User:Sue Gardner/sandbox


 * MOS:IDENTITY: Multiple overlapping surveys: should the policy stay the same, should the policy be changed so that biological and legal considerations take priority over personal choice for gender identity, do you support MOS:IDENTITY in its current form?, proposal to remove some text from the policy, alternative new wording and lots of other discussion.
 * Article titles policy: proposed changes to policy on article titles WRT transgender people (now closed)
 * The request for arbitration
 * AN/I on Manning-related behaviour

http://metrics.wmflabs.org/

=Draft ArbCom workshop submission (Chelsea Manning)=

''This is a place where I'm drafting a submission to ArbCom on the Chelsea Manning case. I'm drafting it here because I've never contributed to an ArbCom discussion before, so that before I post it to the workshop page I can make sure it's framed and structured correctly. Please feel free to comment or provide any input, here or by mail. But, please do not comment here (under e.g. comments by others) -- instead please comment on the talk page, so that later I can just copy over the wikitext. The main purpose of me asking for comment here is not because I want comment on the substance -- that should happen on the ArbCom workshop page. I'm just posting it here so people can advise me on whether it's the right structure for the workshop. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)''

Scope of BLP
1) BLP is important for both legal and ethical reasons. The purpose of BLP is not simply to protect the encyclopedia from libel claims and other legal risks: the bar is higher than that. BLP does not apply just to article content: it applies to all material in the English Wikipedia. BLP aims to prevent article subjects from being inappropriately harmed by their coverage in Wikipedia, and asks editors to consider the possibility of harm to living subjects when exercising their editorial judgement.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editor actions and BLP
2) Editors will not be sanctioned for acting quickly to uphold a good-faith interpretation of BLP. It is best to provide full explanations for such an action, but even in the absence of immediate explanation, it is acceptable for an editor to act decisively to avoid a possible BLP violation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Morwen and David Gerard acted in accordance with their understanding of BLP
3) Morwen and David Gerard acted in accordance with their understanding of BLP, in an effort to avoid potentially causing harm to an article subject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Much editor commentary was ill-informed about the topic and added nothing to the discussion.
4) Much editor commentary (for example, the suggestions that Manning might repeatedly and whimsically change her mind, the comparisons of Manning to someone who woke up one morning imagining herself to be [something], calling Manning “it”) was ill-informed about the topic and added nothing useful to the discussion. Such comments added no information about the topic or about Wikipedia policies and practices, nor did they help to advance the thinking of other editors, nor did they facilitate the creation of consensus. They were the equivalent of dropping into a talkpage discussion about the historicity of the New Testament to say that religion is stupid. This had a number of negative effects: it debased the conversation by suggesting that ignorance and off-the-cuff commenting were okay, it reduced the signal-to-noise level on pages that were already long and hard to follow, and it derailed other editors into pointless and unpleasant debates --- all of which made it harder for everybody to have a good discussion resulting in good decisions, and made the work of the closing admins more difficult than it otherwise would have been. Although some attempts were made to discourage editors from making such comments, they were inadequate and unsuccessful.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Morwen and David Gerard are not admonished.
5) Morwen and David Gerard are not admonished, because their conduct was consistent with a good-faith application of BLP.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editors who made ill-informed comments that did not add to the discussion are admonished.
6) Editors who made ill-informed comments that did not add to the discussion are admonished, and asked, in future, to consider before commenting whether they have anything useful to say. Editors should particularly pause to reflect before commenting when they don’t know much about a topic, when emotions are already running high, and when it’s possible other editors may find what they say inflammatory. It is always best to avoid snark, mockery and expressions of disdain. If an editor says a comment is offensive, that's an indicator that others should think twice before saying anything similar, and that admins should consider temporarily blocking or topic-banning the editor who made the original comment, as well as other editors making similar comments.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editors who labeled other people's comments as transphobic should not be admonished
7) Editors whose comments were labeled as transphobic may disagree with that labeling and be personally offended by it. However, use of the word transphobic to describe another editor’s arguments or views does not constitute a personal attack, and is within the realm of acceptable discourse.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: