Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Talk:1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

I am just placing a note here to encourage taking a look at what is happening at Talk:1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. I don't want to report anyone and I am not asking for any specific sanction; I just want someone to keep an eye on a what looks like a brewing problem.

I ran into this page after a case was filed at WP:DRN, where I am a volunteer, and later one of the participants expressed dissatisfaction with DRN. I and another DRN volunteer tried to point them in the right direction (simple stuff like "go to WP:SPI instead of repeatedly accusing another editor of sockpuppetry on the article talk page") but at that point I realized that there is an ongoing raging battle with accusations and counteraccusations flying and that I am completely out of my league. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea/Bradley Manning mess

Not a formal RFAR, just a heads up. As some of you are already aware this content dispute is displaying nearly every type of undesirable behavior we have a name for, up to and including wheel warring, so it is more or less inevitable that it is going to end up on the committee's doorstep at some point. Enjoy. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also a discussion here: Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Requested_move. Kumioko (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And like five other places, it's pretty much a wiki forest fire at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, I think I have about 4 on my watchlist but I'm sure there are more. That's not even counting the discussions on the site which shall not be named. I almost commented at a couple but there are already so many people fighting over this my voice would just be lost in the crowd anyway It baffles me that we have all these things to fight about in this project and all kinds of important issues like RFA, Visual Editor, editor attrition and this silly case is what everyone is mad about. I have thought for a while that some of our editors have lost perspective and this case pretty much verified that. Simply appalling. Kumioko (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The "wiki forest fire" of mention does fully illustrate the larger issue of wiki dysfunction; hell, they may as well be discussing infoboxes! :) John Cline (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is something that Arbcom can do to help here. Someone needs to give us a definitive answer to the argument that WP:BLP does not apply to article titles. Comments from the ongoing RfC:

"This is not a BLP issue.

"MOS:IDENTITY is not about article titles, and I don't think there is a BLP issue."

"The appeal to WP:BLP as a reason to keep the article at Chelsea Manning (and to immediately undo any reversion to Bradley Manning is baseless. The BLP policy has nothing to do with the use of Bradley in the article title. The BLP policy is about protecting Wikipedia from defamation suits."

"At what point will you acknowledge that your invocation of BLP was off-base, and restore the original title?"

"This article name change dispute isn't affected by the BLP policy at all. There's no basis for applying it."

"Why exactly does 'WP:BLP trump WP:ARTICLENAME'? Many participants use this argument (or a similar one) during this discussion, but I have to admit that I can't see any primary/secondary ranking of the Wikipedia policies."

"WP:BLP does not apply, WP:MOSIDENTITY deals with pronouns not article titles, in fact it says in there to refer to policy when it comes to article titles."

"The interpretation of BLP in this manner runs counter to consensus on Wikipedia."

"I cannot even begin to imagine why people are citing WP:BLP. There are no BLP concerns affecting this discussion from what I can see."

"I would also like to ask editors who say this is a BLP (as opposed to style) issue to justify that claim.

"That interpretation of BLP is, quite frankly, bunk. The article should be restored to the person's actual name, and mention of the Bradley-to-Chelsea wish is certainly notable enough to mention in the article. But not to the point where it dictates what this project actually titles the article, or what pronouns are used to refer to the person in the article."

"I don't see why BLP mandates that we use the name Chelsea in the title."

"Those who are opposing as said are citing WP:BLP with nothing in that policy that mentions title changes, it says in MOS that title changes are referred to in the Title changes policy, nobody has been able to counter this argument."-

"There is nothing on WP:BLP that comes out and says anything against the article title change to Bradley Manning"

"So I think that this part of WP:BLP does not apply to our case."

"Again there is NOTHING in WP:BLP that covers this and under WP:IDENTITY it points to policies including WP:TITLECHANGES as this does not have to do with article content but an article's title."

"Those who have cited WP:BLP as an exception here have yet to back it up."

My opinion is that BLP applies to anything on Wikipedia that involves a living person. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It does apply. However, many think that titling an article by a person's legal, given name, the name that they are commonly known as, when it may not be what the subject prefers, is not at odds with BLP policy. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The grey area here is that BLP policy is to use whatever the self identification is used by the subject. However that is in regards to sexual identity, not a name. However, we do allow such self sourced content on Wikipedia. "Verifiability not truth' is no longer the standard. If the subject declares that they are identifying themselves with a name, we can use it per the source being the subject. Verifiable names do NOT always match the common names. This is a matter of consensus to me as the policies and guidelines should not override common sense.--Mark 18:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Verifiability not truth" does apply - it needs to be verifiable what the subject's gender and name preferences are before we title an article based on them. In the case of Chelsea Manning, that verifiability is not in doubt though, so there is no question what name the article should be at based on our policies. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well....not really. You see we no longer have such a policy as "Verifiability not truth". And even the policy page itself still contains language that contradicts other policies and guidelines. The subject has made a public declaration. Is that verifiable? Some might say yes, while others would say that a public declaration must be found in a reliable source. While it certainly strengthens the claim it is not a requirement. It could well be an OTRS ticket or an simple mention in the official website or could simply be a declaration proven to have come from the source. It becomes a matter of consensus really, but the subject can indeed simply state that their name is "such and such" and just because the documented and verifiable information may not show this information we do have to take into consideration such claims being made directly from the subject. Issues of name and DOB are not as complicated as some may wish to make them.--Mark 19:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As much as this may or may not be a BLP issue (I believe it is), it is worth mentioning that enforcing BLP applies to the broadest imaginable scope as it relates to the living person affected by matters of disregard. Therefor a section heading is as much an issue as another if the living person is left to carry the burden of angst it derives. The argument that an article title contravenes BLP sensitivities unravels if the same sensitivity is not apparent in the name published for a talk page section; in my opinion. :) John Cline (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh...no. The talk page may use speculation (Original Research) in order to further a debate or argument. It is not at the same level of as the article itself.--Mark 20:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I was hoping that this would not become a duplicate of the huge fight going on at the article and instead we could focus in on my specific question. In particular, the "is not at odds with BLP policy" argument above and the replies to it have nothing to do with the question of whether BLP applies to article titles. If anyone wants to argue that BLP does indeed apply to article titles but this particular case is not a BLP violation, that's fine, but could you please start another thread for that rather than hijacking this one? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I have no idea what the discussion is at the talk page but I will say that neither myself or the other editor appear to be hijacking this thread Guy. And frankly I am a little disappointed that you would accuse editors of such when the natural flow of the discussion does not include your quandary. Couldn't you simply re-state your question instead of accusing editors of such behavior?--Mark 20:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

[A] WP:BLP does not apply to article titles: True or False?

[B] Whatever the answer to [A] is, I can name 200 editors who violently disagree. Can we get a definitive ruling on this? Do I need to file an Arbcom request to get one? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot possibly see how Arbcom could simply rule that 'WP:BLP policy does not apply to article titles' without opening a gaping hole in the entire WP:BLP policy - one that would surely conflict with the WMF's resolution on the matter [1]. As to how it applies regarding the particular issue under discussion, that is another matter. If Arbcom is to become involved, surely it is better to ask a question that is actually likely to resolve the issue? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder Guy Macon, are our policies only explicit or is there some implicit information that would guide editors towards the right way to handle the situation, regardless of the varying opinions. I know that when something is not spelled out word for word, we sometimes have to look to other guidelines to understand how situations could be handled with what guides we have.--Mark 23:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, when I see hundreds of editors disagreeing on a fundamental matter of policy interpretation, and then I see several administrators wheel warring over the same fundamental matter of policy interpretation, I am allowed to ask the arbitration committee for a ruling on whether WP:BLP applies to article titles. They may decline to rule on that, but I am allowed to ask.

If you want to ask a question other than "WP:BLP does not apply to article titles: True or False?", feel free. I am still allowed to ask my question.

If you think that some answer other than an Arbcom ruling will convince a couple of hundred editors at Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move that's fine. I am still allowed to ask the arbitration committee for a ruling on whether WP:BLP applies to article titles.

If you think that somewhere other than Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests (or Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard‎; it was moved here from there) is the right place for me to ask the arbitration committee to consider ruling on whether WP:BLP applies to article titles, please tell me where I should make that request.

If you are not a member of the Arbitration Committee and have an opinion as to whether on whether WP:BLP applies to article titles, is there any way that I can convince you to discuss it someplace that does not interfere with me asking the arbitration committee to consider ruling on whether WP:BLP applies to article titles? Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move might be a good place for that, but just starting another thread on this page and letting me ask my question and wait for an answer from arbcom will do nicely. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Guy, I wrote this before I saw your latest post, so I hope you don't mind me going ahead and posting it anyway. BLP applies to everything about living persons on Wikipedia. The policy says: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." It doesn't mention titles explicitly, but note that it says "including," so that was never intended to be an exhaustive list of the things it applies to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, Guy, some years back the Committee attempted to bring forward a subcommittee, made up almost entirely of community members, who would advise the committee on content and other issues so that we would be in a position to answer a question such as yours; the intention was to get it going and then cut it loose to community control, so that it would act as a parallel to the Arbitration Committee with respect to content issues. That was, however, kiboshed by the community, which has steadfastly refused to consider over the intervening years that maybe it would be a good idea. (Full disclosure: I voted against creating that subcommittee because I was fairly sure its creation would not be accepted by the community.) So, here we are, with a single "Arbitration Committee" that is precluded by policy to answer a question such as yours, absent a case built around the actions of individuals. And really, the people you'd wind up bringing here would be the admins who moved the article back and forth between a couple of titles. We might be in a position to rule on whether or not either title was a BLP violation, but only in the context of whether or not an administrator moving the article had reason to believe that there was a BLP violation, and whether or not said administrator should be sanctioned. But you should know that the Arbitration Committee, through every single iteration since about 2006, has been very strongly supportive of the all-encompassing application of the BLP policy, over and above almost all other policies. One would have to present a really phenomenal argument that an administrator moving the article because the original title was a BLP violation did not actually believe that it was true, and was acting maliciously, in order to obtain any sanction here; and I'm not sure that the case would be accepted if there was no reasonable prospect of someone being sanctioned. Oh, and, yes...article titles are subject to WP:BLP; I don't understand why you might have any doubt about that. Risker (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  The issue is that WP:WHEEL contains a BLP exception for deleting material that contravenes WP:BLP, but does not explicitly authorize any other BLP related Wheel exceptions, such as here, where its alleged that the title itself is a BLP violation. So in that very limited sense, BLP does not apply to titles, at least as policy is currently written. Monty₈₄₅ 04:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  You honestly think that? BLP applies everywhere on the project, as is stated right in the BLP policy. Risker (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  I would have thought that a more mainstream view was that BLP applies to article titles, but there is dispute as to whether in this case BLP is being breached. ϢereSpielChequers 06:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  It seems patently obvious to me that BLP policy applies to anything that affects the LPs. The normal sort of "does not apply" argument goes something like "BLP does not apply because John Wilkes Booth is dead" or "BLP does not apply because Eric Cartman isn't living or a person". When I saw hundred of comments saying "BLP does not apply to article titles" with "prove it!" responses when someone disagrees (noting that there are other arguments such as "BLP applies but isn't being violated in this case" that I am purposely not addressing) it made me want to ask for some sort of official ruling. Alas, as Risker pointed out, Arbcom is a lot like the US Supreme Court, set up to deal with specific situations, not the kind of policy question I am asking about. So, as a practical matter, is there anything else that I can do? For example, I could file an Arbcom case on the alleged wheel warring even though I think that it was a legitimate application of BLP policy. If it was accepted and if the ruling went the way I think it would, I would have an official ruling that BLP applies to article titles. That sound OK on paper, but dragging some poor admin to Arbcom when I don't think she/he did anything wrong? No. I can't do it. Maybe if they volunteered to be a test case... Is it even worth asking them? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  Arbcom exists primarily to address matters where the community has been shown incapable of resolving by some other preferred means. Why should Arbcom be your first recourse? Have you entirely lost faith in community consensus? You can not suggest that you have tried. :) John Cline (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Arbitration Committee but will offer my view. Seconding a couple of other people above, the BLP policy clearly applies to article titles, as it does everywhere else. For example, in the (hopefully unlikely) event that an article title contained unsourced negative information about a living person, this would need to be addressed, either by reliably sourcing the information (if true) or changing the article name or both. I doubt that many experienced Wikipedians, on reflection, would disagree with that.

The question of whether this article should be at "Bradley Manning" or "Chelsea Manning" at this moment seems to me to be at some distance from the crux of the BLP policy, however. It also seems to me that it is receiving a quite disproportionate amount of the community's time and attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• As a thought experiment, let's presume that someone writes an article about someone with a common name, and, as is common in such cases, adds a parenthetical disambiguation. Let us further presume that the disambiguation they use is John Doe (criminal), and doesn't support that classification. I certainly hope we could all agree that would be covered by BLP, despite being in the title. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, as I think about it, this type of situation has come up, as when we sometimes move an article from "Murder of X" to "Death of X" when there's an issue as to whether it was a murder or not. (The living person in question there, of course, being not X but the suspect.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You don't need a hypothetical example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Simpson (obese) - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Death of Lee Rigby (not murder). BLP certainly does apply to article titles, but I don't think it's relevant to Bradley Manning or Chelsea Manning because there are plenty of sources using both, and neither is derrogatory. If Manning were to file an OTRS request saying she felt very insulted with being called Bradley Manning, we might even switch it as a courtesy, but that hasn't happened as far as I know. Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disproportionate? Given that Wikipedia is an entirely voluntary activity that prohibits many behaviors but actually requires few it's unclear to me how the proportionate amount of discussion could be determined. If folks want to express opinions about the specific issue and the broader difficulties involved in writing articles related to transgender individuals, I'd classify that as forming consensus, not disproportionate. Besides, there are 115,958 active users -- so if, conservatively, 300 folks have commented, that's only a proportion of 0.0023. NE Ent 13:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have personally moved articles due to BLP issues in the title before and received no complaints whatsoever. BLP clearly applies to article titles. Andrew³²⁷ 13:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

record?

I'm slightly flabberghasted at the size of this, already. (Only slightly.) Is there a record for the number of statements an an Arb request? Morwen (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh there probably is. This one isn't close so far (I think we had over 50 statements a few times), although it does have the unique feature of being the first one where Sue Gardner has posted. Risker (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You should be proud of yourself. For the cost of a few moments of not using a talk page, you've created the largest and most disruptive ARBCOM case in recent memory. Splendidly done (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)