Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop: Difference between revisions
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
===Question for Morwen=== |
===Question for Morwen=== |
||
:'''Q''': {{ping|Morwen}} why did you decide to move the article without following the appropriate process, in the first place? I understand you felt that the correct title should have been "Chelsea Manning", but, anticipating this action would probably be controversial, why did you think that the brief discussion on the talk page was sufficient? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 10:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
:'''Q''': {{ping|Morwen}} why did you decide to move the article without following the appropriate process, in the first place? I understand you felt that the correct title should have been "Chelsea Manning", but, anticipating this action would probably be controversial, why did you think that the brief discussion on the talk page was sufficient? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 10:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
:'''A''': As far as I was concerned, trans naming stuff was a settled issue, and I did not anticipate quite how controversial it would be among experienced users and editors. [[User:Morwen|Morwen]] ([[User talk:Morwen|talk]]) 21:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:'''A''': |
|||
===Questions for David Gerard=== |
===Questions for David Gerard=== |
Revision as of 21:42, 8 September 2013
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for 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 and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Motions and requests by the parties
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
- Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.
Question for Morwen
- Q: @Morwen: why did you decide to move the article without following the appropriate process, in the first place? I understand you felt that the correct title should have been "Chelsea Manning", but, anticipating this action would probably be controversial, why did you think that the brief discussion on the talk page was sufficient? Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- A: As far as I was concerned, trans naming stuff was a settled issue, and I did not anticipate quite how controversial it would be among experienced users and editors. Morwen (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Questions for David Gerard
- Q: @David Gerard: I have read your (Morwen and David's) statement here, but my question is the following: when you protected "Chelsea Manning" and then moved the article again after it had been moved back to "Bradley Manning", citing BLP concerns, did you explain on the talk page the nature of those concerns? (For the moment, I have only found this, but, considering how much has been written about this issue, it's quite probable I might have missed something – in which case, I apologise in advance). My point is that invoking BLP is not enough to freeze the situation as is until a consensus develops to change it: unless the BLP concerns are immediately evident – and, in this case, they were not –, in my opinion, for an action to receive special protection, it's necessary that the person claiming said protection explain clearly (on the talk page or elsewhere), why he feels BLP applies. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- A:
- Q: @David Gerard: this admin action of yours seems to violate WP:INVOLVED. Would you please explain why you feel it did not or why you thought there were good reasons to ignore the rules regarding admin involvedness? Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- A:
Proposed final decision
Proposals by User:FormerIP
Proposed principles
Community approach to disruption
1) It is important that discussion about content on English Wikipedia is focused and conducted in an atmosphere conducive to good decision-making. This is particularly true in cases where discussion is contentious and likely to inflame passions. Editors, including administrators, are therefore expected in such cases to identify, deal with and discourage disruptive behaviour. Disruptive behaviour may include contributions which appear designed to wind up other editors or at which offence may reasonably be taken, as well as contributions which are off-topic or demonstrate a misunderstanding as to the purpose of the discussion. In all cases, action should be taken politely, firmly and impartially.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- FormerIP, I fixed a couple of typos and made one minor copyedit. Hope my edits are okay with you. AGK [•] 20:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Discussing gender on Wikipedia
2) For the purposes of discussion of content on English Wikipedia, a person's gender is primarily a question of personal choice, their gender presentation, their self-identification and their identification by others. It should not ordinarily be considered a question of law, morality, anatomy or genetics. Decisions about how to present a person's gender on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources and should reflect consideration of what preferences they are known to have expressed as well as how other writers have referred to them.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- @FormerIP: yes, MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, but, as
{{MoS-guideline}}
clearly states Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. So it should not necessarily be considered gospel in every case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- @FormerIP: yes, MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, but, as
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Note that this concerns parameters for discussion not content. It clarifies that WP:COMMONNAME does not make all other considerations irrelevant, which I think is a clarification that needs making. Formerip (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- MOSIDENTIY and its "all or nothing" pronoun approach appears to go against the stated desire of Manning.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think we have evidence of that, although I agree that a conflict between MOSIDENTITY and a person's stated preferences is something that will occur in some cases. This is because MOSIDENTITY is defective. However, it is a guideline. Formerip (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct about the lack of evidence, though we could reasonably assume that some transgendered people might prefer their "before" name/gender to be used in their pre-transition phase of life, as Manning has presumably stated. Rigid interpretation of guideline needs to be balanced with common sense.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think we have evidence of that, although I agree that a conflict between MOSIDENTITY and a person's stated preferences is something that will occur in some cases. This is because MOSIDENTITY is defective. However, it is a guideline. Formerip (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- MOSIDENTIY and its "all or nothing" pronoun approach appears to go against the stated desire of Manning.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Proposals by User:Kww
Proposed principles
Template
1) WP:BLP, while broad-reaching, does not provide a shield of invincibility to protect admins from sanctions.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) False use of WP:BLP by all editors, not just administrators, undermines this important policy.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) WP:BLP, as written at the time the dispute was entered, did not mandate either "Bradley Manning" or "Chelsea Manning" as an article title.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) David Gerard falsely claimed WP:BLP support for his actions and abused his admin tools to preserve his position in the underlying dispute.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
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.
Template
1) David Gerard is enjoined from using administrative tools on any article related to transgenderism.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Example 3
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
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.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: