Case Opened on 21:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 12:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Strider12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Strider12

Statement by MastCell

Briefly, Strider12 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account dedicated to advocating a specific POV on abortion and mental health. Her editing has been disruptive, tendentious, marked by canvassing and gamesmanship, and consistently directed at using Wikipedia as a soapbox to advance a single point of view: that abortion is psychologically harmful to women. This is a notable point of view, but Strider12's edits have focused enitrely on promoting this particular view rather than presenting it in a neutral fashion. Specifics are detailed in the AN/I threads and RfC linked above.

Six months of gentle and direct feedback through the dispute resolution ladder have not had any effect. Her RfC drew some uninvolved input (as well as input from editors canvassed by Strider12 [1], [2], [3]) Unfortunately, there has been no change in Strider12's behavior; most recently, she has taken to inserting the same disputed edit every few days, without discussion or requests for outside input ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). I think this is a straightforward case of a tendentious single-purpose account using Wikipedia as a soapbox and a venue for advocacy. (I also have COI concerns, but these are largely extraneous given the behavioral issues). Lesser means of dispute resolution over the past 6 months have failed, and I would ask ArbCom to review the situation with an eye toward making these articles editable again. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief response to Strider12: Accusing me of a pattern of "heavyhanded attempts to silence editors who bring forth reliable evidence that MastCell would like to keep out of these articles" is baseless. I've been editing controversial articles since mid-2006. There are many editors with whom I disagree on Wikipedia. This is the first user-conduct RfC, and the first Arbitration request, I can remember ever filing. Both are long overdue. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strider12

Clerk note: This statement has been forcedly refactored by Daniel, to comply with the length guideline (in Strider12's absense after being notified). The statement in its' original entirety can be viewed here. 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is unclear why MastCell insists that I am at fault when it is she who has repeatedly deleted well sourced, verifiable material.[10][11][12][13][14][15] Her complaint is not that I delete well source material (even if I dislike it), because I never do. She only complains that I keep trying to insert material that she doesn't trust...even though it is reliably sourced to peer reviewed studies.

MastCell has refused to ever grant any good faith to my edits and instead has a history of inserting name calling characterizations against me, even in other forums. For example, when I tried to get outside opinions on policy with this postingScientific Studies As Reliable Secondary Sources in which I carefully avoided any mention of the subject matter or editors involved, MastCell, who was apparantly wikistalking me, showed up and the first word's out of her mouth included ad hominum attacks against me describing me as a "a single-purpose tendentious agenda account and designed to benefit her in a specific content dispute." Such name calling and characterizations, which appear in at least half of all her edits on these pages, do not contribute to collaboration. While I have become defensive in the face of such constant attacks, can anyone blame me?

This complaint was most recently triggered after I made a number of edits to several sections and inserted the quote of an expert, Fogel, cited in The Washington Post. MastCell reverted all the edits complaining about the Fogel quote which she had previously deleted without adequate cause. Only MastCell complained about the Fogel quote and I responded and gave strong reasons for it's inclusion as reliable material.[16] I waited a good long time for other editors to comment. As no other editor supported MastCell's complaint, it seemed evident that there was NO CONSENSUS supporting deletion of this reliable material, so I reinserted it and added additional clarifications in the hope they would satisfy MastCell's concerns about context. But within an hour of posting, MastCell had deleted it (and a bunch of other edits to other sections)accusing me of "making zero attempts to gain consensus." The talk page reveals I spent a great effort to explain the source, context, and relevence of the material.[17] This talk page shows ONLY MastCell objected to the Fogel...with very weak reasoning. But MastCell seems to believe that she, and she alone, represents the "consensus" whose support must be obtained before including reliably sourced, pertinent material.

If ArbCom is going to get involved, I would welcome a reaffirmation of the ruling that "It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand."[18]. It is the deletion of reliable material that is causing the disruption and edit warring in this article. As I have repeatedly stated, I am quite open to other editors condensing, moving, or adding additional balancing material from the same or other sources. But the relentless, trigger finger deletion of reliable material that does not conform to a "preferred slant" or weakly claimed "WEIGHT" is unproductive and disruptive.

--Strider12 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

Accept, provisionally. James F. (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I think we can help here. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kirill 17:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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.