Workshop phase opens in Manning naming dispute; Infoboxes case closes

Discussion over the Manning title dispute was off to a running start as evidence and workshop phases continued in the Bradley/Chelsea Manning naming dispute. The Infoboxes case closed with topic bans for two users, and a recommendation for community discussion of infoboxes.

The evidence and workshop phases are now open in the Manning naming dispute case. The case involves the move of the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning, after Manning's attorney announced Manning's wish to be known as Chelsea.

The scope of the case has been described as "broad": the committee is "willing to review evidence regarding any aspect of the naming dispute in question." There is particular interest in evidence regarding derogatory statements towards transgendered individuals, accusations of transphobia, whether WP:BLP concerns are being handled properly, and evidence of possible misuse of admin tools.

The evidence phase closes 19 September, and the workshop phase closes 26 September. A proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 3 October 2013.

The Infoboxes case was closed. Arbitrators agreed unanimously that infoboxes are neither required nor discouraged, and that decisions regarding infoboxes should be made by consensus on an article-by-article basis. They also recommended a community-wide discussion on infoboxes. Findings regarding conduct were passed for four users. In addition two users received topic bans: Pigsonthewing (also known as Andy Mabbett) was indefinitely banned from using or discussing infoboxes, and Gerda Arendt was restricted from discussing or adding infoboxes to articles but not from participation in broader policy discussions.

The following remedies were announced by the committee:

1. Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.
2. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
3. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.
4. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.
5. Smerus (talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in a civil manner.
6. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
7. The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.

The proposed findings of fact against Smerus were added to the case two weeks after the workshop had closed, after members of WikiProject Quality Article Improvement complained that the decision as written was too one-sided, that one-sided rulings "never calm things down", and that anti-box editors "deserve smacking".

Since little or no evidence had been submitted against these editors, a request was made for more diffs. Since the evidence and workshop phases were already closed, there was no discussion of this new evidence. Smerus offered to provide diffs if an arbitrator was willing to take them into consideration, but did not receive a response. While no centralized discussion took place on the case pages, comments elsewhere speculated that "ArbCom wanted to punish two users from each side of the dispute to demonstrate fairness".

A similar situation occurred in the Tea Party movement case (see Signpost coverage), when fourteen editors were proposed for topic bans after discussion had already closed in the evidence and workshop phases. However, while there was no centralized discussion in that case, the discussion did continue on various arbitrators' talk pages. In a post-mortem on that case, concern was expressed that "anything that might end up in the proposed decision should, first, be displayed at the workshop… because it gives the Committee a chance to get their gut feelings reviewed by editors outside the Committee."

• Discretionary sanctions review: An updated draft of the discretionary sanction process is now available for review and comment.
• Clarification request: Race and Intelligence: A clarification request has been made regarding topic and interaction bans.
• Amendment request: Scientology: An amendment request made by The Devil's Advocate requests the lifting of a restriction imposed regarding the mention of an editor's previous username, the removal of claims of misconduct from the discretionary sanction log of warnings, and restoration of a previously oversighted edit to avoid the appearance of misconduct implied by a suppressed edit.
• Amendment request: Locke Cole arbitration case: A request was made by Locke Cole for the lifting of a seven-year-old interaction ban.
• Clarification request: Pseudoscience#Principles: A request was made by IRWolfie- for clarification of the {{ArbComPseudoscience}} template. Archived here.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

11 September 2013 (all comments)

In the media

WikiProject report

Featured content

News and notes

Traffic report

Arbitration report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

I am a member of QAI and said in the case : "I have intentionally not supplied any evidence against (!) any editor, many of whom I respect, and still don't want to do that. (Was it a mistake? I am interested in understanding, not "remedies".)" - It was a mistake, but I would do it again, and I keep doing so and say no more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather ironic that this was released on 9/11. — ChedZILLA 11:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor decision by Arbcom. This result allows a group of editors to continue to viciously attack anyone attempting to improve "their" project and bans knowledgeable people from saying anything about it. In an attenpt to institute a false image of "fairness," they also failed to identify or say anything about the worst offenders who contributed greatly to the atmosphere of hostility that characterized the original set of disputes. The four people who did get smacked, given time, would probably have worked out their disputes amongst themselves. The underlying problem itself continues unabated and those most hostile to infoboxes got off scott-free and can continue to make claims that have no basis in technical reality. However, the wall of text that characterized this case appears to have made it impossible for ArbCom to sort the wheat from the chaff and reveals a fundamental structural problem in the process. Montanabw^(talk) 21:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I continue to lose faith in ARBCOM when the end result is always a series of bans and no resolution of the issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• how dare anyone try to add an infobox. this coddling of unreasonable people, drives away veteran editors. what the article owners don't grasp, is that their article will be unimproved, while every article but theirs has one. (until they leave) the problem with the route around censorship approach is that whole swaths of the wiki are a desert indefinately. the reliance on software tools and not training and "coaching" is an epic fail. (although i do sympathize) Duckduckgo (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The arbitrators are operating within the confines of a system that in effect, however we want to pretend it isn't, has punitive overtones. Like Gerda I recently also decided not to present evidence against another editor, because the environment on Wikipedia that includes attacks on each other and the arbs has become poisonous, and I was exhausted with it. I can't say I won't do that again, but at the time it seemed right. I understand frustration on the parts of community members, and on the arbs part, but until we allow for another way of dealing with problem areas-ways that are collaborative-we are doomed to more and more of the same. I doubt its the fault of the arbs or the fault of the community, its a system that doesn't work very well-walls of text, diffs that are taken out of context, editors who are not necessarily savvy in arbitrations, some needing help and support but nobody who cares or is afraid to help, which allows for unfair decisions, all of this, and more. Until we change or adjust the system and as a community allow for change, we bhave no one to blame but ourselves. When we all take responsibility, whether that hurts or not, then we can expect more novel and ultimately productive ways of dealing with this kind of case. *Gets down off soapbox*(olive (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]