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

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

Case clerks: Seddon (Talk) & Penwhale (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Kirill Lokshin (Talk) & AGK (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Statement by Collect

Praise the Lord I am not involved to any real extent in what would be another chronophagous exercise should ArbCom decide to accept this case. I disagree with the premise that local consensus can override WP:BLP, no more than "local consensus" can override WP:NPOV. The policies are "not negotiable." Where there is a dispute about the policy, the policy requires the most conservative editing of the article - which should be clear here is the conservative course is to follow what the major newspapers use in their current articles about the person (not the articles about the name change, as it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that articles about the name change will, indeed, mention the name change). Anyone disputing how WP:BLP requirements should be interpreted should initiate a general RfC with notice on the BLP noticeboard as well. For ArbCom to try to decide such an issue will devolve to the long term detriment of the committee. In short - this is an issue of policy (WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and an issue of content, and is not an issue of editor behavior in the slightest. As an aside, Bugs is on his best behavior here -- if the committee tries him on such mild posts as are cited above, the committee might as well try several hundred active editors who have made substantially worse posts in many venues. Thus - decline. Collect (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Anythingyouwant

I would like to suggest that ArbCom has authority to delegate some of its role to a jury-like entity. Invite a set of randomly-selected editors to make some decisions, or at least do fact-finding, instead of doing it all yourselves. Each arbitrator cannot possibly have sufficient time to thoroughly investigate each and every case on his or her own. Each member of a jury-like entity would have time. Moreover, ArbCom purports to not decide content disputes, but it is easy enough for you to affect content by more severely dealing with behavioral issues of persons who favor certain content; this is way too much power for you distinguished folks to exercise on your own, whether or not you succumb to such temptations. If you accept this case, please give this a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that I have been involved in requesting a page move for this article, I would also like to briefly say something else. Normally, in real life, arbitration is where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"). So, I wish to make it clear that I do not consent for any conduct of mine to be referred here. Since such consent does not matter, you really ought to change the name of your committee (I can suggest some names if you like). Of course, no one has mentioned me yet here, but I understand that complaints can be added at any time, and evidence added long after the "technicality" of evidence limits has been bypassed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Themfromspace

On paper this has everything that ArbCom is interested in: wheel warring, BLP issues, incivility, and casting aspersions. So if you wanted to make a case out of this there is plenty of material to be found for sanctions and desysopps on both sides of the fence. But if you are interested in running the encyclopedia smoothly and not ripping the community apart, you should reject a full case here as the specific issue has been resolved by the levelheaded close of the move request and the general issue is being discussed in several fora. All that ArbCom could do at this point is punish for the sake of punishing. Better to let the issue settle down a bit, or perhaps issue a general admonishment via motion to several of the parties. ThemFromSpace 00:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by CaseyPenk

In the interest of disclosure, I note that I proposed the move from Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning on policy grounds.

I am greatly concerned with what I view as overly contentious and overly personal comments made on both sides. Many editors made such arguments in the heat of the moment, but the editors listed above tended to exemplify such approaches. They also tended to persist in such behavior - behavior which I find disruptive - over the course of several days. Most of the editors did not appear to exhibit a willingness to "cool off," "step away," or "breathe" before jumping into the fray again. I would best describe their actions as overzealous.

Such an approach to debate makes Wikipedia less inviting to new editors and frustrates existing ones (including myself; there were times during the discussion when I asked myself why I edit Wikipedia when community members treat one another in such a way). Debates such as the one that has taken place set a very unfortunate standard for other debates about contentious topics, including coverage of transgender individuals. I find such conduct flatly unacceptable.

Such comments also get in the way of a policy-based discussion. By injecting highly contentious social topics into the debate, editors are no longer able to clearly see the policy-based rationale behind different perspectives. The discussion becomes mired in repetitive personal attacks and accusations of personal attacks, and involved editors stop looking at Wikipedia policy. Such an approach is highly inappropriate for a talk page and for Wikipedia in general. Some editors do not seem to acknowledge (or at least demonstrate through their actions) that talk pages are not to be used for discussing the article topic in general, but rather for improving the encyclopedia.

I would very much like to discourage a situation such as this from happening again. That would require disciplining the involved editors, so as to make clear that we do not tolerate such behavior. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

In light of David Gerard's comment below, a case may be useful. Wikipedia is not for activism. Saying "it has to be my way or else you are a bigot" is not the best way to approach an editorial dispute.

David, you may be right, but you need to leave room for people to disagree in good faith.

People are citing policies, some of which are disputed, or wrong. The discussion needs to focus on the way things should be done, not how the policies were written. It is not clear that a person who becomes notorious for committing a crime can just declare a new name and expect that Wikipedia will instantly comply. There's a potential for mischief if we handle things that way in general. Wikipedia is not news. We move more slowly and wait to see how things settle. Our articles and terminology are based on the preponderance of reliable sources.

I think that David Gerard and Morwen rushed to do what might ultimately prove to be the correct action, but it would have been far better for them to have been patient. If the article were left for a few days or perhaps a week, editors would have seen that media worldwide were using Chelsea Manning, and a consensus might have developed in favor of a move. The hasty action has actually delayed things and caused a lot of unnecessary trouble. On the other side, editors who've engaged in hate speech need to be (1) given a chance to strike inappropriate remarks, and (2) sanctioned if their errors have been serious or persistent.

BLP is a good policy, but we need to make clear that it is not a trump card to be played to win an editing dispute. Chelsea Manning is widely identified as Bradley Manning. Calling her Bradley was not an obvious BLP violation to the average editor. Moreover, she has said that she doesn't mind the old name. David Gerard makes the mistake of assuming that all transgender people feel the same way about their birth names. I think that different people might have different feelings.

• Very interesting exercise: Go to http://www.google.com/trends/ and type chelsea manning, bradley manning into the box and see the relative search volume over time. You will see that Bradley Manning is how the public seeks to access the topic. Chelsea is gaining, but has not yet surpassed Bradley. Jehochman ^Talk 00:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Carcharoth: a possibly useful outcome would be to identify the most egregious instances of hate speech and casting aspersions, issue sanctions, and authorize discretionary sanctions going forward. That would raise the civility standards in the area. Second, call out the improper use of BLP to compel changes or additions to well sourced material. If new facts come out, there is no deadline that precludes having a community discussion to establish consensus. What got people so riled in this case is a couple admins preempted a page move discussion and forced the issue.

• @Sue Gardner: your post is not perfect. ArbCom is not here to make policy. However, they could recommend or organize an RFC to resolve policy gaps or conflicts.

• @FeydHuxtable: your comment raised interesting points. The vast majority of Wikipedians have never heard of deadnaming. Instead of charging in and saying "We are right, accede to our demands right now!" it would have been better for those in favor of changing the title to have calmly explained the issue rather than forcing a title change that did not stick. Teaching takes time. People who are ignorant of an issue are not transphobic or bigoted; they are merely unaware. Starting a battle interferes with teaching. What may be obviously a BLP issue to you, may not be obvious to other people. In that case, the normal consensus building process must be put to work, otherwise we get a huge mess just like this one. You might never convince the hardcore bigots, but there's a large group in the center who you could convince if you patiently (and without calling them names) explained things. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: I see no downside to holding this request in abeyance until the page move discussion concludes. If things can be resolved normally, there would then be no need for a case. I don't think the closing admins had the right to ban every member of the Wikipedia community from starting a new page move discussion for 30 days. That restriction should be lifted so the page move discussion can be restarted promptly. By now all editors are on notice that this discussion may be subject to close scrutiny by ArbCom, and hopefully they will behave better than last time. Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Formerip

I don't think the pagemove activity can be subject to sanction. The actions of Morwen and David Gerard were defensible within policy. Tariqabjotu's response was contrary to policy but it was a single edit and I don't see what purpose a sanction would serve. If Arbcom takes the case, then it might be observed as a finding of fact that Tariqabjotu breached policy and David Gerard was high-handed in his comments during subsequent discussions.

If Arbcom is minded to take the case, the focus should be on low-level bigotry during the RM and associated discussions. The community should not be expected to tolerate working in the atmosphere of a primary school. It is a difficulty that this problem cannot be addressed in forums which operate according to community consensus, because there is a large enough constituency of the community that is either supportive of or indifferent to bone-headed and deliberately provocative contributions so as to prevent consensus against them. A particular problem in this case, because the form of bigotry in question is relatively popular within the community. There's a legitimate role for Arbcom in outlining what standard of decorum is expected of editors in contentious and sensitive discussions.

Equally, the accusation of "transphobia", though merited in some instances (WP has no rule that you can't call a spade a spade), has been bandied about all over the shop. It may be useful for Arbcom to underline that there is a fine line between calling people out and hurling indiscriminate abuse. Formerip (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Response to request from User:Newyorkbrad. I agree that this doesn't look like a very clear case of an intractable dispute. But I also don't think it ever did. There is a strong body of opinion saying Arbcom should deal with it regardless of that and I don't think any suggestion that the case looks different in the cold light of day can be sustained.

I think Arbcom should take the case not in pursuit of a resolution as to content, which will take care of itself, but because it highlights cultural problems within the community which are not new and which can only be addressed from outside.

Discussions around Manning's gender were fraught with disruption which WP is not presently able to deal with. This came in two varieties. Firstly, a small number of users were basically obnoxious and would not shut up. In a word, trolling. A second group of users, perhaps in many cases without disruptive intent, made progress difficult with talking points which were, by common consensus, irrelevant and which were, at best, unhelpful ("Bottom line is Manning has a dick."; "What would you say if I told you I was vacuum-cleaner trapped inside the body of a hedgehog?" and so on).

It should be a manageable problem. But both of these types of behaviour are defended by some within the community, and many of those who feel something should be done are not confident to do it. So, warnings don't get given, discussions don't get hatted and ANI threads are a waste of time.

What I would be looking for from Arcom is a broadly-worded statement of guidance so that, in future, discussions like this one can be held without users having to wade through crap. Perhaps just a clear statement that it is OK for admins to insist on discipline in contentious discussions. Formerip (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment/Statement by Sceptre

Please note that I'm currently under a topic ban on this subject; please also treat this as a request for clarification on whether editors under editing restrictions can discuss the topic at arbitration (and, really, I don't see why not).

I don't have much to say that I haven't already mentioned at User talk:Jimbo Wales (permalink). In short, there are massive issues with editor conduct and violations of Foundation policies (BLP and NDP) that the community has proven unwilling to deal with; for that reason, it's imperative that ArbCom take this case. Additionally, given that administrator misconduct is part of this case, only ArbCom can completely resolve the issue. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Tarc: I can't speak for anyone else, but my invocation of the NDP is solely related to user conduct. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: While I agree in part about some Kafkaesque situations, I disagree with thinking that BLP should be downgraded; we still have ethical duties towards any people we talk about, for both legal and moral reasons, and that we should still edit with privacy of living people in mind; it's just that I disagreed that, with the evidence already entered in the case, Manning needed to officially say "I am a trans woman" to be recognised as such (indeed, talk to most trans activists about Manning and they'll say, "yeah, we've been aware for years."). Sceptre ^(talk) 01:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Carrite: processes that are directly under the purview of functionaries, historically, are exempt from any restrictions; indeed, I recall, several years ago, the since-departed user Kmweber (talk · contribs) running for ArbCom while being topic banned from the entire Wikipedia namespace. I don't think there's any appetite among the committee to remove this exemption, but I think it may be prudent for them to clarify it. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Archaeo

I urge the committee to accept this case. A casual glance at the wide-ranging ANI subpage or the talk page and move request archives will show a number of disputes, ranging from several editors accusing Morwen and DG of a variety of missteps (see RA's list) to those accusing Tariqabjotu of violating rules regarding page protection under BLP (see this subthread). Furthermore, the user conduct issues that have been brought up that involve over-strident advocacy or outright hate speech need to be addressed. None of these disputes seem to be attracting the attentions of anyone uninvolved at all, and the idea of initiating individual dispute resolution threads for each of the issues sounds kind of absurd and unhelpful, not to mention a great way to spread this nonsense all over the encyclopedia. And frankly, in many years of being a dedicated follower of the Wikipedia community, I have never seen such a foul debate. I think the committee should initiate a broad case that examines all of these issues.

At the very least, some motions regarding the administrative actions here would be helpful, if only to establish that their administrative actions were correct, as well as a call to the community to discuss clarifying how WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY interact and guide us regarding transgender article subjects. However, I don't find NW's argument very convincing; if the committee isn't equipped to handle disputes like this, why do we bother having a committee at all? Kirill's reasoning should guide the committee here; you can either accept this case or put it off, but the issues being raised here are unlikely to resolve themselves on their own. Archaeo (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Tariqabjotu: It is worth noting that a highly contentious and barely structured move discussion is hardly the standard by which Wikipedia should attempt to develop consensus on policy. What's the saying, "hard cases make bad law"? That rowdy !vote is a poor substitute for an actual discussion of how the encyclopedia should cover notable trans individuals, especially when the transition occurs in such a public (and notable) way. Calling editors "disruptive" because they're continuing to argue for an interpretation of BLP that treats trans people as they wish to be treated seems unduly harsh.

But it hardly matters. Certainly, the committee will probably be interested to hear evidence of actual disruptive behavior. But when it comes to who's right and who's wrong about BLP, the committee is likely to tell us all about how RFC is that-a-way, etc.

@Arbs: As an alternative to a full case, just settle the administrative issues via a slap-on-the-wrist motion recognizing that both Tariq and David Gerard could've handled this better (and that Morwen was just doing BRD right), add a statement reminding everyone involved in the dispute that neither hate speech nor unfounded accusations of bigotry are tolerated on Wikipedia (and the next time will mean preventative-not-punative blocks, etc.), and issue a call for a fact-finding policy RFC to clarify the 'pedia's treatment of trans issues w/r/t BLP and article naming conventions. Maybe put the Manning article under general probation.

It's what I expect the final decision to be anyway; assuming good faith, none of the administrative actions seem that unreasonable, while issuing blocks for everyone who exhibited overheated rhetoric, or even hate speech, seems unlikely at this point. You're also not going to decide the content issues. If you vote to accept a full case, make it a thorough and complete one that goes further than what I've just outlined above; to do otherwise would be a waste of time. Archaeo (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Request and comment by Beyond My Ken

Although I read the entirety of it, I confess that I do not understand what, exactly, TParis is asking for here, so I'd like to request that he post an "executive summary", perhaps in bullet points, of precisely what the issues are he thinks should be the subject of an arbitration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TParis that the policy issues regarding WP:BLP need to be addressed, but I don't believe that doing so lies within the remit of ArbCom, at least not before the community has had a chance to deal with them in a formal, non-confrontational manner. Discussion threads on Jimbo's talk page or on AN/I are not sufficient, so I would urge that an RfC (or a series of RfCs) be launched to determine these policy questions. Similarly, the question of what is and isn't hate speech is actually a policy issue, not a conduct one, and ArbCom should not get involved with it until the community gets a bite of the apple to determine where TParis' "bright line" (good luck with that) lies. Then, to my mind, the question of Morwen/COI simply doesn't rise to the level of an arbitration issue.

Therefore, in my view, the only one of the four issue that TParis is rising which is a legitimate subject for an arbitration case is the question of the conduct of all the parties involved in this specific conflict. All of the other issues are not ripe for arbitration or do not rise to the level required for an arbitration case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment and questions by BrownHairedGirl

This bitterly divisive case has involved a lot of misconduct. However, much of the misbehaviour results from editors working with unresolved policy on a multiply-contentious topic of enormous notability. The community was unable to stem the misconduct, and there may be scope for Arbcom to review some more minor issues, such as the soapboxing on both sides about whether Manning is a whistleblower/criminal/hero/traitor/whatever. Much drama could have been avoided if the community had curtailed that misconduct, and it failed to do so. However, any such case would involve many more parties than are listed so far; and addressing only that part of the drama seems to trivialise the rest of it.

The major issues are of policy. In this case, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY pointed to different outcomes, and differences over their priority caused much of the antagonism. Trans people are very rare, so policy had not been resolved in a way which carries broad support. That stems from a lack of clarity about whether the Wikimedia Foundation's Non discrimination policy (NDP) applies to a) content, and b) editor conduct, as well as the policy's brevity. As noted by EvergreenFir at WT:MOS "Scholarship regarding this has been clear for years, as have journalistic and law ethics. Respect the gender identity of the individual, regardless of their current sex", but the terse NDP does not spell this out.

MOS:IDENTITY seeks to apply NDP to content, but a significant chunk of the community contests the guideline. It is being reviewed by a community survey, but is it appropriate that a Foundation-level policy is apparently subject to community discretion?

Much of the heat in the dispute was generated by editors taking a stance on trans issues which conflicted with NDP principles, and expressing themselves in ways which also conflicted with the principles of NDP. Denigration or erasure of trans identities is a core part of discrimination in this field, yet this conduct was rampant in the discussions. It creates a hostile editing environment for trans people, just as expressions of racism, sexism, or religious prejudice deter editors. Again, policy was unclear: are editorial discussions bound by foundation policy, or are they constrained by following reliable sources where such prejudices may be rampant? That led to repeated transphobic comments going unsanctioned, whilst the community discussed sanctions on editors who identified transphobia A, B. Those conduct issues cannot be assessed in a policy vacuum.

So I don't know whether Arbcom could or should take this case. The scope and shape of any case depends largely on the underlying policy questions. Are those within Arbcom's remit? If so, can it address them before a case opens? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on NDP question: does the right to edit free from hostility and personal attack extend to freedom from denigration of a group of people? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

PS. I hope that Arbcom will play particular attention to the role of Rannpháirtí anaithnid. RA repeatedly led the charge of labelling as "activists" those who opposed the denigration of trans people and brought expertise to the debates, and RA repeatedly sought sanctions against those who challenged the rampant transphobia. Is this conduct compatible with admin status? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Also note other attempts to victimise those who have criticised the rampant transphobia, such as [1]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by EdChem

There is a lot of good that ArbCom can do in this case, but please only consider taking this case if you are willing to actually say what needs saying. What I believe would be an appropriate outcome for this case would include:

• an unambiguous statement that BLP applies to living people, both article subjects and editors, in all spaces and at all times.
• a consequent finding (also drawing on the Foundation's NDP) that BLP mandates that discrimination against transgendered individuals is unacceptable
• a related consequent finding, also citing reliable sources in the area, that using of inappropriately gendered pronouns and names is inappropriate in all spaces and continuing to do so once this has been pointed out to an individual editor is potentially sanctionable as disruption and / or violations of the civility policy
• a finding that admin policy requires that actions such as reverting a move of a move protected page where the move was done citing BLP is absolutely prohibited without a proper investigation of the claimed BLP issue and (likely) discussion
• some follow on sanction on Tariqabjotu
• a restatement of principles that interpretation of policy are not based on arguments about wordings but based on principles and spirit (as outlined in the five pillars and elsewhere)
• a finding that the panel of closing administrators acted in good faith but failed to adequately consider / discuss the spirit of principles like BLP (the claim that MOS:IDENTITY is irrelevant as it discusses pronouns but not names is a hyper-technical response that misses the issues completely, for example)
• a finding that the move discussion and elsewhere have included examples of hate speech and transphobia that have remained unstruck and unsanctioned. By no means do I believe that all editors advocating use of Chelsea's old name as the article title have acted poorly, but some have and the administrator corps has failed to deal with these actions adequately.
• some sort of broad reminder about uncivil behaviour and its management; use of some words may be controversial as regards civility but hate speech and deliberate discrimination are unambiguously uncivil. Hate speech about the transgendered subject of a BLP is also brutal towards our transgendered editors, and likely distressing to many LGBTQI editors more broadly. It is unacceptable.
• ArbCom cannot dictate content but it can note that particular policy interpretation in this area are supported by reliable sources and Foundation policy. It can advise a new discussion of the specific issues bearing these policies in mind. It can suggest development of policy that explicitly guides handling of transgendered individuals.
• Wheel warring / edit warring are not the ways to handle disputes, and dispute handling in this case has been poor, I am sure that ArbCom can find relevant principles and findings to base comment on this issue. Findings on the sequence of events can affirm that explanations were offered by DG and Morwen, even if others didn't agree with them.
• examining the ridiculous topic ban on Sceptre might be a good idea too, as it was imposed to prevent her posting that Chelsea Manning is transgendered, something that is no longer disputed and is now in the BLP. It might have been justified at the time, I haven't checked, but it is not justified now. Sceptre was also blocked for noting blatant transphobia to Jimbo, an act that was arguably justified under admin policy but screamed for an IAR response given she was 100% correct on the substance of the issue.
• this broader situation has also had Risker blocking admins in a way that was controversial - her broader motivation was sound, IMO, but the actions themselves may be worth a look.
• this list is not exhaustive, but I think all of the above are within the auspices of ArbCom and there is more than enough here for a case.

EdChem (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

While I would certainly not object to the Committee looking at the accusations of transphobia by certain users (and the associated counter-accusations), I'm unsure in practical terms what terms can be achieved.

I think that the Committee could usefully take a look at the sequence of actions regarding the moving and protecting of the article by Morwen, Cls14, David Gerard and user:Tariqabjotu. The relevant actions are:

• 1218 - Morwen's original move to Chelsea [move 1]
• 1222 - Cls14 moves the page back to Bradley [move 2/revert 1]
• 1243 - Morwen moves again to C [move 3/revert 2]
  • 1244 - Cls14 accepts Morwen's move [admits move 2 was a mistake, negating the relevance of moves 2 and 3/reverts 1 and 2]
• 1331 - DG semi-protects and move locks the page at the "Chelsea" title, citing MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP [The "Chelsea" title is now explicitly protected by BLP until consensus says otherwise]
• 1432 - Tariq moves to Bradley, citing request [move 4/revert 3; later admits to not having educated himself about the reasons cited]
• 1434 - DG moves page back to C, citing BLP [move 5/revert 4; justified by the BLP policy as restoring the BLP position]

To summarise the various discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Manning:

• Nobody is accusing Cls14 of any wrongdoing.
• Morwen has been repeatedly accused of abusing admin tools and similar but she did not perform any actions that any autoconfirmed user could not also have done. Additionally, I and many other editors (including most of those opposing the sanctions proposed here) believe she did nothing wrong.
• There is a significant difference of opinion about the moves by David and Tariq
  • I along with several other uses explicitly believe that when an action is carried out in the name of BLP that it cannot be undone or materially changed by any editor, including an administrator, without an explicit consensus to do so, and that this applies regardless of whether you personally thing the action was right or wrong, explained or unexplained. I explain why I believe that is best for the encyclopaedia here
  • We also believe that in this specific instance David's reversion to reinstate the BLP action was correct according to the BLP policy.
  • Some users, notably Tariq and Rannpháirtí anaithnid (RA), contend that BLP is irrelevant to the BRD cycle and that David's actions constitute wheel warring.

In an examination of Tariq's actions [2] I note that the one action alone constitutes three examples of misuse of admin tools:

• Tariqabjotu reverted the move, through protection, against and explicit mention of BLP while claiming it was uncontroversial.
  1. Once you revert a page move it is no longer uncontroversial.
  2. Page moves through protection must only be done with explicit prior consensus. The only exception to this is for BLP reasons. [it was later pointed out that there are two exceptions, WP:OFFICE being the other]
  3. No reversions to actions taken in the name of BLP may be done without explicit prior consensus, no exceptions [again OFFICE applies here too].

I think if these were isolated incidents the first point would not require sanction beyond a reminder, the second might or might not result in loss of the admin bit, and the third would make it impossible for me trust the user with the admin tools. Combined, and consideration of a ban should be part of the discussion.

Tariq later states that he saw the BLP notice but decided it didn't apply because he says David didn't explain why BLP applied, and so moved through the move protection. See any number of David's edits to the various pages where he explains again and again and again why he believed BLP applies.

I note [3] that this makes it actually far worse an action as he knew it was controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Black Kite:. David's actions in citing BLP should be read as "I have a good faith belief that taking this action is required to make the page compliant with the BLP policy." Part of the point of the BLP policy is to then protect the page (or the relevant part of it) in that state until consensus is reached to change it, so move protecting the page until there was consensus, and then reverting to that version was not just correct per his interpretation of the BLP, it was correct full stop. At the time it was disputed whether "Bradley" was a BLP violation, it was not disputed that "Chelsea" was not (it was only disputed about whether it was the correct title), so BLP required the article be at "Chelsea" until the dispute was resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: If nothing else the committee needs to make a judgement on the initial series of moves and protections I note above. It is alleged by some users that David Gerard wheel warred. It is alleged by several users, including me, that tariq seriously abused his admin powers to reverse an action explicitly labelled as being taken per the BLP policy without attempting to educate himself about the reasons or gain a consensus. These are not matters the community can resolve. It needs to do this soon so that admins know where they stand with regards to the BLP policy, thus it may be better to deal with it independently of investigating other conduct issues, which will of necessity involve looking at the conduct of a great many users and so will not be quick. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

For once I'm only tangentially involved in a contentious topic; many comments here and there, yes, but unlike the last time, no hand in the nasty stuff. Speaking of the Muhammad case, when some invoked the Non discrimination policy, I was reminded of the attempt to shoehorn in the Controversial content resolution into dictating en.wikipedia content. The NDP has no direct applicability to article content at all, it was created to protect users and WMF employees form discrimination. It's no different from a million businesses who have NDPs posted on their break room walls.

Wikipedia policy on article names simply does not and should not accommodate every last wish of the transgender community, just as our policy on anti-censorship precluded acceding to the wishes of some of the Muslim community regarding depictions of their prophet. Transgender editors and supporters have a right to edit here free of hostility and attacks, but they do not have the right to slur and denigrate other editors who have a sincerely-held, opposing opinion on this matter. It is not "transphobic" to support "Bradley Manning" as a choice for the article title, given that that is the name by which he is notable for, that notability stemming from the passing of classified intel to unauthorized parties, and the subsequent trial & conviction.

Statement by Black Kite

@Thryduulf: You state: "1331 - DG semi-protects and move locks the page at the "Chelsea" title, citing MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP [The "Chelsea" title is now explicitly protected by BLP until consensus says otherwise]". No, that's clearly not the case. If the BLP issue had been consensus at that time (which it wasn't) then you'd be correct. But David move-locking the article per his interpretation of BLP does not in any way "protect" the article. As I said at the time, I'm not particularly criticising David or Tariq here because they did what they thought was correct at the time, even though they both technically wheel-warred. But David should not have move-locked the article. It was not an unambiguous violation of BLP. So David's move-lock was equivalent to saying "This is my interpretation of BLP, I'm correct, and I'm going to use my admin tools to stop you arguing with that". As for the rest, I don't think there's enough for a case here. Some users need a serious reminder that transphobic speech (and there was some, from a few editors in particular) isn't in any way acceptable, and others need an equal reminder that accusing others of transphobia because they don't agree with you (i.e. Phil Sandifer's claim that moving the article back to Bradley is "hate speech") is equally unacceptable. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf/Alanscottwalker: That's not the point, really. A few editors (and that's all it was at the time) claiming BLP issues in relation to an article title (and indeed, most of them were quoting MOS:IDENTITY, which says nothing about article titles at all) does not form any sort of consensus, especially when there are editors pointing out that keeping the article at Bradley, pointing out the name change, and switching the pronouns accomplishes the same thing whilst still complying with COMMONNAME. As I say, I don't think any of the admins should be sanctioned, but BLP is diminished by it being waved around in such a manner before a consensus has been formed. It would not have harmed anyone for the article to stay at Bradley whilst a consensus developed as to whether BLP was relevant. Incidentally, I don't hold any major opinion as to which title is "correct", because I don't think there is a correct answer here. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Alanscottwalker - don't take part of my sentence out of context, please; I was not saying that the article would automatically comply with BLP by staying there, but that editors were arguing that the approach of mentioning the name change and pronoun switching would comply with BLP, hence it not being an unambiguous BLP issue. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by GregJackP

I have not edited the article (nor do I wish to) although I have participated in the numerous discussions on it. I urge ArbCom to accept the case for the following reasons:

• The policies involved need to be clarified. Does WP:IDENTITY trump WP:COMMONNAME or vice versa?
• Does WP:IDENTITY require changes of all pronouns referring to the subject or just those after the announcement or realization that the subject is transgender, and does this create inconsistency in the article?
• Does WP:COMMONNAME require waiting until sufficient source use a new name to change the title of an article?
• Does WP:BLP apply when there are a multitude of reliable sources that report on the specific issue, even it is may be hurtful to the subject?
• Further, does the policy require that we self-censor material on that basis?
• The behavior of individuals on both sides of the issue need to be addressed.
• To clarify that off-wiki behavior that affects the project is or is not a sanctionable matter.

Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 15:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Well, Black Kite points to one reason why arbitration is needed. They cannot both be right, and BLP is not something to wander in darkness about. If an admin protects something for BLP, then it follows that either they have a good-faith, colorable claim, which must be discussed after protection - or they are so far off the reservation that consensus will quickly undo; (It would be one thing if they both reasonably argued that the other's title is non BLP compliant, but no one argued, or could argue, that Chelsea Manning was non-BLP compliant -- it had secondary and primary source(s)). And although no consensus was ultimately reached, that itself suggests that the BLP issues with "Bradley" were good-faith and colorable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, although the BLP issues with 'Bradley' were good-faith and colorable, as with anything there are appropriate ways for editors (and admins as editors) to discuss and even argue about that, and not appropriate ways. That may also need addressing by this arbitration. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite, How could that not be the issue? See WP:RAAA. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, your beginning of the debate conclusion: "It would not have harmed anyone for the article to stay at Bradley" is the very crux of the BLP debate that ensued, so its not possible to have that overall conclusion at the start of the full and extended discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite, If I took it out of context, I am sorry but that appeared to be what you were saying; if you agree that the issue was in substantive doubt, then that is the point that needs arbitration. When something may cause harm to a living person, then it only stands to reason that admins should take the prophylactic protective approach, and avoid the potential for harm, while the matter is being settled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• For the arbitrators, I just came across this currently live [4] discussion, which suggests that the issue of BLP administration needs illumination that only this committee can provide. This arbitration committee of experienced editors and administrators should be able to address such a systemic current adminstration of policy issue, and that issue is presented by this case, also. Note, this link is not brought to your attention for you to 'get involved' there, nor is it brought to your attention to get you to make policy or to determine content, but rather to illustrate the community need for you to discuss in a case current policies and principles, that bear on current site BLP policy and administration. If I should notify any one of this link, please let me know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad:: It is evident that for the substantial editing corp that BLP significantly clashes with other policies (see NE Ent statement and above). That is endemic and yes needs another look into how administratively and behaviorally, we deal with that. If people know the process, then the content should take care of itself. If people know what to expect, things are less likely to spin out of control because of frayed adminstrative, process, and procedure concerns. Do our policies and processes systematically provide 'a better way' then what we just saw, or don't they? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by KillerChihuahua

I'm wondering why User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid is not a named party, given this.

Statement by Haipa Doragon

I'll keep this brief, somewhat, since I'm really not well right now, physically or mentally, and I probably won't be hanging around for a whole month of arbitration or whatever it may be. There's been a severe lack of discipline and accountability surrounding this topic, along with an attitude that editors have some sort of right to just come along and weigh in on what they think about someone's gender or proclaim to everyone their political views. The list of quotes above, particularly those compiled by Phil Sandifer, show this amply, but the charade of a discussion at Topic Ban for Baseball Bugs? shows how willing administrators are to defer things to to a pointless discussion that goes on for days on end instead of taking immediate action, as they are meant to do, against an editor's belligerent and disruptive conduct in such a sensitive topic. This is, overall, an issue in which administrators have utterly failed to control the conduct of editors, and as such requires arbitration. Haipa Doragon (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Knowledgekid87

I feel that the admin involved did act with good faith, however there is a reason why policies are in place that have been built up by consensus over time. I feel that there was no reason the page move could have gone through a consensus first to change the name to Chelsea, this is something that is routine on wikipedia when it comes to moves. That being said as a result wikipedia was thrown into the media spotlight as being "ahead of sources" something that is not in the best interests if we are to remain a neutral encyclopedia.

As for transphobic comments, what one might take as an okay comment another person might see as transphobic so calling out people based upon it I feel only leads to chaos. For example someone could easily be acting in good faith and says what a reliable source is saying but is labeled as being transphobic as a result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement MONGO

A controversial page move to a new title should always be done with care and only performed after extensive discussion perhaps even an Rfc as has been done subsequently. In this case, an extremely high profile article had successive page moves and frankly I see advocacy all around here. That said, BLP policy dictates that we err on the side of the subject of the bio as to what name the article should be titled, if reliable references support this name change, irregardless of whether the name change has been done legally.--MONGO 18:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Roscelese

I have been only minimally involved in this issue, and while I obviously disagree with the page move, I will trust that the closing admins evaluated the discussion fairly and discounted invalid comments. What I think would be a useful outcome to this discussion, something of a concretization of TParis's "raise the bar" goal mentioned above, is an addition to policy to the effect that bigoted comments are not permitted even if they are not directed at an identified user or group of users (which is what WP:NPA allows for). In practice, we already do this - "I didn't refer to User:Example, I was just talking about Jews in general" isn't likely to be a helpful excuse if you repeatedly post anti-Semitic comments on a talk page - but the fact that it isn't laid out explicitly in policy means it gets enforced selectively. We saw in this case how general hateful remarks against trans people fell through the cracks, but we can avoid that happening again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Wikipedia should not adopt "hate speech" rules as some suggest, nor should Arbcom put itself in the position of determining what does and does not constitute "hate speech" in a discussion. Various policies exist to cover comments or actions that would be of serious concern, i.e. those involving outright hostility or tendentious editing. Open and free discussion of the issues is vital to maintaining Wikipedia's objectivity and "hate speech" rules would unavoidably put egregious limitations on such discussion. Although I think labeling other editors transphobic is inappropriate, especially in some of the instances it has been thrown around, it is a question of whether it is uniquely disrupting the discussion. I believe the only real issue here is that the community is not in agreement on the content and the applicable policy, but that is not a matter for ArbCom to resolve. My feeling is that this discussion should be given time as I suspect the naming issue will not be a problem after about a month, when it will be fairly clear that Chelsea Manning is the preferred name to use in reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Someone not using his real name

I recommend ArbCom accept this case in order to determine if the WP:BLP trump card was enough to justify WP:WHEEL/move warring by admins and WP:PROTECTing their favorite version. On the other hand, I think that WP:COMMONNAME isn't as straightforward as some think; clearly sources before the name change was announced cannot be given the same weight as those after the announcement because the old sources cannot possibly take into account the new information. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sue Gardner

This is my first contribution to an ArbCom case and so I may do it wrong: if so, please forgive me and/or fix my mistakes. I am commenting here as an ordinary editor, although of course my views have been influenced by my experiences and observations in my seven years as WMF ED.

I believe ArbCom should accept the Chelsea Manning case, and that its work should encompass the following:

• A clarification of the BLP policy: what does it apply to and what is its purpose. Some editors seem to believe BLP is intended as a narrow defence against claims of libel, and/or does not apply to all article elements. My understanding (based on many discussions with Jimmy and other Board members and experienced editors, and supported by this) is that BLP is broad and intended to hold editors to a higher standard than the legal minimum. I would like ArbCom to issue a clear statement on this issue.
• An evaluation of whether editors can be sanctioned for actions taken in good faith in support of BLP. I find David Gerard's "court of appeals reversal" analogy useful here.
• An evaluation of how Wikipedia handles trans issues, and policy guidance for how they should be handled. Particularly, perhaps:

• An evaluation of the role of subject-matter expertise in the Manning debates. Throughout the discussions, much editor commentary (for example, the suggestions that Manning might repeatedly and whimsically change her mind) revealed a lack of basic understanding of trans issues. And, editors who have demonstrated subject-matter expertise have been accused of bias. This is aberrant: normally, evidence that an editor has researched and thought about a topic results in their comments being understood as more credible rather than less.
• An evaluation of editor behaviour throughout this dispute. I agree with Courcelles that Morwen and DG should not be sanctioned: I believe they conducted themselves well. The same cannot be said of everyone involved. There has been a great deal of uninformed “gut feeling” type commentary from editors, some of it arguably transphobic, and none of it sanctioned or struck. It's hard to stop people from cluttering up discussions with ill-informed gut reactions, but it is not impossible to remove the most inflammatory, and doing that can have a calming effect and raise the overall quality of debate.
• Some guidance from ArbCom on how editors might choose to conduct themselves in disputes in which they have little expertise, and in which systemic bias risks skewing outcomes. In the Manning situation, for a variety of reasons that may have included systemic bias, !voting did not achieve a result consistent with BLP. Given that Wikipedia makes decisions by consensus, how can majority-culture (male, young, Western, heterosexual) editors best participate in discussions in ways that work towards good decision-making, rather than groupthink?

I do really believe that ArbCom should take this case. I don't believe tempers will settle over time: I think editors are stuck and not making progress. Sue Gardner (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

I'd completely forgotten about the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration, but the article currently residing at the incorrect title of Bradley Manning rather than Chelsea Manning means it is in breach of Principle 2, and needs fixed.

2) Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

The Arbitration Committee should rectify the title of the article, revert the arguably procedurally correct but otherwise improper rename from Chelsea Manning back to Bradley Manning as a matter of some urgency or otherwise explain why biographies of living people on Wikipedia do not have to respect human dignity and can completely ignore the subjects wishes on the most fundamental of issues, i.e name and gender. Nick (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

I have not been involved in editing this article, but I can see how much animosity it has stirred up. I urge the ArbCom to accept this case. This is both a content dispute and a conduct dispute, and conduct issues are interfering with orderly resolution of the content issue, the name of the subject of the article and the gender of the pronouns referring to the subject of the article (and policies are ambiguous and possibly inconsistent). There are some conduct issues that cannot effectively be addressed other than by the ArbCom. Many conduct issues, such as trolls, flamers, and topic-incompetent editors, can be dealt with by community consensus at the noticeboards. However, some conduct issues cannot be addressed by community consensus because there is no consensus. These include issues involving prolific "content creators" who are profoundly uncivil. They also include issues that deeply divide the Wikipedia community, and this is such a case. There have been too many personal attacks, because of the strong feelings on both sides, and it is unwise to think that consensus will be achieved or to think that passions will calm down after there have been so many personal attacks. This is a case where, in my opinion, conduct issues are preventing resolution of a content dispute, and only the ArbCom has the ability to address the conduct issues in a deliberative fashion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Proposed Scope of Case

Since there is some discussion of what should be the scope of this case, here are my suggestions:

• Did the renaming (moving) of the page involve edit-warring? If so, it should be sanctioned.
• Did the renaming of the page involve wheel-warring? If so, the admins should be sanctioned.
• Did the change of the name of the subject and the gender of the pronouns used to refer to the subject involve edit-warring? If so, the edit-warriors should be sanctioned.
• Were there personal attacks on talk pages? For instance, was there either anti-trans hate speech or idle accusations of hate speech (e.g., idle accusations of transphobia)? If so, the personal attackers should be sanctioned. (I will note that, while there are valid arguments for changing the name and gender in the article, there are also valid (legal and historical) arguments for not changing the name and gender, and that arguments in favor of retaining or restoring the subject as male are not necessarily trans-phobic or hate speech; they may be pedantic, and pedantic arguments should not be shouted down.)
• Is Wikipedia policy inconsistent or contradictory with regards to gender identity and common names? If so, I would suggest that ArbCom identify the issues and call for the community to review and correct the policies. ArbCom should not state or revise policy, but should have the compass to identify policy inconsistencies that have contributed to combined content and conduct disputes.

ArbCom does not resolve content disputes as such, and the name and gender of the subject of the article are a content dispute. I am asking that ArbCom not resolve that content dispute, but address any conduct issues, such as either actual hate speech or idle accusations of hate speech, that have made resolution of the content dispute impossible. The suggestion has been made by another editor that ArbCom should split this case into two parts, one of which should be fast-tracked. If so, the fast-tracked part should involve page-moving, resulting edit-warring, and wheel-warring. Those are my comments as to what the ArbCom should accept. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Monty845

Most of the important points Arbcom is being asked to consider could be addressed by the community through RFCs. In particular, the question of the interaction between BLP Policy and WP:WHEEL, which should be addressed, could be handled via community RFC. Furthermore, the specific circumstances that made the Manning matter so heated are unlikely to be a frequent occurrence, it was the confluence of an already controversial figure, at the peak of media attention surrounding the sentencing, and the gender identity question breaking at the same time, combined to create a great deal of heat, but again, circumstances not likely to occur frequently. Its true that there is some misconduct that occurred that the Committee would be well justified in addressing, but it needs to understand that what a number of those seeking a case really want is for Arbcom to create policy on the issues, and that should be a last resort, it isn't clear that community process will be unable to deal with those policy questions. If the committee does choose to accept, it should narrow the scope of the case, focusing primarily on individual conduct, and make it clear that it is not seeking to make policy where it doesn't need to. Monty₈₄₅ 20:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SB_Johnny

On the one hand, I support this case as an issue that really needs to be dealt with. On the other hand, Arbcom shouldn't get stuck with re-writing the BLP policy (which badly needs re-writing).

I strongly recommend that the committee send this case to the foundation and its lawyers to deal with. They have the money and the staff, and frankly this stuff should be settled on all of the other language Wikipedias too. By taking this case, the Committee will only act as an enabler to the WMF's irresponsibility, and weakens the argument that they should also be in charge of protecting minors, protecting the average geek from psychopaths, and so on. Make them take responsibility for what they're supposed to be responsible for, otherwise they'll just keep throwing this stuff at you. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 20:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by mostly-uninvolved user Adam Cuerden

Wikipedia does something horribly transphobic: They deny a trans woman the right to her new identity, after many news sources specifically singled out Wikipedia for praise for having been the first to do so. Then they declare all discussion shut down completely for a month?

That's appalling behaviour, and everyone should be ashamed of themselves. Statements such as:

“ Please back away from the horse. It died a while ago. Beatings of it should not resume for 1 month, per the three-admin pnale which closed the extremely lengthy move request. -sche (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC) ”

...are particularly shameful, as they belittle transsexual rights by calling campaigning for transsexuals "beating a dead horse." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 September 2013‎

Statement by The Wordsmith

Sue gets her statement exactly right in that we need to clarify that BLP applies broadly, and cannot be overridden except in extremely rare circumstances (WP:OFFICE comes to mind). David Gerard (talk · contribs) did what he did to protect the encyclopedia, protect the article and protect the dignity of a BLP subject. That can never be wrong, even if against a poorly judged "consensus". He acted boldly and decisively to protect our policies, and should be commended.

I'm also seeing disturbing parallels to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Here also, we have users abusing our own processes as a way of making an end run around BLP. This cannot be allowed to stand.

However, I recognize that this issue is extremely complicated and nuanced, so I urge the committee to accept this case in order to break the back of this dispute and reinforce BLP, so that cooler heads can prevail and examine the intricacies surrounding Pfc. Manning's unique situation. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by User:-sche

I comment only because I was misunderstood and consequently mischaracterized by another user, above, and only to record my response to that user (permalink). -sche (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mark Miller

The issue is based on the transgendered identification given by the subject. One reason I am commenting is to state the issue of the subjects transgendered status was brought up much earlier than the recent name change. It came up in late April or early may in fact. The addition didn't seem to have a reliable source so I reverted it. The issue then appeared again, this time as a name change (article move) I believe around that same time and is commented on in the GA at Talk:Bradley Manning/Archive 4#Move to Breanna Manning. This did not sneak up on us like some seem to want to state. This does appear to at least have been discussed on Wikipedia as early as the beginning of May.

I agree with just about everything that Sue said with one exception. I am not sure what would be accomplished by focusing on editor behavior with this situation. There has been some truly appalling things said in these discussions and if Arbcom feels that is something they wish to take up on top of everything else, then so be it, but that is a lot to put on one plate with the size of the case.

The majority of the comments listed above were harmless if not rude. I make no suggestion of anything other than most of those comments are truly innocent with a few notable exceptions.

These seem truly anti-transgender:

• One does not become female just by saying one wants to be. If he (not she) said he wanted to be black now, would you describe him as African-American?? Wikipedia should follow the lead of external sources and wait until the majority of the media decides he has changed his gender.
• As a political statement against wikipedia's identity policy and the idea that a person can demand which pronoun another person uses. I think a fair statement in society is that we'll tolerate you doing what you want in terms of body modification and unusual sexual practices, and in exchange you can tolerate our freedom to use language as we please, and not try to enforce political correctness and thought crime.
• "Chelsea" should barely be a footnote. "Chelsea Mannning" does not exist.

There were some other statements that were insensitive or just seemed to be pushing their own agenda.

The rest of the comments seem to just be uneducated, unqualified, confused comments from editors that simply lack the understanding of the situation of a transgendered person. For many, this is new and they probably should not have commented, just on that basis alone. I think a majority of what was being said was not malicious in intent, just confused. This is why I don't know if Arb Com should be attempting to deal with behavior over this issue. Perhaps only if there are things that we simply cannot take a blind eye to. But, the potential here is to see a wide scope of sanctions over just not understanding how one's words effect others. I don't try to excuse people's behavior, just mention that the best way to handle this may be to avoid dealing with the behavior, as to do so may mean a very strict sanctions or warnings to a very broad part of the community that may not understand why they are being sanctioned all. I suggest a lot of patience no matter what.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DPRoberts534

I would like the committee to review the actions that David Gerard took to limit discussion about moving an article linked from the main page to a new title. He claimed that new information about the subject created a BLP violation in the stable version. He used his administrative privileges to enforce the move. Due to the visibility of the move, it prompted comment in the press about the stand Wikipedia had taken in support of the subject. It also prompted a response from partisans on the other side of the issue, resulting in a heated and unconstructive debate in the requested move back to the original title. This could have been handled in a way that was both objective and fair to the subject if the new controversial information had led to discussion and attempt at consensus rather than administrative action. I believe that after a seven-day RM process, consensus would have developed to move the page to Chelsea Manning under COMMONNAME.

I do not see a flaw in the BLP policy as written. In some cases there is a need for administrative action to suppress content added to a biography. However, the availability of new information should never create a violation of BLP policies in a stable article based on reliable sources available at the time. The committee should clarify this if it accepts the case. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply to David Fuchs—I have no desire to see the article name dispute resolved here. I wrote a statement in support of moving the article to Bradley Manning during the RM, but struck it a few days later after it was clear that reliable sources were increasingly referring to her as Chelsea. I currently have no preference between the two, and I see valid arguments on both sides. DPRoberts534 (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Guettarda

This is a case that needs intervention from the arbcomm because the community has failed to act; in fact, a surprisingly large part of the community appears happy to tolerate expressions of contempt and ridicule being aimed at a living person. Examination of the talk page of the Manning article (and its archives) reveal repeated expressions of hate and ridicule aimed at Manning. This spans the gamut from comparing transitioning to claiming to be a dog, accusations that Manning is "mentally unstable", claims that Manning "is male" and that sex and gender are immutable, to simply refusing to use female pronouns to refer to Manning.

What make this a BLP issue? Because this is part of the bullying and prejudice that trans people experience on a daily basis. This bullying isn't "just words" - it's a denial of their gender identity, and in effect, a denial of their full humanity. And this pattern of bullying and violence ends up being expressed in the extremely high rates of suicide and homelessness among transgender people. Even if it wasn't, making (unsupported) statements about a BLP's medical and psychiatric status is unacceptable.

This case is more than just a BLP issue - it also impinges on the Foundation's NDP. The Foundation NDP states that it applies to "current or prospective users and employees", thus it clearly applies to editors and readers, not merely to salaried employees. As I understand it, harassment (including a hostile work environment) is a form of discrimination. Calling trans people "it" or claiming that someone "really is male [or female]", or insisting on using the incorrect pronoun for people after they have declared their gender is harassment. Wikipedia's community of "prospective users and editors" includes transgender people, and it includes people who are no transgender, but who also find that sort of an environment to be toxic. We have policies like CIVIL, NPA and the Harassment policy. Since the community has been unable to manage this potentially hostile environment, it is imperative that the arbcomm step up to enforce basic behavioural policies. Guettarda (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

NYB: Yes, things are calmer, but that's because people stepped back, not because they got better. The forest-fire spread to COMMONNAME, to MOSINDENTITY, to the Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage article...and here. Manning's bio continues to attract a stream of hateful invective aimed at the subject. And we have people arguing that the close proved the BLP doesn't apply to articles titles (and a variety of other things). The people who felt strongly are, I think, pretty disheartened with the issue, and disheartened with the project - I know I my faith in the project was shaken when an issue was decided, for the most part, by people whose ideas of gender are half a century out of date. (People who justify their argument on the basis of 'biology', while making it very clear that they don't understand what biology has to say about the topic.)

Trans issues are very poorly understood by the public at large (even those of us who think they understand regularly hit the limits of our knowledge). By naming the article Bradley Manning we are ensuring that trans people don't feel welcome on the project. When our knowledge base is already so limited (all the more for the loss of Jokestress) we can't allow this issue to poison our relationship with the trans community. I'm not saying that the arbcomm rename the article, but I think we need the committee to say that we don't tolerate hate speech, we don't tolerate bullying, and we believe that factual information should be based on the best scholarship, not ignorance liberally seasoned with hate. Guettarda (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Scott Martin

The suggestion that Morwen tried to "gain fame" is beyond absurd and should be ignored. The rest of this case is worth taking. No other comments. — Scott • talk 10:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Timrollpickering

This whole situation has been a major car crash. There is a content dispute but there are also some conduct and policy issues that need clarifying.

A key point that has been disputed back and forth is the application of the WP:BLP policy. Specifically there is a need for clear rulings:

• Does the BLP as presently written apply to article titles?
• Does BLP apply in this specific case?

The elephant in the room is the way Wikipedia approaches the whole issue of trans. The numerous discussions have descended into a mess because few admins feel comfortable and confident about identifying and taking action against uncivil and upsetting behaviour. Accusations have been thrown all over the place and action has been taken against admins who've tried to implement even non-controversial edits. Try to take action and one risks being accused of "bias", "activism" and all the rest and we have the absurdity that anyone who knows about trans issues gets attacked as having a WP:COI. In the absence of calming measures, it's unsurprising that hotter heads start calling it out. The result is a toxic discussion where nobody is willing to step in, and a mess as people try to ban the calling out of transphobia whilst giving a free pass to provocative editors.

The community has previously in less charged times developed procedures on how to handle trans matters, including when a subject with a pre-existing article announces transition, but it's also clear that many users have been unaware of them and are currently trying to rewrite them in the heat of the moment. This is also a problem area where determining what constitutes NPOV and reliable sources is particularly contentious - broadly the scientific and medical consensus seems to be well in advance of newspaper editors.

Others have detailed the areas in question but at the moment we have a total mess that is not conducive to productive editing and which is upsetting and alienating editors and readers and where admins feel reluctant to step in. Whilst Arbcom may not be able to solve all the problems it can provide clear rulings on the application of policies and what is and isn't appropriate discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by me_and

Very much support this case being taken: attempting to form consensus on this has produced a widespread battleground with a lot of fallout and a lot of public attention.

ArbCom conclusions on the applicability of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines here would be invaluable, as would comment on the raised conduct issues.

However I can only support investigation into Morwen so far as to end that discussion finally; the complaints against her seem entirely vexatious, and I cannot see that she did anything wrong at any time.

—me_and 12:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A Short Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

The goal of Wikipedia is to provide a high-quality, educational resource for our readers. It is not a battleground nor a place to right great wrongs. Editors who are more concerned with pursuing political agenda (regardless of its merits) than creating a serious encyclopedia need to be extracted from the situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mangoe

I see nothing good coming of this, for as MONGO and Tarc observe the advocacy and neutrality issues are everywhere, and I feel they are largely intractable. Part of the problem I see is that BLP policies are being used to force Wikipedia to endorse a highly POV stand about the nature of human sexuality and the right of a person towards determining it (or rather, determining how they are viewed by others). The conspicuous problem in the present article is that Manning is likely to vanish into incarcerated obscurity once media speculation dies down as to how the prison system attempts to deal with the him/her issue, leaving a rather odd article in which the only usable tense might well be the future subjunctive retroactive.

The one definite ruling I can see dealing with is a more general one on the boldness of name changes when an announcement of this sort is made. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

The crux of the problem is that the English language treats gender as binary and evolving scientific and social awareness is that it isn't. The committee cannot fix that. Manning talk page statistics do show decaying interest ... until the filing here [5]. Nonetheless, I expect that both the committee will feel compelled to take the request and that many editors will be dissatisfied with the result, due to the intractable nature of the problem until such time as English speaking society converges to a consensus.

• In scope

Does the first admin to cite "BLP" when taking an action get to have content frozen in that state while discussion is underway?

Blocks were issued and soon reverted (e.g. [6]) for editing through protection. Individual admin interpretation as to when editing full protection pages varies, and a fairly recent RFC was inconclusive.

• Out of scope:

The admins involved in the page moves were acting in good faith and should not be sanctioned.

Given the overall tenor, singling out Baseball Bugs comments isn't justified (for every long thread involving him there are other editors continuing to engage well past the point of productivity).

Sandifier list. For example Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia", not a site designed to protect people's "feelings". isn't anti anything; it's accurate (see Campaign for "santorum" neologism).

• I'm ambivalent

Yes, many contributions have been disgusting; however both the committee (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement) and the community (Wikipedia:Incivility_blocks, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement) have previously attempted to address civility concerns to no avail. I'm not aware of any cultural changes that would allow a satisfactory resolution to those issues now. Sure, you could sanction some of the more egregious behaviors but it won't make significant improvements to the overall culture here.

@Carcharoth : There should be no doubt in the minds of any member of the committee that filing of a RFAR has a powerful damping effect on discussion elsewhere. Logically, it's not the best of a wikipedia volunteer's time to contribute to discussion that may be rendered moot by AC action; therefore many editors will either wait and see what the committee does or shift their contributions to arbitration space. NE Ent 15:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) -- a couple other contentious discussions regarding BLP may be found at ANI archive, Asaram Bapu and current ANI, DOB minors -- so I'd say a lack of clarity on BLP in general is ongoing. NE Ent 02:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I'm uninvolved except for leaving a somewhat surprised comment on the article talk page when the gender identity issue first appeared in the media. I recommend to accept the case. The Committee can help the community by looking at the evident admin conduct (wheel-warring?) and editor conduct issues (personal attacks, casting aspersions of transphobia?), but also by looking at whether our policies concerning such aspects of this case as WP:BLP, MOS (MOS:NAME and MOS:IDENTITY) are - as applied here - in harmony with each other and with WP:V/WP:RS, and if not, recommending which community processes might be appropriate to remedy that. I have always suspected that the MOS's requirement for using a person's stated gender identity, while completely understandable as an ethical matter, may at times come into conflict with our core policies of neutrality and verifiability, which require that we don't let article subjects tell us what to write about them, but instruct us to rely on independent reliable sources, which may not reflect such changes in identity for some time. Both approaches appear defensible to me, but evidently we haven't managed to find or clearly describe community consensus about which should prevail. The Committee could help the community identify what policy conflicts, if any, exist and could advise on how to structure discussions to fix them.  Sandstein  16:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Gnangarra

I've read the whole move discussion I never participated in that discussion in general there were to many opinions poorly expressed and left to fester as open wounds that damage has been done but actions now are just punative. I also saw a lot of people who just wanted a process for discussion where they could be heard before the move occurred therefore opposed solely for procedural grounds. I would have closed that discussion differently because these issues didnt contribute to providing a resolution, but I can accept that those that it did close acted in good faith under difficult circumstance suspecting irregardless of the result the drama would continue unabated, as did many of the participants named in this case request.

Its just 12 days (August 22 - September 3) since Chelsea Mannings request was read out by her lawyer, many people acknowledged that given time the issue of Common name will be come clearer. The reality is that its going to more important on how we choose to resolve the issue than the issue itself. Chelsea's actions have been polarizing, been subject to political games for political reasons thats already divided the community, add to that Chelsea's public statement on a topic so many people hold equally polarized views about, combined it created a pile of dynamite actively seeking out a spark. Given all of this ARBCOM should reject this case, theres no immediate danger to Wikipedia, theres no rogue admins reeking havoc ARCOM making a decision now is fraught with the probability of it making an unavoidable decision that time will later set a sunder. Gnangarra 17:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox

I've had no direct involvement in this mess but like many of us I have been watching this unfold over the last week or two. While it is obviously outside of arbcom's remit to resolve the underlying content dispute, there are serious behavioral issues here, up to and including misbehavior involving the use of admin tools. Usually in such situations there are a lot of people acting kind of disruptively and a few at the core who probably need to be removed from the topic altogether. I think arbcom is the best body to make such a determination and urge them to take this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Keegan

I was asked to re-factor my statement to make it "relevant" to this case, so I'm doing so now.

A large part of what went wrong here when users were working together was a systemic failure for Wikipedians to understand how BLP is to be construed in relation to other policies; namely, is it broad in focus or narrow in focus? This question with a lack of a clear, directed answer has hampered many, many discussion in various places on Wikipedia ranging from the content of articles to how editors address concerns with the content of articles and how they engage in discourse with each other. This dispute over Bradley/Chelsea Manning naming is the epitome of how wikilawyering BLP to be construed narrowly in order for another policy to win is harmful to the project.

It is within the Arbitration Committee's remit to uphold and clarify policy, and it must be done in this case. In April of 2009 the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation passed a resolution on Biographies of Living people calling for the global movement to take sweeping measures to ensure that dignity and respect is given to people on Wikimedia. Following that resolution, I was asked by the Volunteer Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation at the time, Cary Bass, to run a task force on the subject. One of the outcomes was a global Living People Policy to be passed by the Board. Unfortunately for Wikimedia the Board subsequently ignored what it asked for, but that does not make the text and the context any less relevant. This policy is to be broadly construed and is never to be negated in deference to any other local policy that might be in place. In this case, WP:COMMONNAME would not be allowed to make a naming decision over WP:BLP when it is the wish and the will of the subject.

I urge the Arbitration Committee to take this case and consider the resolution of the Board and the text of the global Living People policy draft and how it relates to how our local policy is applied. There is no option but a top-down approach defining BLP as a broad, all encompassing policy. Keegan (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really very useful comment from Spartaz

I liked Badlydrawnjeff and I'm sad that driving him from the project was an effect of establishing BLP as a policy. But seriously, RFAR/BDJ was over 6 years ago. You guys can't surely rely on any wiki decision that old? If we don't have an up to date guide from Arbcom on how we are supposed to work round BLP then you guys needs to do one. I doubt this case is the one to help you do that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly useful comment from Seraphimblade

I also liked Badlydrawnjeff (the editor, not the case), despite having often disagreed with him on inclusion, and found the decision of the ArbCom at the time to be terrible, especially the "privileged enforcement" bit. Since then, it's resulted in Kafkaesque nonsense, such as information already widely disseminated to the public in highly reliable sources being claimed to be "private" and thus covered by sections of BLP that were clearly nonsensical. That drove me away for well over a year, as it was just so counter to everything we do here. We just fixed it very recently. I knew it would get fixed eventually, but the "special enforcement" provisions led to a nonsensical result and a disservice to our readers for far too long.

I hope that the ArbCom will take this case. There were some terribly nasty comments about transgender people made at this discussion, and those engaging in such conduct should be at minimum admonished. There were also unfounded accusations of prejudice and transphobia made against some editors who disagreed in good faith. The editors who threw those around so casually should also be at minimum admonished. What the ArbCom should not again do, and should renounce from its predecessors who decided Badlydrawnjeff, is put itself in the position of making rather than interpreting policy. The community here has clearly shown that BLP, like every content policy, is subject to consensus. It is not the content policy, it is a content policy. It does not supersede all others, it is to be balanced and weighed against all others, and the cardinal content policy is as always NPOV. The ArbCom's decision must reflect that clear community feedback, and absolutely must repudiate the BDJ case and "special enforcement". Admins should enforce BLP like any other content policy—carefully and in line with consensus. BLP should not be a "big hammer" or a "trump card" to shut down legitimate content disputes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Anthonyhcole

Please accept the case.

• Examine the behaviour of editors in the RM discussion. Some do need admonishing.
• Examine the behaviour of the closing admins. They did a head-count and included the views of people who claimed BLP doesn't apply to titles, and the views of others who asserted transgender is a myth, among other invalid "arguments", and concluded that Manning's acknowledgment that some sources would continue to use "Bradley" was some kind of imprimatur. Please advise the closers that RfCs are not a vote and that ignorant, ill-informed opinions, and rationales that are based on a misunderstanding of BLP policy should not be given weight, and that when a BLP subject acknowledges they will continue to be addressed by their birth name in some venues, it's not permission for us to do so.

But don't decide the title, and don't send it to RfC for a decision. This needs addressing immediately and both you and the RfC process act too slowly. If you expressly decline that aspect of the case due to its urgency, it will place the problem in the hands of the Foundation, who is able to act with appropriate speed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by FeydHuxtable

Please accept this case, with the scope limited to a fast-track motion where Arbs can give their opinion on whether or not using Chelsea's previous name in the title violates BLP. IMO, no one deserves sanctions. Even participants preferring the previous name had understandable reasons for becoming emotionally engaged, and under the circumstances the debate was relatively collegial. Arbs might not want to change BLP by fiat, but you could give a statement about how it applies to Chelsea's article, even if it's just your opinions as trusted editors.

WP:BLP requires "a high degree of sensitivity" and that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered". As per this collection of reliable sources, forcing a masculine name on a transgender woman "obviously" causes harm, "is intensely painful " and "can and often does lead to depression and suicide". It's astonishing we don't yet have clear consensus that the current title violates BLP. Even fox news have shown more decency in some of their articles. A swift statement by Arbcom would allow an immediate move request without us having to wait another 4 weeks. This would allow us to avoid the risk of causing harm not just to Chelsea, but to other transsexuals who in some parts of the world are still facing extreme transphobia cumulating in murder. We'd also restore encyclopaedic neutrality by not persisting in a political position to the right of even the Daily Mail. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

I agree with Anthonyhole. Count Iblis (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

NYB, I think Formerip explained the problem well when he said that "It should be a manageable problem. But both of these types of behaviour are defended by some within the community, and many of those who feel something should be done are not confident to do it. So, warnings don't get given, discussions don't get hatted and ANI threads are a waste of time."

So, it's not BLP per se, just that an important policy we have to deal with problems, which in this case happens to be BLP, cannot be properly enforced (and besides that there are other problems that one can't deal with well). It's not all that different from the CC case were the community could not properly enforce the policies regarding reliable sources which led to other problematic behavior which the community couldn't deal with either. Count Iblis (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ultraexactzz

I'm not transgendered in any way, nor have I ever questioned or considered a different gender identity than the one I was born with. Just hasn't really been a thing. But reading some of the comments listed above as transphobic is an eye-opening exercise. I'm ashamed, as an admin, that we didn't do more to stop that sort of conduct in its tracks. I'm appalled that those comments were allowed to stand.

Think we're welcoming to trans editors - or to LGBT editors in general? Read those threads on that talk page and think again.

At the barest minimum, we need a case that focuses on user conduct on that talk page. In particular, we need to address whether it's OK to use some of those terms about living persons, and whether it's OK for admins to use their authority to stop it if they see it.

This brings up a related issue. I've commented on Risker's blocks of Mark Arsten and two others for edits to the protected article at ANI - and I believe Risker jumped the gun by blocking without asking those admins to first self-revert. Those blocks vastly diminished the willingness of other admins (myself included) to get involved on the talk page. That bears examination as well, especially as it relates to user conduct on the talk page.

The BLP issues are also worth discussing. Do we as admins have the right (and the duty) to act rapidly when we have a good faith belief that an article title or some specific article content violates BLP? The fact that consensus may overrule us later, after discussion, is secondary - BLP is intended to prevent harm now. If that's not the case, the committee needs to make that clear as well - and then be prepared for content that harms or denegrates living persons to remain live, simply because we need to discuss it first. If we don't trust admins to make those calls, after due consideration and in good faith belief that they are the right calls, then we need to rethink the entire policy. Direction from the committee would be invaluable to the community, on this point.

There are other issues, but they are folded into one of these two topics: BLP and the scope of Administrator Discretion, and User Conduct as it relates to transgendered persons and editors. I believe these could easily be handled as two narrowly focused cases, perhaps handled consecutively rather than concurrently. Or, make it one big case (as is proposed here), but tackle the issues in phases - Debate and discuss Issue 1 for a month, workshop that issue, Vote on findings and decisions, then take a month to debate Issue 2, workshop those items, and vote on that side of the case. The fear of a big case is understandable - but these are big issues. They are worthy of consideration, and worth taking the time to handle in the relatively structured setting of Arbcom. I urge the committee to accept this case. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: One element of the dispute over the article title is explained below. We had a series of really angry AN/ANI threads, followed by a week-long Requested Move debate with hundreds of participants. After that, we had a second move request to a different name. And starting on Sept 2, we have Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request, which is essentially the preliminary discussion for the next move debate - which means we'll have another month of discussion before - wait for it - another debate! And all the while, we have editors (trans and otherwise) morally offended by the current title - and by the conduct of other editors. While the article title issue is an isolated one (in the sense that it is one article among 6,828,253), it's an issue that is not going to go away anytime soon. I would hope that tempers are calming, as you say, but one offhand comment or one ill-advised edit and the thing could blow up again.

I'm not suggesting that we have an airing of grievances as such, but I do think that a structured discussion can help. It can say "That's not okay," to editors who saw fit to call the BLP subject "it." And it might help give admins tools to deal with such activity in the future. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 04:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

1. User:Sceptre is topic-banned from this subject but is here chiming in anyway. This needs to be stopped. 2. This is a case in which an activist faction favoring the Manual of Style has effectively come into collision with a traditionalist faction favoring the Common Name policy. It is at root a content debate and is outside of ArbCom's purview. Six weeks from now and 1 million typewritten characters later, by the time ArbCom is ready to rule, this will be a non-issue because the activist faction has trumped the traditionalist faction for one thing, and the mainstream media is moving to the accepted usage of the activist faction for another. Decline the case. Carrite (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Jtrainor

This is childish nonsense. THIS made it to Arbcom? If y'all were able to stop acting like you're in high school, then this would have been easily solved. Instead, the inability for any of the parties to retain control of themselves has led to this entire nonsense being coopted by people with all sorts of axes to grind.

This is a content dispute, pure and simple. All the attached nonsense can be handled by existing policies and mechanisms if people would display a little maturity. Jtrainor (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved JzG

I am heartily dismayed at many of the sentiments on display here. The idea that giving the preferred gender and name to a trans person is something that marks one out as an activist, is simply ignorant. I lack the experience of some here with trans issues, but I know three trans people tolerably well, one of whom is open about her past identity but finds gratuitous references to it offensive, and one of whom never wishes to hear her birth name ever again and considers references to it traumatic.

If you think that changing gender assignment and preferred identity is a matter of caprice or whimsy, then you do not know enough to venture an informed opinion. The best way - the Wikipedian way - to approach such a situation is by not saying anything. And incidentally, I know three trans people - you may well know one or more yourself. They may well not have told you. Society right now has a morbid fascination with trans people, they seem to be a lightning rod for a significant anti-gay sentiment. That's how it seems to me, anyway. Seriously, reading the talk page is like watching the video of the Rodney King beating. I don't give a damn that Manning is a traitor, she is also a human and entitled to basic human dignity. The mark of a civilised society is how it treats its enemies.

The last time I recall a dispute of this bitterness over an article name, it was Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I was on the losing side of that debate, and the result was correct for exactly the same reason that the current result (Bradley) is incorrect. The article title was being used to belittle the subject by those who had philosophical objections to the subject's views, and who were more supportive of the views of its detractors. This is not noble. I'm ashamed to have been part of that with the Catholic article, and I venture to hope that those who have argued for Bradley might also one day read their posts here with contrition. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Obiwankenobi

Per NY Brad's comment, I think things are working themselves out, frankly. There is an active collaboration to build the case for/against a new move that is progressing peacefully Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request; some are calling for the move to happen sooner than 30 days, but most others have suggested we wait the full 30 days. I think we will end up waiting 30 days, and I think after those 30 days, the bulk of reliable sources will likely have switched - we're seeing sources switching this week for example. Once the sources switch, the move will be much less contested. I think what is under question is, why wasn't the admin corps more active DURING the discussion, and why weren't sanctions brought to bear, quickly and swiftly, against both those who were painting all support votes as transphobic, and those who were uttering hateful things against TS/TG ppl (which was not the majority, btw). The admin corps needs to step up - there's only so much clerking a lowly editor like myself can do, so perhaps a strong word from arbcom on encouraging admins to step up to the plate in situations like this would be helpful. The only itchy trigger finger was Risker, who blocked a few admins for the most trivial of edits - while absolute shit on the talk page went unnoticed or unpunished. But I frankly don't think a big case will help things here - this is ultimately a content issue, there are active discussions at WP:AT and we will muddle our way to a solution. Decline the case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Martijn Hoekstra

It looks like ArbCom is accepting this case, and that makes me very very sad. There are a couple of things at stake here.

1. The behaviour of administrators, and their potential misuse of tools
2. The behaviour of editors, and their abuse of eachoter
3. The relation of precedence between different policies and guidelines

Conerning the administrator behaviour, I don't think there is any evidence of outrageous tool abuse. Admins disagree with eachoter at times. And undo eachothers actions at times if they seem to have made mistakes, which all admins moving back to Bradley have done (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMorwen&diff=569718195&oldid=556991010) and the move by tariq who didn't notice that this was not indeed a non-controversial move. Not a big deal. In my experience non of these administrators are particularly hard to communicate with, so just having a sit down with the administrators and the community should be enough. I don't think any sanctions are reasonable here, but if they are, I can't see any sanction about being reminded or some such.

The behaviour of editors hasn't been pretty here and there. It's a contentious issue, and this stuff happens. We shouldn't tolerate it, but it shouldn't be beyond the scope of what the community can handle. If it is, than the only reasonable outcome of this case is that ArbCom collectively bans the entire body of editors, and hope to find new ones. I certainly hope we're not that beyond help that we can't deal with a hand full of editors in a brief flare on a difficult issue.

When it comes to the precedence between different policies and guidelines, that isn't an ArbCom issue. ArbCom shouldn't rule on policy. Nothing to do there. So, where does that leave us? It leaves us with no case. Maybe something for a motion. To urge all editors to stop being asshats. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I urge the committee to take this to focus on the perennial issue of people using extended interpretations of WP:BLP as protection for actions that would otherwise result in sanctions. BLP is an important policy, but it is frequently used to justify actions that it really can't. If BLP mandated half of the actions taken in its name, it would be nearly as large as Wikipedia itself. The number of BLP emergencies that occur are few and far between, and it is a vanishingly rare case that an action would both be unambiguously mandated by BLP and be the subject of a wheel-war.—Kww(talk) 21:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft

I appreciate Sue Gardner taking the time to voice an opinion here on this page and requesting this case be taken. However, her first bullet point is out of line to the scope and responsibilities of ArbCom. While ArbCom's policy on the matter notes that they can "interpret existing policy" there is no remit to create policy, rewrite policy nor clarify policy. The board of the Wikimedia Foundation adopted a BLP resolution in April of 2009. If that policy requires clarification, it is the board's responsibility to do so. Asking this ArbCom to clarify it for them leaves wide open the case of all the other language wikipedias similarly failing in their application of BLP policy, since this ArbCom has no jurisdiction over any other language wikipedias. The policy question must, by the very nature of it, be taken to task by the board itself as they wrote the initial policy. This arbitration committee lacks the remit, skills and qualifications necessary to tackle this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hobit

There are a set of problems here that are largely local to this article and that I believe the community, given time, will properly resolve on its own. That means that article will be at the wrong name (IMO) for a while, but I think the community will manage to move it back to the correct name faster than ARBCOM can act. I also think that those involved in the move/protection war should, at most, get a solid trout. After following this for a while, there is little doubt in my mind each was acting as they felt was best for the encyclopedia and within the rules as they understood them.

But there is one aspect of this that the committee can and should address. And that is, "How do we deal with claims of BLP issues in a discussion?" especially with respect to admin actions. In this case, we have a page moved by one admin and protected by another with claims of BLP issues. Another moved it back without discussion (as far as I am aware). Is that acceptable? Should actions that use BLP as a justification be treated any differently than other actions?

In my ideal world, I'd like to see claims of BLP mean the action wins until a discussion happens (unless someone makes a BLP claim in the other direction). And at that point standard WP:BRD would apply (that is, if the action doesn't gain consensus it gets reverted even though BLP is claimed). If someone gets community consensus wrong in BLP too often, they could be banned from making such claims. Given there was only a BLP claim in one direction, that would have settled it. And once it became clear that claim didn't have consensus, it would have been moved back. Notice, I'm only suggesting BLP be a trump card for a short time, otherwise it is treated like any other policy in a dispute--changes need consensus.

My suggestion is just one possible set of policies we could use, but the committee needs to make it clear how the community is to deal with BLP claims. The committee in the past has made it clear that BLP holds a special place in our policies, and now you need to clarify how to deal with such claims. One option might be to remand that it to the community. But we need something or situations like this will continue. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Abigailgem

I want an arbitration, as a trans woman.

Bradley Manning is as vulnerable as many trans folk starting transition. Other trans women, such as Lana Wachowski, who have wikipedia articles have considerably more clout. So this argument is surfacing on a page about a woman who has no power at all- just like most of us.

For me, the requirement that most people use my female name before you will use it, or that I have surgery before you use it, creates a hostile atmosphere for me. The policy here must be applied to other trans women.

However an opinion is expressed, there are transphobic people about. They may force an uneasy consensus, by apparently speaking reasonably. That would drive me away. That would also make Wikipedia less accurate: Scots and English Law, and my psychiatrists, say I am a woman. I have always been female.

Belated Statement by Ananiujitha

Note: I had not been able to post to the Arbitration Requests page, so I chose to post to the Talk:Arbitration Requests page. I had been an occasional editor for years, but only registered after Chelsea Manning's page had been moved back to "Bradley Manning." I don't know if this will be helpful.

Background:

I am an occasional but previously-unregistered Wikipedia editor. I looked at the talk page after Chelsea Manning's page was moved to her own name, but backed away from the transphobia. I returned after seeing that her page had been moved to her boyname, and was and am shocked by this decision.

Biases:

I am a survivor of anti-trans violence. I do not deal well with transphobia, because I believe it contributes to anti-trans violence, and because of the trauma. I have commented elsewhere condemning the move-back.

Comments:

I wonder how many other editors backed away because of the transphobia. Apparently, I could be mistaken, the margin was based on a very narrow majority, rather than consensus, and the hostility, or canvassing on either side, could have tilted the balance. I don't think people who don't experience transphobia are always able to recognize what is or isn't transphobic; more of the transphobia may come from misunderstanding than from hate; but that's a good reason for an appropriate committee to go over this and hash out guidelines for similar situations. And yes, I think this a issue of basic human dignity, and not only that, I fear that disrespecting trans people's identities may encourage anti-trans violence. Ananiujitha (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by 7daysahead

I wish to echo Abigailgem above: As a trans woman, I want an arbitration.

First, the conversation on the talk page was incredibly transphobic: examples involving hypothetical people claiming to be dogs and rabbits have been given above and I shan't repeat them. These comments were not removed and the editors have not been sanctioned. Wikipedia has no mechanism in place to quickly respond to large numbers of established editors being abusive as happened on that talk page. It needs one. That talk page surely drove most trans editors away from Wikipedia.

The eventual conflict came down to MOS:IDENTITY versus WP:COMMONNAME, with the facts not in dispute. However, in cases such as this, Wikipedia must acknowledge its own role in forming a subject's common name. Whatever Wikipedia chooses, Bradley or Chelsea, some news sources will follow, whether Wikipedia likes it or not. Since this isn't a point of fact, but a point of style, Wikipedia would not be 'leading' - again, this isn't original research and the facts are not in dispute. I would like ARBCOM to clarify Wikipedia policy as regards famous figures who transition to prevent this horrible situation from ever arising again. 7daysahead (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Liz

I see how some editors say that "This is a content issue and shouldn't be heard by ARBCOM." I wish that this were the case. Other transgender people have changed their gender identity and it didn't erupt into a discussion like this. If it were just a matter of what to name an article, there are plenty of examples to look at on Wikipedia to see what has been done with similar cases.

The issue is how discussion about a pretty straight-forward requested move/rename turned into a verbal free-for-all on the article talk page, spilling over into multiple noticeboards all over Wikipedia. It's about conduct, both of Editors and Admins, when a heated discussion is raging. Do Admins jump in, guns blazing? Or do they try, in a detached way, to mediate a dispute? And why was this decision about correct pronouns brought into over a half a dozen other forums as users sought to win over Editors and Admins so that an authoritative decision could be arrived at?

This is all about process and conduct. Individual Editors can be admonished for cruel, hurtful language, that's definitely a possibility worth considering. But I think that it is inevitable that there will be future Chelsea/Bradley Manning cases with different Editors battling away. I think this is fundamentally an issue of Admin conduct, what actions would have been helpful and which conduct just made things worse. This is not about making a few Admins scapegoats, it's that a ruling about the role of Admins as MEDIATORS should be encouraged because they have a special responsibility to stay out of mob action.

Of course, Admins will disagree with each other on the proper course of conduct but the prime consideration should be not their own personal view of controversial topics like gender identity but upon what actions bring order and clarity to Wikipedia and lower the amount of vitriol. I've seen some Admins say that in this instance they were acting as Editors, not Admins but I'm not sure it's legitimate that one can retroactively identify when one spoke as an Admin and when one spoke as a regular Editor because being an Admin is part of some users' online identity. For good or ill, what an Admin says can sway conversations, cause some people to argue more and others to shut up. So can the words of some articulate Editors but I think it can't be denied that Admins' words hold a disproportionate amount of power.

Typically, what comes of ARBCOM rulings are Admins desysoped, Editors being topic banned, etc. But I hope something more constructive and less punitive can arise out of this case. I'm not sure how ARBCOM can impact policy and guidelines but you could make a positive impact that goes beyond this one case by reinforcing the role of Admins as mediators instead of instigators of conflict. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Wnt

Note: Moved here by case clerk User:Penwhale at 00:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, this move is innately confusing. It is unavoidable, not inappropriate, that debate about the issue occurred and will continue for a long time going forward. I also do not believe it is inappropriate for people on either side of the issue to express their beliefs a bit (including their beliefs that others are being insensitive); the question is whether they are deliberately disrupting or biasing Wikipedia out of their POV. I don't believe that happened. I think we had about as good a discussion, about as clear a close, as we could have had under the circumstances, with the sole exception that yes, claims that "BLP trumps consensus" lead to acrimony on both sides. What needs to be sanctioned there, however, is not the editors but the idea. If ArbCom has a role here it should be to end that untoward practice overall, rather than sanctioning any particular editors. Wnt (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Weldneck

Note: Moved here by case clerk User:Penwhale at 15:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Really not interested in being a part of this so have fun without me but what does it say about this place that a handful of activists can hijack an article and load it up with malarky? WeldNeck (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for amendment (October 2013)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Amendment request: Manning naming dispute

Initiated by Adam Cuerden ^(talk) at 21:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Case affected

Manning naming dispute arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 14.2 David Gerard restricted in use of tools

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• David Gerard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• David Gerard

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#David_Gerard_restricted_in_use_of_tools
• Finding changed to either a limited time, turned into a request that future questionable admin actions be forwarded to Arbcom for speedy judgement, or revoked.

Statement by Adam Cuerden

There needs to be a principle that findings that are patently bad should be immediately fixed. This finding was meant well, but was rushed, and we ended up with something terrible.

This is precisely the sort of finding Arbcom should not be making, due to a severe chilling effect, combined with absolutely no evidence that this will protect Wikipedia (Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive). No finding in the case showed that Gerard had ever acted in any sort of questionable way towards transsexual issues before these events, and, while his actions may have been slightly outside of then-current practice and policy of the time, they were not excessively so. Arbcom, however, in a rush to close the case, put an infinitely long ban that could only be appealed every six months - with, let me remind you, no evidence of a behaviour pattern towards transsexual articles that would remotely justify doing such to protect Wikipedia. If Gerard is given rope and hangs himself, that would be one thing - should he repeat questionable behaviour, by all means pull him up before you. If you want to ban him for some specified cooling-off period, say three months, that would be another option. You could even put him on warning that future controversial admin actions should be reported to Arbcom for immediate review. But as it is, this merely makes Arbcom look capricious and arbitrary, and, as such, has a chilling effect on any admins working in good-faith to enforce policy. Arbcom is meant to make careful decisions, weigh the evidence, and find remedies that are commensurate to dealing with the problems found, and has failed utterly with a badly-thought-out remedy, rushed in at the last minute.

@Arbitrators: Arbcom has no right to violate policy: Per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Blocks_should_not_be_punitive, you literally are not permitted to place blocks or restrictions on users that do not have convincing evidence that they protect the encyclopedia from future problematic actions. You are not permitted to block people where "there is no current conduct issue of concern." Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

Mr. Gerard demonstrably abused administrative tools in a content dispute during the Private Manning Fiasco and in my opinion should have been desysopped. It's ridiculous for anyone to contend that the slap on the wrist he received was in any way excessive. Dead horse. Carrite (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Decline review at this time. First off, this is David's request to make, at the time he is permitted to make it (i.e., six months after the close of the case). The Committee does not normally hear requests for amendment from any person other than an editor who is directly affected by the sanction; permitting anyone at any time to request amendments is an unreasonable burden on the committee. Secondly, the case has just closed; the community as a whole, including David Gerard, had ample time to comment on the proposed decision during the course of the case. It is unreasonable to expect the committee to reconsider a decision at this point, when so much discussion ensued during the course of the case itself. I believe, in fact, that more bytes were expended on this case than on any other in the past five years. Risker (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Adam, David Gerard is not blocked. He is not even prevented from editing the articles in question. Risker (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Procedurally, Adam, you have no standing to appeal on David's behalf. On the merits, considering his actions, David got off lightly, because he should have been desysopped. So, this is a speedy decline for me. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. AGK [•] 10:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Decline Worm^TT(talk) 06:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Decline Courcelles 19:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute (October 2013)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This motion modifies the wording of a single finding of fact in the Manning naming dispute case.

Finding of fact 22, regarding Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is replaced by the following:

22) During the course of the dispute, Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) frequently accused other participants in the dispute of misconduct [7], [8] [9]; engaged in soapboxing based on his personal view of the article subject's actions [10] [11] [12] [13]; and needlessly personalised the dispute [14].

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

1. Risker (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC) No objection to changing 'malice' to 'misconduct'. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support per the talkpage thread cited below. I also would not object to replacing the word "malice" with "misconduct" or "misbehavior" or "misusing Wikipedia." Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
5. Worm^TT(talk) 07:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

   I have no issue with the word "misconduct", but then I have no issue with "malice" either. On balance, probably "misconduct" would be a better word. Worm^TT(talk) 07:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

6. Malice is clearly what BB alleged the administrators were guilty of. AGK [•] 10:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

   Please see below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

7. Though I would not support Risker's further modification suggested below, at least not to a word so weak as misconduct. Courcelles 19:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

   @Timotheus Canens, Carcharoth, and Worm That Turned: Could you please approve the change, so this can move forward notwithstanding Courcelles' objection? AGK [•] 20:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Inactive

The following arbitrators were inactive for the case and are presumed to be inactive for this motion:

• Roger Davies
• SilkTork

Arbitrator discussion

• This is further to the discussion at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard. Risker (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the word "malice," AGK and I are both right, because this word is notoriously hard to define and has multiple meanings in both everyday and legal usage, complicated by gradations of meaning between US and UK usage. For example, from our article malice (law), I learn that UK civil caselaw defines "malice" as sometimes including "recklessness in the performance of official duties"; but a US reader would understand "malice" to most likely mean "action taken for the deliberate purpose of harming another." This ambiguity makes it all the more desirable to find a synonym. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• As the arbitrator posting the motion, I have no objection to changing "malice" to "misconduct", which I think is as close an approximation as we'll find. Unless there is an objection, I will change the word in about 24-36 hours. Clerks, please do not close this motion before that time. Risker (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• I still don't consider such a change to be at all necessary, but in the interests of moving this motion along I won't object. Thanks, AGK [•] 18:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• My views on this is essentially the same as AGK's. T. Canens (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion by others

• "Malice" is about as bad as "Bigotry". "POV-pushing" or "bias towards the subject" would be more in line with what my complaints were about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Our sister project's definition of wikt:malice emphasizes intentional harm Based only the three diffs presented, BB made no reference to intent; "POV-pushing" seems most apt. NE Ent 22:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Even in the British legal sense, taking an action with "malice" means that some harm is foreseen. I don't discern from the diffs that BB accused the alleged POV-pushers of foreseeing that any harm would come from their POV-pushing. POV-pushing is often done without any desire or expectation that anyone would be harmed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. Quite the contrary, I am confident that those users in general thought they were doing the right thing, i.e. acting in good faith. My complaint was that they were incorrect about what the right thing is. An editor can act in totally good faith and be 180 degrees wrong-headed in the process. (And before you say it, I have occasionally fallen victim to that same mindset.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Editors sometimes intentionally make stuff up and put it into articles, but that can be for many bad faith reasons other than "malice" (e.g. self-promotion or to advance some other cause). What the diffs show is that BB said other editors were editing with bad faith, not that they were editing with malice (i.e. in a knowingly harmful way). Even if BB had been attributing malice to other editors, that is allowed if "there is specific evidence of malice" (though such an accusation should be made elsewhere at Wikipedia than at an article talk page).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• There are still two other parties which you accuse of discriminatory speech. Even if the evidence is stronger in their case, I don't think that it's prudent in light of this precedent. The AC can appear as a court or some kind of official organ to uniformed outside observers, which gives more weight to your affirmations; so using such strong legal terms directed at potentially identifiable users should be avoided, if only to diminish the risk of defamation lawsuits. Cenarium (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You make an excellent point. We are very sensitive on Wikipedia to terms such as "libel" and "slander". Someone throwing terms like that around, when it's an attempt to intimidate or stifle, will typically end up indef'd until or if they recant. Terms like "discriminatory speech" and "malice" are dangerously close to passing legal judgment on someone, as in accusing someone of committing "hate speech"; or of acting in "bad faith" as opposed to posing what the editor feels (incorrectly) is a valid argument within Wikipedia rules. If those expressions are somehow embedded in the Wikipedia rules as legitimate accusations to make, they shouldn't be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I support this change, but ultimately this is about what you said. I looked again at some of the diffs cited and you accused others of 'twisting facts' and of 'malfeasance'. Given what has been said here, would you phrase that differently if you found yourself in a similar situation in the future? That is the key point that we shouldn't lose sight of here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

      I don't recall saying those specific things, but if I did, then that is indeed an accusation of bad faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

      • You wrote those words -- but one ought note the full sentences involved: (Right after they've reverted to the previous version, to partially correct for their malfeasance.) which is not exactly what was implied by "accused others of malfeasance" in context. despite their blatant violations of the rules about sourcing and their twisting of facts to make a bogus "manual of style" argument refers, AFAICT, primarily to the nature of the MOS argument -- which. AFAICT again, is not just the blanket accusation of "twisting facts." Bugs is definitely irascible and prone to making statements more strongly worded than others would, but one ought not take words out of context to condemn him -- that sort of argument is 'bosh and twaddle" <g>. Collect (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

        I must have been right much irritated by then. "Malfeasance" seems like overkill. "Bad judgment" would have sufficed. I don't recall the other details, but it likely had to do with what I saw as really stretching the sourcing and MOS guidelines to fit a specific scenario. That's an all-too-common but improper approach: To select specific sources and guidelines to support/justify a particular point of view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

        Some of those conversations (or raging arguments, if you like) were so fast moving, it is difficult to remember what was meant at the time, I agree. But will you accept that if you can't remember now what you meant back then, then it might be an idea to pause and think before posting something next time? As I said above, would you phrase that differently if you found yourself in a similar situation in the future? That is the question I'm trying to get an answer to here. And the larger picture I keep trying to get people to look at is that there is a time and a place for everything (as Anythingyouwant says below). What may be borderline appropriate on ANI may be unacceptable on the talk page of a BLP. People who want to declaim at length about whether Wikipedia is open and welcoming for transgendered people absolutely should be able to do that, but in the right place. Blogging about it off-wiki is fine. Discussing it at the village pump or a discussion page set up for the purpose is fine. Having bitter lengthy arguments on the talk page of the Manning article is the wrong place. If we learn anything from this, it is to try and moderate our discussions better, and those who interject irascible and outspoken comments need to be called out (firstly on their talk page) by the rest of the community as part of keeping such discussions on track. Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

        Once it was presented to me, it looked familiar - and definitely too strong. As noted above, I might question judgment, but I would no longer use a dramatic and non-AGF term like "malfeasance". My complaint was, and still is, that sourcing did not back up renaming the article, and that BLP and MOS were being stretched by advocates. That doesn't mean they were acting in bad faith - it just means they had it wrong. They were looking at the subject through sympathetic eyes. That's understandable, and viewed through just that narrow lens, I share that sympathy - but it's got nothing to do with what the subject is notable for, which is committing crimes against America. Advocates had talked about renaming the article clear back in the spring, when the name of choice allegedly was "Breanna". I say allegedly because sourcing was so vague that it couldn't be justified, even by advocates, so it didn't happen. Supposedly the subject's newly-chosen and publicly announced name is mainstream now, so renaming the article is now appropriate. 2 months ago, or 6 months ago, it wasn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

        Thank-you. This discussion has helped, I think, though probably best to leave it there. Carcharoth (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

        You're welcome. I had already had more than enough of this topic by the end of August, and reliving it is painful. Y'all do as you will. It's a subject I would just as soon avoid from now on even there wasn't a topic ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

      • Presumably Bugs will answer Carcharoth, but I'd just like to interject that the venue for Bugs' comments is important. Such comments seem run- of-the-mill at WP:ANI, and they're also not much of a problem at user talk, but in article talk there may be much more of a problem .Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Beige! beige! Paint the bike shed beige! I think we're way past the point of diminishing returns. NE Ent 09:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Funny. Think of the countless hours spent on Wikipedia debating things like punctuation, spacing, and whether to spell a word with "-or" or "-our". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What colour should we paint the bikeshed? I think "malice" should be replaced with "bad faith". Somebody save us. Jehochman ^Talk 12:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Paint it transparent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How about replacing "accused other participants in the dispute of malice" with "accused other participants in the dispute of using Wikipedia to advance an agenda and in some cases, he was right." I mean, let's be honest here. We all know that Wikipedia is abused by POV pushers. This happens everyday in countless topic spaces. I don't edit I/P topic space, but we would all be fooling ourselves to say that there aren't pro-Palestinian editors who advance a pro-Palestinian agenda or that there aren't pro-Israel editors who advance a pro-Israel agenda. Bug's greatest crime appears to be pointing out the same problem in a different topic space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough, didn't someone raise the topic-ban question on WP:ANI, and wasn't it dismissed, only to be resurrected at ArbCom? Or am I mis-remembering? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Combining WP:AT and WP:BLP

Principle 12.1 of the Manning ArbCom case reads:

The biographies of living persons policy does not expressly address whether, when an individual has changed his or her name (for reasons of gender identity or any other reason), the article should be titled under the name by which the subject currently self-identifies or under the former or repudiated version of the individual's name. It may be desirable for the community to clarify the BLP policy or the article title policy to expressly address this issue, such as by identifying factors relevant to making this decision. In the interim, such issues are subject to resolution through ordinary Wikipedia processes, taking into account all relevant considerations. (Passed 8 to 0, 00:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

Taking the challenge, I put a proposal up for community discussion at WT:NCP#Subject preference proposal: the slim (policy level) version (that's also where I would group the discussion):

---

When the subject of a biography on living people prefers to be named differently from what would usually follow from Wikipedia's article titling policy, his or her biographic article can be renamed accordingly, so long as:

1. There is no ambiguity with regard to the name the subject prefers for his or her public persona
2. The name preferred by the subject is not unduly self-serving
3. The name preferred by the subject is generally recognisable, which usually entails sufficient media coverage
4. The name preferred by the subject results from an event that is deemed irreversible (at least, can't be reverted by the subject without the active participation of others) or, alternatively, is the name the subject received at birth.

---

I have no preference as to which policy page could be affected. WP:V is also a distinct possibility, as the current approach is much indebted to WP:ABOUTSELF --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Sexology (Neotarf)

Original Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Hell in a Bucket (talk) at 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Sexology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

[15]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [[16]] notified

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

[[17]] Discretional sanctions specifically apply to self identifying transgender people, in this case Tutelary is a transgendered woman and the comment saying that they are claiming to be a woman does violate that remedy. Also if you look at the issue of [[18]] which resulted in a topic ban after findings of fact which noted comments [[19]] identical to what was stated on ANI. The views at Arb Enforcement is that this is not article related therefore unactionable, I believe that the remedy includes treatment of "any" transgender person. Does this remedy only apply to BLP articles or editors as well? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I sent this in an email to NYB which was only part of my questions but I want to post this here too [[20]] under the subheading "Defamatory Terms" it reads "Gender identity is an integral part of a person's identity. Do not characterize transgender people as "deceptive," as "fooling" or "trapping" others, or as "pretending" to be, "posing" or "masquerading" as a man or a woman. Such descriptions are defamatory and insulting." Letting go the fact that this decision is closed ) which I will not pursue further I think a clarification is warranted for future reference. Apparently the drama meter is up right now and a big reason is because of the dispute of woman rights, civility and maintaining editing atmosphere that is not demeaning. I am quite sure User:Neotarf would agree on those principles. I also think that if it's established that the remarks are offensive Neotarf will refrain from making them but let's at least agree it's demeaning to a transgender person, the question is does this remedy only apply for articles or does it apply to other editors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear that my statement wasn't far off from what the actual remedy was and that the interpetation is shared by others. I'm curious User:NativeForeigner was this the edit you are supporting from WTT [[21]]? If the clarification is such that people willfully using the wrong pronoun is wrong then the committee should really address the Tutelary situation with all involved. The behaviors are disturbing if allegations are true and if not User:Tutelary is undergoing harassment that appears on the surface at least being abetted by this committee, various admin and User:Jimbo Wales. Again let me make it clear we can ignore the Neotarf part of this but this committee has an issue to handle it appears, I applaud the arbs that had the integrity to at least look at the question on it's merits and I thank you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Worm's original comment, not the followup gender comments. I'll try to check that aspect tomorrow. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carolmooredc

Frankly, like a lot of people until now I thought Manning discretionary sanctions regarding pronouns applied to editors and talk pages as well. The relevant passage is:

The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.

The problem is the phrase "any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning." sounds to some like it includes editors, despite the previous mention of articles.

Hell in a Bucket is not the only person to have misread this. I have been threatened with sanctions for once accidentally and once unknowingly calling two different transgender editors "he". I've been repeatedly badgered by someone (whether female or transgender, I'm not sure) who I admitted I only thought was a "he" but who finally admitted she was a "she", but doesn't advertise the fact. I guess I should ask her if that's what has her so ticked off. In fact I just noticed that this conversation - User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Simplicity_for_the_confusion - is mostly about people being not sure if it was effrontery to use he about an editor on a talk page. (This a sub-thread of another Hell in a Bucket posting on the topic.) Check it out.

I sure would like to see it made much clearer you are talking only about article space and not just article space. Anything that makes it a bit clearer in the actual section (bolding the word article or writing "only article", for example) would be a big help. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Sexology (Neotarf): Arbitrator views and discussion

• The context here is a closed AE thread in which the AE administrators concluded that (1) the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Sexology and Manning cases apply only to articles, not to noticeboard discussions, and (2) the single comment in question did not warrant action in any event. I perceive the second of these conclusions as clearly correct, and hence need not reach the first. This is not a useful request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• I see nothing requiring further action, broadly per Newyorkbrad. AGK [•] 09:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• I see no reason to disagree with the outcome of the AE thread. No action required here. Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  Interesting that we have similar clarifications on two different topics at the same time. I, too, understood that the discretionary sanctions regarding pronouns would apply to editors and talk pages. It's more difficult for administrators to make a decision, and I wouldn't expect everyone to know what gender other people are. However, if an editor is wilfully and knowingly using the incorrect pronouns, I'd expect that to be covered. Worm^TT(talk) 07:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Frankly, like a lot of people until now I thought Manning discretionary sanctions regarding pronouns applied to editors and talk pages as well, well count me in among those who thought that. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• An accidental slip-up on gender pronouns is certainly not cause for sanction. This is especially true given that many usernames, my own included, are essentially androgynous. On the other hand, if someone explicitly states "I see you referred to me as Y, I am actually X" and another editor keeps referring to them as "Y" to poke at them, that is an unacceptable personal attack (whether that other editor is transgender or not). With the ambiguity present, I don't disagree with the findings of the AE thread, but if we're allowing editors to continue to refer to others by gender pronouns they explicitly have said they don't identify as, we shouldn't. The safest route, I generally find, is just to use the singular they unless one knows for certain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Concurring with Brad, AGK, Worm. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Manning naming dispute (February 2019)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by MattLongCT at 01:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Manning naming dispute arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 15

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• MattLongCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Remedy 15

• Remedy 15 of Manning naming dispute is amended to read:

15) The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) "all edits about, and all pages related to... any gender-related dispute or controversy... broadly construed" continue to remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Gamergate case, not this one.

Statement by MattLongCT

I am seeking a clarification and proposed amendment to Manning concerning its current relevance in regards to enforceable actions. The case in question has not had a formal amendment since 2013. Currently, the case is in a grey area since it cites Sexology even though the case had its discretionary sanctions since rescinded. This has not been noted anywhere in the page for Manning.

However, it is listed in Wikipedia:General sanctions#Obsolete sanctions. Separately, Template:Ds/alert says:
Pages dealing with transgender issues including Chelsea Manning... and Manning naming dispute) ^{(superseded by the GamerGate decision.)} (Gamergate never explicitly did this according to its case page.)

I fail to see any consistency for what the exact status of Manning is supposed to be. In resolving this, my proposal is that the remedies continue forward with only a slight amendment to show that the case now serves as a clarification of Gamergate. This field of debate still has much activity, so in my view having this exact case to fall back on would be preferable. Gamergate did not once reference LGBT+ issues specifically, so I do not see the problem of having this Manning serve to supplement it.

For the record, this is my first time ever posting in WP:ArbCom, so that might be nice to know. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to SilkTork

It would be simpler to do that; I would agree. However, my preference is for an amendment over a rescision. One could reasonably interpret GamerGate as not including transgender or preferred pronoun debate. Maybe it's just me who has noticed it, but I don't think that Manning has been applied much since Gamergate was issued. For example, I took a look at discussions such as this one, and I can't seem to find a single instance where a person was formally notified of GamerGate DS (including users named in GamerGate). I did find instances of users being notified of the Sexology Discretionary Sanctions. For that particular discourse, I could not find a single instance of GG/DS applied during that Early June 2015 period (I found one GG/DS alert from months later).

In my view, if the committee felt that Sexology was too ambiguous in 2013 to find a need for Remedy 15 of Manning, then I would say that should go double for GamerGate. It's more broad than Sexology sure, but that is why this clarification is needed and would ensure that it is applied properly and consistently. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 22:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Secondary Statement by MJL

I have been keeping up with the statements made in this request. I have begun to notice that discussion has drifted away from my original question somewhat. Therefore, I am presenting this secondary statement.

First of all, in response to Katie's question, I am grateful of BU Rob13 for noting their December 2016 Request. However, I will state that I intentionally did not include in this request any mention of nor make any request related to GGTF. My intention was simply to clean up the issues associated with the inconsistent application of DS/alerts in LGBT-related topics.

Originally, my participation in this RfC brought me to this conclusion. To elaborate: though there is a gender-related dispute concerning the Matrix, the DS Talk page template has not been placed. I found this odd for such a controversial dispute.

Furthermore, and not to sound like a Wikilawyer, it is of my belief that by removing Remedy 15, the committee would give credence to those that might corrupt the committee's intentions for doing so. This could falsely give credence to the belief that Transgender-related topics are no longer controversial and don't fall under the DS regime anymore. There are certainly some parliamentary procedural viewpoints that may justify this view. I would rather keep Remedy 15 as it is rather than seeing it be striked in all honesty. It just leads to more questions of "intent of ArbCom." I primarily just want to avoid those disingenuous discussions before they really come up.

Penultimately, I will say that if the committee was to move to formally supercede GGTF, then they would also most likely have to amend or rescind Remedy 1.1 of Arbitration enforcement 2 which cites that case (more specifically this motion). The whole thing is rather complicated, so that is why I sticking with my original request. Otherwise we dig way too deep into the weeds here.

Finally, Guerillero just taught me a new idiom: Tempest in a teapot. I would say that would be a fair criticism to apply to this request, yeah. This is really just glorified housekeeping.

Thank you all! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 23:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to Opabinia regalis

I do agree with their concerns. Aesthetically, GGTF is a nicer case to put this all under, yet Gamergate was the one of the two to outgrow its original jurisdiction for whatever reason. However, we could just rename the case something like GGTF 2 or Gender-related Disputes if we are so inclined. Just a thought. I am happy with the current motion as it stands either way. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 16:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Seren Dept

The GamerGate scope seems purposely broad enough to cover earlier cases like Manning or GGTF, and similar issues in the future. I don't think anyone would win an argument claiming that transgender-related issues are outside of that scope, though I suppose it would be harmless to explicitly include them. I think the related DS are regularly applied and I would guess that editors in those areas are widely aware. Maybe warnings are not logged or aren't where you're looking, or maybe I'm wrong and it could be more widely publicized.

I guess narrowness is likable in sanctions, but for this I don't think it would be an improvement. Seren_Dept 03:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Alfie

I support this change - it doesn't make much difference to the way this remedy will be enforced, but nonetheless it's worth being explicit about these things. There are bad faith editors who will attempt to adhere to the word of the sanction and not the spirit - may as well tighten down the wording to match the intention. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 10:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

Seems like a storm in a teacup to me. Manning didn't create any sanctions; it was only reminding people of the sanctions that were already in place at the time of the case. The sanctions that were rescinded in the Sexology motion were de facto recreated when we voted to impose the GamerGate sanctions less than a year later. If people strongly care, you could redirect people to GamerGate to make it covered de jure, but that seems to be at the discretion of admins at AE on a particular request. As for GGTF, the sanctions 100% GamerGate sanctions.

The gender gap on Wikipedia is indisputably falls under any gender-related dispute or controversy. Since DS have been standardized for close to a decade and logging has happened on the same page for 5 years, deciding if the sanction should be logged in section A or section B is pretty much the only confusion that can happen. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Manning name dispute)

MattLongCT's idea to rename the case something like "Gender-related disputes" is a good one and not without precedent - "Footnoted Queries" was renamed by motion to "Editing of Biographies of Living Persons" when it outgrew it's original scope. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: As an alternative to renaming Gamer Gate or shoehorning this into GGTF you (the committee) could open a new case "Gender-related disputes" for the sole purposes of collating and renaming the existing sanctions. It would also provide a suitable and clear venue for future clarification or amendments requests to expand or contract the topic area covered or the sanctions applied without implying such were at all related to either Gamer Gate or the GGTF. This could of course be done (almost) equally well after the currently proposed motion passes ("almost" as it would require two lots of paperwork rather than one). Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Manning naming dispute: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse for this request for clarification based on my comment above. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Manning naming dispute: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting further statements, but this seems like a straightforward fix. I agree that transgender issues would fall under the GamerGate DS. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 15 doesn’t really need closing because it isn’t a DS authorization. It’s more just a reminder that there are DS out there that apply. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I invite statements on whether we should rescind DS in the GGTF case in favor of a similar remedy specifying that everything related to the GGTF is within the scope of GamerGate. That would put all gender-related disputes under one roof at the AELOG, which may be desirable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @KrakatoaKatie: For history, I asked for GGTF to be rescinded in favor of falling under GamerGate back in 2016. At the time, the Committee believed there wasn't 100% overlap, which I continue to disagree with. The "gender gap" in editors as a whole is certainly a controversy, in my opinion, and DS are purposefully construed broadly to cover any possible edge cases by association. There was also some question about continuity at the time, but no-one ever considered the possibility of redirecting the old "code" for GGTF to GamerGate as we recently did for the Balkans. We could even further make "gender" a code for GamerGate in the relevant templates, if we wished, to make it super easy to find them. I'll type up a motion tonight for both of these. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think re-naming cases years after they're closed is poor form and likely to make historical references to the case confusing. Let's just add "gender" as a code that targets GamerGate at {{Ds/alert}} and be done with it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Agree this needs fixing. Would it be simpler and cleaner to do with Manning as was done with Sexology? That is, close Remedy 15, and state that gender-related disputes are covered under Gamergate: [22]. SilkTork (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with SilkTork that closing Remedy 15 and moving these disputes to Gamergate is cleanest. And I've often wondered why GGTF and Gamergate haven't been moved together. Katie^talk 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry, I've fallen behind on ARCA lately, so this is a little late. I see the point here - there's lots of overlap between cases - but I'm not sure that consolidating everything under GamerGate is a good solution. In fact I dislike the idea of ever referencing GamerGate for any purpose other than talking about GamerGate. If I had my druthers (well, does anyone ever get just one druther?) I'd consolidate everything at GGTF, rather than referring all gender-related disputes to a page about a very specific, narrow individual example. (OK, yes, GGTF is also a specific example, but at least it's our own example.) Also, these issues get into the media every so often (a recent example) - more often than many other content-oriented disputes that have come to arbcom - which is not a context in which reanimating GamerGate-related disputes is desirable. IMO if we're going to reorganize these sanctions anyway, I'd prefer to stop giving unnecessary prominence to that specific incident. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Manning naming dispute

To consolidate and clarify gender-related discretionary sanctions, the Arbitration Committee resolves that:

1. Remedy 15 of the Manning naming dispute case is amended to read:

   The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" "all edits about, and all pages related to ... any gender-related dispute or controversy" and associated persons remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology GamerGate case, not this one.

2. Clause 2 of the February 2015 motion at the Interactions at GGTF case is struck and rescinded. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.
3. The following amendment is added to the Interactions at GGTF case:

   The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) "all edits about, and all pages related to ... any gender-related dispute or controversy" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the GamerGate case, not this one.

For these motions there are 8 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	5
1–2	4
3–4	3

Enacted - Miniapolis 16:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Noting that we don't have to modify other remedies from other cases that refer to the Interactions at GGTF discretionary sanctions, because they didn't refer to the use of those discretionary sanctions to impose new sanctions. That was a problem unique to the Manning naming dispute case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Worm^TT(talk) 11:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
4. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Katie^talk 21:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Windmill-tilting, I suppose. My issue is with the status quo, not the specific proposed modifications, but I dislike letting the opportunity pass by for fixing the objectionable feature of pointing all "gender-related disputes" to GamerGate. I don't want to rename that case (it got media attention in its own right, so a rename really would be confusing, even with redirects and whatnot). Pointing everything back to GGTF seems like the least-worst solution. I really, strongly believe that it is inappropriate to be directing new editors, in a topic area where we know there are specific recruiting efforts on that subject and where we know our miscues tend to attract media attention, to GamerGate-related material. But I have trouble putting my exact objections into words - "it's too Internetty" is kind of unsatisfying - and nobody else seems to mind, so maybe I'm the crazy one? Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

1. AGK ■ 18:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.