The request for arbitration submitted nearly two weeks ago for user conduct issues related to Abortion-related articles has now been accepted. Nineteen users are involved parties.
The request was submitted by Steven Zhang after formal mediation failed to produce results. He stated there were some remaining content issues involved in the dispute (the titles of abortion-related articles are a focal point of the issue), but stressed that user conduct is the impediment to progress. MastCell agreed, writing that "the underlying problem isn't what to call these articles ... There's clearly no One True Naming Convention for the pro-choice/pro-life articles. The real problem is the unreasoning intransigence with which the naming dispute has been litigated."
Arbitrator response was tepid at first, with a smattering of comments, opposes, and recusals; but in the end the case was accepted, with five arbitrator supports, one oppose, and three recusals.
Beginnings of case
Sven Manguard was the first to make it to the evidence page, presenting a plea that the "canvassing" attempts in the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process—where most users reacted poorly to being brought in—be avoided this time.
As of time of writing, seven editors have submitted evidence, related to issues as diverse as page moves, user conduct, and image selection.
Jehochman questioned why he had been named by Cla68, writing that "there has been no prior dispute resolution between us whatsoever. I am busy and do not have time to address any evidence or participate in this case".
Anthonyhcole has not laid out any specific accusations yet—he plans to—but has saved his place with the unusual declaration that "we (angels) are opposed to racism, sexual bigotry, anti-scientific nonsense, cults, and evidence-free 'therapies'. Guardian angels have descended upon these areas to protect articles from the taint of the evil ones."
Collect points in their evidence to a number of articles that have content issues and urges ArbCom to "require scrupulousness in editing of biographies and articles which in any way touch upon specific living people".
The case workshop was much more active, with concerns about scope. This was followed by an unsuccessful attempt to have the case closed. Arbitrator David Fuchs acknowledged "the frustration of parties who aren't exactly sure how this is being cleaved or what's being dealt with; this case has suffered from ... everyone yelling about everything else and being a badly-framed request with lots of people wanting lots of things", but said he didn't "think it's pointless to develop a sort of 'best principles' result without sanctions—given that this is a novel approach anyhow". Newyorkbrad is the drafting arbitrator. Mirroring Fuchs' comments, he agreed that "it may be that this case winds up with a reaffirmation of general principles, and guidelines for dispute resolution when there are allegations those principles have been violated, rather than with findings and sanctions against particular editors. ... But we will see what other evidence comes in, and then as drafter I anticipate being able to do something useful with the case, even though I was not the biggest proponent of splitting the request into two cases precisely as was done."
On 9 August, the deadline for submitting evidence to this case was extended to 15 August. In doing so, drafter Roger Davies suggested that the deadline may have to be pushed back further to allow "time to respond to new evidence submitted". As of time of writing, nine editors have submitted on-wiki evidence.