepresentation of sources	-	3	4	-	-	-
Possible conflict of interest	-	-	-	-	-	-
Rewriting Foundation-level policy	-	1	-	-	-
Wikipedia as a battleground	-	2	3	-	-
Refusal to "get the point"		4	4	-	-	-
Wikilawyering	-	-	10	2	-	-

This table seems to be multiplying and propagating itself all over this ArbCom. Which is unfortunate since the data contained in it are incorrect. I've cited examples elsewhere, but suffice to say that a) this table is not evidence but a self-serving and incorrect spin of the actual evidence, and b) the actual evidence demonstrates that these behavioral issues are very much active ones, not "newbie mistakes" which have since been corrected. MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Both Strider12 and MastCell placed under a 1RR restriction on all pages relevant to abortion. Strider12 mentored by either Sbowers, who has volunteered, or by another party.--Strider ^♫♫ 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Most, if not all, of the diffs of incivility provided by MastCell are from my first two months of Wikipedia, and on closer inspection arbiters will see that many editors on these pages were "biting the newbie" and very uncivil. Given the environment, I was replying only in kind and was unaware that sarcasm could lead to banishment. I believe the last three months demonstrate that I have avoided all of the complaints made by MastCell up through the RfC with the exception that we continue to engage in a content dispute for which MastCell does not have the degree of consensus (editorial or expert opiion) that she insists she has, from either other editors or reliable sources.--Strider ^♫♫ 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll find many times when I've gone over 1RR on those pages to begin with, and in any case I've been on self-imposed 1RR there for awhile now and will continue to be so regardless of the outcome of this proceeding. "Biting the newbie" is a bit ridiculous - you came on attacking and accusing everyone else of all sorts of bias, nefariousness, evil intentions, Planned Parenthood connections, and so forth. Given your behavior, particularly in the first few months, you were treated with kid gloves. Given subsequent events, I don't know if that actually did you any favors. Again, the evidence presented contradicts your claim that these were isolated "newbie mistakes", or that this is a simple content dispute without behavioral overlay. MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) An excessive amount of this dispute is in regard to old charges and counter charges many months old involving a newbie making mistakes and an experienced administrator engaged in wikilawyering of the newbie. Both parties shall be placed under a three month probationary period during which neither shall be able to raise any complaints on talk pages or with each other which are related to any matter prior to March 1.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See the table of MastCell's complaints. It demonstrates that I am learning and avoiding past mistakes but she keeps beating me over the head with them in order to distract from a reasonable, constructive discussion of content and content policy.--Strider ^♫♫ 16:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were in fact showing any small signs of improvement in your behavior, I'd never have come here. I have enough experience with you to know that your "defense" would consist largely of throwing as much mud as me as possible to see if anything would stick - and that's what you've done. I also knew that if I opened a case, old acquaintances like NCdave (talk · contribs) would be happy to use the opportunity to get in a few free shots at me. On another level, I knew that I would have to spend a lot of time which I'd prefer to spend elsewhere in compiling evidence, and that my behavior would be scrutinized as closely as yours. I filed this request anyway because I saw no alternative, and absolutely no sign of any hope that your behavior was improving. In fact, your continued edit-warring to reinsert your paragraph on Fogel, accusing me of "disruption" and "bias" while incorrectly wikilawyering WP:V, and so forth were the catalyst. Given the evidence of your approach to collaborative editing, your accusation that I'm the one derailing a "reasonable, constructive discussion of content and policy" is misguided. MastCell ^Talk 04:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill 01:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Accept. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill 01:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

'Trolling' (trolls), as a term, has often been misused by editors in general, whether it is misued deliberately, or was out of misinterpretation and a lack of understanding due to its broad complexity. I don't think it's a term that should be referred to (in most cases) as a measure to avoid this problem, unless a finding of fact describes explicitly (with diffs) how a party engaged in a certain type of trolling. Also, most of the behaviours that fall under the name 'trolling' are already understood to be prohibited under some other names, such as 'gaming the system'. But with the exception of this, agree with the remainder of the proposed principle. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill 01:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Accept. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Strider12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly behavior, including edit-warring; gaming the system; personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith; and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along ideological lines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed; relevant diffs to be added later. Kirill 01:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would like to think that an Arbitrator do me the courtesy of waiting to read my statements before judging me guilty.--Strider12 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Accept. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Strider12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill 01:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Again, I find this disconcerting that a supposedly neutral arbitrator is rushing to ban me completely from Wikipedia for a year without even waiting to see my response to MastCell's 2500+ words of condemnation, which are filled with misleading statements. I hope Kirill will put on his or her judges robes and try to reexamine the issues and evidence presented by both parties.--Strider12 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell has recommended a six month topic ban.[25] While I obviously disagree even with that penalty, which is a punative punishment for newbie mistakes...most of which were made in the first three months of my account...upping the punishment to a full one year ban from Wikipedia all together seems extreme...especially as a "perp" with no prior history of convictions in front of this court. A probation I could understand, but a 100% ban?!?! If one reads the talk pages you will see there were many editors who were far more insulting than I ever was.--Strider ^♫♫ 20:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My goal (and, I would guess, the goal of ArbCom) is not to "punish" you, but to restore an environment where productive, collaborative editing of these articles can take place. If I saw some other way that could be accomplished, then believe me, I wouldn't have come here. I've tried everything else I can think of. You've consistently disregarded feedback and attacked those providing it. This isn't exactly coming out of the blue. The claim that these were "newbie mistakes" limited to your first few months of editing is directly contradicted by the actual evidence, which details an ongoing pattern of problematic behavior right up to the opening of this ArbCom case and beyond. MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not effective on its own in this case, I think. Even after presumably reading (and re-reading) the relevant policies/guidelines, the party (still) doesn't get it. Something is needed so that the party understands how things work here, and can fix the problem in practice upon returning. Will make my proposal to address this when I get a chance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that there's anything we can really do to "fix" the underlying problem; a long-term removal of Strider12 from the project may be the only reasonable way of ending the disruption for the time being. Certainly, if or when he should return, he would either (a) have learned to comport himself appropriately, or (b) find himself banned again in short order. Kirill 11:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly no guarantee that the problem will be 'fixed', but adding something else (an additional requirement) to this sort of remedy is more likely to have a desirable result. There were 4 outside views in the Rfc that preceded this case - I felt only 2 of these views (by User:7390r0g and User:Sbowers3) had some merit. One view was that the party did not receive clear explanations of her disruptive editing (particularly 3RR). Without these, I am not so surprised by the party's weak understanding of how things work here. The other view similarly stated that "we should encourage her to learn how to do her edits the wiki way," and suggested that "This editor needs a wikimentor." - perhaps because she began editing at Wikipedia (almost exactly) 6 months from now. So, I think a remedy that forces the party to (for example) work with a wikimentor (before/upon returning to edit from such a ban) is likely to be more effective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Most editors tend not to return from year-long bans; but I suppose it can't really hurt to add in a mentorship provision of some sort. Kirill 04:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) If or when Strider12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) resumes editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist Strider12 in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial proposal; could go into more detail on the mentorship, but it may be better to leave that for later. Kirill 04:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would welcome a mentor, ASAP. In the first month of editing, my "canvassing" was just such an effort to find a mentor/moderator who could help calm the unreasonable edit warring against my contributions. Here is an example of my reaching out for a mentor who did try to calm the waters[26] but unfortunately didn't stick around. I knew nothing at the time about RfC's or ArbCom...and only know about them now because I'm at the receiving end. So if I was insistant on trying to reinsert my content, and I certainly have been, it was because I saw no other way to keep legitimate content in the article in the face of unreasonable deletions.

If, as I've seen in another RfC or ArbCom statement, the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment, I honestly see no reason for blocking me for any of these past mistakes. Most of the offenses cited by MastCell are from my first two months.

Finally, even in thise proceedings MastCell has stated that I "have a fairly deep knowledge of the subject." The purpose of the Project is not served by banning people from a deep knowledge of the topic from contributing simply because they make mistakes. The Project is better served by finding me an editor/mentor who can help me make my contributions in a manner that understands and respects the communities standards for developing consensus and resolving disputes. I am happy and willing to make improvements in all these regards.--Strider12 (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So now this is merely an effort to find a "mentor/moderator who could help calm" the situation. If you know nothing about RfC's or ArbCom, it's because you've consistently refused to consider dispute resolution despite being embroiled in a 6-month-long dispute and being asked to consider pursuing those options many times. Let's not rewrite history. The Project is not served by retaining editors who place their own off-wiki agenda above encyclopedia policy, regardless of their level of knowledge about their agenda. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is from my first month of editing...and yes facing many very biased reversions by IronAngelAlice -- who was using two different accounts, perhaps to mask that she was the one who had openly discussed and implemented the "purge"-- to use her own words. Why can you not extend me the smallest bit of GF unless it is because you also dislike the content I bring forward? Strider ^♫♫ 15:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've extended you a remarkable degree of good faith in light of your behavior. When you've brought a content proposal to the talk page and presented it with a relatively minimal amount of attacks and accusations against everyone who disagrees with you, I've been willing to discuss it. I've actually agreed with several of your content proposals, which argues against the idea that I just assume that everything you do is wrong. I admit to being human - that is, if someone spends 6 months attacking me, accusing me of "bias", "purging", and "disruption" every time we disagree, and refusing to seriously consider or respond to anything I have to say, then I will find it increasingly more difficult to deal productively with them. But I have extended you a degree of good faith, in spite of the abuses I've detailed in my evidence section. MastCell ^Talk 19:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the Table of MastCell's evidence against me above. Obviously, I have been improving in every area where MastCell has corrected me in the past. The remaining dispute is about content which MastCell objects to, without consensus and in violation of policy regarding reliable sources. Mentoring will help me to continue to grow and improve as an editor. As proposed above, both MastCell and I need to put past mistakes behind us and stop beating a dead horse.--Strider ^♫♫ 16:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your table is incorrect. There is no evidence that your behavior was becoming more collaborative (and there is evidence to the contrary). I find your characterization of this dispute, as a content issue where I'm obviously in the wrong and "violating policy", to be telling. To wit, I see no reason to believe that you are actually willing to stop beating these dead horses. MastCell ^Talk 04:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Accept - further details may be needed but can be discussed later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer to be that mentor. I actually started (perhaps not with great success) a couple of weeks ago, e.g. here and here. I plan to focus on the Abortion and mental health article in coming weeks/months and will be well-positioned to monitor and help Strider12. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the proposed findings by Kirill Lokshin (above):

1) MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in unseemly behavior, including edit-warring; incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([27]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Far too little evidence of any misconduct to warrant an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Yes, one time I did break my self-imposed 1RR in extreme frustration at 6 months of unchecked tendentious editing. You've got the two diffs. This is certainly not my proudest moment on Wikipedia, and there are undoubtedly things I could have done differently, but I don't think rises to the level of an ArbCom finding. And what does "so often" mean? How often should I remove disputed, policy-violating material reinserted by an editor who ignores my concerns (and those of others) on the talk page? After Strider12 reinserted it for the 3rd time, I figured I'd had enough - and it was nearly immediately reverted by another editor. This could tell you that a) I shouldn't have reverted more than once, and b) that Strider12 is trying to force material into the page which demonstrably lacks any sort of consensus. Both would be accurate. MastCell ^Talk 06:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed that you cited Strider12's evidence that I also assumed bad faith. I assume good faith until presented with evidence to the contrary. I was presented with ample evidence of bad faith on Strider12's part before I made any explicit assumptions one way or the other, so I don't see the merit behind this. MastCell ^Talk 06:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My proposals are not final until there is an "(f)" at the end of them (as indicated on the talk page). I've corrected my wording - 'so often' was not quite what I was meaning.

Edit-warring cannot occur with just one individual - it involves more than one party. A lack of consensus can be indicated on the talk page itself - an edit-war of 12 or so edits per editor is unnecessary, unseemly, and disruptive to the project (as you well-understand, perhaps less like the editor to be banned). So if one editor frustrates you by continuous edit-warring, the answer is NOT to revert right back, even if it is a month at a time. If the added material lacked any sort of consensus, some of it would not be reinserted with your (and others) approval shortly after you'd removed it. In coming to my finding, I looked at how much time elapsed between these edits, the nature of the reverts, as well as other considerations that were broadly alluded to, not just in Strider's evidence, but in all of the evidence presented. An editor of your standing is expected to take more care in not allowing disputes to escalate into edit-wars, however slow they may be. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound like all I was doing was reverting Strider12's edits and escalating the conflict. In fact, I was actively pursuing dispute resolution at every level, from a frank and civil discussion with Strider12 on her talk page, to requests for outside input from relevant WikiProjects, to encouraging outside editors to comment, to 2 threads on WP:AN/I regarding particularly egregious incidents, to a user-conduct RfC. Yes, along the way I made 12 reverts of tendentious edits over the course of about 4 months. If you consider this to be unacceptably poor behavior, then I encourage you to edit controversial articles, deal with such editors, and set a better example. MastCell ^Talk 21:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked through the evidence, I found about a third of the reverts were made by you, a third by the other editor, and a third by various editors. I took into consideration that you did actively pursue the various avenues of dispute resolution (although not explicitly stated above) and chose this remedy to possibly be the most effective. Even if an editor keeps reinserting material without consensus or discussion, it is not a necessity to continue reverting material (or edit-warring) in the manner I described (to a total of 12 as you say), while pursuing dispute resolution. My current approach (after taking quite some time to understand it) involves distancing myself from the article for some time - by no means am I suggesting this is the only way to deal with a problem like this. Indeed, you are encouraged to pursue the avenues of dispute resolution if ever a situation like this one arises again - but please do not edit-war in this manner whilst doing so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to edit or remove material which I believe fundamentally violates Wikipedia policy. If I run into a dispute in doing so, I pursue the pathway specified in dispute resolution, as I did in this case. I took the additional step of a self-imposed 1RR in this case, though I did break it at one point in extreme frustration and go to 2RR. It is abundantly clear from the evidence that this is not a case of me edit-warring with Strider12, but Strider12 edit-warring against a consensus of other editors on the article while assidously avoiding any attempt at dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the evidence indicated what you think it indicates, then I would not have come to this finding. 25 reverts were made by you and Ironangelalice in this dispute - this is unacceptable. No where does the DR policy specify that you are allowed to edit-war, in the manner I've specified. Strider12's avoidance of DR does not justify edit-warring, or making so many reverts. I also see no evidence to indicate that the edit-warring fell under one of the exceptions of the rule either. 3 or so reverts were made each by 6 or so editors - I am assuming these editors were involved in the talk page discussions too, and this does raise enough doubt as to whether there was consensus for Strider12's edits. Had you both fallen under this category of editors, and had not taken it upon yourself to enforce this consensus through disruptive edit-warring, I would not have come to this finding. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"... by me and IronAngelAlice"? Since when I am IronAngelAlice's keeper, or responsible for her actions on top of my own? If you buy the idea that we are "closely allied", then you've read and accepted Strider12's evidence uncritically without checking into the reality of the situation. And while you're at it, where is this incivility and assumption of bad faith (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that you believe I've engaged in? I actually make a concerted effort to remain civil even when frustrated, so I'm curious what you have in mind. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Whether 'slow', or not, both editors are responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war ([28], [29]). There was no such urgency, or necessity, to revert (and remove) the disputed material to such an extent, on such a number of occasions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring([30]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Insufficient evidence to support such a finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

If you're going to propose findings and remedies involving IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs), then she should probably be notified of the existence of this case in order to give her a chance to respond. MastCell ^Talk 05:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Notified by Ferrylodge. MastCell ^Talk 05:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Whether 'slow', or not, both editors are responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war. There was no such urgency, or necessity, to revert (and remove) the disputed material to such an extent, on such a number of occasions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per fortnight (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content (partial or full) reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The record does not support any findings that could give rise to this remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'm not sure whether to comment on something this odd. I've been editing a very wide range of articles (many of which are highly controversial) for quite some time now, and I've never been blocked for edit-warring nor has anyone ever pursued any sort of dispute resolution regarding my conduct that I am aware of. Now I see two diffs, in which I broke a self-imposed 1RR in the face of tendentious editing and went up to 2RR once, and a proposal for a yearlong editing restriction. I don't think this is any way commensurate with either the evidence presented or with the reality of the situation. MastCell ^Talk 07:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Initial proposal; may need more tweaking. Compels editors (on another level) to find another way to resolve such disputes in the future, rather than through mere reverts. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? "Find another way to resolve such disputes rather than through mere reverts"? Did you miss the extensive amount of time and effort I spent on every level of dispute resolution over the past 6 months before filing this case? I have to admit that I find this line of reasoning both totally divorced from reality and a bit offensive. MastCell ^Talk 05:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuing DR does not justify (or allow) the level of edit-warring that was made by both you and IronAngelAlice. I am sorry if you feel offended or otherwise, but there is no divorce from reality. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do some things differently if I could rewind the clock 6 months. Still, this makes absolutely no sense, and its phrasing is extremely condescending and ignores the extensive efforts I made to resolve this dispute by normal means. If your concern is the abortion and mental health page, I put myself on voluntary 1RR there a while ago and will continue to follow it. I do discuss my reverts on the talk page, and did so here. If you think I should be restricted to 1RR/"fortnight" everywhere on Wikipedia, on the basis of the evidence presented by Strider12, then I don't really have anything else to say. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard remedy, and was not proposed on the basis of the other party's evidence alone. Indeed, had you not made extensive efforts in pursuing dispute resolution, then the remedy would be quite different (and more than likely, you would find it significantly harsher than this one). The voluntary rule was clearly not effective in preventing you from edit-warring (as demonstrated in this case), and as such, I feel a remedy (such as this one) imposed by the ArbCom would be more effective to achieve the desired outcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a standard remedy to be placed on 1RR/fortnight across all of Wikipedia as a first step for this level of conflict. In this case, one editor (Strider12) continually inserted disputed material which was reverted by at least 7 different editors over 6 months. Efforts by these editors to reach consensus on the talk page were stonewalled by endless repetition of the same unconvincing arguments and accusations. I'm not sure that proposing draconian remedies against the editor trying to follow the approved dispute-resolution process is the way to go. I considered just slogging on in the same holding pattern rather than coming to ArbCom, because I figured that if I brought this to ArbCom someone would give me a hard time about my role as one of the 6+ editors who disagreed with and at times reverted Strider12. In the end I decided that it was worth it to resolve this dispute, but the inevitable attack (and Strider12's "evidence" is largely an attack, unsupported by diffs or actual evidence, to say nothing of NCdave's) was a real deterrent to following dispute resolution through. MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were well aware of the effects of edit-warring so this proposal is very lenient imo. I reject your argument that ArbCom would've given you a hard time as one of the 6+editors who disagreed with his edits, as there was substantial evidence of several policy violations, even in the absence of edit-warring. This remedy is not at all undermining or against your efforts in the DR cycle, however, is specifically targeted at the unacceptable double-standard of edit-warring in order to make a point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. I encounter a tendentious editor making an article uneditable for a 6-month stretch and pursue every available means of dispute resolution without success. Then I bring the case to ArbCom and someone proposes that I be placed under a draconian editing restriction based on 12 reverts of disputed material over 4 months, in the setting of numerous other editors who also disagreed with and reverted those edits, when I have a track record of nearly 2 years on controversial articles without any concerns over my conduct being raised? And you think that's not a deterrent to and editor in good standing to bring a case here? It's not a "double standard" to treat apples differently than oranges. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Should IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) resume editing at Wikipedia, she shall be subject to an editing restriction for one year. She is limited to one revert per page per fortnight (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content (partial or full) reversions on the page's talk page. Should she exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, she may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Insufficient evidence to support any such remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

As above, IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs) should be notified if you propose remedies involving her, as I'm not sure she's aware of the existence of this case. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Notified by Ferrylodge. MastCell ^Talk 05:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Initial proposal; may need more tweaking. Compels editors (on another level) to find another way to resolve such disputes in the future, rather than through mere reverts. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Mastcell's comment, I went ahead and notified IronAngelAlice.[31]Ferrylodge (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The purpose of ArbCom remedies is to prevent future damage to the project, not to punish past bad behavior. For that reason, evidence should be recent; it should indicate an ongoing problem that is likely to continue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Establishing a pattern of tendentious editing often requires both older diffs and more recent ones. I've provided both. In this case, the bad behavior extended right up to the moment I filed the ArbCom case, and many of the underlying problems continued to be obvious even in Strider12's comments on the case pages. This is an active problem that needs to be addressed, not a thing of the past. MastCell ^Talk 05:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The Abortion and mental health article is not written in a neutral tone.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While I agree the article needs a ton of work on neutrality, I seriously doubt that ArbCom will or should ratify such a clearly content-based finding. MastCell ^Talk 04:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed - leads to following finding of fact. Even if the following finding is not endorsed, I think it would be useful for future improvement to the article to have an ArbCom finding that the article is not neutral. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Strider12 is trying to make an unbalanced article more neutral - not to make it a vehicle for her own POV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've presented voluminous evidence to the contrary, so I'm not sure of the basis for this proposal. MastCell ^Talk 04:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) Strider12 apparently acted in good faith and thought she was acting in conformance with policy (NPOV, V, RS) and with a previous ArbCom-stated principle that "deleting well sourced material is disruptive." Many of her edits were constructive and helpful to the project. Nonetheless, many other of her edits were repetitious and were seen by other editors as disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have no doubt that Strider12 believed and believes that she is right. That isn't really the issue. It's the refusal to accept any outside input and the completely uncollaborative approach that were disruptive. I'm also not seeing clear evidence that she made "many" constructive and helpful edits, though undoubtedly she's made some. MastCell ^Talk 04:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) ArbCom explains to Strider12 how it was not enough that she relied on a previous ArbCom ruling and on policies such as NPOV, V, and RS; that more is needed in this collaborative environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

She didn't exactly "rely on" policy - she subverted it to advance a specific agenda. Whatever her intentions in doing so, the problem remains. MastCell ^Talk 05:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Because (as I believe to be the case) Strider12 acted with good intentions, often mentioned "NPOV", "Verifiable", and "Reliable sources", and often quoted an earlier ArbCom-stated principle, I suggest it would be useful to explain to her and the community where she went wrong in spite of her trying to do the right thing. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary - mentor proposal would be able to deal with this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Strider12 be restricted to 1RR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would not solve the following problems: refusal to accept outside input; refusal to edit collaboratively; abuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox; rendering the talk page largely unusable through a proliferation of repetitive threads re-arguing the same point every few days; and slow edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not refused to accept outside input or to edit collaboratively, nor have I used it as a soapbox.--Strider ^♫♫ 04:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to a 1RR restriction and would happily voluntarily follow that rule if MastCell also did, especially if she would also seek to encourage deleters like IronAngelAlice to tone down here rapid deletions.Strider ^♫♫ 20:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1RR is always a good idea, but it would not solve the underlying issues described above. MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would almost suggest that all editors (including myself) of Abortion and mental health or any other highly contentious article operate under a 1RR restriction. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) Per Kirill Lokshin, Strider12 accept mentoring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I volunteer to mentor Strider12. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: