Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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)

Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 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: @Salvio giuliano: Going through my edits around the very first hour:

• August 22: 13:29 Edit noting MOS:IDENTITY
• 13:31 protection citing MOS:IDENTITY (the naming issue) and WP:BLP (immediacy, requirement "We must get the article right")
• 13:36 expand on this and call for proper discussion (within five minutes of the move, which I'd think counts as immediate - please note this when anyone claims the claim of BLP action was not discussed or explained; discussion continued apace over the next few hours, and through the following week)
• 13:49, note that BLP requires immediatism, not eventualism (per WP:BLP. "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.").
• 14:34 reverted Tariqabjotu's (apparently knowing) move through BLP
• 14:35 noted this on the talk page (as the considerations still applied: MOS:IDENTITY establishes a clear and unambiguous declaration as sufficient, WP:BLP mandates immediatism).

At 15:14 (less than two hours after my first move), CaseyPenk posted a formal move request and discussion started in earnest.

There was no way it wouldn't be controversial either way - Manning was and remains an extremely polarising figure. But I do think MOS:IDENTITY read clearly enough that there was a serious potential BLP issue, on a BLP that would be viewed by a lot of people, and that this was sufficiently important that Wikipedia needed to get the BLP right with urgency, thus also demonstrating to the world that any BLP subject, even one as widely controversial (and often reviled) as Manning, would also be treated properly by Wikipedia's BLP procedures - the major impetus of WP:BLP existing as a policy being to make sure that we are seen to treat living subjects of articles fairly. The proper discussion led to a decision to move it back, but the original action was a sincere BLP action in urgent circumstances, and was very quickly followed by the requisite proper formal discussion. Arguably I could have acted more perfectly by starting the move discussion myself, but it was a hectic hour. - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of the claims that I did not explain myself appear to be disagreement with the explanation, or scepticism that transgender exists and should even be considered in any way. The long explanation by Morwen is pretty much just an expansion of MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP, and some explanation as to why names are a really big deal for transgender people. I realised the fact it was about Manning would be controversial, I didn't actually figure that editors not believing the very existence of transgender as a thing would be such a huge factor, and that my explanation of an urgent BLP action would be expected, right there at that moment, to prove the existence of transgender and that we should give it any consideration, to people who didn't believe it at all - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll note also that my explanation - "MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP" - terse as it was, was accepted per se by several editors as a valid concern in that first couple of hours:[1][2][3][4][5][6] - not all, but it is demonstrably incorrect to maintain the explanation was inherently incomprehensible or broadly unacceptable - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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: WP:INVOLVED says "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." That second sentence would seem to imply that BLP actions, being part of an admin's job, would not produce involvement per se. I don't want to come across as wikilawyerish, but it's really not clear to me how, given the wording and apparent intent, that constitutes prima facie involvement (though the arbcom may of course determine that it does). However, as it is to you - could you please clarify? - David Gerard (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, that was my last admin action on the article. Despite the title protection, the text wasn't actually being vandalised (as yet) so I felt it was important to leave protection as low as was reasonable. I reversed User:Mark Arsten's text protection in the process without discussing it, which I should have, and apologised for - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Correct - we should not have a rigid guide such as this - one of the LGBT journalist associations suggests using pre-transition pronouns for the time before transition - which actually makes more sense to me, given that the biography should not be written from the POV of the subject (for whom, admittedly, perhaps they've always been female), but from a neutral POV - and from a neutral POV, a pre-transition Manning (or Kristen Beck, for another example) was for all intents and purposes male - at least to the outside world, and this was how they were treated. Thus, by always using "she" to refer to the past retroactively, we are in a way misrepresenting the sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but watch your language when discussing this. Saying that calling a transgender person by the gender assigned to them at birth is a "neutral POV" is... not a good way to phrase things, at all. It's also one of the strangest interpretations of policy I've ever seen. Look, your point that pre-transition references may, in many cases, be better given as the old gender is not offensive at all, the way you backed it up to that point. It's one of two common conventions; Wikipedia's current policy is the other; and we could reasonably argue about how to choose the convention. But, after making that point, you then hit rather a minefield when you tried to policy-justify it. I don't even think it's necessary to policy-justify it: A suggestion to change MOSIDENTITY to allow the use of the other convention when subjects use it themselves would likely be largely uncontroversial, after all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

My claim was, using the pre-transition pronouns for times when X was widely regarded in RS as a man is more neutral (in terms of respecting sources) than retroactively changing the pronouns to suggest that X was "actually" a woman at that time. I am not making the claim that we should continue to use the pre-transition pronouns AFTER transition, just that BEFORE transition there is room for reasonable debate and I can see potential for reasonably using either - as such we should not have sanctions in place around pronouns, as even LGBT advocacy groups don't agree on this point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is all a little bit off-topic. No recommendation is made in the above text with regards to how to talk about people at different points in their lives. All the above is saying is that it is original research to determine someone's gender by lifting their skirt but that it is permissible to consider factors other than COMMONNAME. Formerip (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry we drifted. I do agree with the thrust - but need to ensure that gender is *not* just based on the self-identification, but on others also identifying that person as such.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The text I wrote says that both things should be considered. Formerip (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Note also that gender and name are not interchangeable. It could very well be that the common name "Bradley" is used with feminine pronouns. No source, currently or in the foreseeable future, will refer to Manning using "Chelsea" without explaining a transition from "Bradley" while other sources will omit "Chelsea" and "she" altogether (including Manning's attorneys). Gender, identity and common name are not interchangeable. Deferring to a press release does not remove Notability and Reliability considerations. --DHeyward (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Kww

Proposed principles

BLP is not a shield for misbehaviour or poor judgement

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:

There's a discussion to be had, I think, about whether a finding such as this one would have a chilling effect on admins willing to wade into BLP issues. If an admin has a good faith belief that a BLP violation exists, can articulate that belief (i.e. it's more than just a link and a handwave to WP:BLP), and that belief is backed by evidence, then he or she should feel free to act in accordance with policy and in their official capacity. Sanctioning admins for making a judgment call that is later overruled by consensus is not helpful. Adding to that, the title specifically calls out admin misbehaviour, while the principle doesn't mention it at all. If it's misbehaviour (reinstating a blatant BLP violation, for example), then it wouldn't be covered by policy anyway. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 04:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with UltraExactZZ. BLP actions should be taken to avoid the possibility of harm. If it later turns out that there is no harm that does not make the action incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The powers afforded by WP:BLP are undermined by misuse

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:

I don't see the relevance of this statement to this case as BLP was used entirely correctly. Where there is a good faith belief that an article may be or may contain a BLP violation, the correct course of action is to remove the potential violation and not restore it until there is consensus that it is not a violation. Thryduulf (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Only things mandated by BLP can justify wheel-warring in the name of BLP

3) When faced with a reversion by another admin, good faith belief that WP:BLP suggests or prefers your version is insufficient. Wheel-warring in the absence of an absolute mandate by WP:BLP is not protected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

So then we need to rewrite BLP so as to spell out, to the letter, what is and is not "mandated" by the policy. Because right now, the policy is not written in such a manner at all, and I suggest that going the way of extreme strict constructionism in policy interpretation is certain to make the encyclopedia even more strait-jacketed and hide-bound by bureaucracy. We have long operated under a principle that allowed reasonable leeway and flexibility in policy interpretation, under the general principle that writing the encyclopedia is never finished and so we can take time to figure out what our policies should be and how they should apply in each individual case. In the matter of BLP, that policy has long been interpreted expansively to act as a default check in the breach to prevent something potentially harmful from appearing in the encyclopedia until a broader community process can examine its suitability. If this principle is adopted, the encyclopedia will be taking a very large step back, away from the idea that we should default to "do no harm." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

NorthBySouthBaranof, it's true that WP:BLP has very few explicit mandates. It follows that violating WP:WHEEL while shouting WP:BLP is rarely justifiable. Using admin tools repeatedly against other admins in order enforce WP:BLP means that you are assuming that the other admin does not understand WP:BLP as well as you do. That's a very shaky assumption, and one that should only be undertaken when you are on very solid ground.—Kww(talk) 00:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, take a look around the admin corpus. Without prejudice to the specifics of this case, it is not necessarily a shaky assumption. WP:DICK (an even more badly-named shortcut in this context than it usually is) should be considered, but AFAICT, it didn't apply in this case. Formerip (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that an admin undid another admin's action taken under a good-faith application of BLP is also rarely justifiable, and I have not seen any evidence to yet justify it. Again, the principle of BLP that we should first do no harm suggests strongly that the move should not have been undone in the first place - rather, disagreement should have been registered on the talk page and a discussion begun. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)

One admin reverting another requires only a good-faith belief. WP:WHEEL violations require much stronger justification. WP:WHEEL is as close as we have to a bright-line desysop rule.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, BLP is a one-way ratchet. Reverting any action taken under a good-faith invocation of BLP has long been frowned upon. The point is to alleviate the harm or potential harm until a broader community discussion can address the issue. In fact, good-faith, well-founded invocations of BLP are specifically exempted from 3RR. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, you said yourself

"In the matter of BLP, policy has long been interpreted expansively to act as a default check in the breach to prevent something potentially harmful from appearing in the encyclopedia until a broader community process can examine its suitability."

BLP policy as written contains absolute mandates to deal with exactly that scenario:

• "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
• "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone ... should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to ..."
• "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."
• "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced ..."
• "However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."

The BLP policy is very clear on what administrative actions should be taken. This principle looks like a straightforward reading of WP:WHEEL and WP:BLP to me. DPRoberts534 (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing potentially harmful about using Chelsea Manning's preferred name. In fact, a number of cited reliable sources explicitly state that using the birth name of a transgendered individual may cause psychological harm. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that our goal should be to do no harm if possible...it is preferable to the alternative which may cause harm.--MONGO 03:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are going too far with claims of harm in a case like this. I agree that there are cases where changing the name of the subject could cause harm. For example if the subject of an article were primarily known by his/her trans identity, moving the article to their old name could be considered hurtful. Of course cases of outing are already covered by the BLP policy as a mandated revert. This is not one of those cases. Manning is primarily known by her old name, and we know now that she accepts that. Taking the time to establish consensus would have been far less hurtful than the circus we turned this into. As for your sources, are they posted on the evidence page? DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case the names issue at the time of the BLP-invocation can be summed up as "Chelsea Manning" will cause no harm, "Bradley Manning" may cause harm. BLP requires that in this situation we take the course of action that guarantees no harm will be caused until consensus can determine whether the other option will or will not cause harm. Reverting a BLP action prior to there being consensus about it is a breech of BLP policy. Restoring an article to the most recent BLP-compliant state is never wheel warring. Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You fail to deal with the notion that both titles are BLP compliant. The statement that prompted the move in the first place acknowledged that continuing to use the older name was acceptable. That's the point here: there was a disagreement. There was no clear-cut BLP violation, and, at that point, WP:WHEEL takes precedence, not emanations from the penumbra of WP:BLP.—Kww(talk) 20:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's right, there's a disagreement. And in a case of disagreement involving BLP issues, longstanding interpretation of BLP policy says we take the path of "do no harm" until a community consensus process can resolve the disagreement. Saying there has to be a "clear-cut BLP violation" is begging the question - who defines what is "clear-cut" and what isn't? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are caught up in a wheel war with another admin, that pretty much defines not being "clear-cut". In fact, that's all I'm trying to get at here: for an admin to wheel-war based on BLP, the issue needs to be so clear cut that the he would be willing to call for the other admin's desysop based on intentionally committing a BLP violation. Wheel-warring was once an automatic desysop, and it still nearly is. It's not something to be done based on issues that aren't crystal clear.—Kww(talk) 20:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There are close to 1,500 admins on the English Wikipedia. Your assertion would create the precedent that all it takes to reverse any action done under a reasonable, good-faith interpretation of BLP is for one of those 1,500 admins to unilaterally declare that they don't believe BLP applies. That would flip the entire body of BLP precedent on its head, abandoning the principle that we default to "do no harm." I submit that it would be a terrible step backward for the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

WP:BLP did not mandate any particular name for the article

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:

It may not mandate the use of either one, but the policy can certainly be reasonably construed to favor Chelsea Manning in that a number of reliable sources argue that the unnecessary use of a birth name to refer to a transgendered person is psychologically harmful. Under the "do no harm" principle, I suggest that defaulting to Chelsea Manning pending a community discussion is not an unreasonable construction of BLP policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In general, we try not to cause undo harm to the subjects of our BLPs ("the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment"). I believe the spirit of WP:BLP does support the name "Chelsea Manning" but I agree the letter of the policy does not. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with BLP in action, but deliberately favoring someone's pre-transition name may conflict with "taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account." Under the circumstances, some mention of her pre-transition name is unavoidable, but such prominent mention seems to deny her human dignity. Ananiujitha (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are many (many many many) cases in this project where a subject's wishes are denied outright. Whether it is the cases of marginally notable people wishing for their articles to be deleted (most are kept, and I can point to several AfDs where editors vote to keep out of spite/contempt for the subject even making the request) to Tammy Duckworth's request to keep her date-of-birth out of the article (request was denied), and so on. So I'm not finding myself terribly convinced by the "if we do not accede to Manning's perceived pronoun/gender request, we're violating BLP!" yardstick, as by the metric of the "subject wishes", this project routinely ignores this. Tarc (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between including someone's birthdate and quite likely insulting someone in the title of her article. Ananiujitha (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"Feeling insulted" is not necessarily a concern of the project though, and is a bit of a low bar to apply a serious policy like WP:BLP to. There are editors here that claim Muslims are insulted by the images at Muhammad, but we determined that the project's need to provide censorship-free information outweighed the insult caused. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're trivializing basic respect and human dignity. Ananiujitha (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't care, but that's neither here nor there. We have policies regarding article titles which should be followed. If policy is at odds with the preference of the transgender community or Manning specifically, my argument is simply that those personal or community preferences should not be given deference. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear what is meant by "mandate". If it is intended to mean that BLP is irrelevant to the page-naming, then the statement is false. If it is intended to mean that BLP does not sweep all other considerations aside then it may be true, but it would be a trivial finding, having no bearing on anything else to do with the case. Moreover, given the context, the statement appears to entail a determination as to content, and so cannot pass. Formerip (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If WP:BLP unambiguously mandated the choice of title, the wheel-warring problems would become one-sided: it would provide a shield for an admin that wheel-warred in the direction of the BLP mandate. Since there is no BLP mandate, the wheel-warring is simply admin misbehaviour.—Kww(talk) 17:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that admins may not cite BLP as a basis for action because if that were so then admins could cite BLP as a basis for action, which they can't? Surely you can see the problem with that. Formerip (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that a mandate from BLP is a valid defense against accusations of wheel-warring. Simply shouting "BLP" when there is no such mandate affords no such protection.—Kww(talk) 19:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. So, in order for your above principle to be clearly understood, I would say you need a precise definition of "mandate". Formerip (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any ambiguity. "To make mandatory" is the standard definition of the word. Where do you see ambiguity?—Kww(talk) 23:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It can also mean "to authorise" or "to support". If you are thinking in terms of "to make mandatory", I would suggest modifying to "absolutely mandate". As indicated above, I think this would be true but trivial as an FoF. Formerip (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you accept my principle 3 (which I realized that I had not explicitly stated), it's non-trivial.—Kww(talk) 00:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, even taking that into account, the ambiguity is still there. Do you mean things that BLP authorises admins to do or things that it absolutley compels them to do? You've used "absolutely" in principle 3, but not in this FoF, so the two don't match. Formerip (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding to Tarc's comment, this section of WP:BLP applies:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

I can find nothing in BLP policy that even suggests that a press release on behalf of the subject would mandate adding controversial information to an article based on reliable third-party sources. Rather, it seems to me that the spirit of the BLP policy mandates removing information that is potentially false or private. Ananiujitha, I respect your personal experience in this matter. You make a claim that deliberately favoring Manning's old name violates the Foundation's resolution on BLPs, but there are several problems with your argument. For one, the article being titled "Bradley Manning" was not deliberately favoring her old name. It was simply the name the subject used at the time the article was written. Two, as a public figure notable before her transition, personal privacy is not an option here. Three, a more complete reading of the Foundation section of the BLP policy is "the Foundation urges that ... human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest". That is guidance, not a mandate. Human dignity would have been well served by taking a deliberative approach. DPRoberts534 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "just an essay" and all, but some may find the opinion expressed at WP:CRYBLP may be of interest. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to disagree that bogus claims of BLP are a bad thing, but you are begging the question. Formerip (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Bogus claims of BLP do hurt the project, but there were no bogus claims of BLP in this case that I am aware of. Thryduulf (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This finding is not entirely correct - BLP mandates a title that does not cause harm to the subject. Where a title may cause harm it must not be used until there is consensus that it does not. It is well cited that using a trans* person's birth name can cause them harm, so until it is established by consensus that it will not do so in this case it cannot be used as the article title. So while does BLP does not mandate what the title should be, it does mandate what it must not be. Thryduulf (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

David Gerard wheel-warred

2) David Gerard falsely claimed WP:BLP support for his actions and abused his admin tools to preserve his position in the underlying dispute.wheel-warred. Since WP:BLP did not mandate the title that he chose, his wheel-warring and use of protection represents a (perhaps unintentional) abuse of admin powers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't know how you can argue that there was "wheel-warring" and "abuse", but that was "perhaps unintentional". -- tariqabjotu 23:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Again as above, BLP strongly suggests that articles default to a "do no harm" principle in the absence of community consensus that the material in question is either non-harmful or that the material is appropriate for the biography even if harmful. Given that BLP, like every policy, is subject to different reasonable interpretations, this finding is highly questionable given that a large, significant segment of the editorial community agreed that BLP did apply in this case. That this segment did not gain a majority in the later RM process is of no consequence - one does not need a majority to be found to be "reasonable." If David Gerard had been the only person arguing the application of BLP, or was part of a tiny minority, I agree that his argument might be found to be "unreasonable." But that does not appear to be the case. An admin who makes a temporary judgment call, reasonably based on BLP, should not be punished post facto if community consensus later judges that the material passes BLP scrutiny. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This seems to imply that David Gerard could not reasonably have believed that BLP would apply in this circumstance - but we have dozens of good faith editors who believe precisely that. It also hints at nefarious intent, which would be necessary for the actions to be abuse rather than good faith error. I don't know that such intent is supported by the evidence at hand. And that gap is where we see the difference between "admonished to be more careful" and "desysopped" - an important distinction. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Rewrote to stress the important point. Note that my proposed remedy does not include desysopping.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

David Gerard's actions were in compliance with the BLP at all times and so are not wheel warring (and note that it is not possible to accidentally or unintentionlly wheel war). BLP mandated that the title must not be "Bradley Manning" until there was consensus that it did not violate the BLP. David protected the article at a title that was not a violation, and then restored the article to that state when it was moved to a violating title. David did not choose the title. If David had reverted a move to "Private Manning" or any other title that was not a BLP violation then it would have been wheel warring, but he did not. Any part of any article, including the title, that is claimed in good faith to be a BLP violation is a BLP violation until consensus determines otherwise. If consensus does later determine otherwise this does not invalidate the action taken under BLP. Thryduulf (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

His actions weren't, as he failed to explain why it was a BLP violation and the closing admins quite definitely said that it wasn't a BLP violation. I don't know where you're getting these fanciful ideas of BLP from. Consensus does not have to be established to prove it isn't a BLP violation nor is it automatically one because somebody says so in good faith. BLP isn't a trump card used in editing that requires consensus to overturn the BLP-claiming edit. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it is. Consensus *does* have to be established that material in an encyclopedic biography doesn't violate BLP, because if any content does violate BLP, then policy specifically directs that such material be removed. In cases of conflicting claims, consensus-based community processes are generally used to determine whether or not the material violates the policy. But we default to removing the material on the basis of "do no harm" until and unless that process determines that it doesn't violate the policy, and such a consensus determination post facto does not render the decision to temporarily remove the contentious material wrongful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't. You've made all that up as it says no such thing on the policy page. Like every other policy and guideline, it has to be proven to be a violation, not proven that it isn't. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes#Principles, "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." This includes titles, as (per WP:BLP) "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories and article titles." You're welcome - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that at the time of the alleged wheel warring the policy stated "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." DPRoberts534 (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You are of course quite correct, thank you. Although it's not clear this makes any difference whatsoever, unless the largest <h1> words in the article, at the top of it, are not material about the article subject somewhere on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted my comment slightly. I'm saying that when removing material on the basis of BLP, it's not up to the other side to prove that it isn't a violation, but you to prove that it is. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is flatly contradicted by longstanding precedent. Removing or modifying material based on a reasonable, good-faith claim that it may violate BLP has long been accepted in order to prevent that material from potentially harming the subject of a biography while the community discusses whether or not the material is harmful. The burden is shifted, and necessarily so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2.102.187.12, why did you attempt three times to delete Thryduulf's evidence? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=571996598 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=571996853 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=571997071 You received a warning and a block and deleted both from your talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.102.187.12&diff=prev&oldid=572199772 You also have a pattern of edits which literally prioritize men over women. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Armed_Forces&diff=prev&oldid=572215311 And gender essentialist edits to femininity. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Femininity&diff=prev&oldid=571985551 Ananiujitha (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I said why in the edit summaries. It also sounds more appropriate for my talk page. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC) You recently blanked your talk page. twice. so why discuss this there? (I was under the impression, perhaps wrong, that you deleted active blocks and that bots would delete inactive/expired ones.) You claimed "It is the standard in English to have male then female - "him or her", "male and female", "men and women", "he or she", etc. It's needlessly distracting to change break that here" but that's not "standard," it's often considered sexist, so that's not any kind of justification. (Or not any kind of justification for anyone for whom your standard is not the standard.) You removed evidence on the grounds that it was a "personal attack" (I for one don't think it was a personal attack, it was primarily evidence of the hostile environment rather than the attitudes of the named editors. I suppose Thryduulf could delete the names and retain most of the meaning of the evidence.) You changed the meanings of several passages and described this as "various minor edits." Ananiujitha (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Warnings and a block notice is very different to being asked about my edits. It seems like you just wanted to allege that I'm a misogynist (though you removed that PA later) to discredit me in this discussion. As I posted on the talk page [7], it may well be sexist but the English language is what it is. Distracting readers with these abnormalities is a very good justification to fix it, in my opinion. "riven with personal biases and ignorance of transgenderism" is a personal attack when directed at people. I didn't notice the notice at the top of the page (the huge one there now wasn't there) and so I removed those attacks. I'm not sure they did change the meaning, plus I noted that I also removed a paragraph that was inadequately sourced so the edit would be checked regardless. As for changing the meaning, the information was still the same, but by replacing the negative/editorialising words "stereotype", "perpetuate" and "traditionally", I made it NPOV compliant. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "it may well be sexist but the English language is what it is." well, you see your edits there as some sort of standard, I don't, and I don't know where you're getting this standard from. I do run into disagreements over what "the language" is, who have "standard" meanings that are far from any meanings I've known. And "stereotype" and "traditionally" have specific meanings that you changed. Anyway, I was rechecking the evidence page's history, and was startled by the deletions there, and checked your contributions while trying to figure out what was going on. I misinterpreted things to think you were working around a current block, and that's why I raised these issues. If you want, we can delete this thread. Ananiujitha (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I am under a lot of stress, and that screws with my thinking. Sorry about that. Ananiujitha (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I've only ever seen females preceding males in the English language in specific circumstances, such as discussing job discrimination or spousal abuse, in which the focus is on women. Yes, I guess the meaning was changed. Ah, I see. I didn't really think it was to discredit me, as I didn't post much here and it wasn't of much significance. I'll hat this discussion as comments are generally supposed to stay. That's all right, no harm done. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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:The Devil's Advocate

Proposed principles

Explaining BLP justifications

1) While the policy on biographies of living persons allows certain exemptions to normal editing restrictions, this also comes with an obligation to explain the basis for invoking BLP in cases where the violation is not obvious. Per WP:ADMINACCT, administrators taking actions pursuant to BLP are particularly expected to explain how BLP applies to non-obvious cases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. I'm at a loss as to where, how, or why anyone feels the BLP policy permits admins to invoke the policy when performing admin actions where they would otherwise be considered involved and provide no explanation. This principle is a no-brainer; otherwise, any editor, when involved in a dispute on an article about a living person, could just invoke BLP when furthering their actions and walk away with impunity. -- tariqabjotu 02:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a major part of the issue here as the BLP policy was being invoked without any real explanation to justify reverting moves and use of the tools.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No comment as regards the facts of the case, but I agree with the principle. Formerip (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The policy on BLP allows enormous latitude for enforcement.--MONGO 02:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Including not having to explain how you see a BLP violation? -- tariqabjotu 02:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

David may have felt that the issue didn't need an explanation due to his being more familiar than most both with the policy and the issue.--MONGO 02:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

We're not even talking about David here; you've objected to a principle that generally says, without reference to any particular individual, that admins who invoke BLP need to explain how BLP applies. -- tariqabjotu 03:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not what the principle says...it says that only if the situation is not obvious does an administrator need to explain how BLP applies. The principle as it is written suggests a malicious action took place...My take is that David could reasonably have believed that the situation was obvious and needed no explanation.--MONGO 03:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My use of the term "obvious" is to acknowledge the reality that certain violations are severe enough that no one is going to question the reasoning for invoking BLP. We do not have such a case here and it would have been fairly clear to Gerard that this was not such a case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP is pretty wide latitude for use of tools including admin tools. Absent an intent to harm, AGF would presume he is acting within purvue of the rules. The BLP noticeboard is rife with admins using tools to reflect a version they believe comports to the intent of BLP with even less justification. While I disagree with his interpretation of a BLP violation, I can understand his intention and interpretation of policy. Disagreement in and of itself is not a reason to remove tools. It appears that he has abided by consensus after input by others which is a more important indication that there was no intent to abuse the tools. --DHeyward (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've cited above the precise timeline of what I explained and when, with what justification, and it was accepted by quite a few other editors at the time. You're sceptical as to the very existence and claimed nature of transgender, but that doesn't mean explanation of a BLP action reasonably requires restating the entire scientific, medical and legal consensus right there and then, and convincing you of it. If you don't agree, that's one thing; but claiming it wasn't explained is provably false - David Gerard (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll note also that my explanation - "MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP" - terse as it was, was accepted per se by several editors as a valid concern in that first couple of hours:[8][9][10][11][12][13] - not all, but it is incorrect to maintain the explanation was incomprehensible or broadly unacceptable. Your statement then comes down to "the move was explained, and the explanation accepted by several editors, but I don't personally accept it therefore it doesn't count as an explanation." I don't think that's a reasonable bar for an urgent BLP action - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nearly all of those comments you cite are commenting about MOS:IDENTITY or other guidelines, not BLP. A few people agreed that it was a BLP issue, but none of them explained how it was a BLP issue either and more people felt restoring the previous name was not a violation. Saying "BLP" is not an explanation no matter how many like-minded editors agree with such a statement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

David Gerard

1) David Gerard misused the move-protection tools while involved and reverted an uninvolved admin through move-protection without promptly offering a satisfactory explanation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree, of course, based on the evidence provided. -- tariqabjotu 01:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

None of David's remarks, particularly the one here in response to Salvio, puts this to rest. We're never going to get David (or any admin) to admit to exploiting the BLP policy to further a preferred action. All we can do is look at his other actions and remarks -- and the evidence is abundantly clear:

1. Prior to performing any admin actions, he simply cited MOS:IDENTITY to support the name change, in a talk page discussion.
2. He did not provide an explanation of how he saw a BLP violation in "Bradley Manning" at the time of the protection or move reversal.
3. He didn't provide an explanation when asked by several different editors, rudely accusing them of IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
4. The explanation that had his signature attached to it was actually written by someone else.
5. He has opined that he was clearly right, despite the RM discussion -- and its result -- showing that he wasn't (clearly right).
6. He believes "This is a BLP" constitutes an explanation of where and why he sees a BLP violation.
7. In his response to Salvio here, he suggests that those asking for explanations were people who didn't believe in the existence of transgender people.

We have to draw the line somewhere. We can't allow people to use one of our most important policies to further an action and accuse those asking him to fulfill WP:ADMINACCT of being stubborn and bigoted, but then let him walk away scot-free because he's able to find someone willing to articulate, days later, some way in which that policy might have applied. If he had provided an explanation at the time of his admin actions, or when first asked, there'd be no problem (although I'd likely disagree with his explanation). But he didn't do that, and the fact that he responded in the way he did discredits the idea that he acted in good faith. -- tariqabjotu 15:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Per the evidence I and others have provided regarding Gerard's use of the tools in this case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP enforcement means IAR is sometimes needed.--MONGO 02:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

David did no such thing. I've explained this more fully in other sections and in my evidence, but removing a BLP violation is explicitly except from WP:INVOLVED and "BLP" is always a satisfactory explanation. That David did not offer an explanation is also provably false (see above). BLP violations may not be reinstated without consensus in any circumstances. Reverting an article to the most recent BLP-compliant (and WP:OFFICE-compliant) state is correct in all circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think David's expanded responses to questions, above, puts this one to bed. At the very least, it would seem to indicate that David Gerard was attempting to act in good faith. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Tariqabotu, I would argue that his explanation at the time of the protection was perfectly clear. He believed that MOS:IDENTITY (and its deference to the identity expressed by the BLP subject) required that the article be moved to Chelsea - and that WP:BLP required the change to happen sooner rather than later. The BLP case, especially in the context of MOS:IDENTITY, is obvious - the subject is transgendered and identifies as a different name. What other harm could possibly come from the article title itself? He also posted his explanation within a few minutes of the protection. I agree with David Gerard on this point - perhaps he gave other editors too much credit. From the diffs provided here, his intent was clear. Argue that the explanation was insufficient, if you like, and you might have a point - but there was an explanation, and it was clear to some of us what that explanation was.

On your other points: who cares that Morwen wrote the more detailed explanation? What do you want, for David to post "What Morwen said."? If they're both saying the same thing, why bother duplicating statements? That doesn't seem relevant. Similarly, "This is a BLP" wouldn't be sufficient - but that's not what he said. Context is everything, and citing MOS:IDENTITY and BLP together shows clearly what the issue was. Again, what other violation could have existed when his action (to move protect) is clearly aimed at the article title and the article title alone?

As for people denying that the transgender identity issue exists, I'd point out NorthBySouthBaranof's Evidence, which provides examples of editors dismissing the stated identity of the subject. Not all of those comments are relevant to this point, certainly, but the reaction was stark. Quite frankly, the nature of those comments makes move protection in this case an obvious choice - especially since the move had already be undone once at this point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't explain how the title "Bradley Manning" constitutes a BLP violation, how the title "Bradley Manning" would have done harm to the subject. That's just as spurious as someone arguing that COMMONNAME supports the name "Bradley Manning" and, oh, because this is a biography of a living person, I can also protect the article under that name and revert any attempts to move it. That, of course, would not be allowed to stand, as there is no explanation there as to how the title "Chelsea Manning" would do harm to the subject. David, and you, may have made a connection from MOS:IDENTITY to the idea that titling this article under this transgender person's birth name is somehow a violation of privacy or otherwise offensive, but that was not articulated until the joint statement with Morwen. It should have been abundantly clear that he needed to articulate that earlier when he saw someone revert his move, several people directly ask him (on his talk page, on ANI, on the article talk page), and dozens of people supporting the name "Bradley Manning" (and some opposing it) wondering how a BLP violation existed in the previous name. (And that he needed someone else to do that articulating seems entirely relevant.) Anyway, I'm curious to see how the arbitrators ultimately deal with this apparent misunderstanding of how BLP exemptions are supposed to work. -- tariqabjotu 22:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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.

David Gerard recall

1) David Gerard will, within 30 days, submit to a reconfirmation RFA to determine whether he will continue to have access to the administrative tools.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How is this any different from just being desysopped and being permitted to file an RfA at any time? -- tariqabjotu 23:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Given that he has not been particularly active as an administrator in recent years and several administrative actions in that time have been highly problematic, I think it would be a good idea to gauge whether he continues to have the support of the community. Obviously, failure to pass the RfA would mean loss of the tools.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Tariq, a desysopping by ArbCom inherently suggests the actions are egregious enough to warrant it and puts a taint on any future RFA. In this case, I think it is better to allow the community to make the decision as to whether this recent incident, in light of his past history, warrants removing his access to the tools. Some members of the community agree with his actions here and some disagree. What I am suggesting is intended as a middle-ground between straight desysopping and some lighter remedy. Plus, I imagine some will be more willing to accept him losing the tools if the loss is the result of community opposition and not a decree from on high. Should there be sufficient support in the community for him to remain an admin then we should allow for that view to be honored.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a silly idea all around.--MONGO 02:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with MONGO. Either he's desysopped, or he's not. This sort of half-measure isn't a worthwhile use of the community's time, as you'll end up with a bloc of editors who will Support just to express annoyance at the obvious flaws in Arbcom's decision in this case (whatever decision that ends up being). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 04:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

MONGO expresses it perfectly. I believe David did nothing wrong (let alone anything worthy of a desysopping), but if he did then he should be actively sanctioned rather than ditheringly sanctioned. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I find it odd that people supporting Gerard would object to this when they think he did nothing wrong, yet would seemingly accept a desysopping if ArbCom decided he did do something wrong. My suggestion is based on the allowance that some people agree with his actions and some disagree with his actions. Since it is not inherently obvious whether one side has more support than the other, I think a reconfirmation RfA is a fair compromise. Should ArbCom not sanction him then people will cry about him being protected by those corrupt Arbs. Should ArbCom sanction him then people will cry about him being wrongly punished by those abusive Arbs. However, an RfA result would leave people far less room to complain since it would be a community decision. People will complain no matter what, but it will not be quite as sympathetic to complain about the community as it would be to complain about ArbCom.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Ultraexactzz

Proposed principles

Conduct and decorum

1) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; 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, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images, where it was proposed by AGK. There isn't a real good way to add something specific to LGBT issues generally and Trans issues specifically, but I believe that harassment would cover the conduct alleged here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 04:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Useful. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrator Actions and BLP

2)If an administrator has a good faith belief that a BLP violation exists, can articulate that belief, and has evidence supporting that belief, then he or she should feel free to act in accordance with policy and in their official capacity. The admin should then - without delay - explain the basis for the BLP violation, providing supporting evidence as is appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This comes from discussion above, and contrasts some of the other proposed principles. The idea is simply that admins should be able to pull the trigger on a BLP violation rapidly, even prior to discussion. BUT - they then need to do the community the courtesy of explaining what in the hell they just did, to the extent practical. This applies even moreso to controversial articles - many of the problems here could have been avoided with some simple discussion in the early hours of the incident. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 05:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And I'm adding a "without delay" to the explanation. It really needs to come right on the heels of whatever action is being explained. "I just removed that section because it accused a living person of hijinks and shenanigans, without evidence. Please provide your evidence here so that we can discuss it before adding it to this full protected article. Thanks." is all you need. What happened, why, and how to move forward. Simple - or it should be, at least. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 05:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I broadly agree with this. The first part - anyone (not just an admin) with a good faith belief that a BLP violation exists, or potentially exists, must be free to take action to remove it. That needs to be an enshrined right in the BLP policy. The second part, that a person taking such action should, as soon as possible, explain what they did and why, should be very strongly encouraged but not doing so should not invalidate the BLP action. Likewise, having supporting evidence should be encouraged but not required - it would be very hard for me to provide evidence that Tony Blair is not a blood-sucking reptilianoid from Ursa Minor but that should not prevent me removing a claim he was from his article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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:

Proposals by User:Count Iblis

Proposed principles

WP:IAR is a fundamental principle that allows conflicts between applying different rules to be settled

1) When there is an editing dispute in which different rules are invoked to motivate different positions, it is important to deconstruct these rules in terms of the more fundamental principles that these rules are based on in order to understand the real roots of the editing dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The text of this principle seems reasonable, but I'm not sure what IAR has to do with this. -- tariqabjotu 16:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

IAR is a general principle that basically says that one shouldn't apply a rule even if it is official policy, if this would stand in the way of maintaining or improving Wikipedia. So, if we have a dispute between the way BLP and COMMONNAME are invoked by various parties in the dipsute, you can always argue that in principle it's not compulsory to stick to BLP, COMMONNAME or any other policy for that matter. However, you then do need to have a measure to judge what is a good proposal for the article text, and if you are not going to apply the policies in questions, you still have to consider that these policies exist for good reasons that probably also apply in the case of the article under discussion. So, instead of applying the polcies directly, you then end up having to apply the ideas that led to the policies. These are more fundamental than the polcies themselves.

In general, it's easier to simply stick to the policies, but in exceptional cases where you get almost intractable disputes, it may be better to "deconstruct" the polcies in terms of these more fundamental ideas that the policies aim to achieve and to discuss the editing of the article based on that. In this case, it could e.g. be the case (not saying that this is actually the case, though) that unlike in most other transgender cases, Manning would not mind being called "Bradley". Also, you may have editors pushing a POV that would not be an acceptable basis to defend a position, but who then invoke certain policies as a shield to hide that. When one then agrees to discuss on the basis of the more fundamental principles that the policies are based on, you make it more difficult for the POV pushers to hide their true motivations. The debate the talk page is then more likely to move toward a solution. Count Iblis (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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:

Proposals by User:Example 5

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:

Proposals by User:Example 6

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: