Wikipedia's conduct standards still apply here. Derogatory remarks about other people, outing, or incivility will be removed and the responsible editor will be blocked. Please contribute constructively to this process.

WP:ARBMND

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

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

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Question for Morwen

Q: @Morwen: why did you decide to move the article without following the appropriate process, in the first place? I understand you felt that the correct title should have been "Chelsea Manning", but, anticipating this action would probably be controversial, why did you think that the brief discussion on the talk page was sufficient?

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: As far as I was concerned, trans naming stuff was a settled issue, and I did not anticipate quite how controversial it would be among experienced users and editors. Morwen (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for David Gerard

Q: @David Gerard: I have read your (Morwen and David's) statement here, but my question is the following: when you protected "Chelsea Manning" and then moved the article again after it had been moved back to "Bradley Manning", citing BLP concerns, did you explain on the talk page the nature of those concerns? (For the moment, I have only found this, but, considering how much has been written about this issue, it's quite probable I might have missed something – in which case, I apologise in advance). My point is that invoking BLP is not enough to freeze the situation as is until a consensus develops to change it: unless the BLP concerns are immediately evident – and, in this case, they were not –, in my opinion, for an action to receive special protection, it's necessary that the person claiming said protection explain clearly (on the talk page or elsewhere), why he feels BLP applies.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: @Salvio giuliano: Going through my edits around the very first hour:

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

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

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

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

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

Q: @David Gerard: this admin action of yours seems to violate WP:INVOLVED. Would you please explain why you feel it did not or why you thought there were good reasons to ignore the rules regarding admin involvedness?

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, in this instance: my understanding of the chronology of events is that your involvement preceded the BLP actions you took, as you were arguing the article should be moved to "Chelsea Manning" on the talk page. Now, BLP actions may, in certain cases, create no involvement (where a person, for instance, removes libellous statements from an article he's never edited before); but that's not always so and here, taking into consideration your edits on the article's talk page, I fail to see how you could be considered anything but involved. Then again, you spontaneously apologised soon after your actions and have stopped acting in an admin's capacity wrt Manning's article, which is a good thing.

Thanks for your replies. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, I'll accept that was plausibly an INVOLVED violation, and I apologise to everyone else for that too. Thanks - David Gerard (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:FormerIP

Proposed principles

Community approach to disruption

1) It is important that discussion about content on English Wikipedia is focused and conducted in an atmosphere conducive to good decision-making. This is particularly true in cases where discussion is contentious and likely to inflame passions. Editors, including administrators, are therefore expected in such cases to identify, deal with and discourage disruptive behaviour. Disruptive behaviour may include contributions which appear designed to wind up other editors or at which offence may reasonably be taken, as well as contributions which are off-topic or demonstrate a misunderstanding as to the purpose of the discussion. In all cases, action should be taken politely, firmly and impartially.

Comment by Arbitrators:

FormerIP, I fixed a couple of typos and made one minor copyedit. Hope my edits are okay with you. AGK [•] 20:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discussing gender on Wikipedia

2) For the purposes of discussion of content on English Wikipedia, a person's gender is primarily a question of personal choice, their gender presentation, their self-identification and their identification by others. It should not ordinarily be considered a question of law, morality, anatomy or genetics. Decisions about how to present a person's gender on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources and should reflect consideration of what preferences they are known to have expressed as well as how other writers have referred to them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@FormerIP: yes, MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, but, as {{MoS-guideline}} clearly states Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. So it should not necessarily be considered gospel in every case.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 13:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I disagree with this one - you are taking one side of a contentious and extremely complex debate and attempting to legislate behavior on discussion pages accordingly. As an example, read this piece, by a post-op trans woman, [7], on whether trans women can be "real" women. She says: "So what is the solution? Well, let’s be clear on one thing from the start. As M to F transsexuals, we can never be real women. However distasteful we may find it, and however hard some transsexuals may argue against it, the inescapable fact is that we’ve grown up with gender privilege." Read the rest of the article to understand the context, but I think it's a great illustration of the fact that there is no one truth here, and there is no final arbiter on how gender is addressed in society. Instead, we could accept the following:

It is considered more polite to refer to person X as either 'she' or 'he' depending on their preference, and this applies to talk page discussions. Nonetheless, no sanctions should be applied if someone chooses to use the other pronouns - in the same way we wouldn't apply sanctions if someone declined to use "they" or "V" as a pronoun to refer to someone who eschews traditional pronouns.
In general, debating on talk pages whether given trans* person X is a "man" or a "woman" is not helpful and should be avoided - from EITHER side - given that whether a trans* person is really and truly and honestly 100% "X" is a subject of debate in the broader community and its resolution is ultimately irrelevant here. As an example, if we established that Manning was 100% the gender 'woman' and 100% of the English-speaking planet agreed, how would we shape the article differently than if we established that 75% of the population believed Manning was not 100% the gender 'woman' but was rather a transgendered woman? Ultimately, it's an interesting argument for the sociologists of gender studies, but its resolution is irrelevant here, and we don't gain anything by discussing it. This is why one of the guidelines for the next move discussion is roughly "Do not share your POV that Manning is a man/woman" as it has absolutely NOTHING to do with what title the article should have.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Note that this concerns parameters for discussion not content. It clarifies that WP:COMMONNAME does not make all other considerations irrelevant, which I think is a clarification that needs making. Formerip (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOSIDENTIY and its "all or nothing" pronoun approach appears to go against the stated desire of Manning.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have evidence of that, although I agree that a conflict between MOSIDENTITY and a person's stated preferences is something that will occur in some cases. This is because MOSIDENTITY is defective. However, it is a guideline. Formerip (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the lack of evidence, though we could reasonably assume that some transgendered people might prefer their "before" name/gender to be used in their pre-transition phase of life, as Manning has presumably stated. Rigid interpretation of guideline needs to be balanced with common sense.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposals by User:Kww

Proposed principles

BLP is not a shield for misbehaviour or poor judgement

1) WP:BLP, while broad-reaching, does not provide a shield of invincibility to protect admins from sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Has there been any suggestion that BLP has been used in this way? If so, could I please be pointed towards it? AGK [•] 21:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Also agree with UltraExactZZ - so long as the rationale is clearly stated and particularly if it is a contentious issue it should include an actual explanation of what exactly the decision was based on as was never, that I can find, done in this instance. Of course a misinterpretation repeatedly applied with a good explanation of why they think something other than the consensus of the meaning is correct should also not be considered a shield from sanctions. --Sam Bingner ^\ talk / 08:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The powers afforded by WP:BLP are undermined by misuse

2) False use of WP:BLP by all editors, not just administrators, undermines this important policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

I disagree: this would basically declaw the BLP policy. In my opinion, when an admin a. has a good-faith belief that BLP is being violated, and b. that this violation may cause harm or distress to the article's subject or to another living person and, unless the situation would be obvious to anyone, c. explicitly states his concerns on the article's talk page (or elsewhere, when appropriate), then, even if said sysop violates WP:WHEEL, his actions are justified. It doesn't matter if a subsequent discussion were to conclude that his interpretation was wrong.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 00:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where BLP is concerned, people's actions matter most; their intentions matter less. Thus, whether somebody believes their version of content better satisfies BLP is irrelevant; what matters is whether their version really does better satisfy content. AGK [•] 21:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an inaccurate generalisation: while I agree that intent has no bearing on the determination of which version better satisfies BLP or whether an editor's actions violated said policy, that's not what this case is about. Here we are dealing with proactive actions taken by an administrator with the intent of preventing harm to a living person; if we adopt your approach, then these cases risk becoming a gamble, whereas BLP in my opinion mandates that we adopt a precautionary approach. This means that when an editor changes an article to remove material which he, in good faith, believes to be in contravention of BLP and states his reasons clearly, then there should be no monday-morning quarterbacking, even if consensus later determines that he was wrong. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

There is no such "good faith belief that WP:BLP suggests or prefers your version". Policy never suggests or prefers content. It's never written that way. Removal of material until consensus is reached is the only action justified by BLP. Whether thats blanking, deleting or removal by edit. "preferred version" differences is an edit war and not in the BLP policy anywhere. Ever. See Alexis Reich or Lori Klausutis. Jimbo's vote was one of the first BLP-type deletion actions for decency. It was a personal appeal from her family to remove her article. He can correct me if my memory is wrong. There are obvious ranges of deletion appropriate for each instance. But remove is the WP:BLP course of action. If it can be corrected in the same edit as the removal, so be it, but it should be obvious if the edit doesn't stick, delete it. -DHeyward (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

NorthBySouthBaranof, you said yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would primarily serve to reduce the chronic abuse of BLP. If there's an unambiguous BLP concern, WP:ANI is only a few keystrokes away.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, the problem I see with your version of how BLP should operate in this context is that you seem to make it surplus to requirements, which policy clearly does not intend. If an adminstrative action needs universal backing to be valid on the basis of BLP, isn't it already valid on the basis of WP:BOLD, WP:IAR and the simple logic that if no-one objects to what you do then you can do it? Can you explain how this is not so? Formerip (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how wheel-warring can ever exist in the absence of a strong objection? Wheel-warring isn't a single revert of a reverted action, it's reverting the reversion of a reverted action. The dispute is inherent in the violation.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an answer. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that BLP policy gives administrators special authority to act. You seem to be saying that this special authority only extends to cases where there is authority to act anyway. I don't think this makes sense. Can you explain to me what it is that I am not getting? Formerip (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the exemption in WP:BLP extends only to the list of things explicitly called out by WP:BLP, not to judgement calls. Wheel-warring, edit-warring, use of admin tools to protect your position in a dispute, these things are justified by actual violations of WP:BLP. If the issue is hazy enough (such as a press release by an individual that acknowledges that people may continue to use the old name) that people are likely to believe that your BLP concern is false, you shouldn't be relying on BLP to bypass normal rules.—Kww(talk) 23:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so how do we tell what is an actual violation of BLP and what isn't? You seem to be saying that something is only an actual violation of the policy if nobody disagrees, which would make a mockery of the policy and render it completely pointless in this context. Formerip (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you want to use the policy for. Anyone that wheel-warred against an admin that insisted on reverting to a version of an article that included improperly sourced or libelous material would be safe. That's far from a "mockery", that's what the policy is for.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does depend on what you want to use the policy for. If you want to use the policy at all, it needs to have some effect. What you seem to be saying is that anyone who wants to revert improperly sourced or "libelous" material is safe so long as no-one objects. That's a completely worthless kind of safety. Seriously, I was imagining that there must have been some aspect to your argument that needed teasing out, Kww, but I really think your battleship is sunk on this one. Formerip (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple argument, and no "teasing out" is required. WP:BLP only provides an absolute mandate in a very limited, very narrow set of cases. Wheel-warring when it's outside of that very limited set of cases should not be permitted. There's a general consensus about what kinds of sources are suitable for BLPs, and and admin can reasonably be expected to know when a BLP based action is justified in those limited cases. If it's a fuzzy situation, wheel-warring is unjustifiable.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Libelous" under which law? What constitutes an "improper" source? You keep offering terms that are imprecise and subject to reasonably-differing interpretations in differing applications. That's why we have community consensus processes to work out those interpretations — and why we default to "do no harm" until the community has a chance to examine the competing claims. The issue here is no different — there are two differing interpretations of BLP policy, and you have yet to establish why we should view David Gerard's interpretation of BLP in this matter as unreasonable. That a relatively-narrow majority of community participants !voted that the article should remain at Bradley Manning does not in any fashion establish unreasonableness — in fact just the opposite, given that it was not an overwhelming vote in either direction, but rather a hotly-contested policy debate with many reasonable, well-founded arguments made on each side. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias follow sources, and respond slowly to changes

4) As an encyclopedia, we are expected to have inertia and to respond slowly, following reliable sources. This is the core of WP:V. This can result in situations where material was neutral, balanced, and factual at the time it was inserted, but can be considered to have BLP issues later as a result of outside events. In such cases, there is no need to respond on an emergency basis, and consensus should be sought as to how to apply the outside events to the material. Attempts to get ahead of sources can not be justified based on WP:BLP.

Comment by parties:

The idea of inertia is belied by the fact that we cover current events. The latter part of this proposal undermines the entire point of BLP. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Phil: the point of BLP is to prevent unsourced and poorly sourced material from being retained, not to turn us into a newspaper. No one could argue that "Bradley" was objectionable material the day before the announcement. Formerip: it's not a virtue so much as a consequence of being an encyclopedia that neutrally reports what is being said in outside sources. Neutrally reporting what is being said in outside source is a virtue: it's what we are for.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disagree. Even absent the BLP issue, why should responding slowly be considered a virtue? Formerip (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is too dependent on the situation to make a good general case. All MOS:IDENTITY requires is a verifiable statement by a subject about their gender (or religious, etc) identity, and primary sources are not just sufficient but best for that. Wikipedia should respond promptly when facts change, that is a virtue, and all that matters for BLP is that something is (potentially) harmful now, it is irrelevant for how long it has been harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

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

1) WP:BLP, as written at the time the dispute was entered, did not mandate either "Bradley Manning" or "Chelsea Manning" as an article title.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Of course it didn't. Policy is generalised and never provides for every eventuality. AGK [•] 22:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

" BLP mandates a title that does not cause harm to the subject." That isn't what BLP says, nor is that the spirit of BLP. The closet thing in BLP that supports your position is that editors must exercise judgment in statements that may cause harm.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so BLP allows us to harm living persons, as long as it's in the title? I want to make sure I understand your point. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 02:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a strawman response. BLP requires statements that may cause harm to be impeccably sourced. Editor discretion is required to determine if those statements are germane to the article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There s also our Content disclaimer as well that could come into play. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a strawman response at all. My understanding of BLP, and the intent behind BLP, is that harm to living persons is to be avoided. Your position is that harm to living persons is permissible if the statement is properly (and impeccably) sourced. OK, fair enough. But now comes the title - the subject has identified as a transgendered person with a new name and a new gender identity. Sources confirm this. The continued use of masculine pronouns and the subject's birth name as the title of the article could cause harm to the subject. The use of the new name has no such potential. Both names are sourced, and redirects can easily address any concerns about finding the article (either way). Given those choices - a name that will not harm the subject, and a name that might harm the subject - what possible argument would mandate that we keep a name that could cause harm to the subject? Or is it your position that we wait for the old name to cause harm before moving the article? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Or is it your position that we wait for the old name to cause harm before moving the article?" -- That is another strawman. I'll say it again another way. There are 2 factors where "harm" may be introduced into the article; 1) the information is well sourced and 2) it is relevant or necessary to the article. While "do no harm" sounds like a lofty goal, it is counterproductive to providing necessary information in articles. Now for Manning, no one is denying factor (1). Factor (2) is open for debate. A debate worth having btw.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're reading a different version of Straw man than I am - I believe your accusation is counterproductive. But whatever. As to your comment - I agree, no one denies factor 1 (though the same can be said for both Bradley and Chelsea Manning, thus another issue). Either name could be valid on a sourcing basis, ignoring other factors. So that's a wash. But factor 2 is where the problem sits. For an administrator who believes (not unreasonably) that the issue of identifying transgendered persons by their claimed identity is a settled issue, leaving the article at Bradley Manning had the potential to harm the article's subject. When an alternative title that does not have that potential exists, moving the article over to that title (and the later move protection) seem to be reasonable actions.

We seem to be discussing two different issues, as they relate to this proposed principle. BLP doesn't mandate one title over the other. But does it mandate the title that has the least potential to harm the subject, where two well-sourced alternatives exist? I would argue that it does - or (at the very least) that it would be reasonable for an administrator to believe, in good faith, that it does. If there is an alternative title that does not harm the subject, the title that does do harm is no longer necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But does it mandate the title that has the least potential to harm the subject, where two well-sourced alternatives exist? I would argue that it does. But at the very start of this there was only one well sourced option, Bradley. "Least harm" is once again an editorial decision that needs to be balanced with respect towards the subject and towards the sources cited and ultimately the reader.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some might disagree - the name Chelsea Manning did not just pop into being, it came from somewhere - and was documented in some sources. But let's keep it simple and stipulate that both names had sourcing. With two titles, one that might cause harm and one that likely would not, which would be more compliant with the dictates of BLP? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 00:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one that the sources prefer seems the logical choice.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POVNAME the one used by the sources would be the one to go with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is an important part of this, Ultraexactzz. Don't think about what sourcing there is today, or even an hour after this warring started. At the precise instant that the warring began, what sourcing was there? What harm would have been done if Wikipedia had not been the first major site to change names, and continued using the same nomenclature as every existing news source at that instant?—Kww(talk) 01:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's the implication, then and now, that trans people's identities don't reserve the same respect as cis people's do. Ananiujitha (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that anything I've said carries that implication. I believe that Wikipedia should follow the lead of third-party sources, not get ahead of them, but that's not a sign of disrespect for Manning's preferences.—Kww(talk) 02:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what you were saying either. I think that's what the title implies, though, especially after the reversal. Ananiujitha (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be what you infer, but that's not what the title implies. -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sourcing is important - critically important. But there were some sources that confirm that the subject had asked to be identified as Chelsea Manning. There were more sources for Bradley Manning, obviously, and many predate that announcement. My point is not that we should ignore the sources, but rather that we should look at how BLP would treat a situation where two names had sources, and one of those two names might harm the subject. Once we sort out what BLP should do in that hypothetical situation, we can then apply that to the facts of this case. In this context, that would then lead us to ask if David Gerard could reasonably have believed, in good faith, that keeping the old name would violate BLP. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP intersects with other policies. WP:MOSIDENTITY+BLP could reasonably be considered to require the move. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IDENTITY specifically calls out other policies to take precedence when the name of the subject is in dispute. Those other policies favored Bradley at the time of the alleged BLP violation. So how can one interpret IDENTITY+BLP to have required a move to Chelsea? DPRoberts534 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT other policies? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will read to you from MOS:IDENTITY: "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article." There is no other part of IDENTITY that applies here. DPRoberts534 (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.. And which of those are in dispute with MOSIDENTITY in this case? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first sentence, and literally all IDENTITY has to say about this case. There was a dispute over the title. V, NPOV, and TITLE address the issue. TITLE, in particular COMMONNAME, POVNAME, and TITLECHANGES, require that the title be Bradley. I don't think there is any way that IDENTITY could reasonably be construed to require Chelsea. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is not violated, because it is verifiable in reliable sources that the subject regards their name as "Chelsea Manning"; WP:NPOV is not a violation of NPOV to call a subject by their own name, indeed by continuing to use "Bradley" we are endorsing the POV that a trans* person's birth name is the correct name to use for them (a POV that is offensive to trans* people); WP:TITLE is not violated because it is always permissible to use the name of the subject as the name of the article (even though in some cases other titles are better, that is never wrong); WP:COMMONNAME is not violated because at the time of the move there was insufficient evidence for there to be a common name (given that sources from before the announcement of the name change are irrelevant), and common name is not required (evidence is that articles about plants are at their scientific name); WP:POVNAME is not relevant because both "Bradley" and "Chelsea" endorse one side of an argument; WP:TITLECHANGES is not relevant either - there was a good reason to change and there was no reason for Morwen or anyone else to think it would be controversial (given that WP:BLP, MOS:IDENTITY and precedent as they were at the time all agreed that "Chelsea" was the correct title. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Morwen didn't think it would be controversial doesn't make it not controversial. Do you need evidence that a public figure announcing a new identity is controversial? Also, you haven't established that IDENTITY required a move to Chelsea in the face of opposition, as asserted by Adam. Saying that BLP+IDENTITY required a move because BLP+IDENTITY requires it is clearly circular reasoning. You have asserted a precedent that Chelsea was the correct title, and that is an interesting line of argument. Can you show a "previous consensus" for a case like this, where a notable public figure announces a new identity and we move the article on receipt of the announcement? I can show you several examples where consensus went the other way. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard wheel-warred

2) David Gerard falsely claimed WP:BLP support for his actions and abused his admin tools to preserve his position in the underlying dispute.wheel-warred. Since WP:BLP did not mandate the title that he chose, his wheel-warring and use of protection represents a (perhaps unintentional) abuse of admin powers. Dropping this. While I have concerns about the use of move protection relative to the moves and reverts, I can't pinpoint an act that meets the technical description of "wheel-warring".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Findings like these need to include diffs, as a courtesy to all of us. AGK [•] 22:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The burden of proof always remains with those making the edit or claiming the violation. That is the precedent on Wikipedia and I've never seen that broken, even for BLP claims. Perhaps we have some very slight miscommunication here, as I don't imagine you would dispute this. Maybe you're saying that it's okay to removal material that you believe violates BLP before proving that it's a violation. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what the policy says and means — it is OK to remove material that one has a good-faith belief violates BLP, then initiate a discussion based on one's rationale, and the material must remain removed until community consensus determines otherwise. The relevant policy and ArbCom precedent has been cited. The required burden of proof in the following discussion is a subject for community consensus to determine, but we default to "do no harm" pending that discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Do no harm" is not part of BLP as I read it. If something is verifiable and relevant to the topic then it is eligble for inclusion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ethical implications of writing Wikipedia articles about living people has been recognized for years. Longstanding ArbCom precedent established that while many things may be eligible for inclusion, Wikipedia is not obligated to include anything — that the community can make valid editorial decisions about what belongs in a biography and what doesn't. From that principle, longstanding ArbCom precedent also established that when there is a potential for a biography to cause harm or undue intrusion into a person's life, we err on the side of caution when debating the suitability and encyclopedicity of any material. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes#Principles:

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

That principle was established in 2008. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google search shows the background of the discussion around "do no harm", which shows it was very short lived and it was removed from the BLP policy also in 2008. That the arbitration team quoted from BLP then is not binding on BLP now. But that is beside the point. Balance is needed for the desire to protect the subject from unnecessary harm and that of communicating reliably sourced and relevant facts. Another issue I see brought up is that somehow BLP applies to editors, readers and classes of people. I suspect that unless there is an intersection of "living person" (an editor who reveals their "real life" identity perhaps?) then BLP is not applicable as no individual is identified. That TG people may take offense at the use of "Bradley" in the title or article, while unfortunate, shouldn't act as a trump card if the information is deemed relevant.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that what is "necessary" and what is "unnecessary" can only be determined through consensus. The principle of BLP is that information that causes harm or potentially causes harm must be excluded unless and until there is consensus for its inclusion. BLP does apply to every living person - in article space we include only information that is encyclopaedically relevant, which means that we exclude all information about people who are not notable. In the talk namespace we can include information that may or may not be relevant for the sole purpose of determining its relevance but only the minimum necessary for the discussion. When it comes to harming editors, we should be including any information anywhere that harms editors when there is no reason for it. For example comparing trans* people is very offensive to trans* people (and other people too) and it is not necessary to include that information in a discussion about what title Chelsea Manning's article should have so there is no justification for it to appear anywhere. More geneally though the key policy for protecting editors is WP:OUTING. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a point that has not been identified is the possible difference between removing something just added that is believed to possible be hurtful vs removing something that was already present for years and widely known but somehow believed to suddenly be hurtful. If somebody went into an article and changed the title to call a trans-gender person the opposite of what they are known as, it would be a clear BLP violation; however when the item is common knowledge, it is just as clearly not a BLP violation (because it can not possibly cause harm due to the existing common knowledge) to leave that common knowledge in place until consensus can be achieved. This seems to me to be simple logic, but not directly identified in this discussion. --Sam Bingner ^\ talk / 09:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

2.102.187.12, why did you attempt three times to delete Thryduulf's evidence? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=571996598 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=571996853 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=571997071

You received a warning and a block and deleted both from your talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.102.187.12&diff=prev&oldid=572199772

You also have a pattern of edits which literally prioritize men over women. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Armed_Forces&diff=prev&oldid=572215311

And gender essentialist edits to femininity. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Femininity&diff=prev&oldid=571985551 Ananiujitha (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said why in the edit summaries. It also sounds more appropriate for my talk page. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently blanked your talk page. twice. so why discuss this there? (I was under the impression, perhaps wrong, that you deleted active blocks and that bots would delete inactive/expired ones.)

You claimed "It is the standard in English to have male then female - "him or her", "male and female", "men and women", "he or she", etc. It's needlessly distracting to change break that here" but that's not "standard," it's often considered sexist, so that's not any kind of justification. (Or not any kind of justification for anyone for whom your standard is not the standard.)

You removed evidence on the grounds that it was a "personal attack" (I for one don't think it was a personal attack, it was primarily evidence of the hostile environment rather than the attitudes of the named editors. I suppose Thryduulf could delete the names and retain most of the meaning of the evidence.)

You changed the meanings of several passages and described this as "various minor edits." Ananiujitha (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings and a block notice is very different to being asked about my edits. It seems like you just wanted to allege that I'm a misogynist (though you removed that PA later) to discredit me in this discussion.

As I posted on the talk page [8], it may well be sexist but the English language is what it is. Distracting readers with these abnormalities is a very good justification to fix it, in my opinion.

"riven with personal biases and ignorance of transgenderism" is a personal attack when directed at people. I didn't notice the notice at the top of the page (the huge one there now wasn't there) and so I removed those attacks.

I'm not sure they did change the meaning, plus I noted that I also removed a paragraph that was inadequately sourced so the edit would be checked regardless. As for changing the meaning, the information was still the same, but by replacing the negative/editorialising words "stereotype", "perpetuate" and "traditionally", I made it NPOV compliant. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it may well be sexist but the English language is what it is." well, you see your edits there as some sort of standard, I don't, and I don't know where you're getting this standard from. I do run into disagreements over what "the language" is, who have "standard" meanings that are far from any meanings I've known. And "stereotype" and "traditionally" have specific meanings that you changed.

Anyway, I was rechecking the evidence page's history, and was startled by the deletions there, and checked your contributions while trying to figure out what was going on. I misinterpreted things to think you were working around a current block, and that's why I raised these issues. If you want, we can delete this thread. Ananiujitha (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am under a lot of stress, and that screws with my thinking. Sorry about that. Ananiujitha (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever seen females preceding males in the English language in specific circumstances, such as discussing job discrimination or spousal abuse, in which the focus is on women. Yes, I guess the meaning was changed. Ah, I see. I didn't really think it was to discredit me, as I didn't post much here and it wasn't of much significance. I'll hat this discussion as comments are generally supposed to stay. That's all right, no harm done. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the case, as per the evidence page. BLP does not excuse him from this, especially since there was significant opposition already on the talkpage. Them From Space 19:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) David Gerard is enjoined from using administrative tools on any article related to transgenderism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Actually, I'll revise my opinion. Allowing wheel-warring on the basis that one admin does not understand an action taken by another admin would be a recipe for chaos. It should be enough that admins are under an obligation to provide a clear explanation if challenged. ~~In this case, Tariqabjotu asked for an explanation of how BLP applied, but only after reversing the page-move. It would have been better to seek the clarification first.~~ (I may have this wrong in terms of the order of events.) Formerip (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still perplexed with this approach. What if I wanted to perform a different action? Would I have needed to ask David first to make sure that action I wanted to do wasn't something he saw as a BLP violation? It doesn't look like the editor who performed this edit (or any other edit after David's protection) first asked David if he felt that was a BLP violation, so would you argue s/he should have done that? I didn't see my action as a BLP violation, and I saw no indication from anyone -- particularly from the protecting admin -- that it was. What would have spurred me, or anyone performing an action they personally didn't believe constituted a BLP violation, to ask the protecting admin for permission first? This is why the admin who claims the BLP violation needs to explain what they see as the violation. If they don't and an editor does something the admin feels is a BLP violation, they have little recourse to argue that editor willfully did something violating the BLP policy (which I understand is not an accusation you're not making, but is one David is). -- tariqabjotu 14:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is about wheel-warring and use of tools, so I think asking about how the same principles would apply in completely different circumstances is a red herring.

Because we are talking about tools, no you are not entitled to an action simply because you don't see it as a BLP violation. That's just your view, and you may not use tools simply to enforce your view - particularly after BLP has been raised. If everyone did that, there would be chaos. This edit and this edit notified you that David Gerard considered there to be a BLP issue as far as the pagemove was concerned. That should lead to the presumption that the pagemove sticks until there is consensus against it. It might have been been another story had you sincerely believed that DG could not possibly have had any reasonable argument. However, you acknowledge a little later, at the end of this discussion, that the thing is indeed arguable both ways.

It's true that DG could (and should) have given a fuller explanation of the BLP issue early on. But surely you must have had a pretty good idea of how that would go in any case? You clearly didn't agree with it, but that doesn't licence your revert.

To be clear, I don't think you should be sanctioned but I do think you made a bad call against policy. Formerip (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@FormerIP: Yes, it notified me there was a BLP issue as far as the pagemove was concerned (although I should point out the confusion that he also semi-protected the article, which even Thryduulf has repeated in his evidence), but neither of those diffs have David saying he felt the name Bradley Manning constituted a violation, let alone why. You may have inferred that information, but it does not say that. He could have just as easily been concerned that the visibility of Manning's announcement would attract page-move vandals (note that "highly visible page" was part of the protection reason). He just was not clear. I have not now or ever stated that I was in my right to move the article because I disagreed with David's assessment. No, the problem is that, as far as I could tell, he never stated until the time of my move that he felt the Bradley name was a violation. It may have been obvious to him and you and several other people that he thought the Bradley Manning name was a violation, and why. But I can't read David's mind; stop criticizing me for not being able to do so. If David had said I'm move-protecting the article because "Bradley Manning" is a BLP violation, infringing on the subject's privacy, I would have strongly disagreed with his assessment, but I wouldn't have moved the article.

And that comment you point out with me stating that it is arguable both ways? That's something called assumption of good faith. That comment came after David's moveback to Chelsea Manning citing BLP (making it abundantly clear David felt Bradley Manning constituted a violation). At the time of my move, I didn't think there could possibly be any reasonable argument for saying that the name "Bradley", one the entire world had known the subject by until that point and which was mentioned in the first line of the article, constituted a BLP violation. That's why, in the absence of David explicitly saying he thought it was a violation, I didn't think that was what David was invoking BLP for. But, obviously, with David specifically calling that name a violation [in the moving reason], someone (i.e. David) thought there was one. By the time I made that comment, I had not heard what that argument was. I couldn't even guess what the argument was (hence my disbelief that that is what he felt constituted a BLP violation). However, from the simple act that someone cited BLP as a reason to reverse the change, I assumed he had explanation. Hence, I assumed good faith by defending him against the accusation of wheel-warring, which a reasonable BLP invocation would protect him from.

Please afford me the same assumption by not insisting I didn't "sincerely" believe something. Please afford me the same assumption by not insisting "surely you must have had a pretty good idea of how that would go". Please afford me the same assumption by not insisting I "clearly didn't agree with it". If you want to continue to insist you know better than me what I believe and believed, I have zero interest in responding to you further. -- tariqabjotu 01:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, now that I think about it, this is getting off-topic. My comment here, and yours prior, seem irrelevant. If you want to argue that David did explain his actions sufficiently (or not), okay, but that's not germane to whether -- in a general sense -- admins who invoke BLP should explain themselves, at least in "non-obvious cases". -- tariqabjotu 02:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have grounds to complain of terseness in the explanations of others. I quote from you in a separate incident around the time of the Manning discussion:

It's kind of tough to predict who will complain and in what manner. I'm only going to provide explanations when the results are hard to decipher, which, despite your inquiries here, does not describe either of these move requests. It's commonplace that someone who had a counter opinion in a move request ends up unhappy [9][10]

Now, do you really think that more and longer explanations would have satisfied the person you're responding to there? Or, was their true objection to you having taken the action in the first place, and if they'd written 100,000 words to this effect that would still be the true objection, not your explanation of it? - David Gerard (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll note also that my explanation - "MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP" - terse as it was, was accepted per se by several editors as a valid concern in that first couple of hours:[11][12][13][14][15][16] - not all, but it is incorrect to maintain the explanation was incomprehensible or broadly unacceptable. Your statement then comes down to "the move was explained, and the explanation accepted by several editors, but I don't personally accept it therefore it doesn't count as an explanation." I don't think that's a reasonable bar for an urgent BLP action - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diversity of opinions

2) Wikipedia is a diverse community representing people from all over the world with differing cultural and political views. It is sometimes the case that such views will clash and create a heated environment. Reasonable freedom of expression is desirable in order to gain a consensus representative of the established view on subjects of encyclopedic interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is important to emphasize. Not everyone is going to be of the same mind on a subject. It is only through mutual respect of the opinions of other editors that consensus is possible.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bigotry

3) Editors expressing differing views on a content dispute should not be subject to accusations of bigotry. In cases where comments are particularly egregious and persistent, concerns should be addressed through normal dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I notice no one is really addressing this with a principle, even though we have plenty about the other side. The problem with people throwing around the term "transphobic" whenever someone disagrees with a specific opinion about transgenderism is that it offers little to the discussion and equates a legitimate difference of opinion with hate speech.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

David Gerard

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

@Tariqabjotu: I did look through your edits around the discussion, and I want to state here, for the record, that I don't consider your actions to have been motivated by deliberate transphobia - your misgendering the article subject was a one-off, and your attempts to penalise someone calling out the hideously transphobic tone of many comments seems a sincere desire for calm (though I'm having trouble with your claim that blatant bigotry is just "a different take on what is, ultimately, a social construct", given your vehement claim to be informed on transgender) - your concerns were (and please do correct me on this, I've almost certainly oversimplified) that process had not been sufficiently followed, and that barring an explanation you were personally convinced by, that was sufficient to move it back per WP:RMT in the face of a BLP action. Your repeated claims that I didn't explain it even after you commented answering me doing so two paragraphs above, your repeated assertions that Morwen's initial move was without discussion, and your direct refusal to stop asserting this provably false assertion really did come across to me at least as querulous, but I do understand that this stemmed purely from frustration that, despite the many diffs to the contrary, you sincerely felt explanations had not been offered.

But I'd like you to consider a hypothetical world in which BLP policy is applied very broadly, per Foundation-emphasised norms; where any and all means at an administrator's disposal, including page protection, to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the BLP policy is authorised and administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so; where material in a BLP should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached; where Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should not be interpreted mechanically, with a focus on their letter, but commonsensically, with a focus on their spirit or purpose; and where it was unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. How should this case be determined in that world? Would your actions and their motivations hold up? - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have interacted a number of times over the past three weeks to varying degrees, and you have shown repeatedly that you see your position on everything surrounding this saga to be absolute. There's your position and view, and then there's bigotry and lies. Your comment here is a continuation of that philosophy (and redirecting attention from your actions to mine, as if they're relevant here [see the title of this section]).

Your first paragraph is regurgitation of your same talking points, couched as the Truth™. You've cleared me of deliberate transphobia (yes, not all transphobia) only upon reviewing all my edits, as if I was guilty until proven innocent by the Almighty. You suggest referring to Manning using "he", even in reference to past events, is bigotry. You suggest I wanted to penalize a defender of high moral standard. You say I defended "blatant bigotry". You once again assert that you explained your actions sufficiently at the time they occurred, despite multiple editors seeing otherwise. You say I'm perpetuating a falsehood for suggesting four lines doesn't constitute sufficient discussion. And, of course, you shove words into my mouth, saying that I felt that "barring an explanation [I was] personally convinced by, that was sufficient to move it back per WP:RMT in the face of a BLP action", knowing damn well that is not how I feel or how I ever felt.

But, of course, you'll say something about how you're actually giving me the benefit of the doubt by (condescendingly) saying you "do understand that this stemmed purely from frustration" and (patronizingly) conceding that I "sincerely felt explanations had not been offered" despite you repeatedly explaining the Truth™. You'll remark that you're actually giving me an opportunity to set the record straight, knowing full well you'll repeatedly object with a circuitous version of No, you're lying again!. And, naturally, you'll suggest that this comment here was perfectly genuine, even though its backhandedness is totally transparent.

David, please don't treat me like an ass. If you want to call me a liar and a bigot, just do so; don't phrase your characterization in terms that present plausible deniability. And you know what? I truly wouldn't care. I couldn't care less what someone so rigid thinks of me. You, thankfully, do not decide this case, and, more importantly, you don't decide who I am as a human being. If you want to provide evidence of your holiness, the Evidence page is there for you. If you want to suggest some sanction against me for the crime of not reading your mind, for not deciphering what you considered to be a BLP violation (and why), you're already on the right page. But I do not need, now or ever, to respond to any question from you, and I request you never pose one to me again, as you have no standing to do so after rudely rebuffing editors -- including me -- for days on the issue that brought us to ArbCom today. -- tariqabjotu 07:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the part about him misusing the move tool. I do agree he was less than forthcoming having felt he already adequately explained himself though I felt he did not.--v/r - T P 22:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's where the issue of trans awareness comes in - when a person publicly identifies as a different gender, and with it a different name, the continued use of the previous name is viewed by many as offensive. MOS:IDENTITY comes into play because it states that we defer to the identity used or claimed by the subject. The harm that would come from leaving the article at Bradley Manning is that the article title would not reflect the subject's chosen identity, thus causing offense or emotional harm to the subject (and, likely, other trans individuals, reader and editor alike. But let's focus on the subject). The COMMONNAME argument might be valid (and, indeed, ended up carrying the RM discussion), but the difference is that relying on COMMONNAME would perpetuate an article title that could be harmful or disrespectful to the subject. The subject, having asked that Chelsea Manning be used, would not be harmed by the use of Chelsea Manning as a title - the same is not true for Bradley Manning, and thus BLP would control. This entire argument seemed patently obvious to me from the moment David cited BLP - as I said, what other harm could possibly be alleviated by changing the article title or placing move protection on that title? I absolutely agree that David Gerard should have been clearer in articulating his rationale for the protection, and I've proposed principles below that might nudge us toward that. But I find no credible evidence whatsoever to make any sort of finding that David Gerard acted in bad faith, in so far as the move protection of the article and his revert of your move through that protection was concerned. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 02:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I used the word "obvious" in the principle above is that, when understanding a person's reasoning requires you to be knowledgeable on the same things as them and feel the same way as them about the issue then it really isn't a situation where invoking the alphabet soup is sufficient. A detailed explanation is necessary and it need not be long. I imagine it would have taken Gerard a sentence or two to explain, in a satisfactory manner, his reasons for calling it a BLP violation, but he didn't even bother with that much.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely. The trick here is that I think David Gerard figured that the rationale was more obvious than it actually was. But that's a flaw in his explanation after, not in the action itself. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the longer explanation - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen

2) Morwen's initial move to Chelsea Manning was supported by several other editors and saw no opposition until after the move was made. The subsequent reversal of the move by Cls14 was admitted to have been in error after Morwen moved the title back to Chelsea. Morwen did not use the tools during the dispute and did explain why BLP was seen as justifying the move.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think there needs to be a contrast between Morwen's conduct and Gerard's. There is no evidence of administrative misconduct on Morwen's part that I have seen and no evidence of serious editorial misconduct. Morwen could have been more forthcoming about the BLP rationale, but Gerard was the one who justified using the tools based off the unexplained rationale, not Morwen. No remedy is necessary with regards to Morwen's conduct in this dispute, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a finding of fact that Morwen did nothing wrong when she moved the page, and did nothing wrong when she reverted Cls14 is necessary. There is no need for to remedy something that doesn't need changing. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Sandifer

3) Sandifer made numerous combative and hostile remarks about Wikipedia editors during the course of the move discussion and subsequent discussions after being drawn to the dispute by off-wiki commentary by Morwen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per Kirill's statement on the PD here are some instances from the name dispute: [17] [18]. Here is one from the ANI case: [19]. Then there was the change he made to his user page: [20]. It should be noted that, despite having barely any activity prior to this dispute, Sandifer became heavily involved after he had already been communicating with Morwen on the subject on Twitter: [21] [22]. He was also engaged in a conversation with Gerard where hostile remarks were made about the discussion: [23].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

David Gerard recall

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Support this or outright desysop. Especially as David primarily works with BLPs, this misuse and abuse of WP:BLP -- see my seven points under #David_Gerard -- is problematic. He doesn't even seem to see where he might have done something wrong. -- tariqabjotu 08:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this. Hindsight is 20/20. It's reasonable that David assumed that his interpretation of WP:BLP would be non-controversial and no further explanation was really necessary. It was reasonable to assume that the action wouldn't be very controversial. David's mistake was the days it took for a fuller explanation but I don't think that's worthy of a desysop. The last case I recall over WP:ADMINACCT was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb and that was after persistent and long term refusals to explain many actions of his. Unless it can be demonstrated that David has done this repeatedly before, I oppose this remedy.--v/r - T P 13:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* This should be a second choice option. Clear first choice from my perspective would be removal of tools with possibility of running a new RFA immediately. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't use the tools much, it's true. What I do use them for is mostly BLP-related stuff. I'm not overly concerned over my admin bit, but I don't feel inclined to accept a sanction just for the sake of it, thanks. People not liking the BLP move doesn't mean any of the claims about it are true (e.g. that it wasn't explained at the time), that it can only be explained by a conspiracy theory, etc - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last time ArbCom mandated a forced reconfirmation RFA is this one, which ended with an angry community sending the case back to ArbCom. After that, ArbCom never tried doing anything like that again. The lesson learned was that if ArbCom thinks that desysopping is warranted, that they should pass the sanction themselves, and not give the dirty work to the community. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except the case you mention involved obvious abuse of the tools, while the community view is less clear on that point here. That is why I think it is better to do a reconfirmation RfA as opposed to ArbCom choosing between a straight desysopping or some form of admonishment. If someone is not likely to pass an RfA then the Arbs should pull the trigger themselves. If someone is likely to pass an RfA then the Arbs should admonish the admin. If it is not clear what the outcome would be then I think referring it to the community is a good idea.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the Arbitration Committee, including myself, wouldn't pass RFA today. With regards to David, we will choose between admonishing, restricting, desysopping, or doing nothing. I'm not going to support sending him back through RFA so everyone who he has bothered in his 9+ years as an admin can show up to provide their neutral considered opinion. NW (Talk) 16:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your first statement is true then it is true for reasons you are unlikely to acknowledge. Honestly, I doubt that your statement is accurate. Even though I don't think you should be an administrator, let alone an Arbitrator, you would probably pass an RfA because you have enough of the right kind of fans to keep your position secure. Personally, if he has the tools at the end of this then I think he should run for reconfirmation, but I'm doubtful he would do it of his own volition.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's precisely why this is an unsuitable remedy. If David Gerard has enough of "the right kind of fans", then he remains as an admin. Surely some editors will support him, based solely on his involvement in this matter. Others, of course, will oppose for the same reason. And then, we've learned what, exactly? Certainly nothing about his ability to properly discharge his duties as an administrator. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We will learn whether the community generally accepts his conduct as an administrator or does not accept it. My feeling is that ArbCom is charged with desysopping admins because we do not have a structured recall process that allows for thorough review. I believe that carries with it a responsibility to act largely according to what would be the community's informed will. Should said will not be easy to infer, it would be a good idea to put it to them with the evidence from the case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you're keeping the shell and throwing away the peanut here. The problem is WP:BLP -- "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents." This doesn't work. Instead of going after Gerard for acting the way that I've seen other administrators act too often (see the talk page archives for Johnny Weir...), fix this policy. You're admins - figure out a way that one admin can put out a flash alert for another admin to do stuff, rather than getting into this kind of morass. Similarly, have a faster way to get an article looked at by impartial people so that no 3RR exemption is needed. Don't keep broken policy then sanction admins for following it. Wnt (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until today, I was willing to accept on good faith, David's explanation here.[24] But after seeing this edit,[25] I'm not so sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Ultraexactzz

Proposed principles

Conduct and decorum

1) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Administrator Actions and BLP

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

In general, I agree with this proposal, although, personally, I wouldn't require admins to provide evidence for their belief; when it comes to BLPs, I think that the policy favours a precautionary approach. As far as I'm concerned, a good-faith belief that BLP is being violated and a prompt explanation are enough for an admin to invoke the special protection afforded by BLP.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 00:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I support this proposal, but would modify to say "supporting evidence or rationale." As per Salvio, there may or may not be "evidence" per se, but the admin should be able to clearly articulate their interpretation of BLP policy and by what rationale the policy applies to the material, so that the community can determine whether or not it is a reasonable application of policy. If there is a rapid, unambiguous and broad consensus that the action is unreasonable and not well-founded, then it might be overturned without delay. On the other hand, if there is extensive community disagreement as to the applicability of the policy, that should be taken as an indication that there are valid arguments on both sides and that even if later consensus finds the material not to be a BLP violation, that the action was taken in good faith. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. -- tariqabjotu 14:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

@Salvio - I agree, and I didn't intend to require findings of fact before acting. Rather, an admin should be able to explain why there was a BLP violation that needed action - and while we do place a great deal of trust in our adminstrators to use their judgment and experience wisely, sometimes (as with this case, apparently) the BLP violation is not as obvious to the community as it is to the admin. And as per Thryduulf below, clearly this would apply to BLP in general (as opposed to just admins), but I focused it on admins due to the specifics of this case and the interplay between protections, wheel wars, and the like. YMMV. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 02:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

My understanding of this item was that it is intended to require a clear explanation of why they think BLP applies and possibly evidence such as what section of, or text from, the BLP applies and why that is their interpretation of that text/section. While any other evidence the editor feels may be relevant such as sources or prior precedent would of course be good, but I don't think this was calling that out specifically. --Sam Bingner ^\ talk / 09:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was going for. It doesn't need to be a set of findings of fact, or anything like that, but it should be more than "My gut tells me that this is a BLP violation". However much we trust admins and their guts, we should have some sort of rationale that can be articulated. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not currently seeing the relevant. I don't believe any of the parties invoked IAR in this dispute. If what the proposer means to say is that parts of this discussion got too bogged down in debating the meaning of the fine print in different policy pages rather than focusing on the substance of the real issues, then I agree to that extent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Newyorkbrad, yes the focus on the fine print instead of the real issues was a problem. Jimbo had also argued for the name change to Chelsea and explained that we have IAR precisely to deal with tensions between the fine print and whetever editorial decisions looks to be the best. I think that a problem here is that some editors would be opposed to invoking IAR because they think would lead to a policy they feel strongly about, simply being ignored. But IAR is not simply ignoring policies, because one has to agree what it means to "improve the encyclopedia", in practice this means that one has to argue on the basis of what the policies set to achieve. Count Iblis (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information in Wikipedia should be consistent with reliable sources

2) An important aim of Wikipedia's policies is to make sure information found in Wikipedia is consistent with reliable sources. A choice for one name or another can, via our guidelines implicitly convey information that is not consistent with information found in reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Many of the reliable sources we use have different editorial guidelines than we have here. For most sources, the choice between "Bradley" or "Chelsea" was not a big deal, it doesn't imply anything about Manning's trangender status. However, here on Wikipedia we have agreed to strict guidelines on this, which means that once Manning had disclosed that she is trangender and chosen the name "Chelsea", we are obliged to use "Chelsea" provided, of course, that the information about this comes from reliable sources and that there is no doubt about this issue according to those sources.

For Wikipedia to choose "Bradley" despite the guidline for the naming of transgender person therefore implicitly conveys the additional information that there is some doubt about this transgender issue. This information cannot be found in any reliable source. Indeed, we all know that editors had big disputes about Manning's transgender status on the talk pages and that the editors casting doubt on Manning's transgender status did not base their arguments on reliable sources. Clearly the naming issue was to many editors indeed about the transgender status.

Wikipedia may well get ahead of the News Media in choosing "Chelsea" without that implying any form of activism (it would only be activism if the sources were still debating whether the transgender issue is real while Wikipedia had taken a firm stand on it, but this isn't the case) One can ask if there is anything activist about the BLP guidelines. But this isn;t the case either. It's merely that we chose to strictly enforce BLP while the news media doesn't. Indeed, the countries that do enforce BLP-like policy for the news media (e.g. Ecuador) are often accused by the West of not having full freedom of the press. Count Iblis (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the previous argument is not based on any interpretation of BLP than I had seen before the Manning discussion. In other words, I agree with this proposed principle, as following WP:V, and not being opposed by any other principles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded terms to describe a group of editors should be avoided

3) It can happen that a group of editors is not behaving in a constructive way in the discussions, It's then best to focus precisely on the problems and formulate that as accurately as possible in the appropriate dispute resolution boards. If there is a real issue with transphobic behavior, there is no problem with using that term. But one as to exercise WP:AGF toward editors who defend a point of view that may not be consistent with the reality of transexuality. Describing them as transphobic is not appropriate in general, however one free to invent a new word if there doesn't exist a good word in the English language that isn't loaded. E.g. "transceptic" may be better than "transphobic", this is then analogous to "climate sceptics" who don't accept the scientific consensus on climate change, most climate sceptics don't have problems with being labeled that way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Poppycock. Here's what should happen; say Editor A believes that Editor B has done or said something that A construes as transphobic. What Editor A should do is file a complaint in the appropriate forum such as WP:ANI, and let the matter be judged there. What Editor A should not do is to lob "you're transphobic!", "stop saying transphobic things!" bombs into the discussion, over and over and over again. Put up or shut up, basically. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but then the people at AN/I have to do this correctly. Given that the problems with using the term "transphobia" weren't resolved when brought to the attention of the larger community (on Jimbo's talk page, here and other venues), this point may need more attention. Count Iblis (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom doesn't have jurisdiction over content-related issues in Wikipedia, then they certainly don't have it over content-related issues in the English lexicon generally. (But even if they did, you could have at least coined an example that doesn't already mean something.) —Psychonaut (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

4) {text of Proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

Bigotry in discussions

1) Comments which express hatred towards groups of people against ~~whom~~ whose category membership there is an extensive history of discrimination due to no fault of their own are unacceptable. In determining consensus in content disputes, bigoted remarks should be invalidated, so as not to form any element of the consensus. However, the mere presence of prejudicial remarks does not by itself invalidate the position regarding content that the remarks take. This logically follows from the fact that a fallacious argument for position A does not constitute a refutation of position A. Instead, valid arguments for position A may still exist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this needs to be qualified with "against whom there is an extensive history of discrimination due to no fault of their own". -- tariqabjotu 04:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to define "bigoted." Would representing these views be called bigoted? [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. There's a lot more but "transgender" is hardly a monolithic group from which expressions of bigotry or hatred would seem very subjective. So in principle, yes, in practice though it's not so clear how that speech would be determined. --DHeyward (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A previous principle, which may be worth reiterating in this case, from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Perceived_harassment (2011):

3) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.

And Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Offensive_commentary (2012):

14) Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on an identifiable group, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion on communal pages such as those in the Wikipedia namespace.

- David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Perhaps this could be phrased more concisely? DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, the bigotry may create a hostile environment, and stereotype threat, which may drive editors away, affect editors' thinking, and/or encourage edit wars; if we expect bigoted remarks, we may misunderstand some other remarks, or mistake misinformed remarks for actively hateful ones; there has to be some way to resolve this without escalating it. (I've tried to discuss the effects of stereotype threat in my evidence.) Ananiujitha (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re Tariqabjotu: The qualification "against whom there is an extensive history of discrimination due to no fault of their own" is needed because expressing hatred against pedophiles, for example, is not considered to be bigotry, since they are widely considered to deserve it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My key objection is with the phrase "against whom there is an extensive history of discrimination", not so much "due to no fault of their own". I would argue that pedophilia -- or, rather, doing inappropriate things with children -- is within the control of the individual (hence, why it can be criminalized). But the way it's worded, it sounds like it'd be okay to discriminate against white people or straight people or men. -- tariqabjotu 01:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand your objection I agree with it - there is no reason for anybody to make comments that express hatred towards any group of people (or individuals) - including paedophiles (not that they or child abusers are relevant to this case). It is acceptable, if relevant and verifiable, to report that groups are the subject of hate but never to participate in that hate. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, there needs to be some way to discuss bigotry and borderline-bigotry, and provide examples. At present, because some users are using transphobia in a wider sense, and some in a narrower sense, statements about, for example, widespread ignorance and stereotyping, can be mistaken for statements about personal animus. At present, discussion of transphobia is sometimes taken as a personal attack or as casting aspersions, and use of the word is sometimes derailed by definitional arguments. Ananiujitha (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In practice, there needs to be some way to discuss bigotry and borderline-bigotry, and provide examples." Yes, agreed, 100%. Provide examples at relevant noticeboards and get those user's blocked. Yelling out "TRANSPHOBIA!!!" on talk pages isn't helpful. It doesn't lead to editors being sanctioned and removed for their comments. It only serves to polarize the discussion further.--v/r - T P 16:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"against whom there is an extensive history of discrimination" is needed, because otherwise we're putting, say, lawyer jokes at the same blockability level as racial epithets. The blockability of racial epithets obviously is not contingent upon against which race directed. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, the clarification resolves this issue. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Some women feminists are a minority group. Some are called trans-exclusionary radical feminists. And some people call them transphobic for that and claim their cisgender privilege means their discrimination is not as bad as the discrimination faced by transgender individuals. It seems that the rule depends on whose Ox is being gored. Better to have language decorum that is applied consistently rather than worrying about which group has been discriminated against more than another and therefore which language is sanctionable or not. --DHeyward (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pagemove warring

2) Pagemove warring is a disfavored means of resolving article title disputes, and may result in sanctions against the users engaging in it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In and of itself this is true. It would need to be accompanied by a finding of fact that one or more parties engaged in this behaviour to be relevant to this case though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything about pagemove warring that is worse than any other sort of edit warring? I see three cycles total of moves away from Bradley Manning (following two earlier cycles of moves away to Breanna Manning in May). The change of a title per se is a very small part of the article. Is there a need to enforce anything stricter than a standard 3RR? Wnt (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many of the pagemoves were effectuated while the article was under move=sysop page protection. Therefore, they should be evaluated under the standards for wheel warring, not edit warring. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best then to scrap this principle and have something about wheel warring instead. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

No firm basis in policy for the resolution of this dispute

1) Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names creates rather than resolves this acrimonious dispute. Without it, the article could be kept at "Bradley Manning" since that is undoubtedly the legal name of the subject. However, the article titles policy forces an ad hoc determination of whether "Bradley Manning" or "Chelsea Manning" is the most commonly used name for the subject. The question of the degree to which the article subject's own self-identification must be respected per WP:BLP is also presented. Ideally, this matter could be resolved by means of a polite discussion, followed by administrative closure to determine consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I disagree with the first two sentences. There are more than two options for naming a page beyond "common name" and "legal name", and there were arguments presented in good faith during the discussion that "legal name" is a nebulous concept and about whether Manning's legal first name is still "Bradley". Common name is also only one factor taken into account when naming an article, even when there are no BLP issues, c.f. Jacobaea vulgaris. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom shouldn't try to deal with/alter this kind of content guideline, which is open to much discussion. There are probably cases where a government tries to impose a legal name on someone who vigorously rejects it, for example. Only a thorough community discussion of the issue can decide it properly, and odds are they already had it. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pagemove warring (finding)

(2) On August 22, 2013 User:David Gerard, User:Morwen, User:Cls14, and User:Tariqabjotu engaged in pagemove warring on the Manning article, either by moving the article twice in rapid succession (Morwen), or quickly reversing a pagemove.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not true of any of them. Morwen's first move was impeccable - there was no reason for her to believe it would be controversial to move a page to a title that was in accordance with BLP and MOS:IDENTITY and her revert of Cls14's move was correcting an admitted error (he was not aware of all the facts). Cls14's move was a correct response to the situation as he knew it at the time. David Gerard acted in accordance with established principle to restore an article to a state that did not violate the BLP (where it is believed in good faith that a version of an article violates the BLP it must not be restored without consensus to do so, regardless of whether consensus later finds it does or does not violate BLP). Tariqabjotu's move was knowingly incorrect as evidenced elsewhere, and while this might be seen as movewaring he made only one move and did not act in collusion with anyone else so it would be a bad precedent to find it as such - this does not change the fact that his actions were an abuse of admin tools. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking BLP should not give one's actions automatic immunity from review, scrutiny, or even reversal; it is not a magic shield, and allowance must to be made for the possibility of BLP invoked in error or in bad faith. In the aftermath of all this, we quite clearly saw a divide in opinion regarding the naming of the article, and no consensus on if it is a BLP violation to refer to Manning by the male name and not the female one. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking BLP should not give one's actions automatic immunity from review, scrutiny, or even reversal; it is not a magic shield, and allowance must to be made for the possibility of BLP invoked in error or in bad faith. Correct, but the BLP action must not be reversed until there is a consensus to do so. Precautionary BLP actions undertaken in good faith are always correct even if consensus later shows that they were not necessary. BLP actions taken in bad faith do harm to the BLP policy in exactly the same way as all actions taken in bad faith harm the policies they are taken in the name of, but there were no BLP actions taken in bad faith in this case. BLP requires that where something is potentially harmful to a living person it must not be included unless there is consensus to do so. If there are two equally encyclopaedic options, one of which is potentially harmful and one of which is not harmful then the latter option must be taken. In this case, it is disputed whether referring to Chelsea Manning as male is harmful but there is no dispute that referring to her as female is not harmful - in this instance BLP requires we refer to her as female unless there is a consensus that doing otherwise is more encyclopaedically necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not and never will agree with that, as it places far to much "first mover" power in the hands of that first mover. And the potential harm is not a concern here, as it is not harmful to a person to decline to refer to them by their preferred gender. Potential rudeness or even incivility is not harmful. You and others keep pushing this as an accepted fact, but it clearly is not. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, I think you may be in the minority about 'no harm' being done. It seems to me that you're alone in that assertion. I may disagree on the degree of harm and the immediateness it necessitates, but I haven't seen anyone else saying that no harm is done. We may see Arbcom enforcing it as a finding of fact that harm is done and you'll have to accept that as far as your editing on Wikipedia at some point. I'd be prepared for that.--v/r - T P 18:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be pretty surprised that the same Arbcom board that couldn't sanction Malleus for calling another editor, directly, a "cunt" up and decides that declining to call a transgendered BLP subject (not an editor) "she" during the course of deliberation about said subject is actionable. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, I can only surmise that you have never had your personal identity questioned, let lone wilfully and persistently rejected. If you had you would understand that it is not comparable to being called nasty names. Wilfully and persistently misgendering someone is closer to denying a black person is human than it is to calling them a "nigger". You don't have to like transgender people, you don't have to approve of the concept of transgendeness, but you absolutely do not get to decide whether someone else is male or female. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf I do not think there is a single person here who could argue that physically Manning is a female, mentally yes though but sex shouldn't come into play here. We are arguing about page move warring here *Points to top* and my opinion is that the article was moved too soon without any consensus from the community first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what? See Womyn-born womyn for example, of groups of woman who are probably pretty left-leaning, but who have decided what 'woman' means in certain cases. 'Woman' is not an absolute, it is socially negotiated, and there is a huge difference between saying (a) 'I accept that you identify with the female gender' and (b)'I consider you in all ways a woman and believe you should be treated in the same way as other women'. Your absolutist mentality absolutely does not match with the many debates and discussions over identity, gender, and feminism for example that have been discussed for the past decades, And to suggest that one side has won and it's all settled and that this side is 'right' is naïve - no-one is right here, it's a societal negotiation on what counts as being in the group 'women'--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even more fighting within trans* community is between post-SRS women and trans women that live as women but have no desire to have SRS. (i.e. "functional"). The fight seems very confined to the female side. Womyn mentioned above, post-SRS women that are post-transition and call themselves "women" (not "trans" or "cis" and they reject those constructs as the don't say "cis" and they are post-transition so they just say "women" with generally no qualifier). Then the larger, inclusive, group that includes any self-identified women (those that define "cis" as either female at birth, though others have also included male-at-birth, "passing" post-SRS women - which removes them as "trans*"). These battles exist as post-SRS women try to access mainstream feminism without intact trans women being lumped together as a single group. The fight has spilled over even to DSM-5 with identification of autogynephelia as a paraphelia disorder. Realizing that DSM-5 is very new, the conflict is still on-going. It is the topic of a yet-to-released Julia Serano book. Note that this almost exclusively is a female/feminism issue (see the term TERF, so, yes, it's big enough an issue for a label and acronym), I presume because men don't have equivalent political struggles such as "feminism". Ultimately, the fight: "who determines the political course for feminism going forward" and these factions are fighting for agenda control of what the priorities should be. For Wikipedia, we should be respectful of all views and the danger is advocacy that doesn't present all sides in accordance with NPOV, UNDUE and FRINGE. Note that each of the three main factions above view the definition of "women" differently and understandably don't want "men" defining what the issues of women are. Wikipedia appears to be very much in the inclusive aside as far as names and gender. A person like Lana Wachowski who came out as female and presented herself as "she." Two of three groups above, historically, would reject her gender identification for membership purposes for determining feminist agenda. (And don't even start in the issues of whether intersex people are Trans*. Some trans activists say "yes", some intersex people say no. It's very much rooted in whether biological sex is the main issue confronting intersex people or gender identity in the mind is most significant. Another fight as biology is the main issue facing intersex persons and trans activists absolutely decline that biology is relevant. WP can be inclusive without judging or labeling so we should be careful that the terms we use don't favor or dismiss significant viewpoints. --DHeyward (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, it is not analogous to the n-word, please drop the hyperbole. As for the last part, you still don't get it; some people just don't care what gender a transgnder person picks for themselves. I'm not "deciding" what they are, I am simply declining to address them by their choice, if it is a choice I do not believe in. You're taking this even further than others are; rather than wiki-legislating speech, you're asking Arbcom to wiki-legislate morality. Tarc (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) For purposes of article title, calling a transgender person who has made his or her gender expression known by their birth name and gender is harmful. It is very easily read as a refusal to accept their transgender status, and a denial of their right to be transgender, and, as such, cause great distress.

Now, there is a convention, preferred by some transgendered people, though not others, that their actions previous to coming out use their birth name and pronouns of their birth gender, and after coming out, the pronouns and names switch to their preferred ones. However, we begin articles "[X] is ...", and, as such, introductions and article titles should be written from a present-day perspective, thus this convention does not apply.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There seem to be conflicting opinions in this discussion on whether policy already requires this. That may mean policy revisions are needed, which, afaik are outside the scope of arbitration, and that may mean a temporary solution is needed in the meantime, both for the article, and for avoiding a repeat of these problems in the policy discussion. Ananiujitha (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latter convention is only one option, anyway. Ananiujitha (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Harm" is a loaded and largely meaningless term in this context. This may come a s ashocker (though it shouldn't), but not all of society is on-board with the whole gender-changing thing. There are media outlets such as the Washington Times and Political who still freely use "Bradley" and "he" in their articles. As do I here, as do several others. A transgender person being called by their birth name or pronoun isn't a human rights issue; declining to address them as such is not a human rights violation. That's just not the way the world works. It may be rude and it may be undesired on the part of the party and supporters, but as I have said many times, being unoffended in life is not a right. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a right to your opinion, but you do not have a right to have your opinion considered valid in any way, nor do you have the right to then cry "personal attack" if someone expresses an opinion about your opinion. If you have a right to call trans-women "he," then surely I have the right to call that "transphobic." Which doesn't get us anywhere productive. And so it went. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to consider it valid. But others may. You don't have the right to call it transphobic. If (hypothetically) I called you an asshole, you don't have the right to call me a dick in return. What you do have the right to do is report me to the noticeboards. That's what right you have on Wikipedia.--v/r - T P 23:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that something is "transphobic" is not equivalent to calling someone a "dick."

You touched on my broader point, though - all such arguments are ultimately nonproductive because they degenerate into noticeboard fodder. Someone's "opinion" of whether Chelsea Manning is a female or not have no relevance to the page title unless we are claiming that Wikipedia can deny a trans-person's right to self-identify. That truly would be horribly transphobic. Rather, the question should be, does policy direct that we change the title or leave it at the original? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia can deny a trans-person's 'right' because such a right doesn't exist in law and Wikipedia is a private organization. But that's neither here nor there because we've decided that honoring a trans-person's self identification causes them the least harm and is the preferred option. Other than that, you need to understand that the suffix -phobia causes a reaction in people because the definition of transphobia does not follow along the same path as other -phobias. Academics have used the suffix incorrectly due to a lack of a better alternative. That's causes others to get defensive. You need to speak the same language as your opponents and that starts by agreeing on what words mean. You can't just use transphobia and expect others to understand it's definition.--v/r - T P 00:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have every right, and you have none at all in this matter. If I come out and state "Transgender people are <insert pejorative>", then you are free to swing away. But absent that, you're making unproven allegations about what you think my motivations are, and that's a realm that is out-of-bounds. This is a very simple matter; if I say "I do not wish to acknowledge a transgender person by their newly-chosen gender", that is not an example of transphobia. There's no wiggle room here, I'm afraid. It just...isn't. If you truly feel it is anyways, you are free to complain to the appropriate noticeboard, where 1 of 2 things will happen; they'll see it your way and I'll get sanctioned, or they'll see it my way and close with no action. You don't have the right to just sling "you're a transphobe!" page after page to editor after editor. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down Tarc, NorthBySouthBaranOf has a different definition of Transphobia that has nothing to do with your motivations. You two are speaking different languages here and all you're doing is getting each other more upset. You need to speak NorthBySouthBaranOf's language if you want to find resolution. NorthBySouthBaranOf, what Tarc means to say is essentially what I've said. You don't have a 'right' to a retaliatory offensive comment. Your only right is to report it to the noticeboards.--v/r - T P 00:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in having anyone sanctioned. Nobody would need to be sanctioned if this debate was conducted on policy grounds rather than "is Chelsea a female or not?" That question is irrelevant to resolving the conflict between WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:IDENTITY, WP:RS and other applicable policies. All you're doing by constantly dragging her self-identity into it is fanning the flames. Argue policies, not personalities. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, if you "weren't on board about the whole gay thing" then I'd say your position was too hostile to the subject to constructively discuss writing about gay people. Given you apparently reject transgenderism and trans people entirely, I suggest your position is too hostile to trans people to constructively discuss trans naming. How am I to read such an argument from antipathy, except as "I don't like them, so do whatever they like the least"? Chris Smowton (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently wish to censor people from a conversation based on ideology. That is rather unfortunate. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Smowton: And there are editors who feel too passionately for LGBT topics to edit them constructively as well. It goes both directions. It's impossible to create a bright line and say which groups are allowed to comment without censoring legitimate comments. Look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#F.C3.A6_has_used_ad_hominem_attacks_to_try_to_discredit_others for example.--v/r - T P 13:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Notability and verifiability are preferred for titles. Having the article titled "Bradley Manning" and the lede sentence start with "Chelsea Manning" is perfectly fine as long as "Bradley Manning" is bolded in the first sentence (which it is and always will be). The subjects preference, when it can be accomodated, might be reasonable but in this context, the narrative should follow the name and gender at the time because otherwise it becomes an unsortable mess. There are awful passages about when Manning lived as a gay man and when his parents divorced (is Manning their son or daughter?). Using the historical name and gender in historical passages is verifiable and neutral and reliably sourced. It seems incredulous that editors think nothing about writing "she lived as a gay man" as being a neutral statement but "he lived as a gay man" would offend her and is a BLP violation. Is not calling her a "man" offensive? Apparently not. If we're rewriting history we would say she was a woman attracted to men like other heterosexual transwoman. But instead of calling her a heterosexual transwoman, WP uses "gay man" because it's well sourced and is accurate and neutral. It seems silly to rewrite historical passages with current gender but references to past lifestyles and actions that are inexorably tied to her birth name and birth gender. All historical passages should use the historical voice and the name of the article should be the notable name. The lede, obviously should start with Chelsea. Search/replace function of "he/him" to "she/her" has left lots of ambiguity that is solved by using the name and gender used in that time period (heck, I think grammar rules have the current article implying she was named Susan as a child at some point). --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements seem to be arguing against a position I'm not advocating. My point is that article titles have a presumption of being up-to-date. Which of the two common conventions we use later in the article, when talking about past events is a completely different debate, and one that I don't think is Arbcom's place to decide before the community has even discussed it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with applying this. First, Manning made an announcement which specifically encouraged the use of "Bradley" in various official communications. That greatly complicates the situation because protests and media reports have a valid reason to use it. Also, there is an issue of whether the article title is meant to say "you are that person right now" or "this is the well known historical name of the person this article is about". I personally support using up-to-date place and person names for article titles, including Yusuf Islam, but I am not going to insist that people who disagree with me should suffer sanctions if they get their way. Wnt (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a horrifically misleading statement. He stated that using Bradley would be necessary for hiis post to arrive due to the prison rules. That's a rather different kettle of fish. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending Wnt's comment, because I don't think "Bradley" was encouraged, but neither is your comment correct. Unless you've seen an interview I haven't, Bradley has not said anything about prison rules. He said, plain and simple, that he understands that "Bradley" will continue to be used in some contexts. That's neither an encouragement nor anything about prison rules.--v/r - T P 13:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" But officials at Ft. Leavenworth said Manning will be considered a man and be housed in the all-male prison, and that the prisoner’s mail must be addressed to “Bradley Manning” or it will not be delivered. In addition, they said, the prison does not facilitate sex-change procedures." - LA Times

Wnt is obviously referring to that. Saying you understand Bradley may still be used is not the same as "encouraged the use of 'Bradley'"; but she did ask for it to be used in official mail because of that rule. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an understatement of what she said. Mail to prison, references to the trial, and legal documents will use "Pvt. Bradley Manning". It says nothing about pronouns. It says nothing about correspondence that would not be in the above category. No one would think that Obama would deny a pardon if the request written to the President used "she" instead of "he" in the letter. That would put the President in an awkward position of denying her gender. For those instances, "Bradley Manning" usage is debateable based on the above point. The letter she wrote to the President isn't going to be rejected because the President would be someehow incapable of understand who "Chelsea Manning" is. I'm sure his advisors have informed him and prepped him for any upcoming interview that might ask about Manning. It would be very awkward for the press to use Chelsea and the President to use Bradley so don't hold your breath. To me, I can understand the formal nature of the pardon requires "Bradley" but the use of male gender terms is simply not necessary. It's done for another reason. Either it's an MOS reason or it's a "cake and eat it too" reason where they want LGBT support, whence the announcement, in addition to sympathetic supporters that don't identify with Trans* issues and would be put off by such references. Either of those reasons would be relevant to WP. If it turns out that Chelsea is distancing herself from her actions, she may very well prefer to be use Bradley in that context. She has already stated she is proud of her picture as a U.S. soldier that is in our infobox. She has also stated to the court that the dysphoria created by being "Bradley" on the outside and female internally cause her "mental instability." If so, there is a very good reasons why a post-announced "Chelsea" may wish to associate "Bradley" with "mentally unstable" and Chelsea as content. It's not correct, though, to say her preference for "Bradley" is only in mail to her. It extended to her letter for pardon, which if anyone can point to why she heeded to use "he" in that letter (I can understand Bradley, not "he" though). --DHeyward (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a content finding, so should be outside the realm of Arbcom.
Although this reflects the current version of MOS:IDENTITY, I consider it absurd. (And, in case some consider this transphobic, there are at least two female-to-male trans who would disagree with the first sentence, and one who actually considers referring to actions of his female self under his current name as harmful.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In most countries, getting official recognition of transgender status takes quite some time, and requires living as that gender for months or years before even the initial legal recognition

2) In other words, the transgender person is forced to come out long before they can back up the coming out with, for example, the correct gender on their driver's license and so on. As such, insisting on legal recognition is rather harmful to the BLP, as it hurts their attempts to move towards their preferred gender.

During the transition period, it's not Wikipedia's place to put obstacles in their path to recognition. That's doing harm to a living person, a violation of BLP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

BLP means we provide all reasonable accommodation but were not in the business of making anyone feel good just for the sake of it.--MONGO 19:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that causing an entire category of people to feel attacked and belittled is the right choice for Wikipedia? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see how keeping the title at the name they used when they became notable caused the subject of the bio or anyone else any harm. However, I concurred with the move to the feminine naming under the BLP policy as that was less harmful.--MONGO 11:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand had Wikipedia took somewhat longer to deal with the move. It's the move back that's particularly harmful under this, as it was reported in some pretty big sources.

Had Wikipedia been slower to act, it would have been disappointing, perhaps, but malice would not be read into it. But once the change happens, a community in uproar about a transsexual woman getting recognition as such, to such an extent that they force her back to the masculine name? Whatever the actual intent that looks terrible. It's a slap in the face.

There are some genies that cannot be put back into the bottle without harm being done, intentionally or not. The transphobic statements (I presume that noone denies some transphobic statemets were made during the voting, that the disagreement is to scale?) made during the debate only made things worse.

Wikipedia was under scrutiny, and we buggered it all up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no genie to put back. Manning already acknowledges and has used "Bradley" and male gender pronouns in correspondence where it wasn't required. She acknowledges that references that are what make her notable will invariably use "Bradley" and male gender pronouns. Furthermore, there are LGBT advocacy groups that recommend using the name and gender at the time when referring to historical actions. It's quite presumptuous to state that Chelsea's press release wasn't an attempt to distance her past from the present and the "harm" would be to use "Chelsea" and "her" to describe the actions that occurred when she suffered from gender dysphoria. Considering that she chose her name as "Chelsea" instead of "Breanna" is a reason to consider this possibility. There were editors over a year ago that wanted to use "Breanna" as the article title. That was premature. "Breanna" was a female alt to "Bradley", not the independent female identity that "Chelsea" is. It may be more harmful to associate "Bradley" to "Chelsea" in a way that is counter to what she has stated as her expectation (references to the trial will be "Bradley"). Since she has used "Bradley" and male pronouns in post press release correspondence that was not required, the harm might be to use Chelsea when she expects us to use Bradley. --DHeyward (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, two points: (1) Obviously it is impossible to tell for certain, but usually when talking about a trans person's distress at being wrongly named or gendered, that distress stems from explicit or implicit denial of their right to choose their identity. It seems very unlikely to be that use of Chelsea regarding a past event is going to cause distress in that way. (2) Please consider not just the harm caused to the subject, but also the harm caused to all of your trans editors and trans readers when Wiki is received as being hostile to a prominent trans person. Manning herself is very likely resigned to the fact that she has a very public male identity, but taking the tack that it isn't necessary to respect her new identity and so we won't conveys an impression of an organisation that is insensitive to trans people's situation. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "Bradley" is by her own choosing when referring to her trial, conviction and pardon request. She was not required to use "Bradley" and "he" when she wrote President Obama for a pardon. Certainly Obama is not going to reject the pardon over the use of pronouns. NLGJA guidelines [34] say to use the name and gender at the time of the event when writing about past historical events. The present tense voice of the article should use "she" and "Chelsea", the article title should be "Bradley Manning" based on the name used for the notable acts and historical recounts should be the name and gender at the time. The lede should start with "Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning). For example, Chelsea lived as a gay man named "Bradley" for a period of time and he was in a relationship with a gay man. That section should be written in a historical voice using that identity and that is the NLGJA guideline. Harm can be extended to those that were in relationships when the subject lived differently at that time. Don't we have an obligation to report it accurately? The gay man she was involved with has the same "harm" component. He might be angry/upset/defamed to be portrayed as having a sexual/romantic relationship with a woman and might resent this portrayal. Indeed, outing like this has lead to violence against transgender people. This extends to transgender persons that transition after, say, heterosexual marriage in which children were produced. The children grew up believing and understanding their father was male. The wife and mother believed she was married to a man. Do we suddenly imply that the relationship was between two females and the children's father was never a male? Do we force them to change their history and understanding so that we can portray the entire life of a person as invariant throughout when that is contrary to fact and experience and their own statements? It seems harm to the people they encountered can't be discounted either. Rather than trying to figure out which group, sub-group or individual might be harmed, we should stick to the historic identity used at the time. Transgender individuals, I believe, will identify more with a historically accurate depiction that belies the gender dysphoria they feel/felt rather than whitewash it with a historical rewrite that there was never any question/doubt/understanding about their identity. Rewriting the past minimizes the dysphoria felt and implies that there really was no dysphoria. This is counter to every account I've ever seen of persons that deal with it. The dysphoria is very real and stems from the conflict of how they live and look vs. how they feel and eliminating the historically accurate conflict does a great disservice to those touched by it. It is respectful to write present tense accounts in the identity they use but it is equally important to accurately account for the time when they lived differently then their current identity. To write it in a voice that denies they ever lived as the gender they were born with is like 1984ish version of gender. "She is female. She has always been female" is a feel good statement but it is not the experience of everyone, including Chelsea, that dealt with her prior to coming out as a transwoman and we should objectively report those periods. If we ask her partner when she lived as a gay man "have you ever had a relationship with a woman?" is he wrong to say "No"? Would you deny his reality and account based on Chelsea's statement years after that relationship when she already has said she was living as a gay man? It makes no sense and causes great conflict and harm to actual people, not just a perceived slight to a group. Rather than speculate, write it as it was at the time. --DHeyward (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are reasonable arguments for using at-the-time pronouns and names -- I don't know if your "minimising dysphoria" hypothesis holds water in practice, but it's conceivable -- I'll be interested to run it by a some trans friends in the near future. I've been dismayed by the discussion on at-the-time vs. current-identity at MOS:ID because I get the impression people (not you) are arguing for a reasonable position for bad reasons, mainly an unease at acknowledging a gender change and consequent desire to mention it as little as possible, but I'm not opposed to at-the-time identification in principle. However I don't think you make the case for a BM title -- that's a present tense identification, so I find your assertion that the title and lede identifications should not match a little odd. To be clear, I understand that WP policy favours commonly used identifiers; I'm arguing that application of the policy has an unethical result in this case, and that the same ethical position that dictates using her current identity first and foremost in the lede applies to the title as well. It's this mismatch which has earned WP a lot of ire from trans people and sympathetic press -- the lede says "this person is really a woman," but the title says "Just kidding! That would be weird!" Chris Smowton (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Bradley Manning as the article title simply because that's the notable name. I prefer the lede sentence start with bolded "Chelsea E. Manning" and "Bradley E. Manning" mentioned and bolded in the first sentence (how that is constructed can be various ways but I think that's the way it is now). Simply having "Bradley Manning" bolded and in the first sentence comports to titling and lede guidelines. I think an argument could be made that the notability is for a single event and there doesn't need to be a separate bio and that would eliminate the titling issue but that would be another bag of worms. For the opposite case, see Native Americans in the United States. The lede clearly states the majority prefer to be known as American Indians. The law and treatise are written as Indian nations and what not. Certainly there are people that prefer Native American over American Indian and would be offended by being called Indian but that appears to be the minority. So we made American Indian a disambiguation page and then created an article called Native Americans in the United States which as far as I can tell is an academic term. Lower 48 state indigenous people call themselves American Indians as does government documents and agencies like Bureau of Indian Affairs. Alaskan indigenous people call themselves Native Alaskans. I think indigenous Hawaiians might prefer Native Hawaiians or Polynesians. Basically "Native American" is the title or term that no one uses to identify with yet WP uses to identify a broad group of people but in context each sub-group would choose a different name for themselves. "Native American" is probably the term people would search with for broad reference to indigenous people and also a form of political correctness. It might be possible to break out "Bradley Manning" as a disambiguous page that refers to the articles related to Manning's leaks, trial, conviction, media coverage, bio, etc, and have "Chelsea Manning" a link on a disambig page and people could choose what they wanted to read about similar to American Indian. There will always be a Bradley Manning page whether it's a redirect, disambiguation or article. --DHeyward (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be a page at BM for sure -- if pages could have two equipotent titles then we'd be fine as far as I'm concerned; unfortuantely they have to have a "proper" one and redirects. We'd also be fine if every reader knew WP's titling policy; then it'd come across as an assertion about popular reference, rather than an affront. Hell, a note under the title that said "We title things as the press calls them! We're not being dicks here!" would go a fair way to improving the situation.

Incidentally I ran your don't-minimise-the-transition argument past a TG friend (who is obviously a representative of all trans people everywhere ;)) and she said it depended a lot on the type of trans person -- specifically, she reckoned people who consider themselves third gender, or gender-fluid, are less likely to have been profoundly unhappy with their assigned gender and would probably be cool with being described as having moved around the gender spectrum during their life, whilst people who make a binary transition motivated by strong dysphoria for their assigned gender are more likely to want to put the matter behind them and be described at all times using their asserted gender. IOW, it's complicated! For this reason, I advocate a safe default of using current identity (may displease the gender-fluid a bit) rather than identity-at-the-time (will displease GD people a lot) deferring to personal preference where known. Chris Smowton (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genderqueer is probably too speculative to address. She's self-identified as a transwoman and has diagnosis for GID/GD, narcissistic personality disorder and possibly Aspberger syndrome and fetal alcohol syndrome. All of those have contributed to an unstable mental state. People unfairly tunnel vision on "transgender" and "unstable." She's never had the opportunity to live as a woman. It's not clear what and how the other diagnosis play into feelings of dysphoria so its premature to say whether she is genderqueer/genderfluid until she's had the opportunity to live as a woman. For now, she wants hormones but not surgery and I can't imagine a surgeon willing to perform an operation until she has lived as a free woman for a few years (although I suspect certain activists would fight for surgery if she requested it for treatment). For that reason, I don't think she will distinguish between genderqueer/transgender until that happens and for now she has identified as a transwoman which is fine. She's stated that the most stable part of her life was when she lived with her aunt as an openly gay man and that didn't appear to be particularly stable to me. But for WP, I think it's largely irrelevant. As I wrote in another section, editors are okay with "she lived as gay man" versus "he lived as a gay man" as the pronoun is offensive. But the reference to "man" is not. If we truly rewrote everything as she felt, that period would be a "heterosexual transwoman." That's an interpretation of the source, potentially demeaning to her partner and overall not an accurate portrayal of how she lived at the time. Her B/F was gay, called her Bradley and believed she was a gay man, too I think it would be too negative to portray her as deceptive at that time which is what is required if we rewrite her as transgender when she was portraying herself as a gay man. As a narrative it is easier, more accurate, and overall less speculative/offensive (in my view) to write in the past tense using names and gender at the time. It's really not reconcilable to do otherwise without some form of slight to her, her partners, her honesty, etc. Rather than speculate, just writing consistently will keep us out of the weeds. Take her feelings when her father remarried and adopted the son of his new wife and the new son took the name "Manning:" Suddenly Manning felt lost as her father had a new son. That makes a lot more sense when written from a jealous male, son, "Bradley Manning" point of view. Manning certainly felt conflicted by it and expressed it. We're robbing history by the wholesale rewrite and shortchanging feelings of abandonment/replacement that Manning has already expresed. --DHeyward (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has spiralled off topic a bit, so rather than clog up the Workshop I'll take this to your talk page. Chris Smowton (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, neither are we in the business of making anyone feel bad just for the sake of it. In this case it is practically impossible not to choose: you could notionally evade the choice entirely by excising all forenames and gendered nouns from the article, but barring that, you must at least imply that one identity or another has primacy, and right now our implied primacy is mixed. Given that free choice between the two identities, why not pick the one that does less harm to the subject? Chris Smowton (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding...did you read the second comment I made...apparently not. But to be clear, the spirit of BLP means the title should be at the feminine name, but I really don't care what Manning or anyone else thinks about the bio so long it is policy compliant.--MONGO 21:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, apparently I missed that. Feel free to delete this threadlet if you want. Chris Smowton (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't the Wikipedia's place to erect obstacles, then neither is its place to actively remove them, either. An encyclopedia does not lead; it follows. Tarc (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Content disclaimer, we Follow sources Wikipedia is NOT A SOAPBOX - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would also help people's legal causes if we avoided covering unfavorable pretrial publicity, negative facts about political campaigns, etc. Whatever some proponents of BLP may want, I don't think we're really here to serve and protect the article subject - we should be here to cover the facts impartially, without scheming about what effect that will have. Wnt (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks based on, or attacking race, sexual orientation, or trans status are unacceptable on Wikipedia.

Per WP:NPA, "Discriminatory epithets directed against another contributor, a group of contributors, or any of their characteristics (including, but not limited to, those protected by law or the Wikimedia Foundation's non-discrimination policy). Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."

These sort of attacks serve no encyclopedic purpose, and only serve to degrade people, including other users and living people.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:'

Neither discriminatory epithets or any other form of attack are not acceptable, regardless of who they are made by or towards, regardless of what basis they are made on, and regardless of where on Wikipedia they are. There are exactly three exceptions to this, (1) quoting attacks made by others where this is necessary for an encyclopaedia article. (2) quoting, to the minimum extent required, attacks by others for the purposes of discussing whether they are encyclopaedically necessary. (3) quoting, the minimum extent required, attacks made by others as part of dispute resolution related to the attacks or the person making them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Effect and intent

One may have the best of intentions, and still have negative effects. Stating the negative effects of actions is important to arguing against such actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:'

I hate to so aggressively have to make this point, but, in the end, this is key to moving forwards. The way I see this case closing is with a lot of reminders, a few admonishments, and only anything above that in cases where malice, severe prejudice, or gross lack of judgement can be demonstrated. As such, we need to distinguish intent from effect, and remember to keep intent in mind. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A BLP being the victim of discrimination is no reason for Wikipedia to discriminate against them ourselves

Arguments based on the military prison being hostile to transgender people, such as requiring post to be sent to "Bradley", or threatening to not allow transgender treatments, may well be worth mentioning in the article, but cannot be the basis of our decision about Wikipedia's voice. WP:BLP states that when dealing with victims, "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Admittedly, the context is slightly different, but the principle holds.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I obviously recuse from this finding. I'm not in a position to speak on behalf of the DoD.--v/r - T P 15:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Completely agree. We are not in the business of housing military prisoners and military prisons are not in the business of writing encyclopedia articles. They have their own reasons for discriminating against her (whether they are valid or not), but they are not relevant to how we should title our article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

The move back to Bradley Manning on the 31st of August happened after the majority of news sources had shifted to Chelsea Manning.

1) Per evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Evidence#The_move_back_to_.22Bradley_Manning.22_happened_after_pretty_much_every_major_news_source_had_switched_to_Chelsea_Manning_-_and_was_accompanied_by_a_one-month_moratorium_on_new_name_discussions. The news sources were rapidly moving in the direction set by Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree. The evidence supporting this is faulty, and this isn't something ArbCom should be deciding anyway. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for that assertion? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You list CBS News, The Washington Post, and The Telegraph as sources that use "Chelsea Manning", when they actually don't [35][36][37]. And if The Chicago Tribune has said that they'll continue to use Bradley on first reference (as "Bradley Manning, now known as Chelsea Manning", instead of "Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning"), they haven't either. In any event, you most certainly haven't done a comprehensive survey with just the dozen sources you've provided (the BBC hasn't made the switch, for example) and I can't imagine it would be possible. -- tariqabjotu 06:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to a survey article. I can't help if newspapers violate their own stated manuals of style occasionally, but they are stated by reliable sources to have made the switch. The BBC article you link is the first in several weeks; it wasn't available when I checked; and so on. It's an imperfect list, and I recognise that, but, nonetheless, it's the best list one can make. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

None of these proposals will gain any traction with the committee. All of them are asking Arbcom to rule on a content issue, which is specifically beyond its remit. rdfox 76 (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this is the heart of the issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is the heart, but that isn't a good thing; an encyclopedia does not lead, it follows. Forcing it to lead is a serious overstepping of the fundamental project goals and scope, a direct contradiction of WP:5P, #1. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a red herring. Newspapers do not have Page Titles. WP used and continues to use female pronouns and Chelsea in the articles. It's not possible to discern their "file name" from their articles and WP comports to their style. In fact WP improperly refers to historical content per published NLGBT guidelines and it should be undone. No newspaper offered retractions or updates to older articles. Only post-announcement articles were changed and not without an explanation of the change. --DHeyward (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was praised for its quick move to Chelsea Manning - and heavily criticised for moving it back.

2) In other words, the move back to Bradley Manning put Wikipedia in disrepute

Comment by Arbitrators:

All else aside, these moves did not bring Wikipedia into disrepute, because every other institution is unsure what to do here. That doesn't mean there isn't a right answer to this naming dispute, but it does mean readers and observers of Wikipedia recognise that we – understandably – are struggling to make an editorial decision about titling the article. AGK [•] 22:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree. The evidence supporting this is faulty, and this isn't something ArbCom should be deciding anyway. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for that assertion? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The four sources you highlight to make this claim are (1) a piece written by a participant in the RM discussion, (2) a piece written by a friend of one of the move proponents, (3) a source I'm not even sure counts as a reliable source, and (4) a source that's not even in English. Not compelling. -- tariqabjotu 06:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a policy-related argument, nor is it even correct. The initial move was controversial, the move back was controversial, another move will be controversial. No data available on which of these is "most disreputable" and it is presumptuous to pretend that there is such data. Carrite (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Wikipedia look at praise for moving quickly as a positive? We are, after all, a tertiary source. We should be among the last to move after sources have moved. Similarly, moving to a historical version until the primary and secondary sources have settled, is a basic principle of being a tertiary source of information. --DHeyward (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two sides disagree about what fact we're sourcing. The pro-Bradley camp are sourcing what do most people call Manning (nebulous, changing, probably Bradley at the time of the move), whilst the pro-Chelsea camp are sourcing what does Manning call herself (clearly established very quickly thanks to a public and unambiguous announcement). Chris Smowton (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A public announcement is a primary source. We generally allow primary sources for identity unless another source contradicts it or it's controversial. I would characterize "pro-Bradley camp" as 'What name do most people associate with the wikileaks disclosure?' I don't think it's nebulous or changing. I think the person will be known as Chelsea but in terms of notability, there will always be the tie to Bradley due to her name she used at the time of her crimes. I haven't seen any source that uses Chelsea without Bradley. To use the Cat Stevens analogy, our other pages refer to Cat Stevens (i.e. Carly Simon had a relationship with Cat Stevens - we don't change a past reference). There are many sources that noted the name Cat Stevens change but rarely is he cited without a reference back to his notable name. Other examples include Mary Kay Letourneau and Margaret Sanger - (WP article doesn't even identify the name Sanger used personally or is on her gravestone [38]). The title and lede only reflect their names used when they achieved notability. That's not a slight to them nor is their preference relevant to the page title. --DHeyward (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get why COMMONNAME-ers prefer that choice and what they mean by it. I was just noting that since the pro-Chelsea camp are sourcing a different fact, in their (our) eyes there's no RS violation and the fast move makes sense. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Since when does outside media influence editorial decisions? Tarc (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing the project into disrepute is a valid concern, and has been an element of previous cases before the committee. But while I agree that the project has been criticized for the move back to Bradley Manning, I don't think this is the finding with which to articulate that. The entry in evidence is not the most unbiased account, as it takes the position and then pops in sources to suit. Better, I think, to list all of the reliably sourced reactions to the move back to Bradley Manning and then judge their tone. "Of these 35 reactions, 27 were critical of the move" or whatever. Then craft a finding of fact that is more neutral - describing what was observed, not its impact. More NPOV, so to speak. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the media paid that much attention to this issue on this site or not. The finding seems to indicate that we should worry about what the media thinks.--MONGO 19:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to say that Wikipedia should resolve this on its own, independent of outside media, but it isn't true. Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable, and that ties it to outside media, academic sources, and popular sources. Usually that tends to work to improve the quality of the sources. Sometimes that privileges groups with media and academic influence over groups without. Sometimes neutrality considerations, other policy considerations, and a positive effort to find the voices of silenced/invisibilized/marginalized groups balance that out. Wikipedia should try to work this out, and work the underlying issues out, and there are times it's worth examining media and activist sources to recognize the problems, but it shouldn't always follow outside media. Ananiujitha (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true; however, this would not have been the case if consensus had been achieved before the initial move. Wikipedia explicitly should not be leading. An unfortunate result of Wikipedia erroneously getting in front of the curve was this un-wanted praise AND criticism by the media of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia had proceeded at a leisurely pace to follow the facts, there would have been no story. --Sam Bingner ^\ talk / 09:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one-month ban on further move proposals is indefensible.

3) In a rapidly-shifting situation, with more news outlets changing over to Chelsea Manning every day, insisting that a decision hold for a month is highly counter-productive, and forces Wikipedia to continue to go against the preponderance of sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree. This isn't something ArbCom should be deciding anyway. Also, I feel starting a new RM discussion immediately after the first one is more disruptive. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what Arbcom should decide. Why should they only look at the first, widely-praised move, and ignore the one that directly put Wikipedia in disrepute? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a loaded question. -- tariqabjotu 06:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A brief delay would be defensible, but two weeks should be plenty of time to allow tensions to ease and policies to be studied. That said, this case won't be closed until about a month has passed anyway, so it's somewhat moot. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The fact that the discussion was held until October demonstrates that the community does give admins some discretion in these matters to enact a time-based delay on reopening the discussion (per WP:DISRUPT). The question, then, was "is this within discretion." I believe that while some disagree, a month was not so far outside the realm of discretion to be inappropriate.--v/r - T P 13:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disagree. One month is a short duration below the usual for an Rfc.--MONGO 14:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually a consideration made by the closing administrators - without stating a set period of time within which to initiate a new discussion, such an attempt made after thirty days, or possibly after six weeks or three months, could be voted down as "too soon" by opponents. We established a floor for the discussion date, but also a ceiling for complaining about the date being too soon. bd2412 T 13:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Wikipedia is not beholden to the drive-by media. An encyclopedia is not your blog, nor is it your twitter feed. It should never be the first mover in the event of a breaking or recent news event, and that it was seen as such by at least 1 news outlet is indicative of a serious misuse of the project for activism. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moot. As I mentioned earlier, if advocates of the new title had played by standard Bold-Revert-Discuss rules instead of by trying to strongarm their preferred version, this would have been already been decided in their favor nearly two weeks ago. At this point, let the clock run out rather than subverting process again.. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I may not support using BLP to trump restrictions on involved admins or 3RR, but this one-month ban isn't policy but enforcement of policy, so it should be subordinate to BLP concerns. However, I think it would be premature to move it within the month anyway, and wouldn't expect any discussion to reach consensus before then. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've seen admins implement 6 months bans on move discussions. One month is actually quite short. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't say that I would have set the period at one month had I been in the closing admins' shoes, I do agree with TParis' comment that "a month was not so far outside the realm of discretion to be inappropriate". Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The move back to Bradley Manning, whatever the intent, makes Wikipedia appear transphobic

4) Once something has been done, and been praised by news outlets for its rapid and simple dealing with a transgender issue, any reversion of this will make Wikipedia appear transphobic unless ironclad, policy-based reasons for such a move existed. No such reasons existed. As such, the furore was justified.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree, obviously. This shows disrespect for the consensus-building process. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Strongly Agree. I can't read this any other way. The question is whether Wikipedia will overcome this, or not.

And the move showed disrespect for Chelsea Manning and trans people generally; I think people deserve more respect than processes. Ananiujitha (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It made Wikipedia seem inept and out-of-touch, but I don't think use of the word "transphobic" is appropriate in this connection. Formerip (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is cissexist. It puts up barriers to respecting trans people's identities which don't apply to cis people's identities. I think it's reasonable to describe things as cissexist/transphobic based on their implications and/or effects, independently of their authors' intentions. Ananiujitha (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, and that is the thing that causes most of the grief here. "-phobic" is a suffix that says "motivated by hate or fear". You can't use it without describing the author's intentions.—Kww(talk) 15:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's widely used to describe structural discrimination against trans people, prejudice against trans people, etc. without any implication of deliberate hate; it's used the same way sexism, racism, and homophobia, among other similar terms, are used. Ananiujitha (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widely, misused, yes. The -isms and -phobias get trotted out everyday as cheap rhetorical devices to stifle criticisms. What we've seen here over the last month is no different. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added one academic source using transphobia in this sense, do you think Wikipedia discussions require more precise terminology than academic ones? Ananiujitha (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adopting this finding would piss all over the 100+ editors who, in good faith, recommended that the article be moved back. You're essentially accusing every single one of them of animus against trans individuals, and there is no evidence to support such a blanket accusation. It also accuses the admins who closed the RM of bad faith and transphobia, which doesn't work either. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three problems here. First, it makes sense to distinguish the net effect of what Wikipedia does from the individual opinions of various editors. Second, you seem to be relying on a very narrow definition of transphobia, one which requires animus, one which isn't the only definition. Third, why doesn't it "work" to accuse the admins who moved Chelsea Manning's page to "Bradley Manning" of bad faith and transphobia? why wouldn't it "work" to hold them to higher standards than the other editors involved? wouldn't it also "work" to argue that the process was at fault, and led the editors to the wrong decision? Ananiujitha (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object to a rewrite which says that The move back to Bradley Manning, whatever the intent, makes Wikipedia appear systemically cissexist Ananiujitha (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would - but my objection remains with the intent side of it. Either the admins who moved the article back following the RM discussion acted in good faith, based on their interpretation of the consensus at that discussion, or they did not. "Whatever their intent" means that they may have had bad faith motives behind their decision. There are no statements in evidence, or anywhere that I can see, that would justify such a position - and if there were, I'd be front of the line demanding that each of those admins be desysopped. Further, many editors believe, in good faith, that the article can be at Bradley Manning without being disrespectful to Ms. Manning or her gender identity. (NB: I disagree on this point.) Accusing these editors of transphobia, whether innocent (lack of data/experience) or fueled by bias, is not helpful - and, indeed, such accusations are a core element of what this case is intended to sort out. Tarc's right on this point, as well - we don't, and shouldn't, directly care what the media says about us. I'd put it this way - "When the article was moved back to Bradley Manning, editors and readers alike expressed concern that the move would be viewed as disrespectful to transgendered persons." It's a provable statement - they did, either here (diffs) or on other sites (links to articles). You lose me the instant the term "Transphobic" or "cissexist" comes into it - it muddles the debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, non transphobic people can edit according to rules which then have the effect of making Wikipedia transphobic. So, the transphobia then exists at a higher level, just like any editor here is nothing more than a collection of brain cells, yet none of these individual brain cells have any notion of what the editor is thinking, they are just processing electric and chemical signals. Count Iblis (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, institutionalized racism, but for transgenderism? Sorry, but no. All that has really happened here is that an article, at present, is named in contravention to how a group of people prefer to be addressed as. It isn't a human rights issue. Tarc (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were multiple people who made unambiguously transphobic commentary during this dispute

5) Some people denied the existence of trans people, or left bigoted commentary. This was by no means a majority of the votes, but tainted the discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. The fact that transphobic comments were made isn't in dispute, but the characterization of some comments as transphobic is. Some comments did not deny that Chelsea was trans or identified as female but felt that Wikipedia should use other factors to determine gender usage on the encyclopedia. Other legitimate factors such as biology and legality do exist, however, Wikipedia policy has determined we will honor the subject's identification and expert opinions on gender identification. Despite Wikipedia policy, it doesn't make those comment transphobic, only wrong. The context of those comments needs to be examined individually.--v/r - T P 23:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: That's agreeable, but you might want to also include Phil's list. It has some pretty obscene material in there. It's missing names, but a CTRL-F should be able to track it down.--v/r - T P 13:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Per the third part of my evidence. I wanted to include this, because it leads directly into the important finding of fact to follow. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words, i.e. "some people", are of no value to the discussion. I could just as easily say that "some pro-transgender editors denigrated and slurred others with whom they disagreed", and while I would be technically correct it would be rather disingenuous as off the top of my head I can only think of 4-5 that crossed the line. This is textbook guilt by association. Tarc (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a section in my evidence. I would rather let Arbcom name people, not myself. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

There is no reason to think the administrator triad who moved the article back to Bradley have any malice towards trans people

6) Whatever one's opinion of the decision, it gives every appearance of having been made in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Um, agree? It just seems like an odd statement to put on the record. -- tariqabjotu 04:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think the decision is one of the worst Wikipedia has made in years. But I don't think it was made out of malice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22: 59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The administrator triad who moved the article back to Bradley Manning were in an impossible position

7) Quite simply, the administrators had to judge a ridiculously long vote, that had hundreds of participants, of which a percentage were horribly bigoted. The percentage is high enough to be readily noticable, which was going to make their decision to move it back to Bradley look bad. Further, the news was directly paying attention to Wikipedia, making the decision look especially bad.

Again, see point 6. There's no reason to think there was any malice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

More weasel words and guilt-by-association They Three had one task to perform; with policy to guide them, evaluate the consensus of the move discussion. I have no doubt that any actual bigoted comments were discounted entirely in the final tallying. Tarc (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise this is a defense of them, right? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein that a backhanded compliment is still a compliment, sure. Tarc (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy moves of people who come out as transsexual have been happening for some time, with no substantial controversy hithertonow

See, for example Dee Palmer. This has been a convention Wikipedia has upheld for a while now.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The Dee Palmer article was created in January 2004, after her announcement as transgender in 2003, so that's not a valid example. And I wonder how many examples of this there really are. How many notable people with Wikipedia articles previously have come out as transgender? It can't be that many. And remember, consensus can change, so I'm not sure what this point is trying to say. -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD we would call this a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which holds no water. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@Tariqabjotu: It's relevant to deciding if David did anything wrong. If he's following a precedent, it might be valid to overturn the precedent, but we shouldn't apply sanctions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a precedent, but David shouldn't escape sanctions with this avenue, as the underlying complaint against him is he failed to adequately explain his action(s) when pressed to do so.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really a sanctionable offense? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully concur that if you invoke "BLP action, show's over, discuss before reverting" then you're expected to explain yourself. (And I think I did, and that's something that this case will judge.) But that's not what this principle is actually about, so we're off at a tangent here - David Gerard (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the page back to Bradley gave the appearance of Wikipedia being transphobic.

8) From a policy point of view, there may be arguments on both sides. However, once Manning's transgender status was recognised by Wikipedia, the context changed. The move back was inevitably going to be seen as "putting Chelsea back into the closet", to slightly paraphrase the Wikipedia Signpost's headline.

Now, three points need made here:

There were horribly bigoted attacks on transgender people in the discussion.
The admin triad disregarded these.
Other people argued for the move based on policy, such as WP:COMMONNAME, or insufficient sources at time of voting.

However, when people reading the talk pages and discussion see attacks on transgender people, and see Chelsea Manning moved to Bradley Manning after such attacks, it gives the impression of an attack on trans people. The facts can do very little to shake this impression.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Adam Cuerden: I believe there were two important factors: 1) That the last stable version was Bradley Manning and, 2) That the subject explicitly stated she understood Bradley would continue to be used.--v/r - T P 23:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I disagree with the notion that the move back gives the appearance of Wikipedia being transphobic. Putting that aside, though, I have a serious problem with findings of fact that suggest in any way that because the article was moved to Chelsea Manning initially, our hands were forced to keep it there. If you believe that placing the article at Bradley Manning somehow makes Wikipedia look bad since the article was sitting at Chelsea Manning for a week, the people to blame are the two individuals who moved the article to Chelsea Manning in the first place without consensus, not the sum of three hundred plus editors' opinions and the verdict by the three admins that resulted in the reinstatement of the previous title. Of course, as you're not going to lay such blame, a finding of fact of this nature should just be scrapped altogether. -- tariqabjotu 04:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This was meant to end with explaining the admins were in a Catch 22, analysing their choices, but then I looked again at the actual decision. A finding of "No consensus for Chelsea" followed by a move to Bradley and a block of further discussion for a month. I cannot defend a decision that bizarre, I'm not even sure I understand it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask detailed questions on my talk page. BD4212 explained it pretty well, and it wasn't "bizarre" by any stretch of the imagination. "No consensus" = "retain at stable position" is a pretty general principle, and exceptions are few and far between. Reopening a move discussion quickly after a closure is generally considered disruptive, and even 30 days is generally considered rapid. Two of the closing admins felt that this case was unusual enough and sources were shifting rapidly enough that a much-faster-than-normal reopening of discussion should be encouraged, even though the reflexive reopening of the discussion by people outraged by the close should be discouraged. If that doesn't help, like I said, feel free to ask me for clarification on my talk page. No need to clog this discussion with it.—Kww(talk) 19:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some feel this way, but it isn't a universally-held or ultimately relevant opinion. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely an opinion, nothing more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The debate was not appropriately moderated. Bigotry faced no consequences.

9) During the debate, many direct attacks were made against the possibility of people being transgender. These were not deleted, and there is no evidence anyone was warned over them. WP:NPA is clear: "Discriminatory epithets directed against another contributor, a group of contributors, or any of their characteristics (including, but not limited to, those protected by law or the Wikimedia Foundation's non-discrimination policy). Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."

This created a hostile environment, tainted the discussion, and distracted from the encyclopedic task of deciding a policy-based question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:'

I don't think this is valid. Comments about the topic are not the same as attacks on editors with that characteristic. For example, saying that "Scientology is a scam" should be permitted in discussions where such opinions are relevant, while saying in a vote "who cares what some Scientology scammer has to say" about your fellow editor is uselessly contentious. Wnt (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Users are reminded that attacks based on sexuality, including trans status, are a violation of WP:NPA.

1) "Discriminatory epithets directed against another contributor, a group of contributors, or any of their characteristics (including, but not limited to, those protected by law or the Wikimedia Foundation's non-discrimination policy). Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."

This must be enforced in any new discussions of page moves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"sexuality, including trans status": those things are not the same, nor is trans status a subset of sexuality. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"any of their characteristics (including, but not limited to, those protected by law or the Wikimedia Foundation's non-discrimination policy)." Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actual directed epithets, sure. I doubt anyone here opposes that. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define "directed"? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You are a <slur>", "Transgender people are <slur>", etc... Tarc (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the examples in my third evidence section? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

Battleground mentality

1) Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. All editors must recognize that, while they may be confident about their position, those who choose to involve themselves on Wikipedia must maintain any open mind to other perspectives.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- tariqabjotu 15:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Battleground mentality by Phil Sandifer

2) Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) has exhibited signs of having a battleground mentality, feeling that all who oppose his position are transphobic. [39], [40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree. There have been others, on both sides of the dispute, who have displayed an ever worse battleground mentality, but Phil's approach has indeed been inappropriately belligerent, which, in turn, has contributed to the general deterioration of the editing environment.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- tariqabjotu 15:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another diff (which is a copy of something he wrote on his personal blog); it's very long, but there are elements that mirror things he has said elsewhere on Wikipedia. For example,

"A result of that, then, is that a sizable bloc of editors with transphobic attitudes, whether malicious or ignorant, is sufficient to create an insurmountable objection to acknowledging someone’s gender transition."
"The emphasis on the word "solely"ends up making it clear that explicit transphobia is a perfectly acceptable reason to make decisions on Wikipedia so long as the bigotry is at least partially phrased in terms of Wikipedia policies"
"...treated with hostility by a crowd of people who, approaching transgender issues for the first time, genuinely believed that their judgments carried equal or greater weight" (giving the impression that the positions of people 'familiar with transgender issues' -- i.e. not anyone who supports the Bradley title -- carry greater weight)

-- tariqabjotu 04:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flatly untrue. I have never once accused anybody of being "transphobic" as an identity or a personal characteristic. I have several times pointed out that specific positions and claims are transphobic. For the arbitration committee to make a ruling that calling out bigotry is not permitted on Wikipedia would be a shockingly poor decision. To read WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE as requiring that we give a free pass to bigotry is self-evidently absurd. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs speak for themselves: All arguments for using "Bradley Manning" are transphobic for the simple reason that they are arguments for an inherently transphobic act. There is nothing "specific" about that. -- tariqabjotu 17:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is inasmuch as it's manifestly not "all editors arguing for using "Bradley Manning" are transphobes." Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it really make a difference if I said "...are expressing transphobia" instead of "...are transphobic"? My point was to describe the diffs, which the Committee and everyone else is fully capable of viewing themselves, and state that they demonstrate a battleground mentality. However you choose to characterize the diffs doesn't really matter to me; based on what I read, the proposal I'm making is that you've expressed a battleground mentality. -- tariqabjotu 17:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, in that it would mean that you're no longer pretending that this finding is anything other than a claim that calling out bigotry is unacceptable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Context matters. I believe Tariq is saying that your behavior is the problem, not the message. Arbcom could rule that the method you've used to communicate that you believe there is transphobic speech or that the action was transphobic is sanctionable without saying that all actions that communicate that there is transphobic speech or that an action was transphobic is prohibited. Your rebuttle is a logical fallacy, because sanctioning you for your behavior while saying that something is transphobic does not mean that all 'sayings that something is transphobic' are prohibited. It was your behavior, not your message.--v/r - T P 17:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell the objection goes no further than my calling out transphobia. Tariqabjotu's objection seems to be little more than that I consider the very act of misnaming Chelsea Manning transphobic on the face of it, and am willing to say so. The complaint is based on eliding that and making personal attacks in such a way as to mean that even carefully arguing the topic and not the contributor becomes untenable. I've been careful, despite my genuine anger over this topic, to make sure to argue the topic and to assume good faith even in people who are expressing viewpoints I find morally repugnant. Not one of the diffs provided by Tariq show me doing anything else. Put another way, exactly how could I have been more civil without abandoning the position that misnaming a trans person is hate speech? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an oversimplification, but your objection is duly noted. -- tariqabjotu 17:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think you're simplifying your own actions beyond reason. At the very least, your comment that the closers embraces hate speech is on the personal side. For me, single instances of a behavior can be excused when someone is effected so emotionally that their judgement takes a short break. I think that's what happened here and I personally would excuse the comment you made toward BD2412. However, your other comments, which they may reflect your honest opinion, come off as divisive. It's the blank and white, zero tolerance that has folks saying WP:BATTLE. Someone saying WP:COMMONNAME is not making a comment on transissues, but you've said if the end effect misnames a transperson then they are engaged in hate speech. That's what is not acceptable. We're in a Circular cause and consequence fallacy where you're saying that the consequence (Wikipedia does a transphobic act) is caused by Wikipedia editors being transphobic. However, some editors felt that the more important issue to a free encyclopedia is process. When trans* issues are placed ahead of Wikipedia issues (the process and policies) there is a conflict of Wikipedia interest and your interests. The process needs to be fixed in that case to come into compliance with mainstream standards. That's a longer process. So calling editors transphobic whom are interested in following the process, and perhaps changing the process the proper way, creates a rough atmosphere because you are assuming what their actions are and what causes them.--v/r - T P 18:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm very pointedly not making any assumptions about cause beyond "good faith." I'm making observations about effects. One of which is that the sixth largest website in the world has, for nearly a month now, been visibly legitimizing the misnaming of trans people. Which is harmful. Actually, materially harmful. I mean, I'm not arguing for sanction for that viewpoint or anything. But I shouldn't think calling it out is beyond the pale. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"One of which is that the sixth largest website in the world has, for nearly a month now, been visibly legitimizing the misnaming of trans people." This is understandable and I agree. I've also seen the care you've taken not to cross that line into personal attacks and battlefield comments. However, I think two of your comments cross the line. One, the one on BF2412's talk page that said the closers endorse transphobic hatred and the other was this one where you say several of us want to protect transphobic hate. I think both of those cross into personal.--v/r - T P 18:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could go track down diffs for the comments that support the latter claim. More than one person has specifically argued against the proposal that gender identity is covered by the non-discrimination policy. Though as I think about it, it is possible I confused Tariq and Tarc in that comment - if so, I apologize. The former was, I agree, strongly worded. As, I think, was appropriate - the close was the most significant single decision in the process. It was the decision that committed the project. Even still, please note that I was careful with my wording. "I have never before seen Wikipedia used in such an actively hurtful and harmful way as what you have just done." is certainly a strong objection, but note that it is framed in terms of the material consequences: harm. I'd point to the last comment I made on BD2412's talk page: [49]. The question I ask there still stands: given the decision to commit the sixth largest website in the world to openly discriminating against people I love, what, exactly, would have been the more reasonable response? What do you think I should have said that would have been more acceptable, but that preserved the underlying point of how staggeringly harmful the decision to move the article back was? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is though, the claim that "sixth largest website in the world [is] openly discriminating against people" is just your opinion, it is not a universally-accepted fact. No harm is done to Manning by the current title, nor is harm done to transgendered people in general. This is the point that this all keeps circling back to; just because you don't like something doesn't make it discriminatory, or harmful, or horrific, or any of the other hyperbolic terms that you have utilized in this debate. Tarc (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's funny to me here is that the statement "nor is harm done to transgendered people in general," a claim that flies in the face of actual statements by trans people who have expressed how harmful this actually is to them, is apparently just fine, but calling bigotry out isn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To quote from the article (16:29, 25 September 2013):

"Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses ... She will serve her sentence at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth."

I see no evidence of misgendering or misnaming of Manning in the article. In fact, I see the very opposite. So, less hysteria, please.

You may perhaps be referring to the title of the article? Now, step back a little. Our article on Eric Blair is at George Orwell. Our article on Mary Anne Evans is at George Eliot. Our article on Yusuf Islam (who was born Steven Georgiou) is at Cat Stevens. Our article on Malik El-Shabazz (who born was born Malcolm Little) is at Malcolm X. The title of the article ≠ the name of the person. It is conceivable that the article on Chelsea Manning will always be at Bradley Manning and that within it she will always be called Chelsea and referred to as she. Because the title of the article ≠ the name of the person.

I know you find this to be a pedantic argument. But really the clue is in what we call it: it is the article's title, not the subject's name. --RA (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that I find it a pedantic argument as that it's so ludicrously inside baseball that nobody who is not a die-hard Wikipedia editor will ever think that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, it's for the very opposite reason to "inside baseball" that our policy is so. Eric Blair is known best by the name George Orwell. Yusuf Islam is known best by the name Cat Stevens. That's why we have their articles at those locations.

At the time of the proposed move, Chelsea Manning was known best as Bradley Manning. Maybe that will change (maybe it has already). Until then, the article on her is no different to the ones on Yusuf Islam or Eric Blair. Yes, I know, it's irksome for those who know her name is really Chelsea Manning (or Eric Blair, or Mary Anne Evans, etc.), but we don't write for fans of "inside baseball". We write for those who don't know her name is Chelsea Manning. --RA (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support The insider baseball issue could be quite easily handled by simply adding a small disclaimer to the top of the page that says "This article title was chosen because it was considered to be the most commonly recognizable name for this subject, even though the subject prefers the name Chelsea". But Phil's exaggerated drama and hysteria over this matter has helped exactly no-one and contributed to a poisonous atmosphere. At the end of this day, in spite of all of his hyperbole, this is just the title of an article, end of story, and manning is properly "Gendered" and "named" as Phil wants throughout the WHOLE ARTICLE. The fact that this title may be perceived by some outside wikipedia to be an expression of trans* hatred is, honestly, NOT our problem, though I'd be happy to help explain to any who feel that way why articles are titled the way they are, and even have the disclaimer noted above in such cases. We should not bow to outside pressure nor change our policies on a whim just because someone in the world feels offended somewhere.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the latest diff added... Christ, you're really just taking the position that it's prima facie unacceptable to believe misnaming trans people to be harmful, aren't you? No matter how much it's clarified that the observation isn't a comment on the people doing the misnaming, no matter how much good faith is assumed, the pure fact that I believe misnaming trans people to be discriminatory and harmful is, for you, grounds for why I should be topic banned. Wow. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This, of course, is not what I've said or believe. -- tariqabjotu 03:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There are many others here who also feel that the use of "Bradley" is transphobic, but none of them are exhibiting "my way or the highway" attitudes with statements like All arguments for using "Bradley Manning" are transphobic. The very idea that you can reject all arguments, vs the ones that have been presented so far seems like you are leading with your chin.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this amounts in practice to the claim that viewing the act of misnaming a trans person as hate speech is not allowed on Wikipedia. Replace "misnaming a trans person" with "referring to a racial minority by a derogatory epithet" and the degree to which this is a ludicrous claim becomes clear. Put another way, if I were arguing that any claim that an article should begin "X is a #RACIAL_SLUR" was racist, would anyone blink at the claim? Or is it purely because I'm applying this position to transgender people that it has somehow become objectionable? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make comparisons as if they are objective. You've equated "titling the article Bradley Manning" to "misnaming a trans person" and then equated "misnaming a trans person" to "referring to a racial minority by a derogatory epithet". Yes, those equations are true to you, but they are not true to everyone. If you want to involve yourself in this arena, you need to accept when your perception doesn't obtain consensus. If you can't, explore another part of Wikipedia. This is true for anyone in any topic area, not just one you care about deeply. -- tariqabjotu 18:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should not think that the time to walk away comes prior to the resolution of an arbitration committee case about these issues. You seem to have scheduled the point where I ought depart this topic as prior to a rather crucial debate about consensus. But even so, I think the suggestion that WP:CONSENSUS is equivalent to "thou shalt not dissent" is more than a bit rich. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I accept your position that using "Bradley" is offensive, I (and I daresay others) find that so-called mis-naming is not akin to hate speech. Your beef is with the sources, not us. We've been told we don't have the experience to see it your way. Not for the lack of trying, but most explanations have failed to gain traction. But this is besides the point; the issue at hand is not your content, but rather your delivery.

@RA: Sorry to harp on this point, but the view that article titles aren't really identifiers is such an insider's perspective. Do you at least agree that an uninformed but reasonable visitor would identify the two concepts, article title and definitive (or primary) identifier for article subject? That is how WP conveys support for misnaming. Chris Smowton (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more disruptive to a content discussion than for one of the participants to broadly accuse, with prejudice, the other editors in the discussion of being hatemongers. In the future, if I want to show someone what a battleground attitude looks like, I will probably refer them to Phil Sandifer's behavior related to this debate as the best example I can think of. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a good thing that I've not accused anybody of being a hatemonger then. You're trying to transform a strongly worded condemnation of a position into an accusation about the character of the person advocating that position. This has the effect of treating calling out bigotry as worse than bigotry itself, and is patently absurd. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, you mean you didn't accuse other people of engaging in "hatespeak?" Did someone hijack your WP account without you being aware of it? Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Interaction ban

1) Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) and David Gerard (talk · contribs) are directed to immediately cease commenting about each other directly or indirectly in any forum related directly or indirectly with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. This includes mailing lists, IRC channels that use the word "wikipedia" or "wikimedia" in their name, or any WMF-hosted project. They are also directed not to seek sanctions on each other either publicly or privately through any means, except through arbitration enforcement processes. Administrators who receive any such requests for sanctions are requested to inform the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would appreciate any thoughts on why you think this is necessary, Tariqabjotu. NW (Talk) 19:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exchanges like the one under #David Gerard. The first paragraph of my response to him there says it all; nothing productive or useful has ever come out of a conversation between us. I don't want him to interact with me. -- tariqabjotu 19:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed for after the ArbCom case, obviously. -- tariqabjotu 07:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Does the Arbitration Committee have authority to impose sanctions relating to third-party venues such as IRC? I saw the Committee's promise to consider the matter in 2008 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#IRC, though I can't find the promised report. There's also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:IRC channels which reached no consensus. Also, how do you propose that an interaction ban on third-party mailing lists and IRC channels be enforced fairly and without violating our outing policies? For example, what's stopping someone who doesn't like David from signing up to such a venue with the account name "David Gerard" and attempting to interact with your account there in hopes of triggering an ArbCom sanction against him? Or alternatively, if there exists some account on a third-party venue which is interacting with you, and which you suspect is operated by David, then would he be obliged to disclose this on Wikipedia, even though this might have the side-effect of revealing personal information about himself he doesn't wish to make public? (My examples use David as the hypothetical victim, but of course this could just as easily be you.) —Psychonaut (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This wording was based off the text of another interaction ban, but I don't care if some of the venues listed are nixed. -- tariqabjotu 08:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've had no form of interaction whatsoever except over this particular matter, and no reason to think there would be. The problem I have with this proposal is that it implies there has been, or that future harassment is a likely prospect. This has not been substantiated. I have no plans to interact with Tariqabjotu barring an actual reason, and I assume he has none to interact with me barring an actual reason, so imposing this as a remedy wouldn't have any effect other than implying there was a reason for it, tarnishing both our names - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused on this point as well - Tariq, if you don't plan to ever interact with David Gerard, and he doesn't plan to ever interact with you... gosh, why not just agree not to interact? Here's another question - have you specifically asked David Gerard not to interact with you? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either works for me, although you could just as easily say that if neither of us plan to interact, then what's the big deal about proposing a formal interaction ban? It at least removes any temptation. As for the second question, consider this that request (in concert with the previous one under #David Gerard). -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy to accept a finding that implies there's been harassment going on without any evidence of such, and there isn't any (either way) - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point - there is absolutely no need whatsoever for an arbitration committee ruling of any sort if you both will agree to a voluntary interaction ban. Here's how it goes - we have an admin write it up (likely following WP:IBAN), and they post the ban on your talk pages. You both confirm your agreement, so that there is a diff of your consent to the ban. Then it's done. The ban would be indefinite, since neither of you contemplates a need for it to sunset or expire. If one of you violates the ban, the other would report the breach to WP:ANI or WP:AN, or to the admin who put the ban in place. Down the line, if there's some article you wish to collaborate on, or whatever, you could both request that the ban be lifted - since it's voluntary, your mutual agreement would be all that would be required to lift the ban (assuming Arbcom does not affirm it as part of this case, thus requiring arbcom to lift it later). Would that work? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. -- tariqabjotu 04:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is necessary. Tariq, you don't seem to be interested in any further interaction with David anyways. Such remedies are mostly for longstanding feuds, not one-off incidents. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Sandifer

2) Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from LGBT topics, broadly defined, indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I say "indefinitely" because Phil was not very active before the Manning dispute. I feel making the ban "indefinite" (which, again, is not "forever") is the best way for the topic ban to be effective. As for why I think it this is necessary, see #Battleground mentality by Phil Sandifer. During the course of this ArbCom case, Phil has doubled down on his assertion that all arguments in support of name Bradley Manning during the discussion were transphobic, even after being told that such a statement exhibited a battleground mentality. Thus, I would be very concerned if Phil were permitted to continue contributing in this area. -- tariqabjotu 15:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the underlying finding of fact that justifies this, and so obviously think the conclusion is ridiculous. It amounts to a flat-out effort to prohibit any sort of consideration of the material harm that discrimination does. In the end this proposal suggests that claiming that misgendering and misnaming is transphobic and hate speech - a position that I should point out is completely mainstream within trans and ally communities - is worthy of a topic ban. This suggestion is laughable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Tariq, are you first and foremost saying Phil's opinion that naming the article BM is unjustifiable merits a ban, or is it the way he conveyed that opinion, or both? Chris Smowton (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was the behavior and not the message that is in question.--v/r - T P 17:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have no doubt that Phil is not the only person who feels the Bradley Manning name is unjustifiable. However, there's a distinction between "I believe it's unjustifiable, but apparently some people think otherwise" and "It is unjustifiable, and everyone who thinks otherwise is expressing bigotry". Phil, seemingly unapologetically, appears to fall squarely in that second category. That mindset has no place on a collaborative project like this one. It's one thing to strongly disagree, it's another to argue that the positions of those who disagree with you should just be ignored. -- tariqabjotu 17:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which answers my question elsewhere: you do not believe there is any way that the position that misnaming a trans person is hate speech can be expressed on Wikipedia, and are calling for the outright banning of that view. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq, I have a sneaking feeling you might be mixing up one of the Josh Gorand diffs with one of Phil's. You're saying he conveyed "everyone who thinks otherwise is expressing bigotry," but that sounds a lot like Josh here. By contrast most of those Phil diffs seem to describe the site as a whole conveying a transphobic or bigoted impression to the outside world, rather than individual editors being themselves bigoted, with his angry remarks directed at BD2412 debatably crossing that line to level an individual accusation at BD and perhaps the other closers, but not all opposed editors. Could you cite a specific diff for the sentiment "everyone who thinks otherwise is expressing bigotry"? Chris Smowton (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Smowton: I'm not sure how you don't see anything personal in a statement suggesting Wikipedia is embracing hate speech; I read that as talking about the Wikipedia community that made and came to that decision. In any event, more directly, during this case he has said In that regard, any argument for it is discriminatory and transphobic. [50] and also All arguments for using "Bradley Manning" are transphobic for the simple reason that they are arguments for an inherently transphobic act [51]. (Note that I just added that last diff, as I didn't notice that the original diff I posted didn't include that part.) -- tariqabjotu 20:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are delicate semantic arguments -- for example, I'd read "Wikipedia embracing hatespeech" as referring to the site conveying hatespeech rather than individual editors, particular in view of his remarks here: My ability to believe that good faith leads to horrific outcomes is vast. The latter two revolve around whether a person can commit a transphobic act in good faith (indeed the latter diff directly asserts that they can, and strongly disclaims any accusation of transphobia on the part of an editor). Personally I suggest transphobia is the wrong word for a thing that causes harm to trans people, or is perceived as transphobic, but which is carried out in good faith; trans-ignorance might be a better term, and I think it's fairly clear that Phil is referring to ignorance not malice in those cases. Regardless, I note it is 23:59 on the 25th, so it's time for the committee to distangle the semantics, and it is just conceivable I have had the much-vaunted last word! Chris Smowton (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an accurate assessment of my views. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard administrative topic ban

3) David Gerard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is prohibited from using his administrative privileges on LGBT topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Sorry for proposing this rather late in the period; I thought something of this nature had already been proposed, but, in fact, findings of fact suggesting involvement and activism have only been proposed. This is an alternative to The Devil's Advocate's proposal of desysopping/going through recall. (The text of this proposal would, of course, need finessing, but this is the gist of what I have in mind.) -- tariqabjotu 19:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Proposals by User:Two kinds of pork

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a platform for activism

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for social justice. Wikipedia should follow the news, not create news. Wikipedia should inform about social policy, but not seek to create policy. When Wikipedia receives praise from newspapers for making news, it is nothing to be proud of.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Ananiujitha: remember that WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV, which means that (and I quote) [n]eutrality requires that each article [...] fairly represents all significant viewpoints [...] in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources, which in turn entails that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 18:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ananiujitha: your question is far too general for me to give a meaningful answer. Let me make a hypothetical example: if the vast majority of reliable sources used the name "Bradley" in spite of Manning's self-identification, then Wikipedia should keep using that name, and it would be inappropriate to give undue weight to the few sources which indeed used "Chelsea". (I know this is not the case, as most of the sources available are moving or have moved away from "Bradley" and "he", but, as I said, this was an example).

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 12:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: I'm afraid you're comparing apples and oranges there; a slightly apter analogy would be: what would happen if tomorrow there emerged a scientific consensus to change Pluto's name to "Dispater", for instance? Well, in that case, I believe that we should continue to use "Pluto", having "Dispater" as a redirect, until the latter becomes the celestial body's common name. A title should reflect the name that reliable sources use to identify the article's subject, even in the unpleasant cases where it conflicts with said subject's self-identification.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This is 100% on target. This should be the foundation of the decision, with appropriate sanctions for those who abused administrative tools and those on either side of the debate who breeched civil discourse. Carrite (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct per Carrite. for Salvio, it's a caveat that virtually all sources that use "Chelsea" will also have a "FKA Bradley" statement for identification. It's respectful to use present tense "she." The need and use for the "Bradley" statement speaks to notability. How notability, NPOV and BLP fit together is the question/quagmire. --DHeyward (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree.--v/r - T P 19:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree, wikipedia can either be an encyclopedia or a news source, seeing we have that wikipedia is not a newspaper under WP:NOT I feel that making the news for being first at something is not a wise choice to take if we are to be a neutral encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear precisely what this proposal is trying to say or how it relates to the case. Obviously, a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia is that it creates policy relating to its content and functioning. I appreciate that is not what is being referred to here, but I am having a hard time working out exactly what is. And I would have thought praise from newspapers will often be something to be proud about. There may be occasions when it is not, but I don't expect Arbcom to adopt such a generalisation. Formerip (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the principle is quite clear. How does it relates to this case? At least one editor has campaigned via social media to encourage participation in order to effect the outcome of the move discussion. Several people have used Manning's announcement to treat the discussion like it is their personal Speaker's Corner. Should we be proud of newspapers saying we "beat the newspapers"? No! We should act like referees who officiated a sporting event and whose sole desire is not to be noticed because they did their job well.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would seriously never have guessed that what you wrote above had to do with off-wiki canvassing. I think it needs re-writing to reflect that. The evidence should also be submitted to the evidence page. Formerip (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some principles, such as the neutral point of view, can require activism to make them work. In the first place, it can require editors to try to negotiate to achieve neutrality. In the second place, it is easier to find the perspectives of influential groups than of marginalized groups, and neutrality can sometimes require editors to try to seek out reliable sources from among marginalized groups. So there's the potential to contribute to, instead of detract from, the project. Ananiujitha (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no support in the NPOV policies for such a stance. Neutrality requires distancing oneself from competing visions of what should be and instead writing about what is. It is the responsibility of all editors to seek out other perspectives on the issue and present them fairly. Content should reflect consensus, not negotiation. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not trying to achieve moral or ethical neutrality here. Our neutrality is that we document what the sources say the way the sources say them and as much as the sources say them. It lead's to systematic bias, of course, but any other alternative requires a POV.--v/r - T P 16:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see as the purposes and the appropriate applications of the neutrality policy? I don't think it necessarily requires moral or ethical neutrality. I think it often requires Wikipedia editors to try to be fair in addressing philosophical, religious, or sometimes political controversies; to describe evidence if there is evidence, and to describe each side's beliefs, and to avoid language which picks sides. I think it's a fair part of that to try to find documentation of less-documented sides, communities, etc.

"Our neutrality is that we document what the sources say the way the sources say them and as much as the sources say them." Where is the neutrality in that? If the first sources aren't neutral, then more sources may be needed to achieve neutrality. If the first source is a religious essay describing another religious group as heretical, it is not neutral, and it will take additional sources to achieve neutrality. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If the first source is a religious essay describing another religious group as heretical, it is not neutral" Agreed, but we don't go by a single source. Our job is to look at the entirety of the available sources and then write an article. Editors who only focus on sources that support their POV should be removed from the project; or they should team up with someone who has the opposite POV in good faith and on their own recognize. Activism isn't needed to do that, only good faith editors. However, what you're discussing is the opposite side of a coin I myself was curious about about a year ago. I'll fill you in on your talk page for your reference.--v/r - T P 17:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, many articles are derived from one source. It's up to individual editors to decide what articles to work on, and what sources to seek out. In many cases, I think it's a legit move to try to find either better sources, or more neutral sources, or balancing sources, depending. It isn't always helpful, for example, someone who believes the medieval articles don't give enough attention to Fomenko's theories, but within reason, it is likely to be more helpful than not. It is, in effect, how we get from one source to a reasonable selection of the available sources. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think, generally, Wikipedia benefits when we can judge edits by how informative they are, how clear they are, and how well-documented they are, and suffers when we end up judging edits by which side they're on. Unfortunately, the underlying controversy, name vs. name, forced relevant edits to either favor one side or another. Ananiujitha (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're absolutely right. However, editors we can judge by which side they are on. When an editor only pushing a single point of view, they're using Wikipedia to push a political agenda. Wikipedia isn't for that. Our job is to share in all human knowledge. Pushing one idea in favor of another doesn't match up with Wikipedia's goal and so those editors are in conflict with Wikipedia's intent.--v/r - T P 18:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP must be neutral and not violate the undue weight clause of NPOV is what I think you meant. One problem with this particular situation is we're almost entirely dependent on news media for our sources on this matter and in my opinion, when the news media gets their hands on a story they invariably twist things for the sake of drama.--MONGO 18:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactomundo!--v/r - T P

Salvio Giuliano, TParis, can we agree that although there's sometimes some doubt as to when due weight becomes undue weight, there are some contexts where it's appropriate to find balancing sources to try to achieve due weight? Ananiujitha (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, to the best ability of the editor. Articles should express the combined context of the sources put together. Editors should start article writing from the position of gathering sources. Starting from a position of writing the article and finding sources to support that writing is what leads to POV pushing.--v/r - T P 19:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio Giuliano, to say that, under those circumstances, Chelsea Manning's article should be at "Bradley Manning" comes off as, in a word, cissexist. It is also a bad example, because in this case while I'm not an expert on either policy, we wouldn't be able to apply neutral point of view independently of biographies of living persons (sic) and basic considerations of respect. It might be a better example to consider the emperor Julian. I'd still be inclined to try to avoid insulting people in the titles of their articles, if it is possible, and if it doesn't require an obscure alternate name. Ananiujitha (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst Wiki is not for activism, in cases like this when it must make an editorial choice (namely, when talking about trans people, to what degree do we reflect whatever degree of trans-acceptance exists in society at large, and to what degree do we defer to their wishes in the name of respect,) it is not using the platform for activism to opine about whether that choice is appropriate, and if like me you feel that the current stance is inappropriate, to argue for it to be changed. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's better suited to be discussed at the relevant policy.--v/r - T P 13:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. I think it can be done "right" by current policy though, using the "When the (most common name) has problems..." passage in WP:AT. Just need to convince people that presenting a hostile impression to the trans readership can be construed as having problems in this sense. Chris Smowton (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: I think that's a dangerous precedent to set. Let's take the recent circumstances where Pluto was declared not to be a full planet anymore. Should we have kept saying it was a planet at first because more sources said that at the time of the announcement? No. We need to adapt to changing events, and not do some sort of source counting. If an official body makes a declaration, we don't wait for that to percolate through to the newspapers. There are some cases where only one source is needed to make the change.

Consider the Pluto debate. There were active campaigns and a lot of newspaper coverage of people wanting Pluto to remain a planet. There was actiive denial of it. But we made the change because the only source that mattered - IUPAC - had declared it. There is, to my knowledge, no reliable source actively arguing that Manning is not a trans woman.

A judgement that we shouldn't be able to change things without a preponderance of sources, in cases where literally only one source matters, is bad, bad policy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree - the Pluto example is not the same. This is a discussion about article title, not article contents. I don't think there is any dispute of Manning's new gender identity, and even if 100 conservative newspapers denied it, we would probably still put "Manning identifies as a woman". However, the title is not a "fact", nor is the title an assertion of "Manning's true and only name" - instead the title is intended to help the reader be sure they are in the right place, and to help other editors in linking, and to present well in searches (article titles rank much higher in searches than redirects). As such, we have COMMONNAME and other parts of WP:AT that guide on on title choice. This has nothing to do with the "fact" that Manning believes she is a woman, or the "fact" that Manning now calls herself Chelsea. In order to be neutral, the default is to just look at the preponderance of sources. We have an actual case here, of Alexis Reich, who transitioned, but the coverage did not shift in the way Manning's coverage shifted. In this case, we should probably move Alexis' article back to John Mark Karr. You really have to stop conflating the article title with some sort of declaration of the gender or name of the individual - that is not it's intent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio. I think you moved from apples and oranges to lemons and mangoes. Chelsea Manning is more comparable to a human being than a planet/ex-planet, I would say. In some circumstances, we will reflect a name change without waiting for sources. We did this when Kate Middleton got married to watsisname, for example. Even now, plenty of sources still call her Kate Middleton [52], but we don't. So the question is why the different approach? I can only think that it is because we take the validity of one name change for granted and the other to be a matter of opinion. But what's our basis for doing that? Formerip (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by David Gerard

Proposed principles

Offensive commentary

Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on an identifiable group, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion on communal pages such as those in the Wikipedia namespace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Previously upheld in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Offensive_commentary (2012); wording may be tweakable for here. Applies to the early, heavy, directly transphobic comments in the move discussion, which actually drove trans editors away from participation - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Baseball Bugs comments were full of sarcasm and not productive. However "reasonably be anticipated" is not reasonable because this issue is polarized. We've got two sides here who are going to argue what reasonable is. This language needs to be more clear.--v/r - T P 15:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But, it cuts both ways. For example, Morwen was the first to use the word "transphobic" (which is an offensive label) to describe other editors' contributions. She further used this language off-wiki in press interview to cast aspersions on opposing editors (claiming there was a "background of transphobia" to the incident). That message - which is deeply offensive - was picked up and repeated by others after her (including press/media contacts of hers). But as point of fact, she was the first to throw the word at others and she perpetuated that message off-wiki in the press. --RA (✍) 18:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For avoidance of doubt, in response to comments below, the dictionary definition of "transphobia" is: "intense dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people". This is from the Oxford dictionary, which I think it most appropriate since Morwen is British. --RA (✍) 23:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note my comment is listed. I'll also note that it was notability related and was made prior to formal announcements of how Chelsea Manning would be recognized by reliable sources. Since then, I've read media guides from various groups as well as changes in policy by AP and NY Times that occurred post-comment. From an education point of view it was enlightening to understand the language that has historically been used to deny transgender people their identity. This I have done on my own as only a label was thrown out, not a critique as no one seems willing to presume that comments are made in good faith (or perhaps uncomfortable discussing transgender issues openly). I don't consider myself transphobic in any sense of the word and haven't shied away from expressing opinion in discussion. I've stated Chelsea Manning is female and she should be referred to using feminine gender terms. My preference is that "Bradley Manning" be a disambiguation page for all articles related to the one thing that makes her notable (and I question whether a biography is even warranted). This has evolved with the sources available. Absent that, notability would lead me to believe "Bradley Manning" should be the main page for her bio though it's not something I would lose sleep over as there will always be a Bradley Manning page whether as disambiguation, redirect or main. It's more important that the lede start with "Chelsea E. Manning" regardless of title. Stylistically, I agree with NLGJA style where gender pronouns in the timeframe being discussed match the gender identity that the person is presenting outwardly at that point in time. I don't believe this position is transphobic and the intent of that style isn't to deny anyones identity. I'd like people to point out specific issues and presume that what I wrote was not intentionally harmful to any person or group. Discussion tends to broaden views. I don't mind discussion, even pointed or heated discussion. But I don't like broad, offensive labels thrown out. I can change my mind, I can't change your label. In a discussion about the right to self-identification, it is ironic to have labels tossed out at people based on another persons perception. --DHeyward (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intent isn't magic, but for what it's worth I was trying to call the arguments transphobic, not the people. Morwen (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Rannpháirtí anaithnid, Morwen didn't say people were transphobic, she said people were making transphobic arguments, which they were, the arguments are in plain view on the page you linked. Ananiujitha (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine line and a slightly artificial one. What she commented on was "the number of people making transphobic arguments" (diff). She didn't comment on the arguments. She commented on the people making them. And she labelled them "transphobic". And she was the first to use that word in that discussion.

I'm not going to comment or make any proposals on the offensive or inflammatory language from "the other side". Others are more capable of doing that. Suffice it to say that I'm just as appalled by the behaviour of some there. --RA (✍) 21:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please be clear on the fact that the description of "transphobic" as "an offensive label" is User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid's personal opinion. It's a criticism, which may or may not be valid criticism in any particular case. To attempt to enjoin trans people against using that word is to bias the discussion against us from the start. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clearly offensive label. It's not just User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid's opinion: it's a word calculated to make one side of a discussion appear irrational and fearful. It's no "etymological fallacy" to presume that the people that chose that word and popularised it did it with the prior knowledge of what "phobic" means.—Kww(talk) 02:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being called Transphobic is offensive, I have also seen it used incorrectly as well the word is broken down Trans(Transition, in this case male to female) and Phobia which means fear. So calling out someone who you know nothing about in real life who you think is afraid of transgendered people just by comments online is both a personal attack and ignorant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, Kk87, this allergy to the word transphobic is pretty odd considering I've seen a dozen people saying things like "I think this Statement X is predicated on a systematically negative view of trans people" or "...on a rejection of trans identities" without the fireworks going off, and these are the same statement as "I think Statement X is transphobic," replacing the t-word with its definition (note that it doesn't mean literally afraid, Kk87, in the same way that homophobia doesn't mean you literally quaver with terror when walking past a pride parade). If people searched and replaced transphobia before posting, would that be OK? Is it purely the fact that people tend to get upset when they see the word? Chris Smowton (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word you are looking for is Trans bashing, that word is hate towards the trans community. Look up the word Phobia as well also per Kww etymological fallacy does not come into play. In either case both words are negative terms for people, and both accuse others of comments that could very well be in good faith and in context. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If people meant Trans bashing which is consciously and actively hateful, instead of Transphobia which describes negative attitudes that inform prejudice, then they would have said Trans bashing. Both actively hateful people (which doesn't include the majority of Wikipedia editors) and an environment that promotes arguments based on transphobic foundations should be discouraged. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-phobia is also not a word dictionary speaking so it's meaning can be defined person by person, those who break down the word like I did come to "Fear of trans people" while others see it as a catch all phrase for those who fear and hate trans-people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find transphobia in the dictionary, I can see why you're having trouble with it as a concept. Oxford describes it as "intense dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people." I don't see how you can argue that transphobia isn't in any dictionary. Are you taking this discussion seriously? __Elaqueate (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that was half awake and did not see the link, anyways my point still stands though that it is offensive to mislabel someone - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Hey, do you think if someone identifies themselves as not transphobic, that should be enough for people, and they should be accepted as not being transphobic? __Elaqueate (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I do think that some trans-phobic comments were indeed used, the problem is who picks and chooses which ones can be seen as trans-phobic and which ones were used in context with what reliable sources say? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to avoid offending people by mislabeling them? __Elaqueate (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes by Assuming good faith, calling someone out for being trans-phobic when they are not being trans-phobic is not a good way to go about doing things. Going to the editor's talkpage and saying you disagree with the comment they made because such and such I feel would be a better solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone said that transphobic comments were used, should you initially assume good faith that they meant that certain arguments were based on transphobic ideas and that they weren't saying that all editors were transphobic or that the individual editor was transphobic? __Elaqueate (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only refer to bashing, including trans bashing, to refer to actual violence. that may just be my personal definition. Ananiujitha (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87, please see etymological fallacy. The meaning of the word "transphobic" isn't as narrow as your analysis claims. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut: it's not an allergy or an etymological fallacy. Etymological fallacy comes into play when the passage of time has shifted the meanings of word roots enough that a word may no longer mean what its roots would imply. "Transphobic" isn't such a case. "Phobic" meant "irrationally fearful or hateful" when the word was coined, and it still means that today. It was chosen because it had that implication: it's an intentional slur wrapped in a scientific sounding label. Chris Smowton: yes, rephrasing around the word would make many of the statements acceptable.—Kww(talk) 15:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Smowton: What you're arguing is that "You're really not being considerate of others" is a nicer way of saying "You're an asshole." We agree. Which is why saying it the first way is better than saying it the second way.--v/r - T P 15:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think "You're really not being considerate of others" is a pretty scorching criticism, but hey, I'm happy to be wordier if it provokes less knee-jerk responses to a particular term. If this is your view though, I'd make it very clear that you're asking people to replace "this comment is transphobic" with "this comment suggests you don't like yada yada," as the don't-say-transphobia complaint comes across like you're asking people not to point out transphobic views at all. Chris Smowton (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are saying that someone can express a view such as, hypothetically, "I think all articles about people should be titled under the legal name, and any alternate names should be redirects to that article" without having any emotional state about transgender people at all. It's legitimate to point out that a policy like that would disadvantage transgender people, but not legitimate to describe the person that believes that as transphobic.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I meant to describe how to engage people that make arguments like that but in so doing show an antipathy towards trans people. Your example shows disregard, but not antipathy. Chris Smowton (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Morwen didn't say people were transphobic, she said people were making transphobic arguments" is a distinction without a difference. Tarc (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what are you objecting to? There were transphobic comments, so there is no reasonable way to object to her description of the commments, but the way you wrote it you implied that she was describing the authors as transphobic, which could be unfair to the authors if they were simply uninformed, so it seemed relevant that she had only described the comments as transphobic. If you don't make that distinction, then, well, what are you arguing? Ananiujitha (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not every comment or commenter was transphobic. Interpreting comments as transphobic and thereby labeling the commenter as transphobic is a slur and stifles debate. It is an offensive label and violates numerous policies and is neither justified or necessary. "Being offended" and "being offensive" are not the same. If Morwen was offended by comments, explaining why s/he was offended is more appropriate than labeling the commenter as offensive. Otherwise, policy would presume the offense was inadvertent and the interpretation incorrect. --DHeyward (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Not every comment or commenter was transphobic." No, some comments were. Why would you read anything more into her comment? Ananiujitha (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Interpreting comments as transphobic and thereby labeling the commenter as transphobic is a slur and stifles debate. It is an offensive label and violates numerous policies and is neither justified or necessary. "Being offended" and "being offensive" are not the same." So we can't call transphobia transphobia? Seriously? And you think trans people [and cis allies] have no right to object to transphobia, but anti-trans people can object to the word transphobia? Ananiujitha (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Why would you read anything more into her comment?" Simply put, she didn't bother to be specific. It was a lazy accusation that cast a wide net. WP:NPA requires that when you make accusations, you provide evidence. This doesn't prohibit the LGBT community or any community from calling out offensive comments. It requires they do it with evidence. If you can support it with evidence, then why is there so much insistence that we're condoning offensive language? If you can't support it with evidence, then don't make the comment. Simple as that. It's exactly what we enforce on everyone. Equal treatment.--v/r - T P 15:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm objecting to the statement "Morwen didn't say people were transphobic", as she obviously did say that. Tarc (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: The thing is, there are unambiguously transphobic comments floating around - people denying transgender exists, (please see the third section of my evidence). So, if one says there's an air of transphobia over the debate, you could argue for them being right - these statements were not being met with warnings (so far as I can see), nor even that much censure. So, if Morwen only spoke in generalities, it's easy to argue they're right. There were some major issues with the way the debate was handled, and failure to keep it policy-focused, instead allowing people to spew bigotry without consequences, is a big one. And I would rather blame the people who acted like that, tainting the debate, than blaming someone who called them out for it.

You don't link to Morwen's statements, so I can't evaluate their actual words, however. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think civility is Wikipedia's War on Drugs. The harder you try to prohibit incivility, the more prevalent it becomes. I think we should allow editors to state opinions that are outright hostile to transsexuality, and for pro-trans editors to call them out about it. Neither should be sanctioned. Wnt (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perceived harassment

Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Previously upheld in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Perceived_harassment (2011) - application: it is possible for a comment to be correctly describable as "transphobic" without deliberate malicious intent on the part of the speaker, just as a comment can be racist, sexist or homophobic without targeted malice - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with same caveats on the word "reasonable". Whomever shows up for a discussion on a particular day are going to disagree on what reasonable is.--v/r - T P 15:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does this relate to the case? --RA (✍) 18:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

David Gerard: I'm having a hard time understanding the linkage between your comment and the above text. "Transphobic" is an accusation: it states that the person acted in a manner motivated by hatred or fear. It's inappropriate to use it to describe the actions of someone that could be accused of insensitivity at worse. Being insensitive does not make one phobic.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kww: Again, you're arguing from a personal definition which is one definition but not the only definition of the term. For example, in the evidence page, I've quoted Kate Richmond, Theodore Burns, and Kate Carroll, and how they use the term in Lost in Trans-Lation: Interpreting Systems of Trauma for Transgender Clients. David Gerard: True, but a better-defined term, such as cissexism, might be more appropriate here. Ananiujitha (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I don't even recall seeing the word "cissexism" in actual non-Tumblr use before this whole discussion, and I speak ideologically-sound fluently, even if as a second language - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, people are simply abusing the word and trying to pretend that it isn't the mean-spirited hateful accusation that it is. "Phobic" doesn't mean "contra" or "insensitive", it means to hate or fear. That people have been misusing it in order for their own purposes doesn't legitimize their misuse.—Kww(talk) 23:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymological fallacy. A closely analogous comment would be someone saying something homophobic and then claiming "that's not homophobic, I'm not afraid of them". "Transphobic" is actually the word for behaviour analogous to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. towards trans people - David Gerard (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing is going down a dangerous and ugly path of political correctness. We need to draw a very clear distinction between perceived harassment of an editor directly vs. in a general sense. If there is a transgender editor taking part in these discussions who has been on the receving end of insults or dismissals of their opinion because of their gender, that is completely out -of-bounds and easily addressed via existing policies on personal attacks. If a transgender editor, or editors supportive of such, feel harassed because someone, i.e. me, declines to address Bradley Manning as "she", well...that's kinda too bad. There's a line where your rights end and mine begin, and claiming "harassment" because of my opinion in this matter crosses it. Tarc (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, I don't think anybody is saying you don't have the right to offend others, just that it would be more pleasant for all those involved that if you can avoid offending your fellow editors through minimal effort, you (try to) do that. If someone asks you 'would you mind doing x differently, because if you do it like this, it makes me feel harassed', it may be a good idea to do that, even if it is within your right to ignore that request. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Martijn Hoekstra:, do you not understand that what you are requesting is essentially a muzzle on anyone who opposes the move of the article to "Chelsea Manning" ? Throughout the original Move Discussion, the big ANI thread, and now these Arb pages the very opposition to that is being cast as transphobic. It is not necessarily the words that I and other editors have used who have voiced disagreement in all of this, it is the nature of the opinion (and the opinion-holder) that has consistently been tossed under the "you're a transphobe!" bus. So if you have a way forward for genuine dissenting voices in this subject area, I'm all ears. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc - it may seem like that in theory but I think in practice it wouldn't be as serious. I've made comments before that were offensive if seem in a certain light and User:Fluffernutter came to my talk page and expressed what I wasn't aware of. I made a simple fix to correct it. My message was still relevant afterwards.--v/r - T P 16:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way forward would be to make arguments based on policies and guidelines, not personal perceptions.

Arguing that "Bradley Manning isn't a woman so his article shouldn't be renamed" is both offensive and disconnected from any policy rationale.

Arguing that "a majority of reliable sources still call her Bradley, so we should adhere to WP:COMMONNAME" is not offensive and is based on well-established policies.

If a person wants to make the first argument, they are free to do so. But they are not free to then cry "personal attack!" when they or their argument are criticized as offensive, ignorant or transphobic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are free to do so. You have 1 recourse when you perceive someone's comment as transphobic and that is to take it to the relevant noticeboard with diffs. A person's poor behavior doesn't give you a free pass to ignore WP:NPA.--v/r - T P 14:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that "Bradley Manning isn't a woman so his article shouldn't be renamed" is both offensive and disconnected from any policy rationale. Not quite. Choosing to rename the article and using her name and gender is a response to accomodating her wishes absent any other harm. Arguing that Manning is not a woman, however, can be reasonable. I don't see any need to do so here. However, if Manning was an athlete that self-identified as a woman, the Olympic committee might disagree and WP should be far less accommodating in those cases. This actually occurs with intersexual persons that self-identify as female and the IOC doctors disagree and they are disqualified from competition as women. Gender dysphoria arises from the conflict of the internal feelings of gender conflicting with the biological manifestation of gender. The diagnosis highlights the conflict and WP tries not to exacerbate the psychological condition by being deliberately offensive or insensitive to the feelings of the person but the biological manifestation is not insignificant in all cases. It would be incorrect to blanketly ignore the physical manifestations of gender in every case and a dangerous precedent to ignore all physical manifestation in favor of self-identification. That is not an offensive position to hold and editors may have different thresholds for when it is appropriate to distinguish male and female. --DHeyward (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David can you define a transphobic comment from someone who is voicing their opinions or citing reliable sources? Where is the line drawn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgekid87 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia has every right to set guidelines to enable discussion. Freedom of speech and freedom to use Wikipedia as a platform aren't quite the same thing. Bigotry and harassment are wrong, and derail discussion, and Wikipedia has no responsibility to allow these things in its discussions. I have submitted evidence regarding the effects of hostile environments and stereotype threats, although I am not sure how Wikipedia can or should address these. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The catch is, you get to define what bigotry is and in practice it's been anything you don't like.--v/r - T P 15:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of this is "conduct or comments that a neutral third party could reasonably perceive as harassing" (modified from original), which is what you get when you combine this statement with AGF. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That just leaves the "neutral third party" open to harassment by whomever disagrees. Guess how many people are going to stick their neck out like that in this topic area? I can think of only a handful and they patrol WP:AE.--v/r - T P 16:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time finding where an editor's interpretation of a comment as transphobic fits Wikipedia:Harassment. In fact, it seems the conduct that the proposer wishes to sanction is found in the "Is Not" section of policy. Even if an editor is transphobic, that wouldn't be harassing unless they took actions outlined in the policy to harrass. It seems this finding is conflating Harassment with Civility. They are very different things. --DHeyward (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Means of contributing

Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, image contributions, wiki-gnoming, bot and script writing and operation, policy design and implementation, or the performance of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and our progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Many disputants should have been bearing this in mind, but this principle doesn't seem important to the core of the dispute. AGK [•] 22:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the connection here, though the first couple of sentences could be condensed to get the point across more easily. Wikipedia has a problem already with declining editorship. Having an atmosphere that demonstrates that we are not open to people of all gender identities, as some editors quite clearly did in their comments, diminishes our project by demoralizing other good-faith editors. NW (Talk) 18:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: imagine that Wikipedia exists in the 1950–60s. If William F. Buckley ("the White community is so entitled [to black voting suppression] because it is, for the time being, the advanced race") wants to edit Wikipedia, he can. But the 1950s Arbitration Committee would be well within their rights to sanction him for his comments regarding MIBURN. I really don't see a difference here. If you aren't willing to accept fellow editors as equal and promote an environment accepting common dignity, then you have two choices: be quiet or leave. NW (Talk) 15:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Previously upheld in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Means_of_contributing (2009) - driving off contributors with a toxic atmosphere is not acceptable - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does this relate to the case? --RA (✍) 18:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claimed transphobic tone of the discussion is expressly a topic of the case - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWarfare: You're comment seems to suggest one group should be preferred over another. Wikipedia should be creating a more inclusive environment for everyone, not excluding one in favor of another. You seem to be suggesting that favoring the social-liberal gender-identify-acceptance viewpoint (of which I subscribe to) over the religious-conservative physical-traits-as-fact viewpoint. That'll lead to biasing the editorial base and, as an effect, the encyclopedia. Can you clarify your position here because I don't think that's what you intended to mean.--v/r - T P 15:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWarfare:There is a difference between equality and raising one group over another. Are you saying that you prefer a Wikipedia community that is hostile to those who have a faith? I personally, would like a community that respects all views in which people can agree to disagree. What your last sentence essentially says is "If you believe in an all-powerful God and that your adherance to his doctrine or you face an eternity of damnation is above worldly laws which you're bound to for, say, 100 years? There is a reason the US Constitution includes a freedom of religion, which I admit Wikipedia is not bound to. The forefathers recognized that believers are more afraid of a God than another man. So you're essentially saying is "Believe what I believe and live the rest of your life in damnation (hell) or we'll shame you." Now, I personally don't believe such things, I'm of the belief that God loves everyone. But I'm a social-liberal political-conservative. There are many people who believe exactly that.

Now, what's going to happen to articles such as Jesus and Islam when editors start to feel your hostile towards believers? Christianity has 2 billion (1/3 of the world's population) adherants. I'd call that a majority worldview. Do you believe that the article on Jesus will be neutral when editors who believe Christianity is a hateful religion towards trans- are promoted while editors of faith are shamed? You want equality, I agree. But you're words are shortsighted and a lie. What you're saying is that you believe we need to right a wrong by encouraging one group over another. I disagree. I think we need to target specific people who actively behave poorly. Not because they don't believe in trans- issues, but because they are disrespectful toward trans- people. And I don't believe the LGBT has a monopoly on deciding what is offensive because in practice, as shown here, that's led to anything that doesn't support their POV being called transphobic. I've demonstrated so by showing that Josh Gorand has called all supporters transphobic or hateful in one form or another. So which are you asking for: equality or promoting a certain group? If it's equality, then you have to draw a line and make it quite clear about what is disrespectful to trans and what is legitimate discussion. Because punishing someone for disagreeing or not supporting the LGBT community is exactly the enforced point of view that Wikipedia is supposed to avoid.--v/r - T P 17:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One literally cannot "disagree" with a person's asserted gender identity without derogating that person. A multitude of reliable, medical sources describe gender identity disorder, its symptoms and its possible outcomes. The POV of "transgender people aren't real" is conclusively a fringe POV. We need not give much credence, if any, to fringe POVs which have been rejected by scientific and medical inquiry.

Moreover, the place to debate the reality of transgenderism is in Wikipedia's articles about the phenomenon - not every biography of a living transgendered person. We do not permit AIDS conspiracy theorists to state their claim in every article about someone who is HIV-positive, nor do we permit 9/11 "truthers" to place their arguments in each and every biography of a 9/11 victim.

We can - and already do - "discriminate" among viewpoints based on the credence given to those viewpoints in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"One literally cannot "disagree" with a person's asserted gender identity without derogating that person." That's an enforced point of view and Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. If you cannot edit here without calling groups of people of being hateful, then you should leave as NuclearWarfare suggests. We've already seen how "reliable sources" are ignored based on their content when editors don't like them. I can pull several cases off Talk:Bradley Manning where sources are ignored because they are conservative. Josh Gorand particular had a few. See Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request#Washington_Times_as_a_source--v/r - T P 17:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutrality" means neutrality among significant viewpoints advanced in reliable sources. The viewpoint that "transgenderism isn't real" is, in reliable medical sources, conclusively rejected and a fringe theory. There is even less support in reliable sources for advancing the claim that Chelsea Manning is not a trans-woman. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware medical sources trump worldview. Do you have a policy for that? The fact remains, the worldview is not as clearcut as medical sources. It's not just a medical issue, it's a social issue as well. It is a majority scientific viewpoint that God isn't real. Do you also propose religion is fringe? The 6 billion adherents to some faith may disagree with you. Wikipedia just does not censor points of view unless the majority, scientific, and medical worldview is incredibly clearcut as to not even warrant discussion: such as cold fusion, racism, and the holocaust. LGBT issues may reach that point someday, but for now the anti-LGBT view is still a significant one and that makes it legitimate on Wikipedia for the time being. We are not a vehicle for social change.--v/r - T P 18:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not allow atheists to put in every article about a pope "The pope is a fraud who gets people to believe in fairy tales so that he can make billions of dollars and have his own country." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, there is a long-standing guideline that directs the use of highly-reliable sources in articles relating to medical topics - of which transgenderism and gender identity disorder unquestionably do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome guideline, how is it applicable to Chelsea Manning? And actually, have you ever read Talk:Jesus? You'd be surprised about how much we allow.--v/r - T P 18:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

TParis, I am a bit lost by your argument. I for one don't want to aggravate anti-religious bias on Wikipedia either, but I'm not sure how any of this would aggravate that. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For most people, I don't think it will. I'm concerned about the few people, like Josh Gorand, that will get empowered by some of the statements NW has made, though. I want us to be all inclusive. WP:NPA applies to everyone. NW's comments seem to suggest that when a Minority group is treated poorly by a Majority group, we should give the Minority group a large stick and trust them to use it fairly and that any poor treatment against the majority as a result is deserved.--v/r - T P 17:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons

Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Most recently upheld in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation_of_BLPs#Biographies_of_living_persons (2011) - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If reliable sources are reporting something it has been our role to follow them, Wikipedia has it's Content disclaimer about this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources are reporting something that is harmful to BLP subjects we are not bound to participate in that harm. We simply report that sources are reporting $harmful_thing. This is exactly the same way that we do not repeat non-neutral statements in our own voice but neutrally report that others have made them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong. If reliable sources report something that is harmful to BLP subjects (Alexander Plutonium is a kook), we should report that. The principle in the above case does not support this principle at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Application of the BLP policy

There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the BLP policy. The policy has been adopted and since its inception repeatedly expanded and strengthened by the community. In addition, this Committee has reaffirmed the values expressed through that policy in a series of decisions and motions, and fundamental norms concerning biographical articles have been emphasized in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Previously upheld in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation_of_BLPs#Application_of_the_BLP_policy (2011) - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The BLP policy requires immediatism, not eventualism

The following section of WP:BLP is policy: The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reaffirming the policy directly - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sure-fire way to cause a move war if two admins interpret WP:BLP differently.--v/r - T P 14:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it shouldn't actually. They talk it out, find out what the community consensus is about whether BLP applies or not. And then they decide whether or not to reverse the first action. I really can't imagine a situation where two editors will claim that BLP applies in different directions, as opposed to one person stating BLP applies in this case and the other saying that it does not. NW (Talk) 18:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The part here about "BLP policy requires immediatism" implies "act first, talk later." If both admins have opposite opinions, when do they stop reverting each other to talk when this implies they are to act immediately?--v/r - T P 19:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand how your statement is relevant. Is there anyone who is claiming that blp requires the article to be titled 'Bradley Manning'? NW (Talk) 21:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result of this case is going to have far wider impact than just on this article. Playing a hypothetical, had Manning's lawyer made the statement about Chelsea's preference instead of Chelsea herself, would it be a BLP violation for us to use Bradley or Chelsea? On the one hand, we don't want to offend her by calling her Bradley, on the other hand, we have someone else claiming that she said it and saying she was transgender without her explicit identification as such would also be a BLP violation. Now, that hasn't happened here, but could such a hypothetical happen? I don't see it even remotely in the realm of impossible. In fact, if I dealt with BLP more, I would imagine there are many cases where both sides can claim their position is supported by BLP. That's my concern. If in the future, we have two sides claiming BLP and we say that BLP requires immediatism, are we creating a wheel waring loophole?--v/r - T P 01:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's normally "Bold, revert, discuss", not "Bold, discuss, revert." The discussion shouldn't be centered on whether to revert the first bold action. It's whether, after the first action is reverted, does the community believe the revert should be undone. That puts the burden on the first move, not the move back. Status quo remains absent a clear consensus to change. --DHeyward (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In general I agree with this but also urge that while our goal is always to prevent harm, overly expeditious applications of BLP policy could also be a way to prevent well referenced and applicable derogatory information from ever entering a bio.--MONGO 18:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWarfare: David Gerard's interpretation of this in the Manning naming dispute[53] was that immediatism required administrative enforcement of Manual of Style (specifically MOS:IDENTITY) issues. If that is a correct interpretation of this policy, then I claim it would require the article be titled "Bradley Manning" due to the exception in MOS:IDENTITY for disputed titles. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is bullshit and you know it just as well as I do. We're talking about realistic possibilities here, please don't bother pinging me if all you have to say is something like this. NW (Talk) 15:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I disagree with Gerard's interpretation of policy, my claim was not a sincere answer to your direct question. I apologize for wasting your time. DPRoberts534 (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is "fair?" We normally presume fair is reliably sourced, notable and verifiable. See the Santorum neologism for how "fair" is interpreted in regards to living persons' names. "Offensive" is a back seat in the BLP bus when even a small community creates reliable, notable and verifiable sources (even if notability is the thinnest of threads). --DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's normally "Bold, revert, discuss", not "Bold, discuss, revert." Normally it is, yes. However the point of the BLP is to be an explicit exception to that norm in order to avoid harm to living people. The question asked is "Does X violate the BLP?" if the answer is obviously "yes" then it gets removed without question; if the answer is obviously "no" then it can stay. Sometimes the answer is "maybe" or otherwise not obvious, and discussion is required to reach an actual answer. There are four possible scenarios here about what happens

Action pending discussion	Information removed (Bold, Discuss, Revert)	Information retained (Bold, Revert, Discuss)
Consensus agrees no BLP violation	Information restored Y No harm is caused	Information retained No harm caused, but only due to luck
Consensus agrees breach of BLP	Information not restored Y potential for harm minimised	Information removed N potential for harm identified but not removed quickly, Wikipedia or editor(s) potentially liable

That should make it abundantly clear why the requirement is to discuss before restoring potentially violating BLP material. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but that's all about "removal" of information. The word "Bradley" wasn't being removed from anywhere in the article, and indeed remains in the very first sentence. Since an article must always have a title, you have to establish that the title in question harms the subject while mentioning the name in the first sentence and the info box doesn't. Since no-one has demonstrated this, and there certainly wasn't consensus immediately at the time of the moves, the moves were improper and abuse of BLP-citing. If this was a case where Manning's birthname was not public knowledge, then an edit to excise all instances of Bradley would be within the remit of BLP, but simply renaming the article while leaving all other Bradley's intact? Your chart doesn't apply at all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of material can mean removal of prominence or weight. Octomom is not the title of Nadya Suleman even though it is the most common name for that subject. It is mentioned in the lead, where it would arguably be a BLP violation as the main title. BLP should require a lighter touch than removing every instance, but it should start with the most prominent use. It should require moving as much as will reasonably avoid undue harm where there are alternate ways of accurately describing the subject. When dealing with what to do in the title, harm should be considered by use in the title, not use in infoboxes. __Elaqueate (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whaa? Are we reading the same policy? No - the instant removal of unsourced information - whether positive or negative - is clearly outlined in BLP. Downgrading information -- that you are asserting is by its nature harmful to the subject -- to smaller a font size ? I see no such clause. Octomom is a bad example because you have not established that Octomom is the common name, and when I look in reliable sources, they refer to her as Nadya Suleman aka Octomom - they always clarify that they're talking about Nadya. Octomom is a nickname given by the media, but most articles I've seen refer to her as Nadya. (example: ]http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/octomom-nadya-suleman-under-investigation-for-welfare-fraud-report-2013106]).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP requires that we balance the level of harm something causes with the encyclopaedic relevance on that information. An article title is widely regarded as meaning "this is a/the only/the most correct name for the subject" (opinions differ re "a"/"the only"/"the most"). That is very significantly more harmful than including it in the lead where we make clear that "this was formerly the subject's name, but it is no longer the correct name". This is exactly the same reason why we do not call something a murder in the article title but note in the lead that it is often incorrectly called a murder. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what an article title means. An article title means, this is what wikipedia per its policies has decided to name the article. Indeed, in multiple cases, we do NOT use the "most correct" name for the subject, but I know you know this - what boggles me is why you pretend to ignore that fact.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special BLP enforcement

The norm against wheel-warring especially applies where an administrator has acted under the "special enforcement" authority for BLP articles that was recognized by this Committee inWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes. That decision authorized the use of "any and all means at [administrators'] disposal," including page protection, "to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the BLP policy." These enforcement actions may be appealed to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, but the Committee specifically stated: "administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Previously upheld in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war#Special_BLP_enforcement (2008)- directly applicable in the present case - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Has anyone but Gerard wheel-warred in this conflict? I don't see that anyone wheel-warred against a BLP-described action, only that Gerard made an extremely tenuous claim to BLP protection while wheel-warring. Before people answer, remember that reverting an admin isn't wheel-warring, wheel-warring is reverting the reversion of a previously made action.—Kww(talk) 21:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But by appealing to BLP you can revert without that reversion being flagged as an "act of wheel war". Valid criticism of that action can only come from the BLP board when a consensus is reached that BLP does not apply. Count Iblis (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP noticeboard has no special powers with respect to endorsing any action. The reason for my question is that the placement of this seem to imply that someone besides Gerard has wheel-warred, and I don't think anyone has. I'm eager to have one pointed out to me, because so far, I've only been discussing his problematic behaviour.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general principle of BLP is to do no harm. While the true need to expedite a BLP action may be in the eyes of the beholder, good faith efforts to prevent harm should generally be commended.--MONGO 13:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User conduct

Wikipedia's code of conduct, which outlines some of Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to project a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Uncivil, unseemly or disruptive conduct, including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language), personal attacks, failure to assume good faith, harassment, edit-warring, disruptive point-making and gaming the system, are all prohibited as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Previously upheld in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#User_conduct (2010) - in this case: transphobic commentary and personal attacks from administrators in the discussion - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But, as above, this cuts both ways. Name calling and casting aspersions on other editors (by labelling opposing contributions and editors as "transphobic") is contrary to civil user conduct. --RA (✍) 18:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Casting aspersions

It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Previously upheld in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Casting_aspersions (2010) - in this case: repeated claims of not discussing original move or not explaining BLP action, even after citation of such - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Particularly with regard to the repeated attempts to besmirch the reputation of others by labelling opposing editors and talk page contributions as "transphobic". --RA (✍) 18:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Also upheld in an almost identical form (but explicitly regarding conflicts of interest) in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Dealing with conflicts of interest in April this year. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tone during disputes

Adhering to the basic precepts of civility is as important during a disagreement as at any other time. The maxim "comment on the content, not on the contributor" should still be followed whenever possible, unless the dispute has unavoidably devolved into an examination of a particular editor's behavior, and even then, civility remains essential. Language more suited to advocacy than to the civil explanation of one's position on an issue should be avoided. Examples of inappropriate types of comments may include the assertion that because an editor edits in a given area or participates in a given WikiProject or also contributes to another website, his or her views and contributions are not entitled to respect; misuse of oversimplified characterizations in lieu of grappling with the force of another editor's actual arguments; facile allegations of user misconduct as an excuse not to engage in reasonable amount of discussion; or unduly stressing prior unrelated disputes in which a user has been engaged in lieu of discussing the current issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Previously upheld in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Tone_during_disputes (2008) - mudslinging and poisoning the well is what people do when the evidence doesn't support them - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Tariqabjotu's understanding of BLP is grossly defective.

Tariqabjotu showed deep misunderstanding of BLP, in repeated statements over the course of the discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is lengthy, but evidence-by-reference is simply being ignored on this workshop page, so it evidently needs to be presented here directly.

Considers "legal name" overrides BLP flag, for sake of link from "In The News" [54][55]
Considers a BLP action can be summarily reversed if it doesn't have "overwhelming support" [56]
Considers personal failure to understand BLP action rationale (despite others having understood it) sufficient for reversal [57]
Misgendering of article subject [58]
Claim of no evidence of name shift, despite verified and uncontested declaration from subject's lawyer [59]
Defends his move through BLP, claims again that initial move was undiscussed [60]
Asserts WP:RMT overrides BLP actions [61]
Claim that names are not gendered nouns [62]
Asserts that local consensus can override BLP, uses "other stuff exists" as argument against BLP action [63]
Uses "other stuff exists" as argument against BLP action [64]
Claim that name move is not sufficiently sourced [65]
Claims MOS:IDENTITY deals only with "pronouns", not "gendered nouns" as it said at the time [66]
Claims Manning's lack of Internet access means BLP considerations do not apply [67]
Extended statement of his understanding of BLP [68]
His move through BLP was OK because Morwen's was "undiscussed" [69]
Claim that discussion was insufficient, therefore didn't count; claim that I didn't explain; notes that he saw the BLP claim, and moved through it anyway; claim of right to reverse BLP action if he is not personally satisfied [70]
Admission of knowingly moving through BLP [71]

- David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David has mischaracterized virtually every diff above, twisting my words to making them sound far more nefarious than they were; I'd just ask people to, once again, look at the diffs for yourselves rather than rely on David's editorialization. I could go point-by-point through the evidence, but that seems unnecessary and a waste of my time as it seems unlikely this finding will gain traction. If a couple arbitrators wish me to, though, I can. -- tariqabjotu 15:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Badgering by Tariqabjotu

Tariqabjotu badgered David Gerard repeatedly, even after being answered directly by him more than once.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per evidence: [72][73][74][75][76] (that last in direct answer to me explaining to him directly) [77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89] - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Tariqabjotu

Tariqabjotu made repeated and escalating personal attacks on multiple users in the course of this incident.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per evidence: [90][91][92][93][94][95][redoubles previous attack when asked to strike it][96][97][98] - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David must have extremely low standards for what constitutes a personal attack. -- tariqabjotu 15:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Admitted tag-teaming by Tóraí

x) Tóraí (then posting as Rannpháirtí anaithnid) admitted to forming a WP:TEAM to attack Morwen and David Gerard. When called on this and asked who was in the tag team, to avoid synthesising false consensus, he evaded. Torai has repeatedly alleged unsubstantiated conspiracy on the part of others, while having directly admitted conspiracy on his own part and being evasive when asked to explain himself. This tag team has continued on this workshop page, in an attempt to synthesise false consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per evidence: [99] "I've been contacted off-wiki by a number of editors ... a consensus among those who contacted me" - this is functionally a tag-team, per WP:TEAM. I noted this and asked who was in this group, so as to avoid appearance of false consensus if they also commented [100]; RA evaded answering.[101] Claims not to have advertised it widely, but did advertise it selectively.[102] (I believe he should be asked to provide this list, privately to the arbcom if not publicly, so that the content of this workshop page can be assessed in the light of it.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Towards the end of the RM discussion, a number of editors contacted me by email expressing their dissatisfaction with the conduct of one or two administrators. Short of disabling the Email this user feature for my account, I cannot prevent people from emailing me.

On the back of this, I opened a thread asking for the views of the wider community. The full extent of what David selectively quotes above is, "There was a consensus among those who contacted me to wait until the RM discussion closed before raising the questions here." diff.

I'm not keen to publicise the names of those who emailed me because I believe they were intended as private communications. But David's suggestion above is a fine one. I've already been in touch with the Committee by email. So, if any member of the Committee would like to know who contacted me, email me and I'll reply to the full ArbCom list. --RA (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Commendation to requested move closers in this case

The closing admins in the WP:RM proceeded in serious and good faith consideration to adjudicate a difficult, contentious and controversial case. Although the decision itself may be disagreed with, and may admit of examination, their work and taking on the job is commended.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this should be said out loud. We can examine the case, but volunteering for a poisoned chalice like this is worthy of commendation - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Strongly agree.--MONGO 21:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually voted against the move back (based on a sense of inertia), but their choice to move back was fair enough, and agreed with community consensus. Wnt (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a finding of fact, rather than a remedy, IMHO. However, I agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tariqabjotu shall not take administrative actions on any article relating to a living person

Tariqabjotu shall not take administrative actions on any article relating to a living person, broadly construed, until further notice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per above evidence. This is broad, but his lack of understanding was seriously problematic in this case and it needs averting in the future.

Comment by others:

Tariqabjotu banned for one month

Tariqabjotu is banned for one month for repeated personal attacks and harassment.

Statement by proposer

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per evidence of personal attacks and harassment above - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:TParis

Proposed principles

BLP as a trump card

1) The Biographies of living people policy is subject to consensus to determine its appropriate use and interpretation. When consensus cannot be reached, the position which causes the least harm to the subject is preferred to the pre-dispute version.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't see this as a resolution. BLP was cited as a reason to move the article to Chelsea Manning on the basis that having the article at Bradley Manning caused harm. The way the proposal is formulated would mean BLP could be cited as a "trump card". e.g. someone moves the article Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam citing BLP. A discussion ensues wherein some folk say that having the article at Cat Stevens causes harm by offending Islam's religious belief. What then? Do we move the article back to Cat Stevens per Wikipedia:Article titles or do we keep it at Yusuf Islam per "the position causes the least harm to the subject is preferred to the pre-dispute version"? --RA (✍) 10:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There's a bit of circular reasoning here. If there was a consensus as the nature of any harm caused, that name would have been chosen. To presume a consensus about harm in the absence of an overall consensus is a bit dicey. With today's principles, if I had found the people using BLP based arguments to have a compelling argument about harm, I would have fought to close the RFC using that argument. I didn't. (Note to people watching, by the way: I didn't get to vote in the RFC, but I actually think "Chelsea" is the better title. I also think Gerard jumped the gun in an effort to get ahead of the rest of the world. It's quite possible to believe both).—Kww(talk) 20:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the expert sources would seem to suggest the least harm is caused by Chelsea and I think a closing admin would have to take that into account.--v/r - T P 20:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did. If Manning hadn't specifically stated that she understood that others would continue to use "Bradley", I may well have come to the conclusion that possibility of causing harm forced our hand in closing the RFC.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot for a moment you were one of the three. I agree that without Manning's explicit statement otherwise, we'd have to treat the decision as if it would cause her harm.--v/r - T P 20:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, acknowledging that certain uses of Bradley will appear was never a claim that no harm will result from that use. The only potential harm is not from privacy issues and outing (although that's a documented risk elsewhere). The public shaming and harm that trans people feel at the DMV, or customs, or with any authorities is well documented, and this harm occurs in situations where trans people are acknowledging their birth names exist. It is disappointing that use of a former name in partially coercive environments (use this name or you won't get any mail, use this name or we might not consider your legal application) means that the threat of harm was then discounted in this decision. By this logic, if she admits she can't wear makeup in prison, then people could assume she's totally okay with not wearing make-up. It just seems like a convenient conclusion rather than a considered one. __Elaqueate (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Elaqueate said. Acknowledging that it will likely happen does not pin down her demeanour about its usage at all, which may range all the way from equanimity to profound distress. Chris Smowton (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Just having an article about someone may "cause harm". Having no article would cause the least harm in that case.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we use uninvolved administrators to make those determinations. We leave it to their discretion as was the case here.--v/r - T P 21:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

2) Concerns about the behavior of editors should be brought to the appropriate forums with significant evidence. Editors who cast accusations without evidence are themselves engaged in personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Josh Gorand

1) User:Josh Gorand has persisted in personal attacks [103][104][105][106][107] and battleground behavior[108][109][110][111]. Attempts to discuss these with Josh Gorand has resulted in more accusations [112][113][114].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Diffs, please. AGK [•] 23:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@AGK: The diffs are on the evidence page. Do you want them here as well?--v/r - T P 23:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: I see you have added the diffs into the finding; thank you. For future reference, yes, the relevant diffs from the Evidence page need to be cited in Workshop findings, much as they would be if a proposal was presented at the Proposed decision page. Regards, AGK [•] 10:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I'm sorry, I've never participated in an Arbcom case before, I wasn't aware until Penwhale clarified.--v/r - T P 15:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sadly, the evidence supports this finding.--MONGO 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those diffs show a personal attack. At worst, Josh was using an overly broad brush to point out transphobia, and sometimes failed to see several had much more respectable reasons for preferring the original title. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you dispute that they weren't personally directed at someone or do you dispute they weren't derogatory? I'm prepared to defend either position or both. Can you address whether or not they created a hostile environment?--v/r - T P 21:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute they were personally directed. Josh wasn't as emollient as he could have been, but I also don't agree he created a hostile environment. There was hostility well before Josh joined the debate. There was always going to be an element of battle with hundreds of editors debating a divisive issues that had both sides emotionally engaged. Maybe it's worth comparing to a RL debate that took place at the same time as the RM and had a similar number of participants.

Jimbo Wales has suggested our consensus making processes could be improved by studying the deliberation of the British Parliament. During their 29 Aug debate and its immediate aftermath, the F word was used and there was at least one threat of physical violence. The debate was for a far more serious matter, but forcing a masculine name onto a transgender woman can also be a matter of life and death, which as per the evidence page "can and often does lead to depression and suicide". It's sad so many were distressed by the discussion, but there's a case the RM was relatively civil. And certainly I dont see why Josh should be singled out, when surely the dozen or so who posted clear transphobic comments were far more obviously at fault?

I think you and others have a point that if the pro Chelsea side had been more patient and diplomatic, then several individuals would have switched sides more swiftly. Im not so sure it would have led to a better outcome overall. A soft approach is without doubt better allround for small discussion, but it doesnt scale. Consider for example the big Mohammed image debate, where passion seemed to win over mainstream practice in the sources and the rational, logical arguments of folk like Ludwick. Just my opinion, I probably wont contribute here further, to be honest I wish I'd never clicked on Chelsea's page. Ignorance can be bliss. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: I think that FeydHuxtable has a valid point that these aren't personal attacks in that they are not directed at any particular person. However, these diffs do demonstrate severely problematic behavior. So the solution is to find a better description for this conduct. Perhaps they should be described as "failure to assume good faith" or rolled into battleground behavior. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable and A Quest For Knowledge: WP:NPA states, "Discriminatory epithets directed against another contributor, a group of contributors..." We cannot excuse poor behavior because other poor behavior exists. Josh's behavior didn't target a single user because he was accusing all supporters of being transphobic. He made personal remarks against each and every support !voter. "Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through arbitration." Josh Gorand should've taken the comments he took particular concern with to an appropriate noticeboard, per "Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page."

If you look at the comments by Josh, he doesn't differentiate between comments based in policy and other comments. For example, here Josh says that there is just no other reason for people to support the return to Bradley other than transphobic hate. That's directed at everyone personally. Here, Josh says that anyone insisting on the move back to Bradley is motived by transphobic hatred. Here Josh calls it a consensus of "virulenty transphobic people...." These are all personal comments directed at a large group of people. They are not comments on the edits, they are comments on the people.

However, if you need a 'personally' directed attack, here.

Fæ case, Arbcom upheld that "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited" and "Community attempts to resolve disputes calmly and expeditiously are thwarted when the processes are disrupted by inflammatory accusations and disparaging rhetoric...."

Sexology case held that " Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive."--v/r - T P 22:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs

2) User:Baseball Bugs has engaged in battlefield behavior by making sarcastic comments which polarized the discussion[115][116][117][118].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Diffs, please. AGK [•] 23:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@AGK: Also on the evidence page.--v/r - T P 23:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was battlefield behavior or something else, Baseball Bugs' contribution caused more harm than good. I opposed a topic ban for him on the 24th of August (saying he should cool his jets). Not long thereafter I regretted his continued participation in the discussion. --RA (✍) 10:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: Ditto my reply in the above section. AGK [•] 10:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Weak support.--MONGO 18:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors "zealots" is technically a personal attack. I've taken some of this sort of sniping myself ([119]). I don't think this is something that needs harsh action, but a smack with a wet fish is appropriate. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think accusations of abuse are quite serious and shouldn't be taken lightly and I also think making light of Chelsea's name and calling her an "it" are also pretty severe.--v/r - T P 19:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs' comments are less than ideal, but I'm not sure they're worth a FoF. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing behavior

1) Despite two weeks of time passing since the closure of the RM, and the opening of this Arbcom case, accusations of transphobia continue to be leveled against other editors without evidence.[120] This problem will not be solved by the community or given time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Josh Gorand

1.a) User:Josh Gorand is topic banned for 1-year from LGBT topics for personal attacks, battlefield behavior, and disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree; evidence supports this. -- tariqabjotu 21:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Only if there is evidence that they have engaged in such behavior beyond the article in question.--MONGO 18:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unjust in the extreme to punish someone for calling out transphobia, even if they occasionally did go a little OTT. Reviewing the evidence together with the wider context, Josh if anything deserves to be commended for his courageous stand for basic decency. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.b) User:Josh Gorand is topic banned for 1-year from Bradley Manning topics for personal attacks, battlefield behavior, and disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree; evidence supports this. -- tariqabjotu 21:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The evidence indicates this would be a minimum. An indefinite ban from the subject of the bio may be more congruent with the evidence.--MONGO 18:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs

2.a) User:Baseball Bugs is topic banned for 1-year from LGBT topics for battlefield behavior and disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Only if there is evidence that they have engaged in such behavior beyond the article in question--MONGO 18:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2.b) User:Baseball Bugs is topic banned for 1-year from Bradley Manning topics for battlefield behavior and disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's not clear to me that "LGBT topics" is the correct scope of desired topic ban. He seemed to be a source of consternation on the Edward Snowden as well, so maybe the problem isn't LGBT topics, but political criminals. But maybe not; I'm not sure. -- tariqabjotu 14:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree with this remedy.--MONGO 18:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not defending Bugs, just not sure why he is being singled out. As per the evidence, there were at least a dozen who posted much worse. At least Bug's comments were mostly concise and non-manipulative. The quickest way to heal the damage is not to sanction anyone, IMO. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs persisted when asked to stop. I don't think ignoring either Josh Gorand or Baseball Bugs comments will 'heal' anything; it'll fester.--v/r - T P 01:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favor of these remedies being suspended. This means that if BBB were to make further such mistakes, the topic ban can be imposed at AE. Count Iblis (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have diffs at the moment to back this up, but the core of the problems with Baseball Bugs behaviour is in my opinion his drive to enforce rules, and nothing specifically around the Manning issue or LGBT issues. Because of the rule-based mentality bbb has shown I don't think any of these findings are the best of ideas. The problem I see with BBB is primarily rule lawyering and attempting to enforce based on the letter of guidelines or policy. While his behviour in this case does warrant perhaps a topic ban, I would much prefer to see a more general reminder or preferably admonishment to treat his fellow editors collegueally. I'm afraid that ArbCom only commenting on his behaviour in this case might be understood by bbb that his general behaviour in rule enforcement is fine, and that that might make the problem even worse. While I hate digging for diffs, if ArbCom agrees with the general sentiment, but needs someone to go spelunking in ANI logs I'm willing to reluctantly put on a hard hat and bring out my pick axe. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you are correct in terms of the roots of the issues with this user. It's difficult to psycho-analyse people on the Internet. However, the problematic behaviour wasn't directly to do with enforcing rules, it was to do with gleefully winding-up other editors and persisting after it was very clear that he should stop. Given the context of a discussion that really didn't need it, I think a sanction is appropriate. Formerip (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by NorthBySouthBaranof

Proposed principles

Policies, not personalities

1) In order to avoid the appearance of bias, disputes about Wikipedia article content should be resolved through discussion and debate that centers on the application of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not differing personal opinions and beliefs about article subjects. This is particularly important when discussing and debating biographies of living persons, especially biographies of persons who are or have been especially controversial for one reason or another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. -- tariqabjotu 15:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Requested move seriously compromised

1) The requested move for the Chelsea/Bradley Manning article was seriously compromised by a battleground atmosphere not conducive to productive discussion. Both the repeated ignorant or derogatory remarks about transgender people and the resulting repeated accusations of bias or transphobia prevented editors from engaging in dispassionate, good-faith policy-based debate. The result was that the requested move generated far more heat than light.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. Neatly sums up the problem from the start. --RA (✍) 10:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but I feel the last sentence should be omitted. I'm not sure that really is true. -- tariqabjotu 15:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The move didn't generate heat, the people that loudly complained about it generated heat. Don't blame the admins. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. While the poo flinging was a distraction, the move wasn't compromised. The admins separated the wheat from the chaff.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If it had been possible for everyone to just act like grown-ups, the whole thing would probably have been put to bed a couple of weeks ago. Formerip (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Admins should not have to separate out rational comments from a melee of transphobia, accusations of transphobia, arguments about whether $comment constitutes transphobia, ignorance about trans* issues and commentary about ignorance of trans* issues. Civil, productive discussions do not end up at arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but not with specifics. The accusations were often related to statements which weren't "ignorant or derogatory". Suggest removing "resulting" to create an unbiased statement of fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

New requested move restricted to policy grounds

1) A new requested move discussion will be opened 72 hours after the closing of this case. The discussion will be restricted to the question of how to resolve the conflict between Wikipedia policies and guidelines apparent in this case. No commentary about Manning's self-identification as female, or commentary about any editor's motivations will be permitted. Any such commentary is subject to immediate removal by any uninvolved administrator, and shall not be considered in the closure of the move request. Persistent failure to comply may result in a topic ban or block, at an uninvolved administrator's discretion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is the only way to prevent this whole mess from collapsing back in on itself when it restarts. The RM should not be a referendum on the validity and humanity of transgender people. The debate should be about whether or not to title the article with her female name or her male name - what do reliable sources say, what is the proper role of MOS:IDENTITY and how do we interpret WP:COMMONNAME in this case? Those are all questions that can be debated and answered without casting aspersions on the article subject, transgender people or the participating editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Tarc says, an RM discussion will probably start before this case is concluded. If the first two sentences are nixed and "Persistent failure to comply" delinked, I'd support this. -- tariqabjotu 15:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manning's self-identification is the basis for the move. Questioning self-identification vs. reliable sources is a valid inquiry. Reliable sources that question Manning's self-identification are a necessary part of the discussion. This extends beyond the Manning article so commentary that is backed up by reliable sources is a part of the process. "Son of Hope" vs. "Son of Sam" is a hypothetical debate where self-identification would be justifiably questioned by his victims. NPOV, RS and BLP are better limiters to debate. Personal opinions on Manning's self-identifacation should be limited, not the broad "commentary" proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not sure what the point of the "72 hour" thing is, there's already a move discussion that is likely to start on Sept 30th. Tarc (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this would work, given that personal self-identification is the basis for MOS:IDENTITY. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Josh Gorand

Proposed principles

Hate speech on the talk page of a BLP

1) Making transphobic commentary on the talk page of a biography of a living person, including by comparing that person to a dog, pig or other animal, speculating about that person's genitalia or insisting a self-identified female subject of a BLP "is male", is unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I very strongly support this. BLP policy covers talk page discussion. Just as we write BLP articles from a position of respect for the person's dignity, talk page discussions of living people need to be conducted from a position of dignity and respect also. That doesn't mean discussion is censored or opposing views to Josh Gorand's or wrong or cannot be expressed. It does mean that people must be respectful and maintain the dignity of the subject of a BLP when making arguments. Far, far too many editors failed to do that on this occasion and it was unacceptable. As I wrote during dispute, a circus was made of Manning's life. That was awful. --RA (✍) 10:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This presumes that gender is exclusively a matter of self-identification, a premise which is, at a minimum, highly arguable. As we have been arguing about. If the AP stylebook accepts this premise, that's three steps forward for us. However, mandating acceptance of this notion under penalty of the "hate speech" cudgel is Political Correctness run amok. Believe it or not, there are a wide range of analytical, philosophical, and ethical views among Wikipedians. Carrite (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this. While comparison's to animals are not acceptable, physical genitalia and self-identification are still very fluid and touchy subject within the trans* community. There are people, within the trans* community that make distinctions based on the state of transition (i.e. those that self-identify as female without operation or meds, those that are transitioning to female which ultimately end in SRS and females that are post SRS). [121][122][123][124][125][126][127]. There's a lot more but "transgender" is hardly a monolithic group. The view of some women that have transitioned and are post SRS is that the all inclusive self-identification allows men (particularly grown men that are pre-op/pre-hormone) to define women and is another mysognist tactic to take away what it means to be women. Their view is that men have been defining roles for women since the beginning of time and it is short-sighted and naive to allow men (pre-op/pre-med males) to define "woman" with an unquestioned statement. I cannot consider the viewpoint that pre-treatment males that identify as females is necessarily transphobic or hate speech as there are plenty of transsexual women that have identified concerns with such a view. I don't know if it's a fringe viewpoint either but that would be a content discussion and certainly not transphobic or a BLP violation. --DHeyward (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The "is male" part is well within the bounds of of personal opinion. You may disagree with it, but your disagreement doesn't magically make it wrong. Sorry, but I still refer to this person with a male pronoun. Tarc (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the Gordian Knot at the center of this case - every time you do that, every single time you call Manning a "he", some editors will see it as a deliberate attempt to denigrate Manning's chosen gender identity - and, by extension, their own. And the sad thing, I mean the most disappointing and heartbreaking thing about this whole case, is that I'm not convinced they're wrong. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced that Tarc's opinion is valid. What I find not convincing about Tarc's valid opinion, though, is that I find it takes little effort to call someone by their chosen identity and it makes them feel better. So, while I understand the opinion in the terms of discussion an article title or which prison to send Chelsea to, as far as references to Chelsea in casual conversation, I think it's just polite to do whatever makes Chelsea feel best because it has no consequences at all (that I can see, Tarc may feel different). Personally, I think that if you can do anything in life that improves the life of someone else, and it takes little effort to boot, then why not?--v/r - T P 14:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The counterpoint I'd raise here is that I'm pretty sure Manning is completely unaware of my existence and my entries here into this discussion, so whether he "feels better" doesn't really come into play, and I put no stock whatsoever in people "feeling better" on behalf of others. I don't go out of my way to name-drop or pronoun-drop, so in the sentence immediately preceding this one, I used "Manning" instead of the fullname as it wasn't necessary to do more, but the last clause regarding "feels better" kinda did necessitate a pronoun. So I'm not going to go out of my way to drop male gender-oriented verbiage into discussions, but at the same time I'm not going to deliberately avoid them and make things awkward/clunky to read. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly said this on your talk page so I'll summarise briefly here: Manning is probably unaware of you, but the trans readers and editors of Wikipedia are aware of you, and are hurt. Like TP says, it costs you nothing, you're doing harm, please stop. Chris Smowton (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(clarification: TP said it costs you nothing; the rest of that sentence is mine) Chris Smowton (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, though, that I talk about casual conversation. So, feel free to paraphrase me but make sure to do it in context.--v/r - T P 00:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to say it costs him nothing. You are asking someone to go against their principles and say something they believe to be a lie just so someone else can feel better. That is harmful as well. Plenty of people feel they need to be coddled and reassured in their rightness. You can go along with it all you like, but when you insist on sucking everyone else into it and use demonization as a tool of coercion then you are doing harm to those people. Many times exist when expressing one's beliefs and opinions will offend and hurt others, but suppression is not the way to handle it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demonization? This is hyperbole. I'm asking him to be polite by paying the bare minimum of lip-service to a person's identity. Chris Smowton (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal in question refers to such comments as "hate speech" and many describe it as "transphobic" so there is demonization, even if you personally are only trying to guilt him into abandoning his principles.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do stop exaggerating. He can privately follow whatever principles he likes, but in a public forum I think he should be bound to a minimum standard of civility which includes respecting somebody's gender ID unless the validity of gender ID is specifically under discussion. That is not the case here. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned this into a proposal below, so do weigh in there. Chris Smowton (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why NPA says disagreement over whether something is a protected category is not an excuse. Because people will try to rules-lawyer their way into having the right to make attacks. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly like those who insist on continuing to label others as transphobic? While I agree, this isn't limited to one party.--v/r - T P 11:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I reject utterly here is the notion that an appreciable amount of "harm" is done to a transgender person by referring to them by their actual at-birth gender. It may cause offense, but being unoffended is not a human right. We have a football team at the moment called the Washington Redskins, which upsets a very small subset of Native Americans and a few "we shouldn't be offensive EVER" types, but that ain't changing anytime soon either. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that a talk page includes comments that are hate speech is acceptable

2) Pointing out that a talk page includes comments that are hate speech and that they violate WP:BLP, and that such comments need to be discounted in an ongoing move discussion, is justified.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. So long as the "pointing out" doesn't include "hate speech". That's isn't acceptable or justified either. --RA (✍) 10:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hate Speech is a pejorative non-starter. Pointing out that a comment violates BLP with a comment as to how or why it violates WP:BLP is acceptable. --DHeyward (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As long as care is taken to differentiate from speech that is actually hateful vs. speech that one simply, even strongly, disagrees with. Tarc (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out the definition of transphobia

3) Explaining definitions of transphobia widely accepted by reliable sources, and how they relate to a content decision, as evidenced by the negative media reaction to the recent events, is acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Clearly an apologetic for the massive display of "I'm right and you're transphobic!!!" which substituted for argument for many of those favoring an activist approach. No, that is not an acceptable form of debate. Carrite (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transphobia will never escape its pejorative connotation. Nor will other similar terms such as homophobe or racist escape their pejorative connotation. Defining it does no good. It stifles debate. It stifles consensus. Point out objections to terms or viewpoints using those reliable sources, but attaching a pejorative to a comment of which those sources have never seen or evaluated is a personal opinion/attack. --DHeyward (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per DHeyward and Carrite.--v/r - T P 11:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikistalking

4) Singling out other editors over an extended period in order to inhibit their work violates WP:WIKISTALKING.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Well, yes, it can be. But this is the first time I have heard wiki-stalking mentioned in the context of this case. Can you elaborate? Is there something on the evidence page? Tarc (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting other editors' comments

5) Deliberately, and especially repeatedly, misrepresenting other editors' comments is a personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

TParis

1) TParis (talk · contribs) has persisted in disruptive editing and battleground behaviour related to the Chelsea Manning case by unduly singling out and attacking editors' for (correctly) pointing out transphobic commentary, including by misrepresenting [128][129] other editors' comments, and by persisting in repeating[130][131] the same, at this point deliberate, misrepresentations multiple times over a period of several weeks, after his misrepresentations had been pointed out[132][133] and after his claims had already once been rejected at ANI (i.e. no action taken in response to them). His misrepresentations included for example presenting this edit[134] by omitting the first part of the sentence to give the sentence a meaning completely unrelated to the actual edit[ [135], and then deliberately repeating this incorrect claim after the incorrect quote had been pointed out.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I see a lot of links, but only the last two even show specifc examples of statements by TParis. The rest is large amounts of text. If Josh expects everyone to navigate through that and find wrongdoing, then he's got another think coming. As for the last two links (the "childish" statement) Josh fails to say how TParis took Josh's comments out of context to change the meaning. He also fails to provide any evidence that TParis deliberately did so, which is a high hurdle to cross.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have been through this whole discussion once at ANI two weeks ago already and in other venues, and I have no intention of using hours to rehash sentence for sentence a now closed ANI debate and the Manning debate in general; I didn't bring this topic up at all. I expect anyone interested to read the entire Chelsea Manning talk page with its recent archives, the entire ANI/Manning discussion, and other documents relevant to this case. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you just brought this up here. If you can't backup your claims, I suggest you remove them. Making a complaint then telling people to do the legwork is poor form. Furthermore, you convientantly conflate that "no action taken" against you means TParis' claims against you didn't receive considerable traction. They did. One may submit that had the clock not run out you would have been taken to the woodshed.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't bring this up (per above), and I expect that people interested will read the documents as cited above in their entirety. His claims were already once rejected; after a week of discussion, no administrator saw any reason to act upon his claims, and those who came to support him were the ones themselves making comments like this or this on the same page. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't start this section after all? Amazing. TParis claims against you were rejected because no one failed to act? That's a novel definition of "rejection". I think the consensus that his claims were "moot" because the move discussion ended. And many people supported TParis's proposal, even some who prefered "Chelsea".Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TParis is the one who brought up the comments by myself that he has misrepresented, and I have cited various examples of his misrepresentations on the arbitration pages and in the previous discussions, eg. as cited above, but mostly it's clear from the context of the quotes cited by himself[136] that he is misrepresenting the comments. The idea that I need to discuss at length every single sentence uttered in an enormously long debate two weeks ago is wrong and not something I'm inclined to do, especially considering that this is the 4th venue TParis has brought up his incorrect, old claims, and I expect him to continue unless he is forbidden to interact with me. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that your failure to bring up one specifc example is because there are none. If that is the case, this is a mud flinging exercise, hoping something will stick.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I have no intention of using hours to rehash sentence for sentence" ? Well, that is kinda the expectation. You either place accusations in a "Person X did Y ^{[citation Z]}" format, or don't say em at all, IMO. Tarc (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

TParis

1) TParis is topic banned from all LGBT topics for one year for disruptive editing and battleground behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree. I don't see the basis for this. -- tariqabjotu 06:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see the evidence to support this. --DHeyward (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The evidence doesn't come close to supporting this remedy.--MONGO 11:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence whatsoever. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2) TParis is forbidden to contact or otherwise interact with Josh Gorand.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As Josh Gorand is proposing this, I would suggest Josh impose his own one way interaction ban between himself and TParis. Then if TParis was actually following Josh around, it would be more apparent and actionable at the normal outlets. We don't need arbcom sanctions to do this, though. --DHeyward (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not sure this is needed.--MONGO 11:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way this remedy should read is "TParis and Josh Gorand are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other." You can't ban TParis from talking to or about you without also agreeing not to talk to or about him - to do otherwise is inviting trouble. I agree with Mongo, though - I don't imagine this will be necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to interact with or talk about TParis at all (he was the one starting to interact with me in a hostile manner, before I had ever seen that user), so that's fine with me. He has created hostility, derailed discussions and wasted my and other editors' time. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose all WP:IBANs on principle. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid

Not sure about this. If the offending editor thought his or her edits were racist, etc., they wouldn't have said them. So, I would be okay with a comment along the lines of "I find that comment offensive" (in terms of personal opinion), but not "That comment is offensive" (in terms of absolute truth). But it's such a hard line to draw. Perhaps omitting the last sentence would help substantially, making the desired point without backing us into an impossible corner. -- tariqabjotu 14:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

So we can't describe racist comments as racist, sexist comments as sexist, and transphobic cmments as transphobic? I think this would destroy Wikipedia. Ananiujitha (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tripping point here is that what you personally feel is transphobic isn't necessarily so to others. What if the topic at hand was the article on affirmative action, where there was disagreement between editors. Some of them wished to include more criticism of A.A. in the article, but were accused by others that their criticism was rooted in racism. When then? Is being critical of A.A. inherently racist, or are there other genuine reasons to oppose, i.e. unfairness, limited view on government intervention, etc...? Tarc (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One can make arguments about Wikipedia articles in ways that do not cast aspersions on article subjects or fundamentally reject their humanity.

Arguing that "affirmative action is wrong because it constitutes unfair intervention by the government" is not racist. Arguing that "affirmative action is wrong because black people aren't human" is racist. See the difference?

If the arguments in this case had been all of the "WP:COMMONNAME should trump MOS:IDENTITY" sort, there ought to have been no claims of transphobia and any such claims would be highly suspect at best. However, the arguments in this case, as has been amply demonstrated, rapidly descended into rejections of Chelsea Manning's gender identity and generalized denial or dismissal of transgender people's humanity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One can base the argument on both Wikipedia policy and the common mores and norms of society. The policy of the common-name did not support the rapid move to "Chelsea Manning" that Morwen and Gerard forced upon us. We also consider the fact that there are reliable sources out there that refer to Bradley Manning as "he", still. It is not a "denial of humanity" to not agree with and not honor what a transgender person wishes to be known as. Also, please stop trying to make hay about my "lipstick" comment. I already thoroughly debunked the bad-faith attempts by Mr. Gorand to turn what I said into some sort of vicious, human-rights defying slur. I don't like repeating myself. Tarc (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While some questioned Manning's gender, no one questioned her humanity. That is a bit melodramatic.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While likely true, referring to someone as "it" could reasonably be interpreted that way. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki attacks (WP:NPA)

4) Wikipedia cannot regulate behaviour in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions.

Directing discriminatory epithets at editors off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it. This includes comments made in the press about others that label editors or their contributions with discriminatory epithets~~, such as "transphobic"~~.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree, except I don't feel we should single out the "transphobic" label. -- tariqabjotu 14:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, particularly since we are talking principles. --RA (✍) 23:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I disagree with MONGO, I think that when an editor makes off-wiki attacks that involved Wikipedia, and we can establish a clear link between their Wikipedia and off-wiki persona, that sanctions can be had.--v/r - T P 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There isn't anything we can do about offsite attacks. Previous arbcom cases have found that personal attacks offsite do cause on wiki activities to be more heavily scrutinized. The biggest problem with offsite activities is spamming, but that goes on within wiki as well.--MONGO 15:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offsite comments are not within the purview of the Arbitration Committee, except to the extent that they directly related to on-wiki actions. @TParis: I don't think you meant your comment to imply actively connecting Wikipedia users to off-Wiki identities, but it could be read that way. Obviously such action would be WP:OUTING. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf:It's outing if it's posted on-Wiki. Arbcom's role is to handle private matters. Off-wiki websites were address in the Fae decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Participation_on_non-Wikipedia_websites.--v/r - T P 19:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring content boldly removed citing BLP

As with all policies, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons should be interpreted within the framework of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, including that Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

BLP policy mandates that content removed citing BLP concerns cannot be restored without consensus. However, it is compatible with the Five Pillars that content:

(a) boldly removed citing BLP concerns, and

(b) later determined not to be a BLP violation

may be restored in accordance with other community norms (e.g. BRD, RM, etc.).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

One of the reasons BLP policy is delete is so the restoration process can't game the system with a preferred version. If an editor replaces X with Y, the discussion is only whether removing X addressed a BLP concern. If it did, then it stands, if it didn't X is restored and the normal BRD discussion with Y can then occur.

This is important because we often conflate the entire edit with being part of that very narrow discussion (the discussion is narrow, not the broad application of BLP). This allows and conflates the two processes and often the initial editor proposes that it is "Y" that is the "BLP compliant" version that requires consensus to revert. This is not the case. If "X" is not supported as a BLP violation by itself, then it is restored. The editor can propose it as a change, but then it's a BRD process. It is necessary to prevent gaming the system with "I want Y, I call X a BLP violations and replace it with my so-called BLP compliant Y and then put the burden on the revert of Y." That is incorrect. The removal of X is considered independently first as a separate evaluation of BLP. If X is a BLP violation, then we evaluate whether Y is a BLP violation and if the new version is okay to be included. If X is not a BLP violation, that version is restored and the consensus is needed to change between two non-violating choices as a regular content change. --DHeyward (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This needs rephrasing as it is very difficult to parse. I think it is saying that "Content that is unambiguously a BLP violation must be removed. Content that might be a BLP violation must be removed and discussed. Content that has been removed for BLP reasons (whether it is unambiguous or not) must not be restored without consensus. Content that consensus finds is not a BLP violation may be restored. Content about which there is no consensus must not be restored." If that is correct then I completely agree. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I've re-phrased it. Any better? --RA (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't stand by thgs. According to the statement it essentially hands a trump card to the individuals that claim anything is BLP on a contentious issue. No consensus means you do not have the strength of argument to first prove it is a problem. There are plenty of things out there people don't want to see in black and white. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tivanir2: the intention is the opposite, so I'll re-phrase like Thryduulf suggests. --RA (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

David Gerard: involved

1) David Gerard showed signs of being involved. Specifically, (a) his association with Morwen; (b) the strength of his feeling on the issue; and (c) his active participation in the dispute discussion before and after performing administrator actions showed signs of involvement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree, except some clarification on Part (c) would be welcome. Maybe the nature of his participation suggests 'involvement', but participating in a discussion after the fact is remarkably common (getting sucked into a dispute because of performing admin actions). It, ideally, shouldn't occur obviously, but it does... -- tariqabjotu 14:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But some of David Gerard's comments showed pre-existing strong feelings on the subject. I don't think it was a case that he simply "got sucked in". --RA (✍) 23:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As a former forest fire fighter perhaps I shouldn't write articles on forest fires as I might be seen as involved. Just saying.--MONGO 15:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No quite. But if you have very strong feelings on what to call forest fires, you probably shouldn't use your admin tools to move or lock articles titles in that area. Particularly, to lock a page about forest fires; at title you feel strongly about; after an off-line friend of yours moved it there; controversially; and after you've already commented on the issue. --RA (✍) 21:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People who have a gender may find it hard to maintain rigorous neutrality on a topic concerning gender, as well. Perhaps they could all recuse themselves. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what part of the proposal here you two feel warrants these kinds of sarcastic responses. I don't see any suggestion that any of David Gerard's demographic characteristics make him involved. -- tariqabjotu 16:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I see I was completely mistaken. I was confusing this with your position on "involvement" here. I see that you must mean something completely different here than what you stated earlier. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, this proposed principle was written by Rannpháirtí anaithnid, not me, so I'm not sure why you'd think it was intended to reflect somethingI said earlier. Second, the comment you referenced is not about David at all. Of course, the only reason you brought this up is to make a not-so-subtle, sarcastic jab. That's not a problem, though, as I expected someone to bring up that diff (I expected it to be David though). Unfortunately, I see you have taken at face value David's interpretation of that comment (Claims openly gay editor speaking on the topic, being gay, is therefore engaging in advocacy). As I noted in my objection, David has mischaracterized virtually every diff he provided in evidence, and this is no exception:

By the time of that comment, I had already stated to Bearcat (talk · contribs) that it looked like he was engaging in advocacy, based on what he wassaying (about minority groups being the sole arbiter about what was offensive). During the course of the discussion, Bearcat (in the preceding comment), not me, brought up the fact that he was gay, using that to argue that makes him qualified to say the title "Bradley Manning" is equivalent to calling someone a faggot. Ironically, he's employing the same point you decry here. Obviously, it's unacceptable to say that because someone's a member of an LGBT group, their opinions are not valid in a discussion about LGBT topics. However, that cuts both ways. It's also unacceptable to say, as it seemed Bearcat was saying, that only the opinions of LGBT groups are valid.

That was what my comment was about. I was saying that I didn't mention his sexual orientation as it's not pertinent to the discussion. Bringing up his sexual orientation to bolster his position (as he did) is just as inappropriate as bringing it up to diminish it. (And it was for that reason that I didn't mention anything about my race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. in response to his appeal to authority.) I stated that some people might believe his sexual orientation is the source of his advocacy (which he introduced to the conversation), but that doesn't mean I believe that it is -- the source of his advocacy is actually irrelevant -- or that he's "involved" because he's gay. If you get past that sentence, the aim of my comment should have been quite clear: But I didn't bring that up because your sexual orientation shouldn't be a reason for people to diminish your views, nor should it be a reason -- as you have done -- to prop them up. -- tariqabjotu 17:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was merely going by the wording in the finding, about the strength of feeling, etc.--MONGO 16:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, ok. I don't see how it comes across that way, but ok. -- tariqabjotu 17:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't really going by the wording since it applies to using administrative tools, not editing an article. Generally, administrators are not supposed to use the tools in situations where they have strong opinions on the edits or people concerned.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for using the word "generally"...and that's correct...generally they shouldn't.--MONGO 20:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally" allows for situations where there are unambiguous and severe violations of policy. This was not such a case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But was it reasonable for him to believe there was an unambiguous and severe policy violation at that time? That is that there was a clear BLP violation and the vast majority would agree with him? I'd say yes. I believed at that time that anyone familiar with trans issues would have the opinion that the name BM was a BLP violation and that those who were not familiar would be quickly convinced (minus a few people more concerned with politics than people). Clearly not the case, which was quite surprising to me. I'd _never_ call a trans by their pre-trans name, anymore than I'd swear at a passing stranger. We are looking at a cultural divide here where one culture sees profound insult and assumes everyone else is on board. Hobit (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, there is clearly more bridging that must be done and I don't think calling people names is effective bridge building.--v/r - T P 11:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You see, the fact we are having this discussion is a pretty good indicator that it was not an unambiguous and severe policy violation and there was disagreement at the time Gerard invoked BLP as well. He move-protected the page at the exact moment he left a comment disputing someone who said a move should be discussed. I do not think it would be credible for him or anyone else to claim that they had every reason to think this would be widely agreed to be a BLP violation, which is what is meant when we talk about "obvious" violations. When "obvious" is interpreted as "obvious to me" or "obvious to like-minded editors", it eliminates the whole purpose of the language.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious is always subjective. Always. I felt it was obvious. I still do actually. But I now realize others feel otherwise. I was honestly shocked (and disappointed) with the outcome of that RfC. My point is that what is obvious to one person might end up being wrong. Here we've got a cultural divide that I was largely unaware of. Hobit (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When several people start asking the admin for an explanation, it should be clear that it's not "obvious". It might still be "obvious to [the admin]" or "obvious to like-minded editors", but it's not "obvious". If an admin continues to not explain then, that's where the problem exists. -- tariqabjotu 18:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC) I realize this in the "David Gerard: involved" section, which speaks to state of mind at the time of the admin actions, so the after-the-fact part isn't relevant. More pertinently... I see TDA's point; David was responding to someone who felt the move should be discussed first, so it should have been clear it wasn't obvious to at least that editor. -- tariqabjotu 18:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of this matter is that David was acting in the good faith belief that the Bradley Manning title was a BLP violation, and at the time he used his admin tools there was no consensus to the contrary so his actions were correct according to policy. BLP actions are an exemption to the usual guidelines about involvement, so it is irrelevant whether David was involved or not. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard: accountability

2) David Gerard did not behave in accordance with policy on administrator accountability. Specifically, David Gerard repeatedly failed to communicate his rationale for citing BLP policy when asked to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. -- tariqabjotu 14:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

BLP is somewhat self explanatory. David did not completely fail to communicate and for those in opposition to the page move, no amount of explanation may have been sufficient.--MONGO 13:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David has refuted this so many times it is probably one of the most refuted accusations ever presented in an arbcom workshop. Just because you disagree with a rationale does not mean that one was not given. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard: conduct

3) David Gerard's conduct when asked to provide a rationale for administrative actions fell short of what is expected of an administrator. Specifically, he (a) repeated failed to provide a rationale for his ations; (b) repeatedly stated that he had provided an rationale when he had not; and (c) repeatedly accused others of disruptive editing when they asked him to provide a rationale. Additionally, his conduct in a general sense when asked to account for his actions was tart and abrasive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. -- tariqabjotu 14:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Isn't this just an expanded version of finding 2? It's not uncommon that a person on the opposite side of a dispute may find their opposition to be tart. No one likes being disagreed with.--MONGO 13:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard: warring

4) David Gerard warred the article (in a broadly construed sense). Specifically, he (a) reversed the administrative actions of two administrators; and (b) unnecessarily locked an article at his preferred title.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In almost every circumstance, if an editor is in any way involved in the article, they should seek an uninvolved administrator via WP:RPP for page protection, but immediacy may at times be necessary, and if done in an effort to reduce harm and enforce BLP, should not be viewed as a violation of involved.--MONGO 22:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Mongo's assessment. I'd also add that linking to policy is less helpful in this particular context than linking to the specific administrator actions for which wheel warring is alleged. (Which were those, again?) I would also argue that, if David Gerard's move of the article back to Chelsea Manning is wheel warring, then Tariqabjotu's move from Chelsea to Bradley would also be wheel warring, since it too reverted an admin. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 22:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO and Ultraexactzz: Timeslines and diffs of David Gerard's reverts of administrative actions are in my section of the evidence page.

Just on point of fact, David Gerard didn't move the article to Chelsea Manning. Morwen moved it there (13:18) and David locked it there (14:31). Tariqabjotu reversed Morwen's action (15:31) following a request for a technical move back.

On the point of immediacy, I fail to see how immediacy is being claimed here. David claimed that having the article at Bradley Manning contravened BLP policy. OK. But the article wasn't at Bradley Manning. It was as Chelsea Manning and no-one was warring it back. I can understand the need for immediacy if content needs to be removed, or if an article needs to be moved, or if an title is being warred over. I don't understand the need for immediacy when an article is in a BLP compliant state (as David Gerard saw it) and no-one is warring over it.

If he wanted page protection he had all the time in the world to request it. --RA (✍) 07:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It had been reverted once already, if only due to a misunderstanding. In a high-traffic article, usually that'd be enough to justify move protection (and, but for the other elements of this issue, I imagine no one would have questioned it here). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point was with regard to immediacy and Mongo's comment that "immediacy may at times be necessary, and if done in an effort to reduce harm and enforce BLP, should not be viewed as a violation of involved." Otherwise involved administrators may take immediate action under BLP to restore content to a BLP compliant state. However, in this example, the article wasn't in a state that David Gerard thought contravened BLP.

And in the context of having move locked the page, later undoing Mark Arsten's edit protection is bizarre IMO except in the case of someone using administrative tools in an dispute in which they are actively involved. --RA (✍) 12:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP and WP:MOSIDENTITY

5) The title Bradley Manning was found not to be a violation of BLP policy or of the manual of style.

Specifically, with regard to BLP policy, the panel of administrators closing the move discussion found that:

WP:BLP is applicable to article titles and the desire to avoid harming the subject presents a reasonable basis for supporting "Chelsea Manning" as the title; however, BLP does not require having "Chelsea Manning" as the title. It is not a BLP violation to maintain the title at "Bradley Manning" so long as the prior use of this name by the subject is public knowledge and can be found in reliable sources. Furthermore, the application of BLP to avoid harming the subject is mitigated by the subject's own acknowledgment that "Bradley Manning" will continue to be used in various fora, and by the fact that the name, "Bradley Manning", will inevitably appear prominently in the article lede. Therefore, BLP is not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, "Chelsea Manning".

With regard to the MOS, the panel found that:

MOS:IDENTITY is not expressly applicable to article titles, and is therefore not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, "Chelsea Manning".. The panel acknowledges that MOS:IDENTITY is applicable to pronouns as used in the article, and that the reversion of this title in no way implies that the subject should be addressed in the article by masculine pronouns. Although some may perceive this as leading to incongruity between the subject's name and the pronouns used throughout the article, such incongruity appears in numerous articles about subjects whose common name appears to differ from their gender.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Bradley Manning as an article title is not a BLP violation. If it were, there would be a cogent argument that Bradley Manning be a red link. No one has proposed this. Therefore, it is purely a question of style and content as to whether the main article or redirect is Bradley Manning. I'd prefer that BM be a dab that lets editors choose which article in the BM umbrella they wish to read and CM be the bio page. This eliminates the misconstruction that an article named "Bradley Manning" is denying her identity and also comports to MOS when a subject extends beyond their bio. --DHeyward (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would argue that it would be more fruitful to examine the intersection between BLP and MOS:IDENTITY at the time of the controversial moves (and reverts and protections, etc). Yes, consensus might have fallen for the Bradley Manning title, but that hadn't happened yet when the moves began - which means it's not relevant for judging whether, for example, David Gerard acted in good faith. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 22:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be asking the Arbcom to make a content decision? Even if it isn't, you cannot fairly judge actions taken before extensive discussion on the basis of the outcome of that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's asking Arbcom to take notice of a decision at (I think) WP:BLPN, which reasonable editors should follow, in the absence of policy against it. It's not a content ruling. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) WP:BLP is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As it is one of two policies (along with NPOV) mandated and explicitly endorsed by the Foundation, this seems straightforward. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. -- tariqabjotu 06:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A statement like this or incorporating this is essential. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors must consider harm

2) WP:BLP explicitly mandates that the possibility of harm to the subject be considered alongside other editorial concerns.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Stated in the policy: "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

harm to the subject and harm to living subjects are not the same. It is important to distinguish that the policy is broad and not narrowly focused. Living victim relatives of the Son of Sam would experience distress at calling him his self-identified name of "Son of Hope." The goal is to limit harm overall (and eliminate it completely if possible) but not sacrifice other harm for the sake of the subject without consideration for others. There are people in the trans* community that believe Manning is harmful to them and their cause. That harm would need to be weighed against the harm to harming using RS, NPOV and verifiability. For the same reason, sources should be evaluated as to whether they are "point and snicker" accounts or legitimate sources of pertinent information. --DHeyward (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the position that Manning ought be misgendered and misnamed would gain wide support even among those who view her as harmful to the trans community. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is most likely true, but by stating it that way, you have turned a policy/principle dispute into a content dispute. You stated considering harm to the subject as being the standard and that is incorrect. All living subjects must be considered and the distinction is not insignificant if you wish it to be a finding of principle. --DHeyward (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I literally just finished addressing the quote you mentioned elsewhere, so I'll add it here as well. The full sentance reads "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The purpose of a colon is to elaborate a point, in this case spreading titilating or salacious details about living people. No one can reasnoably believe that the subjects birth name is either of those, so this clearly does not run afoul of BLP.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reading is not supported by the larger text surrounding BLP. The Foundation's statement in support of a BLP policy makes mention of taking "human dignity" into account, which also seems like it points towards a consideration of harm in a more general sense. Past arbitration rulings cited by David Gerard further suggest that BLP is not merely a restatement of NOR, V, and NPOV, but an injunction making a specifically ethical case regarding the responsibilities of being the sixth biggest website in the world, and of the potential consequences of that power. This does not mean that an article should never harm a living person, but it does clearly mandate that the notion of harm is something that editors are supposed to consider in a general case, not merely in terms of potentially titillating harm. That doesn't mean "do no harm" is an absolute principle or anything, but the contrary of this proposal - that harm should not be considered alongside other editorial concerns - seems to me straightforwardly false. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to understand why you say my interpretation is not supported by the text, but that conversation might not be fruitful (here). No one with a conscious would deny protecting "human dignity", of course. My gut reaction to BLP is that "New Orelans news" (being caught with a dead hooker or live minor) is fair game if it can be verified. What BLP aims to protect is a subject known for inventing a widget who was caught in the backseat of a Buick with the 18 year old babysitter. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation fairly clearly intends BLP to go beyond that. I did some time working on OTRS around 2007/2008, and I can say emphatically that our understanding of BLP went beyond that, and focused on balancing the genuine anguish of the people who wrote in to ask for our help in rectifying what they viewed as the harm being done to them with other editorial mandates. Again, harm is not a trump card, but it's a mighty powerful one, and one we have historically taken seriously in a general case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the Foundation's intent, they should create a mandate. I can't see that being resolved here.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a straightforward case of interpreting policy comparable to numerous findings the committee has made in the past, and far more likely than the numerous requests that the committee declare outright that BLP does not apply to this case, a request that seems to amount to openly asking the committee to issue a content ruling. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of yet, we have no evidence presented that the subject has been or feels harmed by his treatment within the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not seem to require a subject's complaint as a prerequisite for considering harm. Indeed, the main thrust of the policy is that we should avoid harming people to the point where they vocally complain in the first place. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The principle as written is correct. Anything that may cause harm must have that potential included in the consideration of whether it should be included or not. Sometimes that will mean it should not be included, but other times it will be judged necessary. It cannot be included though without that judgement having been made. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heated political debates are not an ideal forum to revamp policy

3) Although consensus on Wikipedia policy may change over time, articles on politically contentious current events are unlikely to be a good venue for considering broad changes to Wikipedia's editorial practices.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reworded. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense - our coverage of current events is necessarily rife with passions and partisanship. Attempts to rework longstanding policy in accordance with those passions are doomed to failure. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to disagree as written. If we were to rework policy in the discussion surrounding a current event, that's a bad idea. However, I feel such a current event could shed light on issues our policies and guidelines may have (which I believe the Manning debacle has done); that's, ultimately, a good thing. -- tariqabjotu 05:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the staggeringly toxic tone of the move discussion puts the lie to that argument. Statements of outright bigotry were mixed freely with policy-based arguments in such a way that it became impossible to tell where sincere and good faith policy discussion ended and outright bigotry began, and equally impossible to countenance the idea that there was no hate speech in the debate. The result was an absolutely awful way to handle a policy discussion, especially as it meant that Wikipedia's policies regarding trans issues were linked to the extreme passions surrounding the debate on the American security state. These issues are, from a policy-making perspective, totally unrelated, and yet they became part of the same jumbled mega-debate in a way that was impossible to completely disentangle. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is a trans-inclusive space

4) As part of its commitment to a broad and inclusive community, Wikipedia does not tolerate discrimination against transgender people. While editors may hold whatever personal beliefs they wish, transphobic comments have no place whatsoever on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:NPA states that "Discriminatory epithets directed against another contributor, a group of contributors, or any of their characteristics (including, but not limited to, those protected by law or the Wikimedia Foundation's non-discrimination policy). Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." The Wikimedia Foundation's non-discrimination policy specifically identifies "race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics" as things that current and prospective users must not be discriminated against on the basis of. There is substantial case law demonstrating that gender identity is legally protected in the United States, and California (where the Wikimedia Foundation is based) specifically acknowledges gender identity as a protected characteristic. Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States lists numerous other significant legal precedents. Furthermore, statements by both Jimbo Wales and Sue Gardner strongly imply that the Foundation does consider transphobic discrimination to be a bad thing. The committee could, presumably, seek clarification from the Foundation as to whether gender identity is intended to be covered by the non-discrimination policy, however the preponderance of the evidence suggests that it is common sense that it would be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I consider terms like "transphobic" and "cisgender" to be discriminatory gender epithets. I am neither. Please stop using them. --DHeyward (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that "transphobic" is a gender epithet then you do not, so far as I can tell, understand what the word means. It's no more a gender epithet than "racist" is a racial one. Similarly, "cisgender" is an epithet in exactly the same way that "heterosexual" is, which is to say, not even remotely. (I admit to being particularly disturbed by seeing that argument, as it's common in transphobic discourse in the same way that "what's next, people marrying their dogs" is in homophobic discourse.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both are epithets designed to define an outgroup. Please stop. I am not transphobic or cisgender. --DHeyward (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're rather crying wolf here, given that I've never done either. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'm not crying anything. I'm pointing out that I don't identify with those labels and the social construct used in relation to those particular labels. I doubt anyone does so the terms should be banished from discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm Phil Sandifer, and I'm cisgender. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil, I'm DHeyward and I am not cisgender. Please don't comment on articles that aren't cisgender. That should be left to people that aren't cisgender. --DHeyward (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um... are you sure you know what the word "cisgender" means? Because unless there's been a really big Mediawiki patch I've not read about, articles don't have gender identities. The word "cisgender" just means "not trans." It's not an offensive slur anymore than "heterosexual" is. I mean, you're not the first person I've ever seen object to it, but every other objection I have ever seen has been part of an overt attack on trans people. I'm really at a loss for why you would object to it. It's certainly not, as you suggest, a label that nobody self-identifies as.

I mean, I'll grant that "transphobic" is pejorative, although I think suggesting that it's a personal attack is a bit rich and comes awfully close to declaring that calling out bigotry is a worse offense than bigotry itself. It is the generally accepted word for "discriminatory against trans people" in the same way racist, sexist, and homophobic are the words meaning that something is discriminatory on other grounds. I at least get why someone doesn't like having their comments called transphobic, although, frankly, I think "don't make transphobic comments" is probably a better way to avoid that than objecting to being called out for it. But objecting to the word cisgender is really rather strange. Between its utter bizarreness and the long and disturbing history of the objection being used as part of a transphobic attack, I admit that I'm having trouble treating whatever line of argument you think you're advancing seriously. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My identity is not subject to whether you consider it serious. I am not cisgender, I don't identify myself as cisgender. Do you think it's okay to apply labels as long as you perceive them as correct or non-discriminatory? Are you really telling me that there is no reason to be offended by the label because it's never been discriminated against? If that's the case, then the label "white, heterosexual male" ought not offend anyone as that is the least discriminated group in society. Are you suggesting we could label Manning as a "white, heterosexual male" because that is the least discriminated group and nobody would/should be offended by it? --DHeyward (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your identity I'm not taking seriously, it's the fact that you're complaining to me about being described as cisgender when I've never once described you that way. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I simply reject the label. You seem to believe that the label "cisgender" is not harmful and your argument is that historically, since "cisgender" persons are not discriminated against, it's an "okay" label. I've reflected back to you that "white, heterosexual, male" is historically a category that is not discriminated against. But we know (and I accept) that the label "white, heterosexual, male" can be offensive if one does not identify as such. Yes, I am employing a rhetorical device with the ultimate goal of having you realize that WP is an "inclusive space" not a "trans-inclusive space." Using exclusionary language, well-intentioned, is still exclusionary. --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It is not discriminatory to decline to address a person by their chosen gender rather than their genuine gender, sorry. People that decline to do so are not attacking transgendered people, nor are they transphobic. Tarc (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest that a trans person's identity is not genuine is inherently an attack against transgender people. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: you're really overreacting here on cisgender. You might not have heard of the word before, but it is basically to trans as straight is to gay -- and just like it's no insult to call somebody straight (indeed, most straight people will happily call themselves that,) it is no insult at all to call someone cis. It just doesn't see much usage because 99% of the time everyone is assumed to be cisgender. Also trans-inclusive is clearly a particular case of inclusive, and is the issue at hand in this workshop. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know how it's used and I've heard the word before. I know where it came from and the reason for it. I simply am not cisgender. My point without being pointy is that calling someone straight is not offensive, unless they aren't straight and they've told you they aren't straight. The U.S. just repealed DADT to allow gay soldiers to serve openly and that would be unnecessary if calling someone "straight" wasn't denigrating and a denial of their identity. By extension, if you believe that calling someone as belonging to a privileged group is not insulting (i.e. "straight", "white", "male"), then we wouldn't be here. We would simply ignore references to Manning's orientation and gender and write her article in a presumptive "Straight, White, Male" format as she couldn't possibly be offended by being included in the most privileged of privileged groups and gender identity or sexual orientation are really not relevant to her notability. Her enlistment presumes she was "Straight, White, Male" as a cookie-cutter example of probably 65-85% of the rest of the Army that wouldn't be offended by the term. But she's stated she isn't. Nor does categorizing gender in binary terms like "cis" and "trans" fit with models of gender except as a political term to create a group that is privileged versus one that is not. --DHeyward (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, are you saying you have some form of trans* identity yourself? If so I apologise, I thought you were arguing with the word rather than telling us you don't identify with your biological sex. Chris Smowton (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am simply not cisgender. Do I have to fit into your binary view of gender? Do I also have acknowledge that trans women issues are feminist issues? Or subscribe to the view that autogynephilia doesn't exist as a diagnosable disorder? Because then we start to creep into advocacy space. Would rejecting the idea that trans women issues are intrinsically feminist issues, accepting that autogynephilia is a diagnosable transvestic disorder or rejecting that cisgender privilege is the prevalent reason why trans* persons are discriminated against or be viewed transphobic on WP? Be honest. --DHeyward (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We are. I mean, at the end of the day, this is true. In the same way that it's true that, even though there are people who think that people of African descent are subnormal, people who think that women are less intelligent, people who think all Muslims are terrorists, and people who think that gay people are part of an evil cabal trying to kill people with HIV-infecting rings, Wikipedia has declared that discrimination based on those grounds is not OK. In fact, the existence of people who discriminate against other people on the basis of race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation is why we have an anti-discrimination policy. And that policy amounts to advocacy in each of those cases. The question is whether gender identity is another category we want to ban discrimination over, or whether we're OK with it. For my part, I'm suggesting that the committee should declare that gender identity is covered by the policy due to the "other legally protected characteristics" line in the policy. You may disagree and think that discrimination based on gender identity is currently acceptable on Wikipedia. That's certainly a position that can be argued for - it's not mentioned explicitly, after all. But you seem to be trying to object to the fact of an anti-discrimination policy, and that ship's long since sailed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminating against a group of people and saying things that offend them are not one and the same. We generally only take action when an individual is making extremely bigoted remarks. Most of what has been identified as "transphobic" would not be covered. Your suggestion is akin to saying that a person who asserts race is not just a social construct should be sanctioned for racist discrimination. That would not fly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So to be clear, autogynephilia is a DSM-V listed disorder. It's disputed largely by activists (there's plenty of reasons why, though, transphobia is generally not one of them as supporters are often post-SRS trans women). The idea that trans women issues are feminist issues is debatable (by feminists and transgender activists). Even considering trans* issues as LGB issues is debated as LGB is sexual orientation while Trans* is gender. They are aligned politically, if at all, as they are unrelated psychologically. We don't have to be advocates for an ideological viewpoint within a narrowly defined subset of trans activists to be inclusive or fair. --DHeyward (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Misgendering trans people is harmful

1) To be transgender necessarily means actively rejecting the name and gender assigned at birth. Misgendering and misnaming a transgender person thus constitutes a fundamental rejection of their self-identity. This is one of the most profound and basic forms of harm imaginable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See gender identity disorder for an explanation of the material harm caused to trans people by being misgendered. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This strongly implies that transgender people are special with regards to name changes. I'm sure most people who change their names are rejecting a previous identity in some way. If we were to nix the words "misgendering" and "transgender", would we have a finding of fact that would stand any chance of being passed? Probably not. I do not believe we should be compelled to title articles the way subjects want them to be, either for non-transgender people or transgender people. -- tariqabjotu 05:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that GID is present in the DSMV where other questions of name changes are not indicates that, in point of medically accepted fact, transgender issues are different from other identity issues. This is at the heart of the issue: a name change as part of coming out as trans is part of a medically recognized course of treatment for a disorder that causes empirically validated suffering. That's what separates this case from Snoop Lion - the fact that the harm is not merely self-claimed, but a symptom of a medically recognized condition. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are you making a claim that (a) Undesired-name wikipedia article titles are harmful to trans* people and (b) Undesired-name wikipedia article titles are not proven harmful to anyone else? There are a lot of other disorders that cause suffering in that guidebook, such as Narcissistic personality disorder (which some of our more famous celebrities may suffer from). As soon as we get into building a harm-o-meter, and trans* are on one side and everyone else is on the other, we've violated BLP (b/c we're not treating all humans with equal dignity and care), and we're violating NPOV (as we're speculating on what is impossible to know - given wikipedia articles with old names A and B, we assert A is fundamentally more harmful than B and thus special rules are required for A but not for B.)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making the second claim - I'm merely noting that there are considerations in the case of trans people that distinguish them from the general case of undesired-name articles. I don't see how this finding precludes finding that other categories of people are also materially harmed by misnaming - it merely notes that this is unequivocally the case for trans people. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I believe GID is a DSM-IV classification and the DSM-V classification has been termed Gender Dysphoria. The distinction is important as "identity" is not changing, or "treatable", or a "disorder" while the feelings of dysphoria are treatable. Second, WP is not denying Manning's identity. She has already stated it. WP has very little to do with it. The real heart of the question is whether readers or editors will consider WP's treatment of Bradley Manning as denying their ability to self-identify their gender and/or cause them harm. That will necessarily depend also on reliable sources and the acceptance of society as well as the reaction of the trans* community. WP should be a reflection on that, not leading it. Self-identity has little meaning within the broad scope of what WP is, rather WP is reflection of whether self-identity is meaningful. WP makes those decisions based on policy and principles. --DHeyward (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that an editor (SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)) had summarized a statement by Manning's lawyer on the article talk page, saying in part Regarding the pronoun, he wrote that the female pronoun should be used only for post-announcement material. So, once again, this kind of finding is not as absolute is it's made out to be. -- tariqabjotu 15:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter for psychologists and mental health professionals to debate (and it's not a slam dunk there). WP is an encyclopedia that provides neutrally written, verifiably sourced, factual content using so-called reliable published sources as its basis. We're not here for advocacy of controversial positions or to bolster the self-esteem of article subjects. Journalists, scholars, and writers report, we follow. Carrite (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't true, at least not as some absolute rule that trumps all others. We have a non-discrimination policy - one that includes sexual orientation and religion, which are also controversial positions. Clearly there is a line where a concern for non-discrimination causes us to draw an ethical line that has a basis that is not entirely in following reliable sources. If we wish to declare that gender identity is on a different side of that line than religion or sexual orientation, fine. We certainly can do that. But we should not pretend that this is anything other than declaring an ideological position that this is an acceptable form of discrimination. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No, it isn't. As noted a moment ago in another section, it may be considered rude or even offensive...but when speaking in broad terms about a transgender subject especially one as controversial and high-profile as this case is, then no, no harm is done by dropping an occasional "Bradley" or "he" into one's comments. If someone is going out of their way to intentionally jam as many names and pronouns into a comment, then that's rise to pointiness, and can be dealt with as needed. Skipping record time, but being offended isn't a human rights issue. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offense is not the issue here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Transgender" covers a lot of ground. Some people's identities are neither exclusively female nor exclusively male, and some of them may prefer androgynous names or may prefer having both 'masculine' and 'feminine' names. Other people's identities and/or experiences may make it painful to bring up old names. I think it reasonable to use preferred names, generally, and since it can be disrespectful/hurtful to use old names in the title, to avoid doing so unless we know the subject embraces both names. Ananiujitha (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal presupposes that everyone accepts a) gender and sex are seperate and b) pronouns must only refer to gender and never sex. I disagree that everyone is even aware of the distinction, let alone agrees with it. Further, I disagree that the second assumption must be regarded as true. Using he to refer to Manning is not automatically an act of misgendering, but instead referring to his sex. This is not a rejection of that persons gender identity, but a rejection of the demand that pronouns refer only to gender. That demand leaves no pronoun for sex when there was, and should be, one. To combine that demand with a hate label is an act designed to chill discussion and enforce acceptance and isn't fair. Other methods could be used to respectfully recognise a trans persons unique status in a dignified way and it shouldn't be automatically labelled transphobia to want those options explored. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you refer to "sex", do you mean sexual orientation or sexual identity?--v/r - T P 16:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean male or female as determined by chromosomes. So in those terms, Manning's sex is male and considers their gender female. I have no interest in speculating on peoples sexual orientation, transgender or not. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the chromosomes don't determine biological sex. It is complicated. There are a couple genes, SRY among them, that determine whether gonads will differentiate into ovaries or testes, and thus what hormones they will produce when. And the hormones generally determine the developmental pattern, but there are complications like androgen insensitivity syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and so on. There are certain contexts where hormonal sex, reproductive sex, etc. might be more important than other aspects of biological sex, but there's no objective universal way to determine someone else's "real" biological sex. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ananiujitha on this point. Biological sex is complicated. There is no evidence of her sex besides that she was accepted into the military as a male. It would be rude and unnecessarily insensitive to speculate about something as personal as biological sex. We know a lot about Manning's life. If you were as well known as her, how would you feel about random people speculating about your sex? DPRoberts534 (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mere existence of exceptions does not invalidate the categories. You note yourself, they are complications and not the standard. They can and are noted and understood, while the basic premise remains.

@DPRoberts534. Everyone speculates on everyone's sex all the time. If you have ever referred to anyone as a he or she without first verifying it then you are speculating on their sex. Setting the bar for insensitivity and rudeness that low is simply unreasonable and unsustainable. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this "finding" is disputed in the real world. It could be made here (rephrased, as is considered harmful rather than harmful), but it would be primarily a content ruling. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's handling of trans issues is a long-settled matter

2) Wikipedia's practice of deferring to transgender people on their identity is longstanding, having been codified in 2006 [139] as a specific case of a principle dating back to 2004 [140].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is the only piece of Wikipedia policy to explicitly mention transgender issues, and it has been remarkably stable prior to being dragged into an already contentious debate about current events. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I'm really curious to see the discussion that led to the 2006 change, as it seems unceremoniously added with simply no one objecting. Consensus can change, and it is likely the participation in the Manning discussion was far greater than the one that led to the 2006 change. For that reason, I don't feel this should be a formal finding of fact. -- tariqabjotu 05:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This entire massive, pained, noisy, combative, ongoing hullabaloo belies this assertion in a definitive way. Carrite (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Phil which version of the policy are you reading? I see no mention of transgender. You are also using this big word "Identity", whereas we don't have identities here. We have article titles, pronouns, and in-line references to the subject. Each of these is subject to debate and discussion under different policies and guidelines. Also per Carrite, I think it's clear that consensus is still evolving in this area.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Phil Sandifer is misrepresenting a manual of style guideline as policy. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't, as your links are still claiming that Wikipedia:Manual of Style is policy. It isn't. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missed a use of it. Sorry. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Transphobic" is not a personal attack

3) While it is understandable that editors do not like being accused of transphobia, the observation that a comment is transphobic is not in and of itself a personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Transphobia makes clear that it is an existent attitude and bias. Pointing out instances of it is no more a personal attack than pointing out racism, sexism, logical contradictions, or any other facet of an argument. While nobody likes being called a bigot, the idea that people cannot be called out for viewpoints that cause real harm is ludicrous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, as in the similar proposal above. There is no objective criteria for what constitutes transphobia or racism or sexism. If someone wants to say "I find your comment transphobic/racist/offensive", that's fine, but to definitively state "That is transphobic" is not helpful and is effectively equivalent to a personal attack. The person would not have made the comment if they didn't think it was bigoted. -- tariqabjotu 05:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea that what an editor posts on a talk page is their opinion can be tacitly read. I can think of no other supposed personal attack that is magically rendered not a personal attack by adding "I think" to the beginning of it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to provide a link to the section where I made a similar comment, but it was edit-conflicted. It's up here (not a similar proposal, but actually an opposite proposal). I oversimplified matters, but the distinction is intended to be between one's personal opinion and something stated as fact. I don't think it's possible to define what kinds of remarks fall into each bucket, but it's someone you can know when you see.

An example of this comes in a recent exchange on ITN/C, where one editor [scroll down a bit] says "The bigoted anti-American comments by users such as fgf10 and black kite ... are despicable racism". Is that a personal attack? Sounds like it to me. Hence the thread that follows (which ultimately hit ANI). Had the editor said something closer to "I think your comments suggesting X sound a bit racist" -- or avoided the word racist entirely -- it would have been less so or not one at all; it simply would have been a highly unpopular opinion.

This finding of fact, though, to me at least, reads that it's okay to call something transphobic when it is transphobic -- as if there are objective criteria for such. There's a reason WP:SPADE isn't policy; it's hard to define the line between making a reasonable criticism of someone's remarks and making a personal attack, and so I don't believe we should be trying, particularly from the angle of exonerating words. -- tariqabjotu 06:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a clarifying phrase to acknowledge that it's certainly possible to incorporate an accusation of transphobia into a personal attack, while retaining the point that "transphobic" is not in and of itself problematic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you simply clarify that, like accusations of racism and sexism, serious accusations require serious evidence?--v/r - T P 16:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pointing out instances of it is no more a personal attack than pointing out racism, sexism, logical contradictions..." We do not allow accusations of racism nor sexism without serious evidence per WP:NPA nor should we allow accusations of transphobia. Logical contradictions cannot be lumped into the same category, that's a much higher form of disagreement on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.--v/r - T P 14:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It is very personal and its only use is to stifle commentary. Especially when a persons view of "transphobia" is not supported by a large portion of the community (whether trans*, WP or society at large). Here's a post-SRS woman's view of Manning [141] and transgender activism[142]. Most of her blog would be labeled "transphobic" by people here who are using that word. Yet, the very idea of that label (including the tortured definitions and etymology being thrust on us here) being used to describe a person that was born transsexual and has gone through a complete transition is silly. She's correctly called a feminist. She is adamantly opposed to men defining what it means to be female. She believes that the current Transgender Movement is harmful to feminism. She makes distinctions that the Transgender Movement doesn't want to make, but that is not transphobic. --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, it is a personal attack when it is directed at people simply expressing an opinion that transgender supports disagree with rather than actual attacks. One may wish to peruse the "Day of personal attacks by Josh Gorand to see how the "transphobic" label was used as a personal attack. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree....a common tactic of some is to label any opposition in a way that makes them look like Nazis in order to shut them down and gain an advantage....akin to calling Tea Party members racists as a generalization to shut down the conversation.--MONGO 13:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transphobic is a hate label on par with Homophobic, Racist, Sexist and Antisemitic. It should be treated as such. Just saying the word isn't a personal attack, no. Using it to describe someone (or someone's words) almost always is. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is correct, since what is and isn't a personal attack can't be worked out simply by considering whether a particular word has been used. But Arbcom should be focusing on what is a personal attack (or, more broadly, what is disruptive behaviour), rather than what isn't.

@Tarc. I think you need to be clearer. Are you saying that "transphobic" is a PA unless it is said in response to another PA? I don't think that would be sound. Formerip (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a concise answer to that, except to point out what is a transphobic attack, and what is not. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those statements are horrifically transphobic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If you actually think the second statement isn't a statement that can be correctly described as "transphobic", you're simply using a private definition of the word - David Gerard (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would have used horrifically to describe the second example, but There is simply no actual person named "Chelsea Manning" here. doesn't strike me as entirely kosher. -- tariqabjotu 18:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true than Phil and Davidson definition of transphobic is so broad as to be rendered meaningless. Basically to not be transphobic you have to agree that Manning is Chelsea, was always Chelsea and indeed was even born Chelsea. That Tarc does not agree that Manning was Chelsea at the time of the trial is not Transphobia. I think the context shows that was his point. Not claiming that Chelsea is now and forever a non-person. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing the slightest bit "horrific" about my statement, noted above as the 2nd one. But thank you both, as we FINALLY hit upon the heart of that matter; the Sandifers and the Gerards of this whole imbroglio will not accept an opinion that does not conform 100% to the transgender point-of-view. When the question is posed "will you call Bradley Manning 'Chelsea' and also use the feminine pronoun?" any answer that does not express absolute compliance is labeled "transphobic". No margin, no wiggle room, no allowance for another point-of-view. Bush Jr. was once soundly lambasted for this "you're either with us or against us" societal division, oddly enough. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said, in the diff above, "What we have is a man named "Bradley Manning"." That is in fact transphobic. I would go so far as to call it hate speech. What rankles about it is the sheer absolutism of it - the way in which it rejects trans identities outright. This is not a matter of 100% compliance, but one of that statement indicating essentially no support whatsoever for trans identities. It's very much distinct from a statement like "WP:COMMONNAME mandates using the most frequent term for an article title, and on the basis of the evidence that appears to be Bradley," a position I think is wrongheaded and foolish, but that I would be hard-pressed to describe as transphobic. But any argument that is predicated on the assumption that Chelsea Manning is not a woman is, in fact, transphobic. This is a bright line distinction. Denying trans identities is an inherently and straightforwardly transphobic act. If you believe making this observation to be a personal attack, I suggest you propose a finding against me to that effect. I'm perfectly willing to be judged on that statement. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets all step back. Manning is only notable for the conviction of espionage...so that name that was used during the time of the activity and conviction is valid for identifying that person at that time. However, due to BLP policy we do less harm by titling the article with the name the subject now uses. Hate speech is way over the top Sandifer...in fact that is absolutely ridiculous.--MONGO 19:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it considerably less ridiculous than the idea that calling out bigotry is somehow less acceptable than bigotry. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already entered in as Evidence, perhaps a Workshop entry later, as you quite plainly just stepped over a rather bright line. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the statement. Indeed, this seems to raise a question, as if you do think that to be a personal attack then you also presumably think I've been guilty of significant off-wiki personal attacks. Since the off-wiki nature of it adds mess, I've made an edit posting the text of the relevant blogpost to my userpage, then reverted it, so that anything I said there can safely be treated as an on-wiki comment. [143]. Expand your evidence as you wish. I trust the arbcom not to declare that calling out bigotry is actionable where bigotry itself is not. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone "Transphobic" is a personal attack, it is an accusation and the person accused is thrown under the spotlight and subject to backlash. I do not care what you may think of another person's comment calling them a transphobe is just as bad. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the proposed finding covers the use of "transphobic" as a description of comments, not of people. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What what? Comments are made by people so when someone calls those comments transphobic it impacts the person who made the comments, I have also seen editors here calling other editors transphobes again it is a baseless claim with no proof to it. What happened to assuming good faith? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not only open to the possibility that the bulk of transphobia is borne of ignorance and not malice, it is in fact my operating assumption. Comments made in good faith can still be transphobic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as I've said over and over, this is a cultural language barrier. Academics chose a poor suffix in -phobia which implies a fear or hatred. Fear and hatred imply bad faith. A better suffix would've been to take from "Racism" or "Sexism" and call it "Transphobism" or "Transism" then it might've found more understanding among those who are unaware of its non-standard definition among the trans* community.--v/r - T P 20:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get right on fixing that for you, just as soon as I've finally straightened out flammable/inflammable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manning also used a different name which resulted in a discussion here...and was since then convicted and sentenced...now she has a new name. I support the policy of BLP and the use of the current female name, but you have to consider that the name changes and the conviction of a felony make Manning's claims less credible than Lana Wachowski and consider that those that would prefer to keep the title at the name for which the person is noteworthy wish to do so for reasons that are not based on ignorance, fear or bigotry, much less transphobia.--MONGO 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a fairly intuitive and sensible distinction to be made between a name she used in some online conversations and a name she publicly asked to be called by. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure...of course there is, but there is the other more pertinent issue, which does undermine the veracity of the claimant's statement. I concur we should honor the new name in the title, but suggest that throwing a blanket over anyone that disagrees with that stand as one who is transphobic is only a way to silence the opposition and is not much different than Godwin's law.--MONGO 03:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing here that undermines the claim of transgender status, and cannot even begin to see how one would begin to argue this. It's not at all uncommon to experiment with a differently gendered identity in online spaces as a prelude to seeking a full-on transition. I'm not sure I know of any trans people who transitioned in the age of the Internet who didn't engage in some version of that as part of working through their gender identity. And I'm at a loss for how Manning's conviction somehow undermines her claim. Frankly, this argument feels like looking for excuses and grasping at straws long after the decision to deny her identity has been taken. The idea of people faking trans status is a popular transphobic tactic (typically used as an explanation for why we can't allow trans people to use the correct bathrooms - because then men will fake being trans to perv at women), and so is one that I admit to taking a dim view of. Perhaps some findings along the lines of what Sue Gardner requested are in order - this line of argument, to be honest, demonstrates the pitfalls of a settled issue of practice being relitigated because a bunch of people with no experience in the topic have suddenly come in from a different and bitterly contentious topic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal was that "Transphobic" is not a personal attack and my advice is that the argument can be won without even calling anyone transphobic. My analogy to Lana Wachowski was to demonstrate that her claims are much more likely to be considered to be credible than Manning's are due to the fact that Lana isn't a convicted felon at the beginning of a long period of incarceration. You want to take Manning's statement purely at face value and others have trouble with the credibility of it and I think that is completely understandable. Otherwise, yes, there were many people at the Chelsea Manning talkpage and other places that did demonstrate what I too might silently call transphobic comments, but I would have been extremely hesitant to use that term since it doesn't advance the argument...all it does is inflame the issue with those that will not listen to reason.--MONGO 03:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. When I was called "transphobic" on the evidence page of this case, I was personally attacked. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Existing practice regarding transgender people is consistent with accepted best practices

4) WP:IDENTITY is consistent with other mainstream styleguides on how to write about transgender people.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Mainstream practices, including the Leveson Inquiry's findings in the UK and the AP's stylebook (which governs a majority of US print media), support trans self-identity. Transgender status is widely recognized in the medical community as a legitimate identity, with well-developed standards of care and practice. While there are still substantial numbers of political battles to be fought, most focus on legislative goals like non-discrimination laws and on getting treatment for gender dysphoria covered by health insurance. The basic practice of acknowledging someone's wishes on gender transitions is well-enshrined. That does not mean it is without controversy, but it is mainstream. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of those who identify as "conservative" in America would reject this assertion, and as of 2012 their numbers are at 40%. So, no, declaring something to be "mainstream" with that high of a rejection rate is intellectually dishonest. Tarc (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning, we'd need to take seriously creationism, climate change denial and (if we don't want to be chauvenistic about it) fundamentalist Islam and the party-approved version of the modern history of North Korea. Formerip (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. These are fringe views. They may be held in numbers sufficient to make them notable as topics, but they don't therefore warrant considering seriously in a discussion. There are probably plenty of people who would consider trans people abominations unto the Lord, but demanding that be made a basis for discussion, or repeatedly stating it in a discussion, would not therefore be acceptable - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As part of Wikipedia's non-discriminatory policy, I reject both of your assertions that the religion of 2.2-billion of Earth's inhabitants is a 'fringe theory.' That's deeply offensive.--v/r - T P 13:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP has a great many articles that treat the theory of evolution as uncontroversial, although it is rejected by around 42% of Americans [144]. I suggest you get busy on the talkpages of those articles. If you're not willing to do that in the name of mutual understanding and respect, you're as bad as the haters. Formerip (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrongly assume that because I defend a widely held belief that I myself hold that belief. If you'd taken an inkling of time to read what I've written (or perhaps to read my user page), I very clearly state that I believe in evolution just a few lines lower. Personal attack noted.--v/r - T P 15:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming you hold any belief. But if you don't believe creationism to be a fringe point-of-view, then it ought to follow that you think WP's coverage of evolution is not neutral. If you don't think that, then I don't see what it is you think you are defending. Formerip (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The view is, however, fringe from a scientific and medical perspective, and legal in many countries. "Fringe" is a completely appropriate description. Same reason creationist views aren't relevant to pretty much all biology articles, and pushing them on talk pages would be considered timewasting at absolute best - David Gerard (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this poll, Evolution is accepted by 41% of the world population and Creationism is supported by 28% of the population. Those are separated by only 13%. I wouldn't run around calling Creationism a fringe viewpoint when Evolution isn't supported by at least half of the world's population. I've taken care to show respect for trans* issues, I'd appreciate some respect shows for religious issues. And P.S, I'm one of the 41%.--v/r - T P 14:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the line between what is dismissible fringe view and what is a minority point-of-view that should not be discriminated against? Gender identity rights are not a part of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nor is it recognized in the United States at the federal level apart from the hate crimes protection. There are simply many, many people who have no desire to prevent transgender people from holding jobs or getting healthcare and whatnot, they just do not recognize and will not honor the claim that a man who calls himself a woman renders all things about that person into a feminine tense. Not all opposition to something is rooted in fear, hatred, or ignorance. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, it's not immediately obvious what other thing the opposition might be rooted in, though. Formerip (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the fact that some people in the US reject the existence of trans people: Wikipedia doesn't need to take into consideration the WP:FRINGE views of the far right in the US; Wikipedia is written from a mainstream point of view. Climate change denial, racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, homophobia or transphobia are not part of the accepted mainstream views. And those "conservatives" you are referring to who completely reject the existence of trans people are not mainstream conservatives, because mainstream conservatives are not racist, homophobic, transphobic or antisemitic. People with such views have their own two encyclopedias. There are also some people in the US who insist on calling African Americans things like "niggers" or hold other bigoted views toward specific ethnic or other groups and minorities; treating their opinion as equally valid to the non-racist, non-offensive, mainstream opinion is ridiculous (the article on African Americans for example doesn't have the opening sentence "African Americans or Niggers is an ethnic group in the United States", because nigger is a slur, just like misgendering a trans person). Similarly, Iran and many people in the Middle East generally hold opinions on Judaism, Jews and their history that we don't treat as equally valid perspectives. Another thing, Wikipedia is not written from a US-centric POV, and in most of Europe (maybe excluding countries like Belarus & co), those views you are referring to would be considered completely unacceptable and extremist even within the most right-wing parties (excluding very small fringe groups). Josh Gorand (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what if 50% of reliable media sources regularly referred to black people as "niggers", and published books on "American niggers"? That's sort of the case we have here Josh - in spite of your equating the two, many media sources are still using the old name, especially in articles which aren't about the new gender identity of Manning, probably because it's a shorthand that they think more readers will understand - and because Manning herself recognizes that the old name would be used with reference to the trial. I really think you're comparing things which aren't alike - and for now we are in a transition period, whereby her name will gain wider and wider acceptance - but demanding an instant switch and comparing someone who doesn't switch instantly with someone using the word 'nigger' in a derogatory fashion is really a false equivalency.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "insulting" and a slur. It is insulting to misgender a trans person, but a slur implies that it is unacceptable to refer to anybody that way. Nearly half the population identify with "he" and nearly half identify with "she." It's hardly a "slur" but, if intentional, it is insulting. There ARE slurs for trans people, but the wrong gender is not one of them. There are no slurs used by Manning's lawyers in his legal petitions, though I don't quite know why they used "he." I understand the reasoning for using "Bradley Manning". --DHeyward (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was a response to an assertion that people who identify as "(American) conservative" (which is something different from mainstream conservatism like the ideology of traditional conservative parties like CDU in Europe) reject the idea that "transgender status is widely recognized in the medical community as a legitimate identity, with well-developed standards of care and practice" as Phil wrote above. This was not about media mentioning the old name of Manning, but about people in the US who apparently claim transgendered people's gender identities are not real. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gorand, your argument stumbles upon such ill-fitting comparisons. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc...means that one is actively denying a person the right to something...employment, housing, aid, whatever for no other reason than the race, ethnicity, sexual orientation of that person. I wholeheartedly agree that a person should never be denied such tangible things either if they are transgndered, but you're trying to elevate this way way beyond even that. Declining to acknowledge one's preferred gender when it isn't their actual gender isn't discrimination. Denial of a preferred identity is not a human rights violation, and you do more damage to actual cases of discrimination by this continued campaign. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard and Morwen are knowledgeable on the subject

5) David Gerard and Morwen had prior familiarity with transgender topics, and their edits were consistent with long-established precedent in writing about these issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Rephrased to get away from the question of credentials and towards the real issue, which is that David and Morwen acted in accordance with seven years of standard operating procedure on transgender topics. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just take any of the evidence of them being "too involved" and stop treating it as though knowing what you're talking about is a bad thing and this point becomes well-justified. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, for similar reasons as for the proposal below. Also, this is an odd thing for someone to propose, as it suggests David Gerard and Morwen acted according to their "prior familiarity with transgender issues", as opposed to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- tariqabjotu 05:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true. Why do you presume that best practices regarding transgender issues have a place in an encyclopedia anyone can edit? I have prior familiarity with security and military issues. Is that a factor? Do you think this article is mainly about trans issues? This would be counter to the view held by about 95% of people that have "prior familiarity" with living people. I'd note that there was a push to change the Manning article years ago by persons with familiarity with trans issues but only pure speculation about Manning. Actually, the article on Adrian Lamo has stronger ties to LGBT issues in general than Manning. But his article was dropped from the LGBT list/categories. It's rather disconcerting that activism rules the day. It's already been pointed out that there was a distinct difference between behaviors of Morwen and David Gerard. --DHeyward (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing DHeyward. As not an expert, but someone very familar with the military, it seems to me that this whole issues would be solved by calling her Private Manning. If I were to assume that I knew best practices regarding military issues, I'd try and push that. This is about a free encyclopedia and this finding of fact screams "WP:EXPERT."--v/r - T P 13:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the practice of deferring to trans people's names has been in place since at least 2006, and is a special case of a practice dating to 2004. To my knowledge there is no such equivalent set of practices regarding writing about military subjects, or, if there are, there were not a lot of people suddenly objecting to those practices in the context of an already contentious dispute. Precedent, as discussed, runs strongly towards acknowledging trans identities in article titles. This isn't just a matter of credentialed expertise. It's a matter of David and Morwen having edited in relation to transgender topics in the past and knowing how we write about them, versus a bunch of editors who were working on an article that, until recently, had relatively little to do with transgender topics. I'll rephrase, however, to clarify this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There actually are titling and address rules for the military, but I'll digress because it's not productive to this discussion. For the record, though, Private is a perfectly acceptable title for Manning despite her being a PFC.--v/r - T P 00:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This project has a long history of rejecting the notion of expert editors, that some voices can count more than others. This hasn't changed for this case. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least as a matter of policy, the notion of expert editors is rejected as a replacement for citation of sources. It's not, as some have proposed on the Workshop page, a cudgel to declare people "too involved." And there's a difference between "expertise is not a trump card" and "expertise has no value whatsoever." Absolutely expert editors shouldn't be allowed to bludgeon through edits by just shouting "but I'm an expert" repeatedly. But when this metastasizes into active hostility towards expertise and the idea that ignorance is just as valid as expertise it's moved out of the realm of reasonable applications of our policy on expertise and into the realm of something actively dangerous and toxic. It is also worth noting that WP:EXPERT is just an essay - so far as I know there is no basis whatsoever for the claim that expertise ought carry no weight whatsoever. Which makes sense, as that claim is on the face of it ludicrous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point, which I believe was missed, is that these two named editors' opinions count no more and no less than yours, mine, or any other participant's. Being "knowledgeable" does not confer special status or special considerations. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I highly support what you've just said. It's exactly right. The problem, as I see it, is that for a short time at the start, there was an "I'm an expert, trust me" mentality instead of a "Let's go over this rationally for a moment, take A, B, C, and D" mentality. It changed later in the debate once more levels heads got involved. Also, you lose me at your second to last sentence. WP:EXPERT says pretty much exactly what you just said.--v/r - T P 16:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Gardner's statement prior to the case being opened raises a similar concern about expertise being dismissed too readily. Chris Smowton (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, let's not ignore the experts.--v/r - T P 14:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it seriously your position that we should ignore experts? Formerip (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion that we should weigh opinions on their merit. There is no way to verify credentials on Wikipedia unless someone uses their real name and as WP:EXPERTS says, experts get no extra authority but their opinions should be given serious consideration. History, real factual history, has taught us to be wary of those claiming to be experts (hence the link to the Essjay controversy).--v/r - T P 00:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Experts?" When did knowledgeable about a topic turn someone into an "expert?" There is really only one "expert" on Chelsea Manning and she is unavailable at the moment and her doctors aren't commenting. In fact, the closest thing we have to an "expert" on Manning is User:Adrian but I doubt his opinion is particularly welcome. I'm knowledgeable enough to know there is a difference between trans woman identities and autogynephilic identities, but it doesn't make an iota of difference to have a broad understanding of a topic when it comes to applying it. Secondly, the issue of Manning's gender is an overall subset of her article and the articles surrounding her. She's not notable because of her gender or her gender anouncement. --DHeyward (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, neither Morwen or Gerard have any expertise in the specific field of transgenderism or any related field. It is said that Gerard and Julian Assange are friends, though that would be more like an indirect conflict of interest than expertise. Morwen at least seems to have personal experience, but subjective anecdotes are not the same as expertise. Them just knowing things about the subject does not amount to a lot. I know plenty about the subject as well, but my opinions are not the same as theirs.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim special expertise, I do claim enough knowledge not to compare them to dogs and pretend that that's somehow valid and worthwhile discussion - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't knowledge, it is opinion. Also, the "compare to dogs" meme is getting to be a bit of a tiring and oft-misrepresented meme. Even if one feels that those canine analogies were inappropriate, they were hardly representative of everyone who took an opposition-to-"Chelsea" stance. That's a bit of a "bad apple spoiling the bunch". Tarc (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ability of even a small quantity of bigotry and hate speech to create a toxic and unsafe environment is precisely why we take such a hard line on discriminatory attacks in other cases. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same thing politicians do, they grab something and make a deal out of it when it is totally out of context, the point of the analogies was that even if Bradley chose to change his ("his" at the time) name to Chelsea if reliable sources are still using Bradley then Wikipedia follows suit, it does not matter what Manning could have changed his (again "his" at the time) name to, it matters what name is most notable with the subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a perspective. Another, raised frequently in the discussion, was that Wikipedia's commitment to non-discrimination and longstanding practices of accepting a well-documented name change meant that we should avoid a transphobic article title. The question is whether a significant amount of support was intimidated away by the extreme transphobic attacks throughout the discussion. Sue Gardner's talk page suggests that at least some people were. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion had a large influx of editors unfamilar with transgender topics

6) Despite being a topic that is largely settled in mainstream styleguides and that had been settled on Wikipedia since at least 2006, many editors have not worked on topics related to transgender issues, and the question of how to write about them can be complex. Chelsea Manning's coming out as transgender meant that a large number of editors involved in editing an already contentious were abruptly confronted with a complex set of editorial questions on matters they were largely unfamiliar with. This led to an unhelpful attempt to alter Wikipedia's practices in the wake of an already contentious political issue on the part of editors unfamiliar with broader context of that policy, many of whom made statements that both went against the project's anti-discrimination policy and contributed to a toxic environment that made forming consensus impossible. Given this, attempting to alter a long-established set of practices was ill-advised and near certain to produce a bad result. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Rewritten for clarity and to better identify the problem, which is that there was simply no way that the talk page for the article on Chelsea Manning could be expected to come to a reasonable consensus on a nuanced editorial issue that many of the participants were unfamilar with. The problem was not with individual actions or statements - it was that consensus to alter standard operating procedure was not obtainable in that specific context. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is, essentially, what went wrong. Editors who didn't know what they were talking about attempted to solve transgender issues from first principles, and ended up outside of the mainstream consensus. They then turned with staggering but largely not worth taking action over hostility towards the people who actually knew what they were doing and proceeded to try to string them up. The result was an embarassment to the project. While the arbcom cannot and should not issue a content ruling, it can at least point out the poor decisions that enabled this disaster. I think (though I'm open to the argument that I've missed a step) that this set of principles and findings at least illustrates how the project screwed it up this badly, and what it should in the future consider to avoid similar public humiliations. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. This is half a step away from the suggestion that only certain people should participate in discussions. It is not unreasonable that someone "unfamiliar" would read the information posted by others and come to a conclusion -- and sometimes that conclusion will be different from yours. -- tariqabjotu 05:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, unreasonable to expect that a crowd of people already enmeshed in a contentious debate would come to any sort of good conclusion at all about a topic they know nothing about. Which, in point of fact, is exactly what happened. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Style guides for present tense accounts are well established. Our MOS page on changed names however, say that articles not about the subject should use the name at the time of account in those articles. So I'd agree, that we should follow that and change articles other than Chelsea Manning back to "Bradley" when referring to her in historical events prior to "Chelsea." Second, there are style guides from LGBT groups that support historical use of expressed gender at the time vs. using present tense identified gender. "He/She" are not verbs and it's not at all unreasonable to define pronouns as referring to expressed gender at the time in a progressive environment that accepts gender as being fluid in time. They are pronouns, not verbs. Going forward (if you want to talk about transgender issues) we are more likely to see this as we reject notions that a pronoun or name can define a persons gender. Therefore it would make sense that we use pronouns for expressed gender and use verbs to describe the fluidity. NLGJA styleguides do just that. This has nothing to do with accepting that Chelsea Manning has been female since birth. We can accept that with a progressive view of how pronouns and names operate. Nothing that you have stated, however, address the article title and COMMONNAME. You will notice that a lot of the mainstream press paid lip service to even present tense use of name and gender and have since reverted back despite their styleguide. Mostly because the gender aspect is only an issue to small subset of small subset of society. In reality, it was ignoring COMMONNAME that created this mess, not editors discussing it. What you are proposing seems to take issue with the decision to move it back to BM as being an incorrect judgement by the 3 administrators that evaluated the move. Consensus isn't a vote. Policy and strength of argument was the basis of the decision and inferring anything else demeans the judgement of the people that made the decision. --DHeyward (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a significant and complex question of how to handle a topic unfamiliar to a large number of editors was going to be settled by the already simmering pot of tensions that surrounded this topic is farcical. Consensus is certainly not something that's going to emerge out of an already toxic discussion suddenly seizing upon a complex social issue from a position of near-complete ignorance. Or, at least, not any useful consensus. The decision to begin trying to change how Wikipedia handled trans issues on the Manning article was doomed from the start. If ever there was a time to follow past precedent and not open a policy discussion it was this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that you see this, but don't understand that flipping the article on "news cycle day" was a bad idea? And didn't think news articles titled "Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years" would trump "Chelsea Manning says she is female?" Any editor zeroed in on gender issues over all other information should not think that was the time to flip the name. I can't think of anything more damaging to transgender people (not the political agenda, though) than to make them walk that gauntlet during a period that was destined to attract eyeballs of every corner. Only the activists thought this was a good idea to bring attention to trans issues at the expense of trans people that ultimately felt disheartened and rejected by this experience. It was not an enlightened approach . --DHeyward (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:CONSENSUS. We're either a collaborative project or not.--v/r - T P 13:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS allows for the possibility that bad arguments might be made, and stresses that bad arguments don't count towards consensus. My point here is that the circumstances under which the discussion was happening were particularly likely to lead to very bad arguments. As, indeed, they did. To my mind part of the point of WP:CONSENSUS is a skepticism towards decisions taken in toxic environments. Which the Chelsea Manning talk page was in the week this decision was taken. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion also had a large influx of editors with an activist, POV warrior mentality. One should mention that as well, eh? Carrite (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Hard to see how there was an influx of editors if they were already active in the page. Administrative power isn't just about the tools, the position connotates authority and gives the person making a page move more clout than a non administrator would have. The reason this article page move became an issue seems to have evaded those that have misused this bio to promote their agenda. Experts whether self proclaimed or annointed are not always the best editors to be involved in an article in which they have strong biases.--MONGO 11:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Influx of editors to the question of transgender naming issues. Whereas previously people on the page had been primarily discussing a wholly unrelated issue. I'm open to rephrasing the point if this is somehow unclear within it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a good thing, as fresh faces and voices bring a new perspective that the sometimes insular and walled-off insiders of a topic area need to hear, or bring policy-based decisions to a discussion sometimes fraught with emotion. Transgendered people and their friends/supporters/whatnot don't get to own articles or topics of their choosing. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a good thing. In this case, it was a disastrous one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disastrous?--MONGO 17:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it puzzling as well, and a bit dismaying that as the case draws to a close, there is a steep uptick in the hyperbole. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing "hyperbole" with "something I disagree with." Misgendering and misnaming trans people is hate speech. I think "disastrous" is a reasonable adjective to describe Wikipedia embracing hate speech. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confusing a thing. Calling something "hate speech" when it clearly is not is hyperbole, bordering on fear-mongering hysteria. Tarc (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Sandifer is saying that deliberate attempts to misgender anyone is akin to hate speech...perhaps he's right.--MONGO 13:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he is, and I don't necessarily disagree with that. I've noted several times that there's a difference between going out of one's way to do it and just doing it in the course of normal conversation. That's the essence of my Evidence filing though, is that with some of these people it is an absolute. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the finding is one of the worst examples of bad faith on this workshop page as it severely marginalizes anyone who isn't a so called expert.--MONGO 14:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite's "POV warrior mentality": on the other hand perhaps you could assume good faith. (clarified 22 Sep 2013 01:15) Chris Smowton (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a misunderstanding.--v/r - T P 21:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm sorry, what? Is that a serious comment? If I call you an asshole, are you expected to assume good faith? Carrite was personally attacked, there is no good faith about it. In fact, if you look at the evidence page, particularly what I have with Josh Gorand, there is a clear lack of good faith when making the comment that others were transphobic. He addressed the people as transphobic, not their comments. He called them abusive, bigots, ect. There is no good faith and good faith is not a suicide pact. None was required once someone called Carrite transphobic. Do you realize how much good faith was not assumed by those calling supporters of "Bradley" transphobic? Please, that is beyond patronizing. It's insulting. I realize your comment is in good faith, but I'm not sure you fully thought it out.--v/r - T P 19:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about any of that, I was responding to Carrite's "editors with an activist, POV warrior mentality", which is a sweeping negative generalisation about the whole pro-Chelsea camp. Apologies if my meaning was misconstrued, I probably should have repeated the quote since I can't reply directly due to not being a party. Chris Smowton (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to hash out an faq and resource list dealing with trans-related questions and controversies? I think I saw a couple resource links on one of these discussions, but they didn't go into the whys of respecting names and pronouns. It would be useful for people who are simply unfamiliar with these issues, and it would be useful for people who are too exhausted to answer questions/explain why posts are problematic or worse. Ananiujitha (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers and several media style guides had no influence on people who had already decided what they thought; I think we can assume a lack of guidelines is not the problem - David Gerard (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) No remedies will be set forth in this case beyond reminding all editors of the underlying policy issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This doesn't need to be about taking scalps and meting out punishment. Any behavioral issues are on the whole mild. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Belorn

Proposed principles

Community approach to large controversial disputes

1) When the edit count goes into thousands per day and no consensus in reach, closing the discussion and enter a mediation should be the appropriate response to lower the risk of incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It is important that discussion about content do not become overwhelming to participants during discussion, as otherwise incivility has a tendency to occur. With the very high edit count, the discussion became confusing, stressful, fragmented, and very hard to follow. The short term disruption from moving the discussion would had been easily won over by having a controlled venue for discussion, and by defining the question space into a short finite set. Belorn (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by User:Smowton

Proposed principle

Wilful and persistent misgendering is uncivil

1) In the context of a talk page or other discussion (non-article-space) environment, wilfully and persistently misgendering a person, whether an editor or a third party, is uncivil.

Notes:

Wilfully and persistently means that this only applies when an editor has been clearly made aware of a person's preferred gender identity; ignorance is a defence.
Misgendering means direct use of pronouns, personal names or other gendered nouns (e.g. actress) that correspond to a gender other than a person's stated preference. Reference to pronouns or personal names that do not match is not misgendering (see examples below).
non-article-space restricts this principle to editors' personal speech in discussions; it does not imply incivility of (purported) misgendering in article space if that misgendering is supported by consensus.

Examples (note that both of these feature reference to names and nouns that misgender, which is permissible, but cross the line into uncivil when they make direct use):

Civil: "I think Chelsea's bio (or her bio) should be at Bradley Manning"

Uncivil: "I think Bradley's bio (or his bio) should be at Bradley Manning"

Civil: "We should use 'he' and other male pronouns to describe her childhood events"

Uncivil: "We should use 'he' and other male pronouns to describe his childhood events"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree strongly. As a principle, this is sign of respect and decency. In practice, it will be difficult to get everyone that believes the article should be gendered a certain way will use different speech in discussion about the subject. I think it is without question that editors should be referred to as they prefer. I also think that evolving standards of language such as reclaiming gendered nouns/pronouns as being androgynous (i.e. "actor" has been reclaimed as having both female and male inclusion, "actress" has not) will need clarification. The reality is that respecting present-tense self-identification (which is what we do if we were talking to the person, and what we do when we are discussing a person) is simply being polite. And here's why --DHeyward (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think establishing a principle like this would be very useful for maintaining a productive atmosphere in future discussions. I acknowledge there are editors on this page that openly reject trans identities and object to using their preferred names and pronouns, but I think they should be polite and use a person's preferred address contrary to those beliefs in order to keep the discussion about the naming of trans articles and not the overall validity of trans identities. Chris Smowton (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this gets a bit too far into thoughtcrime. I don't think people should intentionally try to say "he he he" in every sentence to prove a WP:POINT, but there's nothing wrong with using "he" where it would naturally be used in a sentence, if the writer is not a supporter of the transgender side. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very strong case to be made that this constitutes a violation of the Foundation's nondiscrimination policy, actually. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a transgender person doesn't have a right to be addressed by their chosen gender, that's just not how it works for many people in this country. You are free to file that as a claim and we'll see how it shakes out, you can't just sit here endlessly making vague handwaves of "that's hate speech!", "that's discriminatory!" and so on without attempting to take action against it. I hate to say "put up or shut up" as it is rather uncouth, but that's about the point that this debate is at. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to accept that absent explicit clarification on the matter a reasonable person could believe that misgendering trans people and referring to their gender identities as not being genuine does not constitute a violation of WP:NPA and the Foundation's discrimination policy, although, obviously, my position is that it is a violation of both. Given that, I think it's inappropriate to seek sanctions against editors. For the moment I believe the appropriate action to take is an explicit clarification that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If editors persist in engaging in such behavior after a clarification is made then I would support punitive action. For now, a statement that this is not OK is sufficient. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, the fact that it is legal for you to misgender a person doesn't make it civil. It's like if you disregarded the preferred term for someone's race -- it's probably legal for you to do that, but it is rude without a doubt. I am claiming that basic deference to preference is required for civil discourse, not that it is mandatory in general. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, though, we protect BLP subjects here from harm, not rudeness; it ain't the same thing. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does this specific proposal have to do with BLP? This appears to be addressing behavior on talk pages. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with BLP, as of the 3 situations mentioned at the top ("an article subject, an editor or a third party"), only the first one is actually relevant. At no time in these proceedings have we discussed an editor being uncivil to a transgender editor by referring to that person with a non-preferred name or gender. The claim...maybe not by you, but by others...is that people who decline to use "she" are causing Manning actual harm. You're asking Arbcom to sanction editors for alleged incivility directed towards a public figure when the won't even throw the book at Malleus for calling another editor, directly, a "cunt". Tarc (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing at all to do with BLP or harm; there is a separate finding regarding misgendering and harm proposed by Phil Sandier. This one is exclusively about civility, so please stay on topic. I am not aware of a person wilfully and persistently misgendering an editor, but I am aware of people being uncivil to fellow editors by wilfully and persistently misgendering the article subject and third parties (e.g. other trans individuals that came up as points for comparison). Example: suppose Bob is black, but explicitly dislikes using the adjective African as a synonym. Then it would be uncivil to wilfully go against his preference without a good reason, both directly to Bob and indirectly to editors that are sympathetic to Bob's position for one reason or another. In short: being ornery without good cause achieves nothing but to inflame tempers, and is thus disruptive behaviour. Chris Smowton (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I am not asking Arbcom to apply sanctions based on this principle, which is why there are not proposed remedies here. I think it would be inappropriate to establish a standard for civility and then retrospectively sanction users for violating that standard. Chris Smowton (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make snide "stay on-topic" remarks when I AM on-topic; THAT is uncivil. If you want it to have nothing to do with BLP, then consider striking the "whether an article subject" part, as it is far, far beyond your or Arbcom's remit to extend civility patrolling to article subjects. Civility rules govern how we interact with each other, while WP:BLP governs how living people covered in our project are treated by editors. As for the Bob analogy, I reject that, as "black" is still a quite valid and acceptable term to use. Some may prefer African-American (and as a person mixed-race heritage, I find A-A to be rather silly, but that's neither here nor there) for reasons of vague political correctness, but Bob has no standing to demand that "black" be dropped from the vernacular. It is not being "ornery" to wish to speak plainly; if we are discussing a Manning-related topic I will use "he" if I deem it necessary to type a sentence where the use of a pronoun is the proper word choice. I'm certainly not going to use "she", nor will I say "Manning Manning <Manning at every possible turn, to the point where it is awkward. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for being curt or snide, I was irritated by your comment as I felt you were conflating different proposals here. I have reworded "whether an article subject..." into "whether another editor or a third party," since I am not asking for civility to apply to article space (as I thought I already made clear), though I am asserting that it is uncivil to wilfully misgender (for example) Manning in the context of a talk page just as it would be uncivil to wilfully misgender another editor. In other words, argue all you like about names and pronouns for the article, but on the talk page she gets to determine her own name and gender. On the Bob example, I am confused. Hypothetical Bob was asking you to use black not African American from personal preference... and you respond that black is a fine term? Yes, that's the polite term, for Bob. The equivalent to your current position would be to say I say African American, and I'll continue to do so, because Bob doesn't get to tell me what to do. That is uncivil to Bob and anyone sympathetic to him, or in this case, your position is uncivil to trans editors. Chris Smowton (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a person may feel offended and believe it is uncivil, but at the end of the day, that's just kinda too bad; a person's choice to express himself freely outweighs perceived offense and incivility. That doesn't extend to direct insults, no one should feel free to say "transgender persons are <insert bad words here>". But a person, even a conservative-oriented one, is free to decline to acknowledge Bradley Manning's new gender choice. There's nothing you can or will do about that, and quite frankly I'll be surprised if Arbcom does something about it either, as Arbs cannot create policy. Which is what in effect this would be; a new policy that codifies political correctness into project discourse. Tarc (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Manning was born a male and reliable sources are using the male pronouns I see no reason why this would be uncivil to call Manning a he before the gender switch. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's uncivil if you know many editors are offended by your conduct. You do know that. Your argument may justify such usage in article space, however. Chris Smowton (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is essentially asking ArbCom to adopt a policy prohibiting speech that offends people. Such a proposal is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia and would compromise the integrity of the consensus-building process.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, everyone is bound to be offended by something someone else says where are the lines drawn? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you are aware that offense will be given, and it is not necessary to give offense to make your point? Yes, I think that crosses the bounds of civility, and uncivility of that kind compromises the integrity of the consensus-building process by inevitably lowering debates into a series of tone arguments. Chris Smowton (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except lots of opinions cause offense and often those opinions are known to cause offense. For instance, in the Muhammad Images disputes you undoubtedly had people who were offended by the opinion that Wikipedia should have images of Muhammad and others who were offended by the opinion that Wikipedia should not have images of Muhammad. Many participating undoubtedly knew expressing either of those opinions would cause some people to be offended. Does that mean either side was being uncivil by taking a position on the dispute? Nope.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This compares apples to oranges: if you are arguing that the prophet Muhammed should be depicted on Wikipedia then you must say "I think Muhammed should be depicted"; it may cause offence, but it is impossible to discuss without doing so. Compare, saying "I think this article should be titled Bradley Manning" does not require you to question the validity of her identity, or trans identities at large, by misgendering her. See the example above that civilly expresses that exact sentiment. This Muhammed comparison would only apply if we were discussing whether trans identities are valid, which we were not in the Manning RM, and are not here. Chris Smowton (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you are saying that as long as someone does not offer even a hint of an opinion on the transition other than approval and acceptance it is civil. That really doesn't make it better. You are still saying that Wikipedia should treat even the slightest politically-"incorrect" statement as worthy of sanction. Still a no-go suggestion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(and Kk87, under this proposal the line would be when you are clearly made aware that you are giving offence). Chris Smowton (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with the statement, but the examples are wrong. S/he should still be referred to as "Bradley" in most circumstances relating to past events, whether or not on the talk page, and whether or not the masculine or feminine pronoun should be used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed finding of fact

Advocating for better treatment of trans article subjects did not generally constitute advocacy in the sense of WP:SOAP

1) WP:SOAP, part of the catch-all What Wikipedia is not policy, forbids using the site for advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. Using it as a means to promote the trans* cause to the world at large would fit this definition, as it uses WP as a platform. However, WP is not used as a platform in the course of promoting the improvement of WP itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would have agreed with this before seeing the Trans Media Watch comments and everything related to it. It now has a real ugly appearance that this was a coordinated attempt at moving the article, generating coverage of moving the article, getting the press to pay attention to Manning's name change through Wikipedia's very fast transition. In a sense it worked in that articles chastising AP and NYT for moving slower than WP. This was followed by negative articles when the community resisted leading on the issue. It is a POV that moving "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning" is an improvement. It's certainly an improvement for the trans* cause but whether it's an overall improvement to WP by moving away from COMMONNAME to preferred name is very debateable. What we have seen since the announcement is two types of news articles: One type ignores Chelsea completely (usually in articles not directly related to Chelsea like general leaker articles that mention Manning and Snowden). The other type knows it has to introduce the reader to Chelsea as they realize "Bradley Manning" is the common name. Both our common name and changed name MOS fits the above yet we are making and exception due to activist pressure. Until news sources can actually write about Chelsea Manning without mentioning Bradley, the common name is Bradley. They certainly still write articles about Bradley without mentioning Chelsea. Switching names in the article is courtesy and we have done the same, but the press still recognizes that "Bradley Manning" is the common and notable name for which she is known. We would not be here in ArbCom if the coordinated move and media had not occurred. Our MOS and other policies would have sufficiently handled it. --DHeyward (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think this is an important distinction, as WP:SOAP or the Advocacy essay are often used as a bat to make minority groups butt out of this sort of debate. I said some of this to TP in another context, but to expand on my rationale a little:

IMO the crucial distinction is between whether you are first and foremost trying to promote a cause, or to improve Wikipedia; the former is advocacy banned by policy, the latter is plain old editing.

People speaking in favour of CM are likely trans* rights supporters in general, making use-as-a-platform conceivable. However, many are Wikipedia editors or administrators of standing, and so have frequently shown a sincere desire to improve the encyclopaedia in the past; this makes the sincere-improvement motive conceivable as well. We should presume the latter per default absent clear signs of platforming, such as using your statements on-wiki to influence off-wiki organisations.

In general, I think it would be damaging to rule that arguing that WP should improve its treatment of a minority person or group, or editing to make such improvements, constitutes advocacy. To do so would create a vicious circle between maligned minority status and being treated badly on Wikipedia:

Group X gets short shrift in wider society, so they form a group to combat Xism. Editors that sympathise with the X position and argue that WP could be more X-inclusive, or edit to avoid statments that could be perceived as anti-X, necessarily align with the desires of the Anti-Xism League. Therefore those editors are engaging in advocacy. Therefore WP's level of Xism remains unchanged, and the Anti-Xism League continues to be needed.

Clearly there is a point where the desire to promote your cause exceeds your desire to improve WP, and that may become disruptive; however, there must be an avenue to criticise and improve WP's position without being brushed aside with the broad accusation of "advocacy". Chris Smowton (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Knowledgekid87

Proposed principles

Not a Soapbox

1) Wikipedia is not a Soapbox: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Editors let their emotions do the talking

1) Advocacy and strong opinion pieces were used in discussions involving Manning that polarized the editing atmosphere and were intended to make a Point. Recruitment was used to draw in other editors to take sides on the issue, this includes the ones who wanted the name change to Chelsea and the ones who wanted the name to stay as Bradley.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how are you going to tell "advocacy" from differing perspectives, priorities, or interpretations of the policies? Especially when title disputes and the like channel things into an either/or argument instead of collaboration? And if this proposal comes out of this case, why wouldn't people see it as a cudgel to punish trans editors and allies for objecting to systemic cissexism? Ananiujitha (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ananiujitha, Wikipedia's model is that contributors use anonymous account names. There is no reason for any of us to know the gender or sexuality of any of our fellow WP contributors. If you look at my userpage, can you tell my gender or sexuality? I don't think I have specified either. Can you tell me why we would need to know the gender or sexuality of our fellow WP editors? Cla68 (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki evidence forbidden

4) The Committee understands that there have been attempts by several contributors to submit evidence from off-wiki sources in this case. We understand that those participants sincerely feel that the off-wiki items represent compelling evidence of agenda-driven editing by several of the admins and editors involved in this case. The Committee, however, has determined that off-wiki evidence cannot be considered for this particular case. If you believe that this has helped produce a dissonant and perhaps unintentionally humorous case solution, we suggest you deal with it and get back to building the 'pedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I know I'm being a little snarky here, but I'm looking at it as I think a non-Wikipedian would when told that off-wiki evidence was not considered in the case decision. Anyway, I think the Committee should make it clear in their case decision that they decided not to consider off-wiki evidence. Cla68 (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Off-wiki remarks by an editor may very well be relevant to whether the editor is really working to improve the encyclopedia. (I don't which which off-wiki remarks you are referring to.) For example, off-wiki canvasing and outing are clearly relevant, even though ArbComm cannot prohibit them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Morwen's return to WP

1) Morwen, an inactive administrator, has stated she returned to WP with the express purpose of renaming/moving the Manning article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've been active again since September last year. I don't think that's fair, and I don't think I've claimed that. Morwen (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tweets do not support the finding. And if you look at my edit history, which clearly you have, you'll find I'd not made an edit for what, a couple of weeks? That's not even the same order of magnitude that Wikipedia:Inactive administrators has. Morwen (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I am not allowed to link to her Twitter posts where she says this. If anyone wants to add the links, here, feel free. Cla68 (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen's statements in two 22 August tweets were, "De-lurked from Wikipedia to move a certain page to Chelsea Manning." and "Yes, that's me! I thought it was worthwhile delurking to use what clout i have." Cla68 (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the tweets in question: [145] [146].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy/guideline that says "you can't stop editing for a few weeks, and then suddenly come back to editing when you see something that interests you"? No. Therefore, who cares? Stalking another editor's twitter account for the purposes of obtaining evidence against them is probably more actionable than whatever you're discussing here. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 14:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an empty threat.--v/r - T P 14:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an empty threat, because it's not a threat at all. It's simply an illustration of how this entire section is clearly a baseless witch-hunt. And to boot, I'm of the opposite opinion of Morwen on the Manning article title, but I can still see that the dozen or so workshop items created by Cla68 are a ridiculous waste of time. ‑Scottywong | express _ 19:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 is asking the same question I was. I'm satisfied with Morwen's answer earlier, if nothing else then it'll come up if it ever happens again so I'll let it go. There is no other way to take "obtaining evidence against them is probably more actionable" other than as a threat of Wiki-action. Anyway, I'm done with this whole section so I'm out.--v/r - T P 19:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, a threat would be, "Cla68, I am an administrator and I will indef block you if you ever use Twitter as a source of evidence in an Arbcom case again." My initial comments were not a threat, nor were they intended to be. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 19:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty, just owe me five cents and we'll call it even. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought ARBCOM just reviewed on-wiki activity. Plus, even if these Tweets are accepted as evidence, are they supported by Morwen's contribution history or is it just rhetoric?

Finally, I've seen several examples of Editors who have been inactive for long periods (like six months) suddenly appear back on Wikipedia to weigh in on a controversial issue or vote in a RfA or AfD discussion. This fact might lessen the weight that an Admin might give their comments in the process of coming to a consensus but returning to activity is not an action that should receive sanctions. Nwjerseyliz (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen identified as an admin

2) In discussing her relationship with the article, Morwen identified herself as an admin: 13:25, 22 August 2013 (and in a Twitter comment that I'm not allowed to link to).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The context being that someone had called for adult intervention, so I was pointing out "hello, adult, right here". In retrospect it wasn't terribly classy to mention that admin bit. Morwen (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Good enough for me, no need for arbcom here.--v/r - T P 13:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Propose. Cla68 (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying Morwen used the position of administrator as leverage in the page move...It's a rhetorical question actually.--MONGO 13:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I interpret Morwen's comment above correctly, she says she intended it as an argument from authority. Either way, identifying oneself as an admin in a content debate carries some serious weight. WP's administrators ultimately control content because of the exclusive privileges they hold. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could read what I said in the context that it was said. Morwen (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing an issue with this matter...it's not uncommon that an admin might identify that they are an admin. I know where you're going with this Cla68 but it's not looking like a sanctionable issue to me.--MONGO 03:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No policy/guideline exists that says "you can't identify yourself as an admin in off-wiki communications", therefore, who cares? Again, stalking someone's twitter account in an attempt to "get them in trouble" is probably more actionable than whatever you're discussing here. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 14:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument from authority is weak on a site like Wikipedia. But if this is a sanctionable offense, I'll start keeping track of the Admins who tell me that they reverted or rereverted edits "in their capacity as administrators". I don't think there should be a special stature in performing standard Editor activities as an Admin but I think it is not uncommon with some Admins. I think Admins should be discouraged to throw their status around as a means of persuading others but at the most, this merits an admonishment. Nwjerseyliz (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen's statements

3) Morwen has stated that she thought the article move was uncontroversial and uncontested 22:41, 22 August 2013 21:42, 8 September 2013. Her public statements off-wiki in Twitter and the media, however, appear to contradict her on-wiki assertion. In an article in the New Statesman, Morwen stated, "So I came out of the woodwork, because I don't mind stepping on the landmines".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't see these things as being inconsistent. I expected there to be some grief but I imagined it would be mostly a matter of pointing people at the appropriate guidelines. The idea that people would try to rules-lawyer their applicability to the article title did not occur to me. Morwen (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This and the above CLA material strikes me as damning and I think ArbCom would do well to seriously consider sanctions. Certainly the "I thought this all was well settled" line of argument by this administrator has been perforated by off-wiki comments. The possibility of her having used administrative tools to advance a conscious agenda needs to be extremely closely examined. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not used administrative tools. Morwen (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm not allowed to link to the New Statesmen article or to her Twitter posts. Cla68 (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen didn't use tools in the move. Morwen may have personally felt that the page move wasn't an issue but recognized that not everyone might agree with it...hence the landmine comment.--MONGO 03:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen publicity

4) Since moving the article, Morwen has written a long post on the topic in her personal blog, which she linked to on her userpage, has discussed it frequently via Twitter, commented on it in her personal acquaintance Alex Hern's New Statesmen blog, and referenced other projects or ideas of hers in relation to the topic 16:00, 27 August 2013. In the New Statesmen article and on Twitter, Morwen claimed credit for WP's policies which she cited as justification for her making the article move.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

So one is not allowed to publicly write about their Wikipedia activities? Since when? I'm not sure where we're going here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one should use Wikipedia to gain fame. That puts one's interest in gaining fame above Wikipedia's interests.--v/r - T P 18:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A personal blog post, a couple tweets and a comment on the New Statesman's Web site constitute an attempt at gaining fame? That seems pretty thin gruel to me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing any random rubbish they can come up with is what people do when they don't actually have evidence - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Tarc has already said, there is a prohibition on posting some of this evidence on-wiki. But a search on Morwen's real name + "Bradley Manning" shows quite a few more results than just the New Stateman's website so please don't abuse the restrictions on us by claiming that evidence doesn't exist. That's dishonest.--v/r - T P 20:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to media enquiries is a long way from "attempting to gain fame." The latter requires the imputation of a personal motive for which not a shred of evidence has been supplied. Morwen explaining her actions and motivations in a BuzzFeed article is no more actionable than Tarc's explanations of position in posts on Wikipediocracy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's responding to media inquiries and then there's this ("Anyone want a few hundred words about why I pushed the button and Wikipedia's policies?") and this ("I don't suppose you want a piece from the trenches about this? I'm [email address]"); that's seeking out media inquiries. -- tariqabjotu 23:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So she volunteered to publicly discuss and justify her on-wiki actions. What policy prohibits such actions? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ok. -- tariqabjotu 01:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't name any policy or guideline that Morwen violated by this action. Good to know. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to name or present, as you've already made up your mind; no one needs to answer a loaded question. The evidence is out there, and the Arbitration Committee can come to its own conclusion about whether Morwen's statements suggest a conflict of interest (which, of course, has a guideline of the same name) or are just Morwen "volunteer[ing] to publicly discuss and justify her on-wiki actions". -- tariqabjotu 02:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so essentially, you've uncovered evidence that Morwen has done something that is not wrong or against any rules. Congratulations. Now what? ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 14:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above is applicable to you (and probably most people) as well. You are free to look at the evidence and interpret it however you want (as will I). It's obvious no one's mind is going to be changed here, and none of the participants in this thread is on the Committee, so there's no reason to bludgeon the conversation with curt questions and associated responses. -- tariqabjotu 18:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reasonable point somewhere under here, but I think this proposed finding of fact needs to be refined. -- tariqabjotu 23:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, this fails because the COI needs to have existed at the point where the edit were made. Which it didn't. I got a bit frustrated with how things went (and at the inaccurate media coverage elsewhere) so I got the idea to blog about it later. Blogger blogs. Film at 11. I thought what I wrote might be of interest to more than my friends: I wasn't wrong. Morwen (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So just to clarify, because to me this makes all the difference, you had no intention to seek media attention to the Bradley Manning article, or even write your blog, at the time of the edit itself?--v/r - T P 14:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Morwen (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm not allowed to link to her Twitter posts, the New Statesmen article, or the other off-wiki venues where she has commented on the issue and her involvement with it. Cla68 (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point of this proposed finding of fact (and particularly the second sentence); it's not clear how it could be used to support other findings of facts or remedies. Perhaps it is the proposer's belief that there is a conflict of interest in applying a policy or guideline to which one has contributed. But it's important to note that hundreds of Wikipedians have initiated or significantly contributed to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It should be obvious that if those contributions become accepted by the community (evidenced, for example, by extensive collaborative refinement, citation, and/or application over a long period), then they cease to be mere personal views, but rather form part of community consensus. In such cases no problem or conflict of interest arises when those contributors apply said policies and guidelines themselves. For example, Morwen is also the original author of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and I'm pretty sure she has occasionally mentioned this fact (or, at the very least, she's made no secret of it). But it would be preposterous to claim that she has been engaging in malfeasance by applying and citing this guideline herself over the years. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote large chunks of WP:BLP, including bits I've quoted in this workshop. This doesn't mean that I should therefore refrain from applying them.

The point of Cla68's contribution appears to be to attempt to introduce evidence after the evidence phase is finished, though without actual evidence - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links in question: [147] [148] [149].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof - If professional workplaces can track what people post on facebook and judge by that I see no reason why Morwen's comments at the least are not suspicious. Given the fact that normally when someone makes an edit on Wikipedia they do not tweet or make a big deal about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a professional workplace. Many Wikipedia editors choose to discuss their activities off-wiki in a variety of ways. Whether it's the New Statesman or Wikipediocracy, commenting about one's edits outside of the encyclopedia is perfectly acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that outside comments can be incriminating. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incriminating of what? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's already being discussed here in many places, of how she (Morwen) acted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet nobody seems to be able to actually cite a policy or guideline that Morwen violated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piece of cake. First paragraph of WP:COI: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." That entire thing applies here.--v/r - T P 02:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"That entire thing applies here." How so? Ananiujitha (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the "aim of Wikipedia" was in any way disserved by moving the article to "Chelsea Manning." Strong, compelling arguments have been made on both sides of the argument over the article title. Morwen's view was, and is, shared by a significant group of editors. If Morwen had a good-faith belief that the encyclopedia would be improved by moving the article, then she had every right to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a COI if she thought moving the page would make WP materially worse but benefit a cause (presumably trans* rights in the media), but not a COI if she thought it would materially improve WP itself, since in that latter case she's just WP:BOLD'ly implementing the improvement. This is because the former case trades encyclopaedic improvement against her goals whilst in the latter case the two goals align. I can't see any reason in the tweets posted so far to presume a COI. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially an attempt at a huge WP:COATRACK - David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow, did you mean me? If so what did I do? Chris Smowton (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the original proposal - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David is trying to cover for a friend, no need to let him derail. Smowton, so your saying if she did not consciously intend to harm the encyclopedia, than it's not a COI? I'd disagree. Intentionally harming the encyclopedia is what we call vandalism. When people post pages for their companies or their band, they think "it would materially improve WP itself." It's still a COI though when they do it. I don't see the difference here. The question is: Did Morwen intend to write a blog and seek publicity before or after she made the action itself. I'm willing to take her word for it if she said she made the decision after, since it'd be nearly impossible to prove what went on in her head otherwise, but that's not clear at the moment.--v/r - T P 13:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you can have an opinion about something. You can also make a good-faith edit on Wikipedia based on that opinion. But once you discuss your opinion off-wiki, it becomes a COI? My head hurts. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 14:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you make a controversial action, then your real life friend uses their admin bit to reenforce it, then you go blog about it, and finally seek media attention (as can be demonstrated), then it's a COI. Wikipedia editors should not edit with the intention to gain fame and they certainly should not make controversial edits with the intention to gain fame.--v/r - T P 14:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TP, not sure if you meant covering for Morwen, in which case pass, or covering for me, in which case I'm not his personal friend. On the COI I think your band or company example is actually perfectly apt: if I create a page for Chrisco Export then I don't think "Wikipedia would be better for this!", I think "Chrisco could use some exposure, and Wikipedia is an ideal vector!" I'm not out to cause trouble like a vandal, but neither am I looking to help. That would be a COI: my drive to promote my company exceeded my desire to improve the 'pedia. Applying the analogy to trans issues, I think we actually agree more than it looks: if Morwen or DG had a plan to do the move , then go out of their way to draw public attention, then they're using WP as a vector to promote their cause, worthy as I think it is, and that's likely a COI. On the other hand if as I believe they made the move first and foremost to respect an individual, or to improve Wikipedia's attitude to trans subjects in general, and the interaction with the press was an unforeseen consequence, then their primary drive was to make WP better and there is not a COI. It's hard to think how that latter maps to commercial promotion, but perhaps if I did a lot of volunteer work writing the Chrisco Export article and then the company hired me to their marketing department? I wasn't trying to seek their attention, I didn't have a plan to get their attention, so I wasn't conflicted in writing the article. Chris Smowton (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respond further, but Morwen has answered me above so I'm just going to drop this line of thought.--v/r - T P 16:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen's responses

5) In contrast to her numerous public, off-wiki comments on the Manning article and her involvement with it, Morwen's responses on-wiki to questions about her article move have been terse and/or evasive 13:27, 22 August 2013 14:27, 11 September 2013.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Well, this is faintly ridiculous. It looks like you've been through my edits, found two shortish ones, and are passing that off as some kind of pattern? Morwen (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I'm going to have to agree with Morwen that this is selective. I seem to distinctly remember Morwen being a lot more open to explaining why she decided to move the page (and, remember, she didn't use admin tools, so it's not like she was subjected to WP:ADMINACCT). There's also no evidence presented that she was repeatedly asked to explain her actions but refused to. -- tariqabjotu 23:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No policy/guideline that prohibits terse responses to questions. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 14:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal rather blatantly contradicts the #Joint statement one below, which ironically was posted by the same editor only a few hours later. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen Involved/COI

6) Based on Morwen's comments on Twitter, in the media, and other Internet venues, and her misleading or evasive comments on-wiki, it appears that Morwen was acting on a personal agenda when she returned to WP ~~to use her admin privileges~~ to move the Manning article. While doing so, Morwen identified herself as an admin on the article's talk page 13:25, 22 August 2013. This indicates a conflict of interest which is a violation of WP:INVOLVED.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"use her admin privileges to move the Manning article" This is just not true. Repeating it will not make it true. Morwen (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is reductio ad absurdum. Every edit I have ever made is a personal agenda, because I believe in open content. I edited in accordance within my understanding of the policies and guidelines. I am not sure what Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions has to do with anything here. Morwen (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there's a reasonable point about Morwen and conflict of interest, but the text of this finding doesn't convey it. -- tariqabjotu 23:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVOLVED doesn't come into play unless administrator tools are used. Merely saying "I am an administrator" does not constitute use of administrator tools. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 14:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed based on input from Morwen above. Cla68 (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merely identifying oneself as an administrator does not per se create a conflict of interest. In this case, Morwen was responding to someone who thought the article was being messed with and specifically asked for an "adult editor" to step in until a "reliable source" could be found. The context makes it very clear that her reference to her administrator status and to her ten-year tenure on Wikipedia was only to establish that she was the sort of "adult editor" the questioner was seeking. Her sole contribution to that thread was to confirm that today.com is considered a reliable source. She did not claim that her administrator privileges had allowed her to move the article, nor did she threaten to use her administrator tools to preserve her move, nor did she threaten to use her tools against anyone else editing the article. In fact, her page moves (which were, again, performed without resort to admin tools) predate this diff. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen edit-warred

7) Morwen moved the article once, then again about 20 minutes later.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

So, what happened here was that I moved it without changing the article text, and this confused someone, who then moved it back. I did the initial edit to the prose, and then correctly surmised that it was a misunderstanding. I moved the article back to Chelsea Manning all of a minute before the someone acknowledged it as a misunderstanding. "edit war", really? Morwen (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an issue of note since the second move was agreed to by the editor that had reverted Morwen's first move.--MONGO 13:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard article move

8) About two hours after Morwen's second edit war on the article name, David Gerard moved it again.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"second edit war"? I only made two moves. So a contested WP:BOLD move is an edit war in itself now? This is just incoherent. Morwen (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Below I will show why this is significant. Cla68 (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard article move was coordinated

8b) David Gerard was a follower/recipient of Morwen's tweets about her intention to change the Manning article name at the time he moved the page through page protection, giving the appearance of off-wiki coordination.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Is it against WP policy for admins to coordinate their actions via Twitter? Does the Eastern European Mailing List case provide a precedent? Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EEML should provide precedent for offwiki discussion of admin actions. I'm not sure (as I haven't looked into all the offwiki evidence) if it arises to that level of conspiracy (for lack of a better term) in this case. That's ArbCom's job, and I for one don't envy it. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen and David Gerard

9) Several Twitter messages on 22 August show that Morwen, David Gerard, and Psychonaut planned to meet-up on 26 August, 2013. On 23 August, Morwen addressed David Gerard directly in a Twitter message referencing the Manning page-move controversy. David Gerard confirmed the meeting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I am not allowed to post links to the tweets in question. Cla68 (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the tweets in question: [150] [151].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic. You're clearly upset that Morwen, David Gerard, and Psychonaut have conversed/coordinated off-wiki. Yet, you and Devil's Advocate most likely conversed/coordinated off-wiki so that Advocate could post the links that you're not allowed to post. If conversing/coordinating with other editors off-wiki were against the rules, then you two would also be banned from Wikipedia for the myriad conversations you've had on a certain anti-Wikipedia forum. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 14:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Tweets were posted on the talk page of the Evidence page. Alternatively, by the simple fact that Cla68 described the tweets, one could easily find them independently just by browsing the relevant Twitter accounts. You vastly underestimate how capable Wikipedians are of finding information on the Internet. -- tariqabjotu 14:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't discuss anything with him about this case. Seems to me that Cla68 and I disagree with regards to Morwen, actually. My intention is to simply insure that people can have all the facts.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not stalking? Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading someone's public Twitter feed to find out more about the person's position on a dispute in which the individual is currently involved is pretty far from stalking.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather serious accusation to level, Thryduulf. Is there something to support this? Tarc (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following a user's real world movements and interactions based on information found on sites external to Wikipedia sounds a lot like stalking to me. Thryduulf (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, I understand you're acquainted with Morwen and David Gerard in real life and I understand your desire to defend them here. I suggest that it would probably help them out more if you, as several other editors have done with my proposals, try to come up with a logically sound argument that refutes the point I'm trying to make. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68: Whom I am acquainted with is irrelevant. I formally ask you to withdraw this allegation that my private life has any bearing on my actions here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, to post photos of you and them socializing together on Wikipedia while identifying yourself and them by name [152], and then saying that it's "private" is fairly disingenuous. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That I choose to share some aspects of my private life does not make it acceptable for you, or anyone, to allege that whom I choose to socialise with, now or in 2007, has any bearing on my motives for supporting or not supporting the actions of users on Wikipedia that I may or may not have met in person. It is worth pointing out that Ms Manning did not join the US army until 10 months after that Wikimeet, and did not become a public figure until at least her arrest, 3¼ years after that Wikimeet. Not only are your allegations inappropriate you have also failed to demonstrate how off-wiki activities in 2007 relate to an arbitration case about on-wiki activities in 2013 that I am not a party to. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thryduulf, do you have a logically compelling argument to refute the allegation I made in this proposed finding? Deductively or inductively, why is the information I just presented immaterial or irrelevant to this case? If you say it's irrelevant because I'm a stalker, then that's an ad hominem argument. Cla68 (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the burden is on you to prove that whom I (or any other editor) is acquainted with is relevant. If you cannot do that please remove the allegation of impropriety. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joint statement

10) The day after their meet-up, Morwen and David Gerard issued a joint statement on their position on the article name: [153] [154] [155]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

So the thrust of this argument seems to be that we colluded by organising an ad hoc meetup of Wikipedians and others in a public house, the terribly nefarious outcome of which was that we then both openly signed a thing. I should probably insulted that you think my conspiring skills would be so weak. Morwen (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that David posted a tweet on August 25, prior to the issued joint statement, saying Down the @PemburyTavern with @abigailb [...] Conspiring, of course. I'm not ready to believe the use of the word "conspiring" here was 100 percent sarcastic. -- tariqabjotu 19:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "conspiring" is because people were already claiming it must have been conspiracy, since they didn't like the explanation (or the precedent or MOS:IDENTITY) - particulary your claims of conspiracy - so yes, it was sarcastic. The actual pub meeting is described here.

What your claim is missing is evidence of action ensuing from this "conspiring". What precisely transpired after it, that is clear evidence of malfeasance? (Morwen's detailed explanation of the actual words of policy and of precedent, which I co-signed, came after, but is hardly evidence of malfeasance.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, that tweet is from August 25, prior to your joint statement on August 27. I don't think I said anything about a potential conspiracy or manipulation until after the joint statement. Can you point to instances where I or anyone else had claimed there was a conspiracy prior to that tweet?

There's no direct evidence of conspiracy or manipulation, but we can look at circumstantial evidence. As I said in response to your joint statement, the fact that you two felt the need to write a joint statement about what we (Morwen and you) did, rather than individually describe your actions is eyebrow-raising. You and Morwen have been so eager to remind everyone at every opportunity that Morwen didn't use administrative tools, and yet you release a joint statement like that, after days of being unable to articulate how Bradley Manning constituted a BLP violation. That your statement comes two days after an in-person meeting (where you tweet "conspiring" no less) is also eyebrow-raising. Morwen is also a friend of yours and had been that way well prior to this incident, and you were already high-fiving each other less than half an hour after your protection of the article. So that's intriguing as well. Morwen, prior to your admin actions, had already said on her Twitter profile, which you follow, "Cluebats on standby". Also raises concern. Sure, many of these points are not from before your actions, but it is reasonable to wonder how this might speak to the original actions.

I'd be very surprised if Morwen told you to protect the article, but you knew your action was protecting one performed by your friend Morwen and you were fist-bumping each other the day of your actions. Maybe "conspiracy" may not be the ideal word in that case, but there certainly is something fishy here; what we had here comes across as something like an alley-oop (ooh, that'd make a great name for an essay), and it's hard to see your and Morwen's actions as being as independent as they should have been. -- tariqabjotu 15:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "something fishy" is that you didn't like the original move, therefore cannot conceive of a good faith explanation for it, therefore started a conspiracy theory [156][157][158][159] - David Gerard (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not; this accusation is just another diversion from your actions. But since you claim to know better than me what I thought, let me take a stab at it:

The "something fishy" is that it appears we had an administrator -- you -- with an agenda who misused one of Wikipedia's most powerful policies to perform a pair of admin actions that he couldn't otherwise justify for days, and only then with the help of another editor. Your Twitter comments show quite clearly that you weren't just a dispassionate observer who saw a BLP violation, but an activist who saw an opportunity. That some of the evidence is not allowed to be linked or that you present yourself as a mere defender of Wikipedia policies is irrelevant; your use of BLP as a smokescreen is discernible.

You have employed a number of strategies to obfuscate this impropriety, beginning with your eagerness to have the damning Twitter evidence excluded from consideration. You've claimed that you didn't think you needed to explain yourself to those asking for explanations because they were bigots, while repeatedly interjecting to say suggestions that you didn't explain yourself were "false" and "lies" and motivated by a simple disagreement with the explanation rather than an absence of one. You've compared some of your critics' remarks to a "common mode of argument on the troll sites", and then have the gall to suggest I be banned for a month, apparently for using words like "grating" and daring to insist you fulfill WP:ADMINACCT. You continue to distort every remark I make in order to serve your myth about me and to prop up spurious, dead-end findings of fact against me. And, of course, you continue to exploit the BLP policy to grant yourself immunity and hurl wild accusations at me.

Had your actions been as innocuous as you continue to claim they were, you could have done what any reasonable administrator would have done: not long after your move back, you could have said Oh, I guess I wasn't clear; I meant Bradley Manning was a BLP violation because X, Y, Z, and that would have been it. It would have been a simple misunderstanding. But you didn't, or couldn't, do that, and further concluded it was willful intent to defy you, rather than a misunderstanding.

And it's amazing that you still remain so resolute in that view. You are so sure that you did everything correctly and so sure that you're right. It doesn't matter that 150+ people chimed in to say they didn't feel the name Bradley Manning constituted a BLP violation. It doesn't matter that the closing administrators concluded the same. It doesn't matter that one of those closing administrators has stated that your BLP declaration, at the time you made it, was not credible. It doesn't matter that an arbitrator proposed a finding of fact that questions whether protections afforded to BLP actions were even in effect before your joint statement. No, no, no, David Gerard is still absolutely correct and the one whose understanding of BLP is "grossly faulty" is me. Yeah, if that's the way you are going to see things, you can continue to believe whatever fiction you want without further objection from me. -- tariqabjotu 19:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68's theory is a conspiracy theory, which goes:

We can't philosophically prove a conspiracy didn't happen.
Therefore, we should assume the worst conspiracy we can think of could have happened.
Therefore, we should assume the worst conspiracy we can think of did happen. Prove it didn't!

This is a common mode of argument on the troll sites, where people concoct worst-possible explanations for things and then egg each other on to develop the claimed conspiracy further - as is happening on this page.

However, it would be a bad mode of argumentation for Wikipedia - "assume the worst possible faith, extrapolate freely from there" - and make a nonsense of the arbitration process.

The further problem is that step 2, the conspiracy theory imagined to account for the evidence ... doesn't fit the evidence. The timeline is completely backwards. All the Twitter evidence of a conspiracy is from after Morwen's original move and my BLP action.

Further, it is discussion of a matter of tremendous public interest and which is actually important in the wider world - after any action had been taken, and with no further action in progress.

Later expressing an opinion on a matter one has acted in does not retrospectively invalidate the action - or Kww's strong opinions on the move on this workshop page would invalidate his decision in the RM.

Neither of us took subsequent admin action, or even edited the article much - so claims that there is evidence from after the fact for a "conspiracy" doesn't show anything that's actually conspiratorial action.

The evidence still fails to show that (a) Morwen's original move was in bad faith or unjustified by policy and precedent (b) that my BLP action was in bad faith, unexplained or too conflicted to have been made at all. - David Gerard (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal rather blatantly contradicts the #Morwen's responses one above, which ironically was posted by the same editor only a few hours earlier. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could be blatantly wrong here, but this seriously, since we cannot know what has gone on in certain venues (the offwiki meetup, Twitter or other social media private chatting, etc), casts doubt on the individuality of the actions of the two administrators. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 04:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy editing

11) By coordinating their position on the Manning naming dispute, leveraging their positions as admins and Wikipedia insiders to try to influence the outcome, and using the media, blogs, and tweets to advance their stance, Morwen and David Gerard have appeared to openly engage in advocacy editing with regards to the Manning article. Advocacy editing is expressly forbidden by WP's NPOV policy. Cla68 (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This seems to find us liable for having opinions and seeking to act on them, without having demonstrating anything improper.

Anyway, please quote which part of WP:NPOV "expressly forbids" this so-called "advocacy editing". Morwen (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did NPOV prohibit someone with a point of view from editing? Every edit has a point of view, because basically every source has a point of view. More to the point, every editor has a point of view. The point of NPOV is to require that those edits, collectively, create articles which reflect a neutral point of view. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. It usually very difficult to show non-NPOV agendas by WP editors. In this case, however, Morwen and David Gerard have not attempted to conceal at all their advocacy for a certain position in the debate. Cla68 (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Morwen and David Gerard have an opinion on what name the article should be titled at...the edits and actions demonstrate that...and demonstrate that in accordance with the BLP policy, it is less harmful to the subject to have the name at the feminine name. The argument is about whether the subject of the bio should have the name titled at the name they are famous for or at the name they wish to be known as....since we are going to use feminine pronouns in the article (unless we are going to repeat the "Private Manning" moniker ad nauseum), it doesn't make much sense to use the old name of Bradley. One could construe the actions here as advocacy or they could also be seen as a common sense interpretation of BLP.--MONGO 03:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of governance

12) Wikipedia does not currently have an entity which acts as final authority on content disputes and debates. In the case of the Manning and related BLP articles, a lack of a governance body and established procedure for deciding the article title hindered efforts to reach a solution in the name debate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. ArbCom handles editor/admin conduct issues. Who makes final decisions on content issues? Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I started the Wikipedia:Government proposal some time ago, it is now an essay. It now focusses more on bringing Admins into a formal government structure. Count Iblis (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April Arcus canvassing and apology

13) In response to a 23 August tweet from Morwen, April Arcus canvassed on Twitter, saying, "if you have a Wikipedia account and aren’t an asshole, OPPOSE moving Chelsea Manning back to her #SlaveName." This canvassing was addressed at ANI and April apologized [160][161] [162].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm floored that anyone seriously wants to consider the tweets of someone with fewer than 150 followers as an even remotely significant issue. This feels petty and vindictive in the worst sort of way, beyond even the already impressive standards of Cla68's crusade against Morwen. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't believe that Morwen has followed suit and apologized. Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Morwen need to apologise for the actions of another person? Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Media Watch canvassing

14) Morwen and David Gerard canvassed members of the Trans Media Watch organization to participate in the Manning article name discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It can reasonably be argued that the Trans Media Watch is not a nonpartisan audience, which makes David's actions appear, at the very least, ill-advised...

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 12:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

That's a flagrant misrepresentation of what I said. They were trying to send people to this very arbcom case, and me and David told them quite how deeply inappropriate that would be, and that there were better places. Morwen (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Morwen's statement above is more concerning to me. We can control and understand !votes by new and anonymous editors. Sending activists to "better places" seems to imply they will use media influence and pressure to generate either good or bad press for WP depending on whether her "preferred version" is kept or not (i.e. astroturfing). User:April Arcus canvassed for support but owned it and it's really not an issue. Pressuring the project with artificially generated positive and negative publicity solely for advocacy of a position an editor has taken, is a lot like the reason we have policies against legal threats and conflicts of interest. If the end results is "If you don't accept my version of the article, I am going to have my friends and contacts in the press write about you discriminating against transgender people and being transphobic." It poisons the editing well. How much of the press reaction was artificially generated? This type of media manipulation is a lot like what happened to Lucy Meadows and the subsequent report. "Leave it alone" is better than hoisting Chelsea Manning up to public scrutiny. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS so the attention, especially negative attention, brought to the media to exploit Chelsea in the selfish interest of activism is harmful. For those that like "Fred Phelps" analogies and funerals, the people that are affected personally by the death of a loved one want neither Fred Phelps to protest nor do they want the media turning their personal moments of grief being used to express outrage about Fred Phelps. Covering WP in the news is paparazzi at best, and complicit at the worst. Let's ask the questions: If WP had Lucy Meadows as a BLP article during the current events immediately preceding her death and WP was internally struggling to decide how to proceed with the sources concerning her post-transition identity, who would think it would be wise to generate more reasons to create press coverage to hound her and ask how she felt? Does anyone really believe that pressuring the press to cover results in WP is helpful in any way to the subject of BLP articles? It is a very narrow interest to seek to pressure WP through the media as well as unhelpful, disruptive and poisonous. --DHeyward (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence here that they explicitly reached out to Trans Media Watch nor asked them to participate with a particular POV; rather they steered them away from sending newbies to this page, which is a good thing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I am not allowed to link to the off-wiki posts that support this finding. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the conversation in question is this one. Being fair, TransMediaWatch was apparently advised by a third unnamed admin to direct people towards the RFAR, but Morwen and Gerard suggest the talk page instead. So, it would seem to be more that they were aiding canvassing someone else on Wikipedia had initiated.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't post it, but there is a Tweet from Trans Media Watch on 2 Sep asking for people to join the Manning discussion and David Gerard responds telling them "that'l only work for users who've had an account a few days." Very helpful, David. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising a discussion to interested parties is not canvassing in and of itself. There needs to be some element of trying to "stack the vote" or influence people to respond in a certain way. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This tweet would be the one. A similar tweet, apparently directed at no one in particular, can be seen here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "directed at no one in particular", you mean directed at @nanayasleeps and @stavvers (oh, and me, I suppose). Morwen (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that, while some people were mentioned, it didn't seem like it was written just for them. Such tweets could be seen by anyone following him as well and the wording struck me as being intended for anyone following his tweets, not just the specific people he mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how twitter works. Directed tweets are by default only seen by the named people. (of course, they are public, so you can find them by going to the person's twitter stream, which is how they've been found to be put here) Morwen (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're not sure it's a third admin. That being said, it's clear Morwen, at least, didn't support promoting the RfArb on Twitter; I can't say the same for David, considering he posted a link to it from his own account. -- tariqabjotu 19:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find a nicer way to say "no, don't bloody do this if you're not already a regular Wikipedian, a bunch of people coming in from outside will be ignored at best" - but it's hard to both rephrase all that nicely and fit it into 140 characters - David Gerard (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content governance body

1) Arbcom recommends that the Wikipedia community establish a governance body which will have final say on content issues. This body should govern WP's rules and procedures for deciding questions on content matters. Additional authority wielded by the body, such as if it can hear appeals on content disagreements, can be decided upon by the community when drafting the body's charter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This appears to be wildly out of scope of this arbitration. Morwen (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Morwen, this is out of scope. Also, it essentially gives editorial control and determination of neutrality to a few appointed editors and their political and philosophical influences.--v/r - T P 13:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Recommendation only by the ArbCom since they apparently don't have the authority to establish such a body. Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need to revise our mechanisms for dealing with content disputes, but this idea would just add another layer to an already overly bureaucratic hierarchy. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding the article titles for transgender people should not be a crisis, as this turned out to be. The fact that it was shows that WP needs an elected body of contributors to establish and govern rules and procedures for resolving content disputes like this one. Yes, it does add more bureaucracy. In this case, it's necessary. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed principles

Scope of policy on biographies of living persons

X) The policy on biographies of living persons requires that all material concerning living persons in Wikipedia adhere strictly to Wikipedia's three core content policies (verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research).

The policy is written in a deliberately broad fashion, and its application is not limited to unsourced or poorly sourced material. Any material about a living person that fails any of the three core content policies is non-compliant with the policy and is subject to removal as described therein.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 00:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Meeting "verifiability" and "avoidance of original research" is no different than "unsourced or poorly sourced material": one's the alphabet soup way of talking, and the other's plain writing. WP:NPOV is a different matter, and I agree that BLP involves avoiding attack pages or cherry-picking sources to present a particular point of view. "Neutrality" and "respecting the subject's wishes" are unrelated concepts, though. Certainly you aren't going to claim that "Chelsea" at that particular instant in time was less neutral than "Bradley", are you? At the instant in time that this difficulty broke out, the vast, overwhelming preponderance of sources used "Bradley." It's difficult to see an NPOV argument that would favor "Chelsea."—Kww(talk) 00:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think this is a reasonable expansion of "unsourced or poorly sourced" and "must be fair to their subjects". The important point being that BLPs adhere strictly and immediately to Wikipedia's core policies. Requiring that BLPs adhere strictly and immediately to the subject's preferences, on the other hand, threatens our ability to write about those subjects objectively. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitivity towards living persons

X) The policy on biographies of living persons requires that editors act with a high degree of sensitivity and consider the possibility of harm to the subject when adding information about a living person to any Wikipedia page. This requirement is consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation's guidance that human dignity be taken into account when adding information about living persons to Wikimedia projects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 01:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this principle correctly states the current policy, but I think that we need to add a second sentence that specifies that there are cases where information which may cause harm can (and, in certain cases, should) be included regardless of said harm, namely when it's a. reliably sourced and b. necessary for encyclopaedic purposes (which, of course, includes the requirement that the information in question not be given undue weight). In this case, using "Bradley Manning" as title before the shift to Chelsea in realiable sources was not a violation of BLP.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: I think that actually deciding whether a particular statement is or is not a violation of BLP would be a content decision, and thus outside our remit. Kirill ^[talk] 10:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill Lokshin: I agree; the reason I mentioned the use of the name "Bradley" was to explain why I think that we should add something along the lines of the sentence I mentioned to this principle. I'm sorry if I was unclear.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: The policy quite explicitly states "harm to living subjects" (emphasis mine) rather than "harm to living persons". My interpretation of this is that the particular clause in question is in fact intended to apply narrowly (to the subject of the article or statement) rather than to any living individual who might in principle be affected. Kirill ^[talk] 10:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I'm not entirely sure what you're saying is incompatible with what I'm trying to say. I agree that titling the article "Bradley Manning" can be harmful, but despite that harm, such a title is not a BLP violation because it was encyclopaedically necessary (seeing as that was Manning's common name). And I also agree that these calls are based on more than just reliable sources, which is why I acknowledged the second requirement (i.e. necessary for encyclopaedic purposes).

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 12:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: I disagree. Saying that John Doe has been found guilty of a serious crime and convicted can cause him harm; if, however, this information is sourced and encyclopaedic, then we include it, regardless of said harm.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Except that it's harm to all living people, not just the subject. The subject restrictions include the broad harm to ALL living persons and a more narrow conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Without defining harm, it's very hard to say who will be harmed with such broad rewrites. Lana Wachowsky's first wife might feel harmed if we write she married a woman (that divorce was pretty bitter, as the ex did not know), and her second wife's ex-SO might have the same feelings of harm. Manning's father might feel harmed to have it written that he never had a father/son bond. It seems rather obvious that these announced changes that have ruined marriages, split families, destroyed friendships and other types of bonds create tremendous amounts of harm that extend beyond the subject to other living people. Using this case to define "harm" in BLP as being primarily the subject would have tremendous complexities about who or what harms living people. Note that the harm Lucy Meadows suffered was largely do to the spectacle created about her decision, not her trans woman announcement as she already did that. It was the attention drawn to her with titillating details about her transition. It was things like getting pictures to 'properly reflect her new identity.' If anything, "conservative" and "private" would be more appropriate than "harm" in this context. No one here knows how much Chelsea wants her new identity to be tied to her actions as "Bradley" so we should be "conservative" and presume "none". The defense statement at her trial was that "Bradley Manning" suffered from, among other things, "mental instability." It would seem harmful to write that as "Chelsea" when she clearly said references to the trial should be "Bradley" and we have no way of knowing how hurtful it would be to tie her true self back to the one that led to her crimes. --DHeyward (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. What causes harm, what the degree of harm is, how relevant it is to the article, and whether it can be phrased in a way that removes or reduces that harm are all things that can only be determined on an individual basis, in some cases with guidance based on general norms, but they must be considered. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: Whether titling the article "Bradley Manning" is or is not harmful or is or is not a BLP violation or not is not just a function of use in reliable sources. There are people here who that that "Bradley Manning" as the article title is harmful, but that the level of harm it causes is encyclopaedically justified (for various reasons) and so it is not a BLP violation. Anything that is harmful to the subject is a potential BLP violation, and the level of harm must be balanced against its encyclopaedic relevance and the harm and relevance of any alternatives. Use in reliable sources is just one input into the judgement. The relative weight will vary on a case by case basis (for example a reliable source calling someone a murder before conviction would not be given much weight in a discussion about whether to title an article Killing of X or Murder of X). Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: If a name being Manning's common name means that it is encyclopaedically necessary to use that name as the article title, doesn't that implicitly state that COMMONNAME can never conflict with BLP? Surely the title being mandated by policy must be distinguished from being necessary. Chris Smowton (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A standard, straightforward BLP principle. No complaints here. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: Your terminology is confusing. If it causes harm it should be removed (and that's the end of it). If the evidence (incl sources) and consensus determine Wikipedia saying it does not cause harm, then, and only then, can it be BLP compliant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano:: "Can cause harm" only raises the issue, which must be discussed respectfully. But the ultimate test is does cause harm. While the conviction can cause harm, sources and consensus on those sources may determine that Wikipedia including it by repeating the high quality sources does not cause harm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of material about living persons

X) The policy on biographies of living persons requires that non-compliant material be removed if the non-compliance cannot readily be rectified. The policy does not impose any limitations on the nature of the material to be removed, provided that the material concerns a living person, and provided that the editor removing it is prepared to explain their rationale for doing so.

Once material about a living person has been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion that such material is non-compliant, the policy requires that consensus be obtained prior to restoring the material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 01:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I agree, but think there is something missing. To legitimately invoke the special protection clause of BLP, a person (admin and non-admins alike) must clearly explain why he thinks that the material he removed was non-compliant, except when it's obvious. This is particularly true when the user in question is an admin and is using the tools, because, in such a case, we also have WP:ADMINACCT which mandates [a]dministrators are expected to justify [their administrator actions] when needed.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: I'm not necessarily opposed to mentioning the requirement to provide an explanation, but I'm not sure it presents any additional barrier in practice. The only mechanism for determining whether an explanation of a removal is actually "correct" or not is through consensus; consequently, so long as the editor removing the material offers some good-faith explanation for how BLP applies, the material must still stay removed until consensus determines otherwise. Kirill ^[talk] 10:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill Lokshin: yes, it would present an additional barrier, in practice. To be honest, I think David didn't explain whyhe thought his actions merited special protection; merely saying, and I paraphrase, "this article violates MOS:IDENTITY and, since this is a BLP, it's also a BLP violation" is not enough. You need to show what harm may come to the subject of the article if we don't remove the information in question; in this case, all that David said (until he and Morwen published their joint statement) was that to use Bradley as title would go against a guideline regarding how we refer to transgender people. It's not enough to say "I do this per BLP", you have to explain why you think your actions are necessary. Consider how strongly BLP actions are protected (which is something I entirely agree with), I don't think it's unreasonable to demand a clear explanation.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@FormerIP: resorting to the special protection clause of BLP should be a decision reserved only for serious cases, because it basically gives editors (and admins) a lot of power, since their action can only be reversed by consensus; for that, there have to be limitations, to make sure that such a protection is not invoked unnecessarily, because that would end up weakening BLP. At the same time, I want editors to feel free to act boldly, when they think that an article is likely to cause distress to its subject without fearing that their good-faith decision will lead to sanctions. A good compromise, in my opinion, is the requirement for the user who invokes BLP to explain why he's doing it. It's not an unreasonable demand and is in keeping with the idea that, on Wikipedia, disagreements are resolved through discussion.

And, also, when the user who's invoking BLP is an admin who's using his tools, we also have to take into consideration WP:ADMINACCT. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is certainly a correct statement of policy both as it is and as it ought to be, and as such I have no issue with including it in the decision; but it provides only limited guidance for this specific case, as no one on any side of this dispute has proposed removing any information (even those wanting the article at "Chelsea Manning" would seem to have no issue with its mentioning that the subject was formerly known as, and officially is still referred to as, Bradley Manning). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: I've added a statement about explanation being required; please review. Kirill ^[talk] 23:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill Lokshin: for me, that looks perfect. Thanks!

@FormerIP: I beg to differ, it's not what the editor does or doesn't do afterwards, it's what the editor does while taking action, because the requirement on him to provide an explanation is part of the action itself, it's not a logic posterius to it; to make an example: when I block someone the act of providing a reason for the block is part of the action of restricting the user. Which means that a person who fails to explain the reason which makes him invoke the special protection clause is not validly invoking it and his actions are not protected by it (which doesn't mean his actions are invalid or wrong, just that he can't expect that the protection in question should come into play). Which, by the way, doesn't mean that I want an editor to post a long disquisition: certainly, if he's invoking the special protection clause, he knows, in his head, that the information he's about to remove can be harmful; well, I just want him to articulate his opinion. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed that removal of material is correct. Changing it based on a persons understanding of what compliant is can create a new BLP perception, and BLP wheel war ad nauseum. No one removed any material in this case as far as I can tell. They changed it to what they perceived as being compliant. The proper course would be to either revert it as a non-BLP editorial decision (bold, revert, discuss) or blank it (remove/blank, discuss, restore). Blanking is what would have been required if "Bradley Manning" and "he" were BLP violations, not changing it to "Chelsea Manning" and "she". If this is to set up that flip-flopping BLP content back and forth between two different gendered versions is not acceptable application of BLP, then support, otherwise this is hiding a content war that violated WP:BRD, not WP:BLP. If nobody removed material or blanked the page pending consensus, it's not BLP. --DHeyward (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This doesn't address how you handle a situation where someone does not explain the basis for claiming BLP protection for an edit that is not removing an obvious violation. BLP policy plainly says that when sources overwhelmingly favor certain material that it can be included even if it is offensive to the subject. When someone takes action by invoking BLP in a case where there would be reasonable cause for dispute, then it should be explained why BLP applies. Doing so is not only good practice, but demanded by policy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. @DHeyward: The disputed material here was the article title, given that for technical reasons articles must have exactly one title, the only options were to change the title or delete the article. The latter would not be even remotely justifiable, so changing the title to be BLP-compliant was in accordance with the policy. @The Devil's Advocate: How many times do you have to have it spelled out that this is not what happened here? Even if it did, the correct course of action if a BLP action is not obvious or not explained is exactly the same as for every other BLP action - the action must not be reversed without consensus to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the article is not deleting it. You could easily blank both "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning", not link them and then get content consensus. "Changing to BLP compliant" is a mythical unicorn of standards. It's two distinct steps. BLP deletes the offending material. New material through reliable source, NPOV, and no original research is then added through the normal procedure. Please show where BLP has anything but "delete offending material". Adding material is like any other content subject to BRD. You cannot skip over the delete portion and magically claim that the revised material was a single step when in fact it has to be at least two steps. BLP, because it's policy and WP NEVER accepts credit for content, only supports deletion. People do get sued for defamation on websites and if there is a policy of "change" that WP enforces, WP owns it. Instead WP says "delete it." Anything you add after deleting it is YOURs. It's not WPs policy to ever restore content. If you take "He was born Bradley Manning" to be a BLP violation, you must delete it. If you then take it upon yourself to add "She was born Bradley Manning", that's content. Two steps. If you don't think it is, please show where policy ever allows content so we can change and keep keep WP/WMF out of content decisions and therefore maintain the "host" status they claim when editors are sued. --DHeyward (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make? Whether a sentence that violates BLP is removed from an article and not replaced, removed from an article an subsequently replaced, or immediately replaced the effect is the same - the content that violates the BLP is no longer in the article. All BLP cares about is that the article is not unnecessarily harmful, it doesn't matter to BLP how the article is compliant only that it is, although the how does matter to other core policies like NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: I disagree. If it is obvious and/or explicitly stated that an action is being taken as a BLP action, then the special protection applies. If it is not obvious and not explained why the action was a BLP issue then consensus will quickly allow its reversal. This is important because it allows for the right thing to happen in the case that the action was not obvious but correct - we loose nothing by assuming an action is correct until determined one way or the other, we potentially lose a lot if we assume wrongly the other way (see my table above). Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The only important question is whether the first admin action was taken in good faith. The problem with your position, @Salvio guiliano:, is that it allows wheel-warring based on a technicality and a subjective judgement. There's no sensible reason to provide admins with a loophole in BLP entitling them to call bullshit on anything they don't immediately get. Formerip (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad:. If you think a "removal" needs to involve a complete erasing of a particular word or phrase from an article, then I guess that means that there was no BLP basis for the initial page-move. But I would suggest that this is quite a radical position, since it would seem to mean that BLP can never interact with WEIGHT. Would there be a BLP basis for removing the word "adulterer" from the first line of Bill Clinton without also removing all reference to it in the article? I think there would. I also think a distinction needs to be drawn between removing words and removing information. There are, obviously, specific connotations involved in how an article is titled and this is really what forms the basis for the BLP claim, rather than a belief that the article should not include the words "Bradley Manning" at all. Formerip (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP mandates article changes in two situations. One, where unsourced harmful information has been added to the article, that information must be excised. Two, where undue weight is being given to a particular POV, balance must be restored. DPRoberts534 (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: It may be appropriate to consider a given admin action in relation to ADMINACCT, and it may be appropriate to remind/sanction/whatever as a result. But your formulation seems to be suggest that an action can actually be invalidated if a subsequent explanation does not provide enough detail. I don't think that's logical. If an action is correct/justified by policy, then it must be valid, regardless of what the editor does or doesn't do afterwards. Formerip (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC) @Salvio giuliano: Your distinction between the validity of an action and the appropriateness of protecting it from reversion is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, there is no exception to the rule that reverting a good admin action makes for a bad admin action. This is also the case if someone reverts a good admin action that they don't understand. To follow your analogy, if an admin blocked an editor with the summary "vandal", it would never be correct to just revert that on sight with the summary "inadequate explanation". In other words, the protection is contingent only on the correctness or otherwise of the action. Trying to make the explanation part of the action is nonsensical, because it just isn't. Secondly, I think you are making the mistake of thinking that the protection is there mainly for the benefit of the admin. It isn't, it is mainly there for the benefit of the BLP subject. There is no reason that the subject should see their protection forfeited just because an admin didn't do everything by the book. There may be reason to sanction the admin and there may be reason to go easy on the wheel-warrior, but those are different matters. Formerip (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of "material" in Wikipedia policy

X) A Wikipedia "article" is a web page that contains encyclopedic information (WP:WIAA §0). The page is dynamically generated by the MediaWiki software based on a pool of source material that can include, but is not limited to, wiki markup, media files, templates, scripts, stylesheets, and database variables (WP:HOW §2).

Any Wikipedia policy that refers to "material" in an article should be interpreted as applying to all material contained within the page that is presented to a Wikipedia reader, regardless of the particular mechanism through which the MediaWiki software produces that material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a somewhat esoteric point—and one that I hope is obvious to everyone—but is worth mentioning explicitly as it happens to be significant to some of the arguments presented here. Kirill ^[talk] 01:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Sandifer: Strictly speaking, the "title" of a page is simply a database variable ({{PAGENAME}}); on a certain level, it's fundamentally no different than having the current date or the site name on a page. But, yes, titles are where I'm going with this. Kirill ^[talk] 03:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Martijn (below). Such an impenetrable principle is basically useless, even if it arguably ties in with other parts of the dispute or the proposed decision. AGK [•] 15:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping this proposal per the feedback received. Kirill ^[talk] 23:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

You may as well explicitly mention "titles," since it appears to be what you're going for here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Policy applies. Policy also states that all the encyclopedic information is the responsibility of individual editors. WMF /WP explicitly rejects the notion that they are responsible for "content" in WP which includes all the sub-pieces you listed. There is good and bad in that, but it narrows down how policy is applied. We apply BLP policy, for example, by "removing" material, not changing it. There is no policy that will generate content. Please consult WMF/WP legal if you think policy can dictate content or just remove it, especially about BLPs. Blank and stub, not rewrite and claim WMF/WP dictated the content. Individual editors can add material as they see fit, but it is subject to removal per policy, not changes per policy as that would make WMF/WP content owners. If WMF wants to change their stance and use policy to dictate specific content, it's quite a different position than just removing offending content. WP/WMF is a host and they use that to shield themselves from defamation. We blank BLPs and we remove Siegenthaler type references. WMF/WP's role is to maintain access and remove content that violates TOS. --DHeyward (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wow. Wouldn't "The title is part of a Wikipedia article" be clearer and more effective than going in to page rendering by MediaWiki software? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of "remove" in BLP policy

X) Wikipedia policy recognizes that a single editorial action may consist of several distinct changes to the material in an article, and regards an editorial action of this type as being governed by a particular policy even in cases where only a portion of the changes comprising it are directly subject to the policy; see, for example, the definition of "revert" in the edit warring policy.

The statements in the policy on biographies of living persons that refer to an action being taken to "remove" material from an article should therefore be interpreted as applying to any action for which there exists some material that is present in the article before the action and not present in the article after the action. They should not be interpreted as imposing a requirement that the action not simultaneously introduce new material into the article or prohibiting other changes to an article concurrent with a removal of material from it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Another esoteric but important point. Kirill ^[talk] 12:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Suggest prefixing with "BLP is conventionally broadly-construed, rather than failing to apply in particular cases because of fine details of policy wording" - David Gerard (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an effort to undermine the true purpose and meaning of BLP, which is to ensure that all material in an article about a living person is well sourced. There's no doubt that both "Bradley" and "Chelsea" are well-sourced.All any of the name changes did was attempt seek a different balance in a pile of well-sourced material. "Removal" is completely irrelevant to the cast at hand. It potentially could have been if someone sought to remove both names and refer to the subject only as "Manning" or "Private Manning", but that didn't occur.—Kww(talk) 21:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where this is going, but it doesn't make much sense. In any case, you can't "remove" a title - an article must have a title. So obviously, the only thing you can do is "change" a title. As such, the only place "remove" would come it w.r.t title is if there was a word in the title, and ONLY in the title, that you were removing from the article (such as Joe "idiot" Smith - then you could remove idiot from the title). However, removing the word Bradley from the title, and replacing it with Chelsea, while keeping Bradley in several other places in the article completely disables the BLP argument, as you are making a claim that Bradley is incredibly harmful when in the title in 36pt font, but totally acceptable in the infobox and in line 1 in 12pt font.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ananiujitha - what do you mean by "higher standards"? There is a strong claim being made here - that the word "Bradley" in 36 point font will HARM a real, living person - as in do some measure of actual harm that we could actually measure somehow - such as by defaming her, or causing her undue and serious anguish, etc. But we are simultaneously accepting that the same word "Bradley" is perfectly acceptable, 1 inch lower and in slightly smaller font. It makes absolutely no sense to have a claim of "harm" when the word "Bradley" will remain in the article for time eternal. Indeed, the word "hate speech" and "libel" and "sexual harassment" was also used to describe this title. I note that many of the media outlets, even those which USE "Chelsea Manning" in their articles, have sections dedicated to the subject that are titled "Bradley Manning". In any case, we're getting off topic - I think the above finding is too esoteric and won't add anything to the discussion to keep.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ananiujitha - I'm sorry that you've suffered. But aren't we harming the whole country of "Cote d'Ivoire" by the title of our article, or aren't we insulting all of the Ukrainian residents of Kiev by not calling it Kyev (those residents suffered under Russian oppression, and the name is a reminder of that oppression)? Don't we contribute to the continued suppression of indigenous peoples by calling them things like Squamish, a name they no longer identify with? Once you broaden the "harm" radius to everyone who is reading and editing the encyclopedia, then it becomes a lot messier, and I don't think it's tenable. And, how do you know that a libertarian, freedom loving wikipedia fiend won't ALSO be harmed by seeing a particular agenda in support of trans* rights used to squash standard process and standard wikipedia policy? I've seen many experienced editors disgusted by what happened here, on both sides. If we're going to make the assertion that a non-preferred name in the title does such serious harm that we must immediately rename it, then wikipedia has been harming people left and right for a decade. I really think we need to have some measure of reasonableness here, and if you were to measure the amount of harm this word causes in 36 point font vs in 12 point font, I don't think you would be able to measure the difference on a harm-o-meter - especially when compared to the sort of real BLP-harming material, like some of that entered by Qworty. The only way it contributes to cissexism is by *documenting* that the media itself is cissexist, and this is the commonname. That itself would be a much more useful role and story here - that wikipedia follows sources, and if sources suck, then let's take action to get sources to change. Wikipedia will be very pleased to follow.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Obi-Wan Kenobi, "However, removing the word Bradley from the title, and replacing it with Chelsea, while keeping Bradley in several other places in the article completely disables the BLP argument, as you are making a claim that Bradley is incredibly harmful when in the title in 36pt font, but totally acceptable in the infobox and in line 1 in 12pt font." What is unreasonable about that claim? Why shouldn't titles be held to higher standards than the rest of the text? Ananiujitha (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obi-Wan Kenobi, by "higher standards" I mean not insulting people in the titles of the articles. Is that your opinion of due weight and due consideration for human dignity? Ananiujitha (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obi-Wan Kenobi As for HARM, it isn't limited to harm to the subjects of the articles. I have faced repeated physical violence. That is part of the harm that society-wide cissexism inflicts on trans people, intersex people, and many gender-nonconforming people, among others. The title is only one small contribution to that cissexism, and that harm, but it is still participation in that harm. Ananiujitha (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity regarding explanations in BLP policy

X) The policy on biographies of living persons states that editors removing material on the basis of an assertion of non-compliance with the policy must be prepared to explain their action to others.

The policy does not state whether an explanation must be provided immediately upon removing the material, or only when requested by another editor, and does not identify any specific deadline for providing the explanation. The policy is ambiguous as to whether the removal of material is subject to the protections set forth in the policy during the period between the removal and the explanation, or only after an explanation is provided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. @Salvio giuliano: This is also relevant to our discussion of explanations above. Kirill ^[talk] 00:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill Lokshin: I agree with this statement. I have my personal opinion on this, but, yes, the policy could use a bit of wordsmithing...

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Usage of "good faith" in Wikipedia policy

X) Wikipedia policy requires editors to assume that other editors' actions and comments are made in good faith in the absence of obvious evidence to the contrary; with the exception of vandalism, the policy does not enumerate any specific type of evidence that is sufficiently obvious to remove the assumption (WP:AGF §0). The policy on vandalism specifically exempts edit-warring over content from being considered vandalism, even if such edit-warring is misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive (WP:VAN §0).

Any Wikipedia policy that refers to an action being taken in "good faith" should be interpreted as applying to any action that has not been specifically determined to have been performed in bad faith by community consensus or a qualified dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

And another one. Kirill ^[talk] 15:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point being made, but fear that this formulation allows far too much room for gaming. Sometimes, although not in this case, bad faith is obvious and bad-faith edits can readily be dealt with as such; blatant BLP violations (again, not the sort of disputed BLP issues involved in this case) are an obvious example. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping this proposal, per the feedback received. Kirill ^[talk] 23:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Oppose. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion or criticism or anyone's actions. Indeed, it even explicitly doesn't prohibit expressing doubt about the good faith of any action. It does prescribe behavioural norms and guides for challenging another editors good faith - but that's it.

Additionally, on a "legal" note, AGF is a guidelines, not a policy ("Wikipedia policy requires...", "...the policy does not enumerate...", etc.).

Therefore, plainly, there is no Wikipedia policy that "requires editors to assume that other editors' actions and comments are made in good faith in the absence of obvious evidence to the contrary". --RA (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those keeping track of apparent consensus, this is the user known elsewhere on this page as user:Rannpháirtí anaithnid - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And for the sake of consistency/clarity in this discussion I'm going to sig as RA, unless anyone objects. --RA (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I strongly agree with both the principle and its applicability to this case but I share Brad's misgivings about the precise formulation. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory speech

X) Discriminatory speech is defined as any statement that ridicules, denigrates, insults, belittles, or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual or group on the basis of a characteristic such as national or ethnic origin, race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, or disability.

Engaging in discriminatory speech violates several Wikipedia policies, including the policy on personal attacks and the civility policy, as well as the Wikimedia Foundation's non-discrimination policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 01:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Sandifer: I think the actual wording of the NPA policy is actually quite clear: "Discriminatory epithets directed against another contributor, a group of contributors, or any of their characteristics (including, but not limited to, those protected by law or the Wikimedia Foundation's non-discrimination policy)..." (emphasis mine). Gender identity is a legally protected characteristic in California (where the Wikimedia Foundation legally operates); thus, it's covered by the policy. Kirill ^[talk] 03:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: That's exactly what the WMF policy says, actually: "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination... on the basis of... any other legally protected characteristics". The prohibition is explicitly not limited just to the specific characteristics enumerated in the statement. Kirill ^[talk] 10:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the relevant principles (including nos. 6 and 7) in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Cross-posted from the proposed findings below) Having thought about this for a couple of days, I've come to the conclusion that introducing the concept of "discriminatory speech" into the case makes the development of findings much more complex than it needs to be. To reach a conclusion that "X engaged in discriminatory speech" requires us to engage in a two-step process: first, we have to agree on a definition of "discriminatory speech" (a difficult drafting task at best), and then we need to apply that definition to the specific comments that have been challenged. Even if we are able to agree on both the definition and the application, the results are then a series of findings that a number of users engaged in "discriminatory speech", which is an extremely harsh things for us to find, even in those instances when it would be a proper finding. While I agree that "discriminatory speech" would be a much better wording than the better-known phrase "hate speech" (a phrase whose use has never aided a Wikipedia discussion, compare here, on balance, if we want to make findings that User X made inappropriate or insensitive comments, or that a group of users did so, I think it would be better for us just to say that directly (and explain the reason for the findings, as warranted), rather than define and then apply a newly developed definition. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The policies do not explicitly mention gender identity. I've argued elsewhere that this is not a barrier - I think the WMF:NDP implies it due to the WMF being based in California and the United States, and NPA leaves open the possibility of categories not mentioned in the NDP, but some tightening to acknowledge that this is explicitly acknowledging that gender identity is specifically covered, if only because some participants in the case have been openly demanding the right to engage in discriminatory speech on those grounds. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"gender identity or expression" discrimination may be California law so WMF should not engage in it. WMF always disavows content so it's nebulous as to whether California law applies to an editor's contributions in, say, Texas. Certainly that would be invoked if someone sued the WMF over the Texas editors assertions. And the Texas editor would claim he didn't make those statments in California. Regardless, isn't it employment law? WMF hires people and they have to abide by the laws where they are. Certainly if they really believed "gender identity or expression" should be in their non-discriminatory statement, they would add it. California did and I suspect there are a lot more people to convince in the CA legislature than the WMF board. If they meant it to have "gender identity or expression", they would have added it and copied California's language. If they wanted broad legal coverage they would have just said "WMF doesn't discriminate against characteristics protected by law. They didn't though so it appears they are leaving it up to ever locale. Discrimination that isn't tolerated in any way is specifically listed. Have them add "gender identity or expression" if you think it's invisibly present by virtue of CA law. Should be a no-brainer if you are correct. I'd still reason that since this is speech, not employment, WMF is limited to removing content, not changing it lest they risk their shield as a host. And lastly, it's boilerplate. It contains the U.S. federally required language as boilerplate language. Inferring protection from boilerplate language is tricky at best and often is tossed as a legal defense to liability. Might as well say "WMF discriminates except where prohibited by law." --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill Lokshin: I understood what you said. It's a boiler plate discrimination clause for harrasment and hiring. My point was that if they had intended it to reflect California law, they would have used the California boiler plate language. California companies subjected to that restriction don't leave it the umbrella term "any other legally protected characteristics." That infers that WMF did not intend this policy to only reflect California law or in any way, shape or form apply California law to editors outside California. Rather, they only used the federal language which, beyond the enumerated section, includes local variance and discretion. It's highly dubious to infer that WMF intended or expected it's worldwide user base to be familiar with non-enumerated portions of California law. If they plainly wanted to apply CA standards, they would have plainly used CA wording. Instead, they used broad anti-harassment language with same caveat for local laws. Not local to WMF but local to the editor. The CA harassment list is not hard to find. It is a completely illogical construct to NOT use the CA standard boilerplate but then imply that's what they meant. This is easily illustrated with sales that originate from companies in CA that I purchase from my house. "shipping and handling plus any applicable taxes" is the boilerplate the CA company uses. But taxes are applied at the point of purchase. By your reasoning, CA sales tax would be applied since you can find sales tax in CA law. But this is not the case. It's applied at destination. The same is true for employment. If you work for WMF, a company based in California but you place of work is NY, it's NY's employment laws that WMF has to comply with. Otherwise, a company in Texas could have workers in CA and ignore CA law since they are based in Texas. You have interpretted the law and policy exactly backwards. The law at the locale of the user is where the non-enumerated points are enforced and is why CA companies don't follow CA law when they have remote sites outside of California. This includes employment law, tax law, discrimination law, harrassment law, etc. There's a reason why companies like Intel in Santa Clara, CA, build fabs in New Mexico and employ workers in New Mexico. CA can't enforce their wage and hour laws on New Mexico workers even though the checks are written in Santa Clara.

Comment by others:

Exactly, how should one construe the above? Is this to be taken as meaning it will be considered a violation of policy for someone to say boys have a penis and girls have a vagina? Some of the people being accused of "transphobia" basically said that and nothing more. Also, what is with "marital status" being thrown in there all of a sudden? What exactly constitutes "discriminatory speech" about someone's marital status?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Context matters. Stating that "boys have a penis and girls have a vagina" as a rationale for not renaming an article to a trans-woman's female name is unequivocally a denial and rejection of that person's gender identity and is not coupled to any legitimate policy interest affecting Wikipedia content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that stating that "boys have a penis and girls have a vagina" is a denial and rejection of that person's gender identity. However, it is never that simple. Some people that say they are women are not accepted by other women. Stating that it is not coupled to any policy interest of Wikipedia content is correct. Therefore, we don't have policies on it. We have guidelines. Let's put it this way: there are women's groups that will never accept Chelsea Manning as a women (see womyn). There are other groups that may accept Chelsea as a woman but wouldn't accept, say, Lana Wachowski. It's nearly an exclusively feminist issue as different groups vie to control feminist group priorities. There is occasionally violence between these groups. It's a political issue that feminists are grappling with as to what it means to be women and what, if any, overlaps there are with trans women issues. There's plenty of truth and nonsense from about 6 different sides of this issues. Womyn, post-SRS Harry Benjamin Syndrome women, "functional" trans lesbians, etc are all fighting for a place in the feminist culture. Julia Serano has a book coming out next month about the barriers trans women face trying to break into LGBT and feminist causes. But regardless, there is no "right" answer. Access to birth control for example - not high on the typical trans women agenda - but access to hormone treatment is. It's a big fight that isn't going to be settled in WP and we shouldn't be taking sides in that fight. Chelsea Manning is facing 35 years in prison. Whether she is a female or male really plays no difference. Justice is literally blind to her gender. Her gender is important for her. It's polite for us to use self-identified terms and names. It's a hard sell though to say that historical reference to her name when she was growing up or handing out secrets in the army is somehow transphobic or denying her anything. That's the gender and name she was expressing and self-identifying with at the time and that's the name she was using when she became notable. It's the same reason we use Julia Serano and not Tom Serano. It's not because of anything to do with transphobia or denying identity, it's simple that's the name they are notable for. --DHeyward (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're conflating two different classes of arguments. Nobody is saying that "historical reference to her name when she was growing up or handing out secrets in the army" is transphobic. There are many people who disagree with the WP:COMMONNAME argument, but it is a legitimate argument based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The arguments that are being challenged as transphobic, discriminatory and offensive are of the class I mentioned - those that simply deny her gender identity or reject the very idea of transgendered people.

Also, Manning's imprisonment makes no difference to her gender identity, so bringing it up in this context is just nonsensical. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there are transgender women that say women don't have penises. Google "I was born with Harry Benjamin Syndrome". They reject certain trans women (you may want to lose the hyphen for "tran woman" and don't say "transgendered", they are sometimes considered transphobic terms). Some HBS self-indentifiers accept what DSM-5 calls autogynephilic and reject trans lesbians that have functioning penises as being women. And womyn reject both. Some trans women reject post-SRS women as "trans" because they are "passing" and consider "passing post-SRS women" as "cis gender" even though they were born with male genitalia and underwent transitions to become women. Others accuse lesbian women of being transphobic if they don't wish to be involved with a "functional" pre-SRS trans women, because, I quote, "if your sexual preference is for women, it shouldn't matter if the woman has a penis." see cotton ceiling - google it until someone creates it. Note that this pressure is applied almost exclusively to women. On the male side, the view is flipped. There are quite the number of stories of pre-SRS trans woman that have self-identified straight boyfriends that exclusively seek out "functional" trans women (women with a working penis). They dump them after SRS because that's not what they are looking for. Nor does the "if your sexual preference is for women, it shouldn't matter if the woman has a penis" make a lot men pause and wonder and feel angst that they are being too judgmental. Either that's what they want or it isn't but they don't agonize over whether the person is a woman or not. Nor do straight men get labeled transphobic if they don't wish to date pre-SRS women. It's unnecessary because there is no political fight on the male side. The men that are attracted to various different members of the trans community are just that: attracted. Feminists and trans women on the other hand make lots of subtle lines of inclusion and exclusion. And we haven't even talked about intersexual people. Second, the prison sentence is relevant only because it happened within a day of the Today show interview and the prison sentence is BY FAR the notable event. The prison sentence and the implications and details about the leaks is what drew everyone to the article. For over a year, editors interested mainly in the transgender aspect have wanted to change article name and pronouns when Breanna became popular. The transgender statement she made wasn't anything new to those that followed that part of the tory. They had the chat logs confirming female. They had Dr. testimony. The only shock was the name. When she did announce, tunnel vision set in and they seemed to have forgotten "Hey, Manning is going to be a front page 'In the news...' link after sentencing, let's change the article title and pronouns at maximum visibility. We'll get massive support for this." Seriously? Did anyone really think the that inviting the unwashed masses to day 1 of "Chelsea Manning" was going to end well? Chelsea Manning will fade from view over the few years. She will do her time, her friends will call her Chelsea and in prison self-expression isn't really a top priority. Prison is very much like the army except there are less women. Hopefully she'll get her hormone treatment and find contentment being Chelsea. In six months no one will care about the article title or pronouns. There will always be a Bradley Manning blue link. So yes, in terms of damage to the subject, 35 years is relevant, too. As long as she is in leavenworth, she won't have wigs or female army uniforms so her expression will be limited but so will her visibility to the public. Fortunately, unlike Lucy Meadows, her access will be limited and the tabloid like transformation of her WP article won't drive the curious and the titillated to seek her out. --DHeyward (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(removed comment)

You are topic banned from this subject. You should not be here. At all. Carrite (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the clarification that the current wording of NPA is a recent change is useful. Particularly given that the admission that it's a recent change undermines the side of the argument Sceptre supports, which, I think, rather cuts against the harm done by the topic ban. WP:IAR would seem to apply. If anyone really objects and wants to remove Sceptre's comment, I'm willing to take the heat for making sure the substance of it remains in the debate. In fact, here. I've removed it, but will note that User:Sceptre has noted that "that clause of NPA was recently changed to the current version by myself; see my rationale here. The change was basically to explicitly bring it inline with the Foundation's NDP, as well as to cut down on rule-lawyering by people saying "well, the characteristic isn't in NPA or NDP, so it's not a personal attack" (hence why it says "including but not limited to")." Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussions

X) Administrators who close a discussion have broad discretion to determine if consensus exists (and if so, what it is) and are expected to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and the goals of the project (WP:CLD §2.1).

However, when presented with multiple contradictory interpretations of policy in a discussion, administrators are required to judge which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, rather than closing the discussion based on their own opinions about which interpretation is most appropriate (WP:CLD §2.1).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 11:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping this proposal, per the feedback received. Kirill ^[talk] 23:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This would appear to throw Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion right out the window, and would put pretty much everything that happens on Wikipedia up for a numerical 50%+1 vote. I suggest this may not be a good idea.

In this particular case, you also need to also account for the people driven away from the discussion (and from Wikipedia itself) by the tone of the discussion. Any vote (they won't be !votes any more) will then have people working hard to slant the discussion beforehand, disgust opponents away from even contributing, attempt to finesse policy details to invalidate votes, lead to even more calls to people who aren't regular editors to show up and cast a vote, etc - please, be careful what you wish for - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This flies in the face of our normal determination of consensus. We don't look at the "predominant number of responsible Wikipedians", we look at the strength of arguments. When its obvious that there's going to be a problem, we have developed the approach of assigning a closing triumvirate to make certain that biases on the part of the closer don't unduly sway the discussion. In this particular case, the triumvirate was unanimous in its findings, and I can assure you that not only was it unanimous, it was rapidly and uncontentiously unanimous: no closer could have found a consensus in that RFC unless the closer had predetermined what he wanted the consensus to be.—Kww(talk) 21:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney. The !votes were nearly even, but momentum had shifted significantly such that in the last two days they ran heavily towards Chelsea. This reflected changing in the sourcing over the week of discussion. You would have been perfectly in order looking at sourcing as it stood at the point of closing and weighing later !votes higher because of the large number of major sources that made the switch during the discussion and after the initial wave of !votes. But to suggest that your decision was mandated by the strength of arguments is frankly beyond the pale. Your stated policy justification was shambolic. Particularly egregious was your dismissal of BLP concerns when both Jimbo and Sue Gardner had said they thought there were significant BLP concerns. There's ample precedent in giving considerable weight to BLP concerns brought by the Foundation. The use of Manning's statement that she knew that some people wouldn't make the switch as justification was also appalling, amounting to little more than saying that because trans people are aware that transphobia exists the harm of transphobia is magically reduced. To say that you had no choice in making the close, frankly, feels like little more than an attempt to dodge responsibility. You had a choice. You chose poorly, and committed Wikipedia to a month of transphobia by fiat. Feel free to stand by your decision, and yes, thank you for stepping up and making a difficult decision that you surely knew would be criticized. But don't insult us by suggesting it was anything other than that: a decision with alternatives. The fact that both Jimbo and Sue think your decision sucked is pretty clear proof that it wasn't the only possible decision any reasonable person could have come to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think that either Jimbo or Sue would be an example of an experienced administrator judging consensus in accordance with Wikipedia policies.—Kww(talk) 04:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is out of step with longstanding consensus, and a bad idea to boot. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think this is well-crafted, but I share the concern about 50%+1 voting. If the arguments are of equivalent strength on both sides of an issue, then canvassing for additional "responsible Wikipedians" to support one side or the other becomes a more viable option than it would be at present. Wording that acknowledges something like "Evaluation of the nature of support for a position may be used as a factor in determining consensus, said evaluation taking into account the number, timing, and breadth of edits in support for a position." That puts the number of !votes (and thus the size of the majority) squarely into the realm of consideration, but would also allow consideration of the timing of !votes as well (Did a surge of support come late? Did multiple editors switch in a group? Why? What changed?). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Authority of the Arbitration Committee

X) The arbitration policy prohibits the Arbitration Committee from ruling on content. However, the policy does does authorize the Committee to create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced and by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 14:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

X) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Nature of underlying dispute

X) The underlying dispute in this case concerns the choice of title for the article which is currently titled "Bradley Manning". The dispute was directly precipitated by a public statement made by the subject of the article on August 22, 2013, in which the subject self-identified as "Chelsea Manning".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed as background. Kirill ^[talk] 15:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An accurate and useful statement. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is accurate now, but given that another move proposal has been in preparation for some time, it may no longer be accurate by the time it's voted on. I suggest changing "which is currently titled" to "which, at the time this Arbitration case commenced, was titled". —Psychonaut (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be relevant to add that many major reliable sources continued to refer to Manning as "Bradley" for some time after Manning's gender statement. That to a large degree explains why this became a dispute (Use in reliable sources vs. Self-identification). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial changes of article title

X) Following the announcement by the subject of the article, several editors made a series of changes to the title of the article:

Morwen (talk · contribs) changed the title from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning", directly citing the announcement ([163]);
Cls14 (talk · contribs) changed the title from "Chelsea Manning" back to "Bradley Manning" ([164]);
Morwen (talk · contribs) again changed the title from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning", once again citing the announcement ([165]);
Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) changed the title from "Chelsea Manning" back to "Bradley Manning", citing a move request filed by StAnselm (talk · contribs) ([166]).

None of the editors involved in making these changes cited the biography of living persons policy as the basis for doing so, and there is no evidence that any of the changes were performed in bad faith or in violation of Wikipedia policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, largely as background. Kirill ^[talk] 21:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, I believe it's been acknowledged that Cls14's move was made without knowledge of all the circumstances, and that Morwen's second move was made with Cls14's acquiescence. I mention this only to explain why no one is raising an accusation of "wheel-warring" against Morwen in the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The only concern from the above I have is that the "landmine" statement suggests a pointy move. But that's a hindsight view of the disruption, not a foresight view of intention. The end result was the 30 day boomerang whether justified or not. --DHeyward (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Actually I have presented evidence that Tariqabjotu's move was in violation of Wikipedia policy because it was knowingly and deliberately done through protection and knowingly and deliberately reversed an explicit BLP action without consensus (although the moves did not explicitly cite BLP, this was implicit in Morwen's given reason for those familiar with trans* naming issues and the protection did explicitly state BLP). Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that the article has remained where it is for more than 30 days after the announcement and WMF has done nothing, it's safe to say that the BLP violation argument is hollow. Certainly no one considers it actionable or harmful enough to do anything about it. In prior cases where there were BLP issues, the WP and WMF step in and stub it or remove it. --DHeyward (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Morwen's numerous comments, some of them contradictory, suggest that she did have an agenda in mind when she reactivated to move the article. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change of article title by David Gerard

X) Following the conclusion of the initial series of changes to the title of the article, David Gerard (talk · contribs) changed the title from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning", citing the biographies of living persons policy ([167]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 21:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The fact that he used move protection to preserve the change, despite the fact that he was well aware that other editors found his BLP assertion specious, needs to be mentioned. It's not the move per se that is questionable, it's his use of protection to preserve changes that he knew others objected to, and reversion of changes made under the umbrella of that protection.—Kww(talk) 22:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Kww, regardless of whether everyone agrees with them or not BLP actions require consensus to overturn and administrators are explicitly empowered to use their tools to ensure that BLP violating material is not included in articles at all and that potentially violating material is not included until consensus agrees it is not a violation. At the time of David's actions there was nothing remotely approaching a consensus that "Bradley Manning" was not a BLP violation. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for change of article title by David Gerard

X) David Gerard did not provide a detailed explanation of why the title "Bradley Manning" was non-compliant with the biographies of living persons policy at the time he changed the title, although he made a number of explanatory statements in response to direct inquiries from other editors ([168], [169], [170]).

David ultimately provided a detailed explanation of his rationale on August 27, five days after he had made the change in question ([171]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 01:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tariqabjotu: The diffs are examples of statements that were made by David with regard to the rationale, but that were not a detailed explanation of it. Kirill ^[talk] 02:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Kirill Lokshin: It's unclear what the first three diffs in this proposal are supposed to be showing: are these supposed to be examples of David "subsequently ma[king] a number of explanatory statements in response to direct inquiries from other editors"? Or him not "provid[ing] a detailed explanation of why the title "Bradley Manning" was non-compliant with the biographies of living persons policy"? If it's the former... well, those diffs are around the time he changed the title (and aren't in response to direct inquiries, it seems). If it's the latter... can you provide an example (other than the August 27 detailed explanation) where he provided explanatory statements in response to direct inquiries? -- tariqabjotu 01:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill Lokshin: Ok, I think I see what you were trying to say. However, it might be a bit clearer if you omitted the word "subsequently". -- tariqabjotu 02:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced this amounts to much. "Your rationale was insufficiently detailed" is a fairly minor gripe, and explained well enough by the fact that, to anyone with a passing familiarity in trans issues, this sort of thing is self-evident. Remember- within the trans community, misnaming is a horrific slur equivalent to the worst racist epithets you can think of. If this fact is taken even remotely seriously, the BLP concerns are as straightforward as can possibly be imagined. Given the amount of blatant bad faith that entered the discussion within a few hours of it starting, it's not hard to understand why it took a bit for David to realize that there were actually people who were legitimately confused about the harm caused by misnaming. That's exactly the sort of problem that the rampant and overt bigotry that was allowed in the discussion causes. With a well as poisoned as this one was, surely a misjudgment as to the extent of details his rationale ought contain is a minor issue. Is the arbcom so desperate to appease those calling for David's head that they're going to pursue findings this petty? Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP claims are hollow. As far as I know, the only gender ever explicitly expressed by Manning have been female. Her chat logs bear that out and they have been public for over a year. Why a new verbal statement is somehow different than the old verbal statements and suddenly makes this a BLP issue is a threadbare argument. No one tuned in to the gender aspect of this case believes she has expressed anything but female since before her arrest. Manning didn't know if she was a cross-dresser or transgender until her deployment put her under stress (this is in her chats with Lamo). That was clear three years ago in May 2010. Deliberately changing the article and claiming BLP when she was sentenced and getting maximum attention reeks of activism, especially when coupled with activist statements. It didn't become a gender identity BLP problem because of her Today show statement if it wasn't one when the chat logs came out. The BLP argument was used as a secondary defense to the charge that Wikipedia was being used as a tool to push an agenda to make "transgender" the main issue. It easily could have waited until the sentence hysteria passed before proposing a move but that would have missed the opportunity to exploit her situation for a cause. Those editors got the media attention they sought, made their statements and moved on. Let's stop pretending that the real reason was an immediate BLP concern for Chelsea Manning a week after the media interviews ended and three years after she expressed her gender identity. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't see a difference between statements made in what she presumed were private chat logs and a statement made to the Today show? Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think people well versed in the topic read the chat logs and multiple doctor accounts, the accounts of her presenting herself in public as female outside the army prior to deployment (and "passing"), discussing hormones and hair removal, and her saying she had gender identity disorder and it was confirmed by her doctor and lawyer during court testimony well over a year ago wasn't enough? Please tell me when you learned the name Breanna but didn't believe it meant she was female despite her statement and her doctors. Can you point to any statements she made where she didn't express her gender as female? Certainly nothing since she said she was female in 2010. You don't think she magically changed overnight or that this change in her gender happened when her lawyer read the statement, do you? Are you telling us that Morwen and David didn't believe she was female until the press release? Or that the WP article wasn't harmful until then? The truth is this has been known for over a year without any BLP issues. The real tragedy is that she was the most vulnerable in 2010 when she threatened to shoot herself in the chat log over it and you're defending the position that it was really only an issue after the Today show announcement. If it was a BLP issue and "harmful", it's been one for a while. But in fact it's not and it's farfetched to argue that persons so knowledgeable wouldn't have made the BLP argument just as strongly a year ago when the chat logs came out and mentioned suicide a la Lucy Meadows. Sorry, it doesn't hold any water to claim it only when it's expedient to explain activist agenda's couched in policy. This move had nothing to do with protecting Chelsea Manning from a BLP violation. --DHeyward (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

DHeyward, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the BLP violation here. Naming the article Bradley Manning is not a BLP violation because Chelsea Manning's gender identity is female and therefore calling her Bradley Manning misgenders her. Rather, naming the article Bradley Manning is a BLP violation because Chelsea Manning has *announced* that her gender identity is female, and has made a public request to be called Chelsea. That announcement and request did not happen in the Lamo chat logs or in her conversations with her doctor: it happened via her lawyer, and it was the impetus for changing the article title. If there was a Wikipedia BLP that described someone as male, and privately the person understood themselves to be female, the article would nonetheless be BLP-compliant, until and unless the person requested to be referred to as female. The issue is that misgendering someone *contrary to their explicit request* is offensive and presumptuous and hurtful to the person being misgendered, because it pretends that somebody else knows better than they do what their gender identity is or should be. All this is clearly laid out in the detailed rationale Kirill links to above. Sue Gardner (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sue Gardner: This is getting a bit off-topic, but see this summarization of a statement from Manning's lawyer. -- tariqabjotu 20:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that Tariqabjotu, thanks; I read it at the time. It's silent on the article title though, so I'm not sure it adds any new/useful information to that discussion. Sue Gardner (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of change of article title by David Gerard

X) In order for David Gerard's change to the title of the article to meet the threshold for special protection set forth in the biography of living persons policy, it is necessary to establish that David removed material about a living person on the basis of a good-faith assertion of non-compliance, and that David was prepared to explain his rationale for doing so. With regard to David Gerard's action:

The word "Bradley" was present in the title before the change and was not present in the title after the change, and was therefore "removed".
The word "Bradley" is a name for the living person who is a subject of the article, and is therefore "material about a living person".
The edit summary associated with the change ("Reverting move per WP:BLP") is an assertion of non-compliance with the policy.
There is no credible evidence suggesting that the assertion of non-compliance was made in bad faith.
An explanation of rationale was ultimately provided (see #Rationale for change of article title by David Gerard).

When evaluated on the basis of these factors, the change made by David Gerard did comply with the criteria set forth in the biography of living persons policy, and was thus entitled to the special protection provided by that policy for such changes, particularly the requirement that consensus be obtained prior to restoring the material removed by the change.

Because of certain ambiguities in the biography of living persons policy (see #Ambiguity regarding explanations in BLP policy), it is unclear whether the special protection provided by the biography of living persons policy came into effect at the time the change was made, or five days later when the detailed explanation was provided. However, the protection was certainly in effect from the time that David provided his detailed explanation on August 27.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 21:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tariqabjotu: With regard to #3, I see nothing in the BLP policy that requires removal of material to be treated as an all-or-nothing exercise or automatically voids the protection given to such a removal because similar material may be present elsewhere in an article. Removing all mentions of a particular fact may be the only option when privacy or lack of sourcing are involved; but these are not the only elements of BLP that might call for content to be removed, and I can certainly imagine scenarios where having certain material in one part of an article would be a violation of the BLP policy while having it in another place would not. Kirill ^[talk] 00:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking through whether I would want to affirmatively ArbCom-endorse the article move from "Bradley" to "Chelsea", though I certainly wouldn't support sanctioning anyone for it. An unusual feature of this case that I'm not sure anyone has remarked on is that we are discussing material (the article name and the pronouns) that was compliant and that no one was challenging on Thursday, which as the result of a supervening event assertedly became non-compliant on Friday. That is not unpredecented for a BLP issue but it is relatively unusual. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to A Quest For Knowledge, my reference to "endorsement" was in the context that I see Kirill's proposal here as effectively endorsing David Gerard's action—at least in the first instance, if not necessarily as the final result. I was obviously not suggesting that this Committee determine what the article title and pronoun usage should be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my intent is not to endorse the substance of David's action; I do not intend to take a position on whether the particular claim he made regarding a perceived BLP violation was objectively correct. Rather, I wish to establish that, insofar as David followed the required procedure for taking the action as set forth by the BLP policy, the action was thereafter under the purview of the policy, and could be reversed only in the prescribed manner.

To use a different example, it's the difference between endorsing an administrator's arbitration enforcement action and stating that, as a consequence of having been labeled as arbitration enforcement, the action was entitled to certain procedural protections. Kirill ^[talk] 01:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that David explained why he thought using Bradley as a title would case enough harm that emergency actions under BLP were necessary (at least until he signed the joint statement); he, basically, said "Bradley violates MOS:IDENTITY and, since this is a BLP, it also violates BLP", which is definitely not enough: that's what at AFD would be called a WP:VAGUEWAVE.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I disagree. The special protection clause of BLP is a good idea, but "invoking BLP" is not a trump card; the person who does so needs to explain why he thinks that such an exceptional action is necessary to make sure that such protection clause is not invoked needlessly – which, in turn, would weaken the policy.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The change was made in good faith, but that doesn't mean it actually reflected any mandate in WP:BLP. The word "Bradley" was moved around and had its emphasis changed, but the change didn't meet any credible definition of "removed".—Kww(talk) 22:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. On Point 3, the name "Bradley Manning" still remained in the first sentence of the article and (as far as I can tell) has never been removed from the article.

On Point 5... I'm not going to disagree explicitly, but I will say this debacle has raised an issue. As I've stated several times, I feel that David has a bit of an activist stance on this issue. Evidence suggests that he feels society must always call people (just transgender people?) by the name and gender they choose, that the former name and identity should effectively be expunged. Evidence suggests that he feels any position to the contrary is just wrong. I'm sure some are going to disagree with that assessment, but at least pretend for the sake of argument that it's correct.

Moving the article on Wikipedia -- a very prominent website -- and protecting it that way (as well as instantly switching all pronouns, etc.) is a good way to promote this belief; indeed we see that Wikipedia's move was picked up by several media organizations. This is not much different from GLAAD or other organizations (or outraged readers) pressuring The New York Times or the AP or NPR to change their stances. I am under no impression that there is anything malicious or bad faith in any of those organizations or individuals promoting that particular stance, and it is arguably admirable to be promoting something on behalf of a tiny minority. (Hence, why I'm not explicitly objecting to your fifth point.)

Such an activist stance, though, as far as I could tell, wouldn't stand on any other type of article. However, when it comes to biographies of living persons, there's a grey area. Because one is permitted to invoke BLP in a situation where they would otherwise be considered to be involved or wheel-warring or edit-warring or violating any of Wikipedia's cardinal sins, having this activist stance or any other conflict of interest -- which inherently includes the idea that the opposing view is absolutely wrong and harmful in some way -- is widely considered to be okay. I could be Michelle Obama, but I could still invoke BLP on the Barack Obama article (now what if I were Barack himself?). That's almost too much power.

If we break BLP violations down to more objective basics (e.g. removing unsourced material -- something, which, of course, the Bradley Manning name is not), we may not have a problem. But if we expand the scope of BLP violations, as one might wont to do, we run into problems. David is certainly not the most flagrant example, as I can point to other people named during this dispute who have shown an unbelievable gusto one way or the other. One said of the "no consensus" decision, Referring to a transgender person by their birth name is hate speech. This close embraced hate speech. Another said Only when his testicles are ripped out of his scrotum and replaced with synthetic ovaries and has his sex changed from "male" to "female" will I call Manning a "she". And, yet, under the common exemptions BLP provides, these individuals would be permitted to perform admin actions invoking BLP? Yeah, I have an issue with that. Somewhere we need clarity on these invocations, or else we'd be permitting activism to dictate biographies of living persons. -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad:Re:"An unusual feature of this case that I'm not sure anyone has remarked on is that we are discussing material (the article name and the pronouns) that was compliant and that no one was challenging on Thursday, which as the result of a supervening event assertedly became non-compliant on Friday" That's a key part of this, and might even warrant a principle: such concerns are nearly by definition out of scope for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia isn't expected to react in a real-time, even an on-line crowd-sourced encyclopedia. If the material was well-sourced, factual, and neutral on Thursday, it can't be a BLP violation on Friday. Despite protestations in other comments, encyclopedias are all about eventualism and trailing sources, not leading them.—Kww(talk) 01:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite protestations"? I think you mean "despite the clear wording of WP:BLP in the particular case of a biography of a living person" - David Gerard (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's for unsourced and poorly sourced material, David: that doesn't apply here. At the time you made the change, "Bradley" was better sourced than "Chelsea". That changed, certainly, but we have to evaluate your actions in terms of sourcing at the time of the change.—Kww(talk) 15:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added #Encyclopedias follow sources, and respond slowly to changes as a proposed principle.—Kww(talk) 17:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine other scenarios where events would make articles non-WP:BLP-compliant. For example, a criminal conviction being overturned; or the discrediting of sources previously considered to be reliable. Certainly WP:BLP can't make it anyone in particular's responsibility to do a rewrite, but it could be cited for a stubbifying an article that was previously considered OK. Morwen (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Negative" or "unsourced" are notably missing in the proposal for justification. Neither has been established. If we presume being named "Bradley" at birth is harmful (other persons from NewYork named "Brad", notably excluded from this "harm" analysis - though you may wish to have a chat with mom and dad if ArbCom finds it to be harmful), it should have been removed everywhere. The article name cannot be found to be a BLP violation if the exact same expression is found in the article, is sourced and remains. This is like having an article titled Joe Shitforbrains Johnson that starts off the lead with Joe Johnson (Born: Joe Shitforbrains Johnson) only requires an article title change for BLP. really?? How would the title ever be a BLP violation if "Born: Joe Shitforbrains Johnson" is okay in the lead? This answer's NYB's question about "okay" one day, "not okay the next" and the answer is quit simple: it's an MOS issue, not a BLP issue. The only reason we are trying to stuff ten pounds of shit into a five pound box is because the five pound box provides good cover. Let's get over the BLP part and just say what it is: Editors and admins warred over an MOS issue. We don't have to sanction anyone. It seems these proposals are starting from the "How can we justify no sanctions? BLP!!! That's the ticket!" Titling and content for transgender subjects are no different than any other. It's mostly based on MOS and BLP's always consider the subject including sources, harm, etc. "Bradley Manning" will always be in the lead even if she hates the name (we can all thank God/FSM she didn't change her last name too). "Chelsea Manning" will also be in the lead. The article title will be whatever consensus says it will be and neither are BLP violations. Meanwhile, MOS discussions about transgender topics will likely continue. Any findings regarding BLP in this ArbCom would be unduly restrictive on the communities ability to generate content that reflects what will most likely be an evolving area of social justice and perception. There are simply no BLP violations, just an in-flux MOS that is a reflection of society. It may be unfortunate that society has not yet worked through all of the transgender issues with respect to how transgender persons are perceived and treated but that is not going to be solved by ArbCom and the complexity of all the other issues surrounding Manning makes this a poor case to set precedent. --DHeyward (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would agree with everything you said until you reach your conclusion. Personally, I fully support the title being at Chelsea Manning, but "being right" is not sufficient. BLP was cited without even a hint of an explanation. Any time a contentious change or administrative action is performed there is an expectation that a satisfactory explanation is offered to justify it. For administrators using administrative tools, such as move-protection or making a contentious move through said protection, it is even more important for such an explanation to be provided. Simply citing BLP is not sufficient and making unexplained BLP reverts an automatic edit block enables stone-walling of the consensus-building process. Failing to satisfactorily explain one's actions only serves to fuel a contentious dispute.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"without even a hint of an explanation" At this stage in the proceedings, this constitutes a direct lie - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are suggesting, but it is beyond ArbCom's remit to make content decisions. ArbCom's remit is over conduct issues such as edit-warring, personal attacks, etc. I suggest that ArbCom not overstep its authority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Excuse me? I'm very sure that I used words with more than one syllable. Perhaps you might like to rephrase your last comment into something less less insulting? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are probably just talking past each other; I've deleted that sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

with

Newyorkbrad and Newyorkbrad: As I mentioned on the RFAR (statement now buried in one of the talk pages), I would like the committee to address the possibility of stable and well-sourced articles becoming BLP-noncompliant due to external events. DPRoberts534 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KWW, Why is Wikipedia taking the lead in things? We aren't a news-source right? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant to this finding. It is a valid argument in a discussion about whether the article title should be "Bradley" or "Chelsea" but it is irrelevant to whether David had a good faith belief that "Bradley" was a BLP violation, whatever the subsequent consensus about it was. Thryduulf (talk)

No, Thryduulf, but it is relevant to the argument that Gerard was rushing and used such poor judgement in asserting BLP that his actions deserved no protection under BLP. His assertion of BLP protection isn't credible: no harm was being done by Wikipedia not being the first site to recognize the change.—Kww(talk) 01:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All BLP actions taken in good faith get BLP protection, regardless of how credible you think they are (if they were not credible then the RfC would have been snow closed in favour of Bradley). David had a good faith belief that titling the article "Bradley Manning" was a BLP violation, therefore it was a BLP violation to title the article "Bradley Manning" until consensus concluded that it wasn't. Anything else risks harming Wikipedia and/or the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the instant in time, Thryduulf. Throw all subsequent events out of your consideration. At the instant in time that Gerard determined this was a BLP problem, his assertion was roughly "it is harmful for Wikipedia to title this article 'Bradley' when no other news provider or encyclopedia in the world refers to this person as anything but 'Bradley'". That's not a credible assertion. Did issues that needed to be considered in light of BLP come up later? Certainly: as more and more sources switched to "Chelsea", the assertion that using "Bradley" was harmful became more and more credible. At the instant that David made the assertion, it was not.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. And you based your close on the conditions of the instant he made the change, i.e. a week before the time you were closing it. And saw fit to lock Wikipedia into considering that instant and that instant alone for a further thirty days, committing the project to thirty-seven days in which it could not consider any of the BLP issues that came up as more and more sources switched to Chelsea. How is that a good idea? Surely the nature of BLP means that effectively entombing an article in amber for thirty-seven days is a bad move. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mistake "credible" with "accurate", "persuasive", or "in accordance with consensus." The question here is whether Gerard's actions deserved protection under the BLP policy as a good faith and reasonable use of the policy, which is wholly different from the RFC close. I view Gerard's actions as poor judgement: undeserving of censure, but equally undeserving of special deference based on a BLP claim.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this finding. Simply saying that David Gerard acted in accordance with policy based on a good-faith belief is not a content finding any more than Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping#Current name is/was. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: re "Vague wave". Any explicit invocation of BLP is sufficient, regardless of the level of detail that accompanies it, to invoke the special protection of the BLP policy. If it turns out it was specious or in bad faith (neither true in this case) then consensus will quickly determine that and the action will be quickly reversed according to that consensus. We must assume that every invocation of BLP is correct until there is a consensus it wasn't, every other course of action renders the policy pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: of course they should explain their actions (as David did), but saying they must is just a license to wheel war and potentially reintroduces BLP violating material into the article ("WP:BLP, MOS:IDENTITY" is an explanation, but some editors here refuse to believe this). The only way to avoid this wheel warring is to declare that only consensus can determine what is or is not an explanation, the only difference in practical terms between that and saying that no action can be overturned without consensus is that with the former you need to agree (a) whether a sufficient explanation was given, and (b) whether including the information is a BLP violation or not; with the latter you only need to agree on (b). Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: By definition. those who disagree that the policy applies are never going to find any explanation adequate for the policy to apply. Here, more than several found the explanation adequate by reading the policy and reading the subject's request about who she is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, Morwen, and others' use of Twitter and other Internet forums to canvass for help in keeping the article titled a certain way and for similar advocacy cast doubt on the assertion that Gerard's sole motivation to move the article was because of BLP issues. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: It's a matter of context: noting that a person was born with a name which is now a bad term for that person is different from strongly implying it is a current, valid identifier for them. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move discussion

X) Following the change made by David Gerard to the title of the article, CaseyPenk (talk · contribs) [subsequently renamed to Resoru (talk · contribs)] opened a requested move discussion and proposed changing the title of the article back to "Bradley Manning" ([172]). This discussion continued for nine days, concluding on August 31.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As context. Kirill ^[talk] 03:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evaluation of consensus

X) On August 31, three administrators — BD2412 (talk · contribs), Kww (talk · contribs), and BOZ (talk · contribs) — evaluated the requested move discussion and determined that it had not reached a consensus ([173]). In subsequent statements, the administrators have reiterated the absence of any consensus ([174], [175]).

As BD2412, Kww, and BOZ are all veteran administrators with significant experience in evaluating discussions, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of their determination that no consensus existed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 03:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Please read what they wrote, which is this: "The discussion following the move request provided a clear absence of consensus for the page to be moved from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning". That's not the same thing as "There is no consensus as to the proper page title" - it means "There was no consensus to rename the page at this moment in time."--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were a number of issues that the troika considered. The most significant of these were (a) whether or not the title Bradley Manning was a BLP violation; (b) whether or not the title Bradley Manning was contrary to MOS:IDENTITY; and (c) whether there was consensus to move the page to Chelsea Manning. Only the last of these did they say lacked consensus. --Tóraí (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is a misrepresentation of the issue. The admins determined "a clear absence of consensus for the page to be moved from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning"". The initial move was done without any discussion, and reverted and protected after it was reverted. This was the first discussion held to determine consensus for any of the moves. On absense of consensus, no moves should have taken place and the admins were right to see that the initial title stand. Them From Space 17:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change of article title by closing administrators

X) Having evaluated the requested move discussion and determined that no consensus had been reached, BD2412, Kww, and BOZ closed the discussion ([176]) and BD2412, acting on behalf of all three administrators, changed the title of the article from "Chelsea Manning" to "Bradley Manning" ([177]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 03:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of change of article title by closing administrators

X) In order to evaluate whether the closing administrators' change to the title of the article complied with the provisions of the biography of living persons policy, it is necessary to determine whether the change restored material about a living person which had previously been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion of non-compliance, and, if so, whether consensus was obtained prior to restoring the material. With regard to the closing administrators' action:

The word "Bradley" was not present in the title before the change and was present in the title after the change, and was therefore "restored".
The word "Bradley" is material about a living person which had previously been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion of non-compliance (see #Analysis of change of article title by David Gerard).
No consensus to restore the material had been identified (see #Evaluation of consensus).

When evaluated on the basis of these factors, the change made by the closing administrators did not comply with the criteria for restoration and was therefore a substantive violation of the biography of living persons policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 04:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: The BLP policy is very explicit in this regard: once something has been removed, a consensus is required to restore it. The logic you're proposing is the reverse of that: something that has been removed gets restored unless there's a consensus to keep it out. That's simply not how the policy is written. Kirill ^[talk] 05:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. These findings conflate two different aspects of the admin panel's closure. To say that there was no consensus to move the page back (but also no consensus not to move the page back) does not mean that there was no consensus that the use of Bradley was not a BLP violation. The admin panel indirectly concluded that it was not when they maintained that WP:BLP is applicable to article titles [...]; however, BLP does not require having "Chelsea Manning" as the title. It is not a BLP violation to maintain the title at "Bradley Manning" so long as the prior use of this name by the subject is public knowledge and can be found in reliable sources. Furthermore, the application of BLP to avoid harming the subject is mitigated by the subject's own acknowledgment that "Bradley Manning" will continue to be used in various fora, and by the fact that the name, "Bradley Manning", will inevitably appear prominently in the article lede. Therefore, BLP is not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, "Chelsea Manning". Admins have historically been granted the necessary discretion when closing RFCs and this conclusion, in my opinion, was not unreasonable and neither was it an abuse of said discretion. This finding, in my opinion, is way too close to a ruling on content.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 16:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ananiujitha: technically, I'm quoting from the statement made by the panel that closed the move discussion and, to be entirely honest, I don't know how I would have closed that discussion, had I been one of the volunteers; all I can say is that this closure does not strike me as capricious or unreasonable and, so, as far as I'm concerned, ArbCom has no business commenting on it or modifying it. Also, as we've already discussed, if the majority of reliable, secondary sources did indeed refer to Manning as Bradley, that would necessarily be the article title. Finally, BLP does not cover harm that may be caused to people who are not the article subject or their close relatives. What I'm about to say sounds callous and I'm sorry, but this need to be said: the harm which may be caused to other transgender people does not come into play when the title of an article is discussed.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 19:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

You can't have it both ways: there's no consensus that "Bradley" violated BLP at the time. If we had found that "Bradley" violated BLP in any way, we would have been compelled by policy to find that consensus was in favor of "Chelsea". Weight of argument would have forced our hand. SInce there wasn't, we moved it to the stable position.—Kww(talk) 05:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill: First, you are stretching the definition of "remove" beyond reason. Second, there was a finding that BLP did not mandate the move: that's a subfinding of our finding of "no consensus". Third, as you will see in discussions below, the notion that the protection afforded a BLP action can survive a formal finding that there is no consensus in favor of the action is yet another expansion of the power that BLP claims already get. To claim that any dubious action is locked in stone forever when the community doesn't agree that BLP applies to the action is enhancing an already dangerous policy beyond reason.—Kww(talk) 06:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a sensible distinction to be made between "remove all mention of Chelsea's former name" and "declare that the subject of this article is named Bradley Manning," the latter of which is what titling the article tacitly does. I recognize that much text has been spilled suggesting that an article title is not, in fact, an assertion of what the name of the article subject is, but I suspect this subtlety is lost on anyone not deeply enmeshed in Wikipedia jargon. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This is proposal is in the vein of wiki lawyering and fails to understand the discussion that took place.

Let's re-cap what happened. The discussion had two parts: (1) an RM (treated as being Bradley Manning → Chelsea Manning); and (2) whether the title Bradley Manning was a BLP violation (the article was at Chelsea Manning in the mean time). Obviously, if the title Bradley Manning was a BLP violation then the article would have had to be moved (or in fact stay) at Chelsea Manning.

A troika of uninvolved administrators closed the discussion with (a) a consensus that the title Bradley Manning was not a BLP violation; and (b) that there was no consensus to move the article to Chelsea Manning. --RA (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill Lokshin:, I've added a proposed principle above that runs counter the conclusion of this analysis. I think this analysis is wiki-lawyer-ish. The proposed principle I've made above is based on the Five Pillars and I'd be interested to hear your response. --RA (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the assertion that material that is removed in good faith under BLP needs a consensus to restore it - that seems a sensible line to draw. Given this, the claim that the default is "Bradley Manning" would be an incorrect judgment on the part of the closers, and this finding is reasonable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill: Wikipedia:Consensus is clearly policy. Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus states very unequivocally:

In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

This rule is separate and distinct from another paragraph on the same page dealing with "discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles", which is the only paragraph to reference WP:BLP. Therefore, as a matter of policy, the default title in this case is "the long-standing article title", until there is a consensus to change it. Perhaps this policy needs to be changed, but as it stands, it was correctly applied.

Bear in mind that right now, there are over a dozen requested move discussions involving names of living persons - for example, this proposal to move Wesley Johnson (entertainer) to the subject's preferred name, Wesley "2Play" Johnson, and this proposal to move Maicon Sisenando to the subject's preferred mononym, Maicon. If this proposed finding were to be deemed correct, then any editor could declare the current name of any living person to be a BLP violation and unilaterally carry out any of these moves, and thereafter require a consensus in favor of moving the page back to the original name. Any editor could move Barack Obama to Barack Hussein Obama, declaring the current title to be a BLP violation based on the wording that the subject has used in taking oaths of office, and could force a finding of consensus to move it back. There is nothing set down in any policy that distinguishes the present case from any of these cases. If this sort of chaos is to be the policy of Wikipedia, then the above-quoted language from Wikipedia:Consensus needs to be changed to reflect that prior to such a finding being made, and not through an ex post facto interpretation. bd2412 T 12:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Way off the mark. In this discussion there needed to be consensus to change the article title to Chelsea, not the other way around. There was no consensus for the change, not the reversal. There was also no consensus that the title was a BLP violation. Them From Space 16:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio giuliano "Furthermore, the application of BLP to avoid harming the subject is mitigated by the subject's own acknowledgment that "Bradley Manning" will continue to be used in various fora" So are you saying that because other institutions, particularly the military legal system, are discriminating against and insulting Chelsea Manning, Wikipedia should join in insulting her? Because that's how your comment reads to me. While this may not rise to the level of harm to her, it is a gross denial of her dignity, and it has the potential to harm others. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors engaging in discriminatory speech

Discriminatory speech by IFreedom1212

X) During the course of the dispute, IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ([178], [179]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof and I JethroBT. Kirill ^[talk] 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During the past several weeks, IFreedom1212 has made crass comments while behaving as in effect a single-purpose account with respect to this controversy. As such, I can support a finding against him, though we might adjust the wording a bit per my comments on other proposals below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Cross-posted from above) General comment on the "discriminatory speech" proposals: Having thought about this for a couple of days, I've come to the conclusion that introducing the concept of "discriminatory speech" into the case makes the issues much more complex than they need to be. To reach a conclusion that "X engaged in discriminatory speech" requires us to engage in a two-step process: first, we have to agree on a definition of "discriminatory speech" (a difficult drafting task at best), and then we need to apply that definition to the specific comments that have been challenged. Even if we are able to agree on both the definition and the application, the results are then a series of findings that a number of users engaged in "discriminatory speech", which is an extremely harsh things for us to find, even in those instances when it would be a proper finding. While I agree that "discriminatory speech" would be a much better wording than the better-known phrase "hate speech" (a phrase whose use has never aided a Wikipedia discussion, compare here, on balance, if we want to make findings that User X made inappropriate or insensitive comments, or that a group of users did so, I think it would be better for us just to say that directly (and explain the reason for the findings, as warranted), rather than define and then apply a newly developed definition.

In addition to this observation, I may offer an alternative for this proposed set of findings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Because many of these findings are based on my evidence, I will make one general comment here, rather than repeat myself several times. I broadly agree with most of Newyorkbrad's comments, and believe that admonishments should suffice. Isolated examples of ignorance should be treated differently than consistent and knowing bigotry. My intent with presenting that evidence was to clearly demonstrate that the discussion was fatally compromised by an atmosphere of misunderstanding or overt hostility toward transgender people, and thus should not be considered as a fair expression of community consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I may add some more on this later, but for now I'll just make one general comment. I think it's obvious that there were a lot of comments made during the Manning article title debate that were problematic. They ran the gamut from ones that were thoughtless, added nothing useful, and cluttered up the page, but which otherwise probably didn't hurt the discussion ... to ones that were inflammatory or offensive to the point where they drove away editors who might otherwise have contributed usefully, debased the discourse overall, and actively hurt Wikipedia's ability to have a constructive discussion. I think it probably does make sense, in both findings and sanctions, to distinguish between the former and the latter, particularly because doing so would help editors in future similar situations gauge what's considered okay (even if not ideal, or not desirable) and what is unacceptable. Sue Gardner (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory speech by Cjarbo2

X) During the course of the dispute, Cjarbo2 (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ([180], [181]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof and Adam Cuerden. Kirill ^[talk] 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree. I note that Cjarbo2 called Manning "sick" in the first diff, but that was removed in the second. So taking the comment in its final form, I'm not sure what the problem is here. I don't see anything discriminatory with arguing that the article use pronouns that reflect the subject's biological state and consider that the subject was notable almost exclusively during the period where he was identified as male. -- tariqabjotu 17:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The evidence doesn't support this finding. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that the subject's transition is evidence that they are sick in the head seems pretty discriminatory to me. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, that was wrong and offensive, but Cjarbo2 removed the offending remark.[182] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation that her trans status is a "collective imagination of the radical left" remains. Straightforward discrimination. Chris Smowton (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straightforward discrimination against whom? The finding isn't that Cjarbo2 made abrasive remarks or inappropriate remarks or maligned left-leaning people; it's that he "engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity". -- tariqabjotu 19:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Against a trans person, or against trans people at large, depending on how you read it. Maligning the "left" isn't a problem, the thrust that trans-ness is made up by the left, or indeed by anybody, and is not a genuine situation is a problem. IOW Cjarbo conveys the sentiment that trans status does not deserve to be recognised, in this case or maybe in general. Chris Smowton (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we banned every editor on the left for criticizing the opinions of the right, and every editor on the right for criticizing the opinions of the left, we'd lose a sizable chunk of our editor base. There is no policy that forbids editors from disagreeing with one another. In fact, we have entire policies devoted to handling dispute resolution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course editors can disagree on matters of legitimate opinion, but the question here is where lies the boundary between legitimate opinion and hatespeech? I suspect we'll discover the committee's collective opinion on that matter soon. Chris Smowton (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "sick" comment was certainly tacky, but hardly discriminating, as are most of these "discrimination" claims added today. As a side note, one could reasonably equate GID with being "sick", though probably not in front of polite company.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory speech by Daniel32708

X) During the course of the dispute, Daniel32708 (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ([183]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof and Adam Cuerden. Kirill ^[talk] 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The evidence doesn't support this finding. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, comparing the subject's gender transition with someone's transition to being a dog seems pretty offensive to me - and it was unnecessary to make the point. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an analogy. What analogy would you consider acceptable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What analogy would you consider unacceptable? This one already comes off as mocking and dehumanizing. I don't want anyone to ban any point of view on Wikipedia, but I do wonder whether comments like that belong on Wikipedia, and especially on one of the target group's talk pages. There are worse comments by other writers off-Wikipedia, e.g. "All transsexuals **** women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact," "Frankensteinian madness of boundary violation," "exposing children," etc. and there seems to be some kind of hostility in any space. still, it's sad to see it in Wikipedia too. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is terrible here but the point is that it does not matter what name manning wants, if the majority of reliable sources say x then Wikipedia says x. this is an encyclopedia not an advocacy group. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the only, or the best, way to do an encyclopedia. If basic respect for some people is conditional, or is seen as advocacy, while basic respect for other people is just basic, I think we have a problem. Ananiujitha (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is where people define the wording of "basic respect" and how far it goes in one's favor. Even though sources are saying Manning is guilty of a crime do we use basic respect for Manning's feelings and call manning innocent? When you edit an encyclopedia you have to try as hard as you can to leave your personal feelings out of it. (WP:NPOV). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The part about "gay-lobby propaganda" seems a bit uninformed, given how much hostility towards trans people has come from within gay and lesbian communities. The part about "FACTS" seems equally uninformed, given how many people are intersex. If so, it would seem unfair to apply the same standards to an uninformed editor as to an informed one who chooses to make dehumanizing comments. Ananiujitha (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is ignorant to compare a life changing declaration (that ones gender identity has changed) to absurd examples like a human being saying they are a dog. A change in ones gender identity is a life-changing decision and it is not akin to declaring oneself a dog, something that is impossible and clearly meant to be either a joke or a symptom of psychosis.

As I've said elsewhere, comments like this seem to come from ignorance about transsexuality. I'm not sure whether they reach the threshold of discrimination. Nwjerseyliz (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory speech by Taylor Trescott

X) During the course of the dispute, Taylor Trescott (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ([184]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof. Kirill ^[talk] 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor stands accused of making an insensitively worded remark during the heat of a Wikipedia controversy. The way the comment was phrased could be hurtful to many, and as such was certainly not desirable. See also my comment during the Sexology case, here.

I am aware that the dispute concerning the article title and pronoun usage relating Bradley/Chelsea Manning has taken on deep importance—a deeper importance than I frankly had anticipated when the controversy first arose—both within and beyond Wikipedia.

Nonetheless, I do not believe that an arbitration finding against this editor is warranted based upon this comment. While this case and the underlying dispute raises a series of important issues, for Chelsea/Bradley Manning those are at this time largely symbolic issues. That is not meant to denigrate the importance of the issues for Manning, for the trans community, or for the rest of the world. Symbols can themselves be of critical importance, particularly when what they symbolize is the liberation of a previously marginalized group of people. But still we should not lose sight of the fact that for Bradley/Chelsea Manning, how this Wikipedia article is titled is likely to have little direct effect on Manning's well-being.

By contrast, what is being proposed here is that this relatively new, relatively unknown editor, who edits in good faith primarily about movies and so far as I can tell has never before been involved in a wiki dispute, and who edits under his real name, should be publicly and solemnly branded as a bigot by the most prominent (arguably, the only) governance body on the most visited interactive website in the world, based on a single ill-considered choice of politically incorrect words in the heat of a controversy, the memory of which, but for this arbitration case, might already be fading. That to me in itself raises concerns about the dignity with which we treat one another, and I am deeply unwilling to join in such a finding. We too as Wikipedians and as arbitrators must be aware that what we write on Wikipedia can have substantial effects on the lives of the people we write about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: In re-reading my comments, I feel they may have come off more harshly than I intended toward the proposing arbitrator. It is worth mentioning here that Kirill is among our most sensitive editors with respect to BLP (see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff (which he wrote), Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes (ditto), and User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism) and is widely respected as such, and that is not affected by the fact that I disagree with some of his proposals in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree. Once again, I feel you need to be more judicious about what you call "discriminatory". -- tariqabjotu 17:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to Manning or her choice of gender. I was referring at how the move to Chelsea took place without any consensus. It's laughable that one statement from her was enough to convince several editors that moving an article would be met with no opposition. When I posted that comment, the article was being mangled by the editors trying to convince others that Chelsea was best, and others trying to say that Bradley was best, so I supported a move to Bradley as that was her common name at the time. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The evidence doesn't support this finding. We shouldn't be discouraging good faith discussions amongst equals. Are these supposed to be serious proposals? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of ambiguity here, as the editor could easily have been referring to the move and not the subject's identity. But calling the subject's transition "laughable" would indeed be highly discriminatory. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overstepping things here Krill, I see no evidence that the comment was made directly towards the subject identity. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad I think your comments are reasonable here but your assertion that this article is unlikely to directly affect her, should be tempered against the fact that her lawyer is updating her about media use and that it does seems to affect her well-being. "During our conversation, I informed Chelsea of the overwhelming support for her decision. I also told her about how most responsible media have elected to respect her wishes and refer to her by her new name. Chelsea was very happy to hear of these developments."[185] Maybe we can assume he wouldn't discuss any holdouts, then or in the future. __Elaqueate (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad:: fair enough if you oppose specifically sanctioning users for one-off comments, but I strongly urge you and the committee to give at least some guidance about where opinion ends and anti-trans hatespeech begins, as this workshop has made it clear there is an absolutely huge gulf between different editors' takes on that question. Chris Smowton (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, I do not think a finding that editors engaged in discriminatory speech is the same as calling those editors bigots: the latter describes a person and the former an action. Also, +1 to Chris Smowton's request for clarity about where opinion ends and hate speech begins. Also +1 to Elaqueate's request to consider harm. Part of the problem with this dispute has been that the potential for harm has been utterly discounted, in my view wrongly. Editors have argued that because they believe it is unlikely that Chelsea Manning would be harmed by the article title, or because they believe the harm (if it occurred) would be small, then therefore the issue of harm should be completely set aside --- and indeed that is what has happened. I disagree. I don't think that the Wikipedia article title by itself is likely to be seriously damaging to Chelsea Manning (although I also am not sure, and in the absence of certitude I'd bias towards caution), but I do believe, based on the chat logs and my understanding of gender identity disorder, that a pattern of being publicly misgendered including by Wikipedia could in fact be seriously damaging to her, and so I think dismissing the issue of harm is an error. (I'll note also that although it's tangential to this specific discussion, this is I believe the most compelling argument for naming the article Chelsea Manning. Given that there has been no consensus that policy requires use of Bradley Manning for the title, it seems to me that the obvious thing to do therefore is to take the article subject's wishes into account, precisely in order to avoid avoidable harm. Why not?) Sue Gardner (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such silly phrasing on the topic of that example shows immaturity and a lack of understanding on issues of gender identity. I am less sure that it indicates discriminatory language. If there was more than one isolated remark, I think that argument would be more convincing. Nwjerseyliz (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory speech by ColonelHenry

X) During the course of the dispute, ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ([186]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof. Kirill ^[talk] 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think a finding is necessary based upon this isolated comment in the heat of the controversy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree. Soapboxing seems to be the bigger issue in this comment. I feel such a small part of this could be reasonably perceived as discriminatory ("one-day circus freak show") that it would be problematic if ArbCom broadly said this was discriminatory. -- tariqabjotu 17:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Personally I'd call this brusque without crossing the line. Chris Smowton (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory speech by Scottywong

X) During the course of the dispute, Scottywong (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ([187]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof. Kirill ^[talk] 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments up and down this set of findings stand, including my reluctance to make findings based on single comments in the heat of a controversy, but I am not happy about the number of editors who resorted to animal analogies. Individually and cumulatively, these significantly degraded the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This proposal is based on the confused notion that since I use the word "dog" in my comments, clearly I'm implying that transgendered people are dogs, or that transgendered people exist at the same biological/evolutionary level as dogs, or that they are as dumb as dogs, or some other ridiculous assertion involving dogs. If you actually read my comments without a biased viewpoint, you'll realize that my comments were only intended to be a thought exercise regarding how we're considering making massive changes to an article (including changing its title and all of its pronouns) based on a single announcement made by the subject of the article. This seems to give quite a bit of power to the subject of the article, and potentially creates a slippery slope. How would we deal with more difficult announcements by the subject of a BLP article? What if the subject of a BLP article announced his intention to declare the opposite gender identity every morning at 8:00am. On Mondays he's male, and on Tuesday's he's female, etc. Would we be transphobic if we didn't immediately agree to change the pronouns every morning? Along the same lines, what if the subject of a BLP declared themselves to no longer be human (i.e. a dog)? These are the kinds of thought experiments I was promoting with my comments. I was not comparing transgendered people to dogs, or suggesting that they are sub-human in any way. My comments were arguably insensitive, but nowhere near discriminatory, and I find this proposal ridiculous. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 14:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The evidence doesn't support this finding. We should not be discouraging dispute resolution among editors. Again, is this a serious proposal? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly just insensitive, but the last sentence crosses the line IMHO. Chris Smowton (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But in those "thought exercise", you are comparing a life changing declaration (that ones gender identity has changed) to absurd examples like a human being saying they are a dog. That is like saying that the decision to have a baby is similar to adopting a puppy...parents would clearly object to their baby being compared to a puppy.

And by saying that this is a "slippery slope" means that a change in ones gender identity (a life-changing decision) is akin to declaring oneself a dog, something that is impossible and clearly meant to be either a joke or a symptom of psychosis. There is absolutely nothing that connects these two (or your other gender-by-day) examples so there is not slippery slope from one to the other.

That said, comments like this seem to come from ignorance about transsexuality. I'm not sure whether they reach the threshold of discrimination. Nwjerseyliz (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nwjerseyliz: The point is that we are basing massive changes to an article on a simple declaration by an individual about their subjective feelings. Who's to say that there aren't people out there who truly feel that they are not human? To call the dog example "absurd" could be grossly insulting to such people. Since we're basing everything on a simple declaration by an individual, what is the fundamental difference between someone who is biologically male who sincerely declares "I identify as a woman" and someone who is biologically human who sincerely declares "I identify as a dog"? Why must we honor one over the other? Why is one absurd and the other not? Just because one is more popular/mainstream/accepted/likely than the other? All we're talking about here is subjective feelings. There is no scientific test that can determine someone's gender identity, just as there is no scientific test that can determine someone's "species identity".

So, my point with the dog analogy is not to compare transgender people to dogs, nor is it to in any way disrespect anyone's gender choices. My point is to question the criteria by which Wikipedia editors decide which pronouns to use in a biographical article. If the decision is to base it on a simple declaration of someone's subjective, internal feelings, well then my opinion is that that is a slippery slope. No other editorial decisions as major as pronouns are based on something as flimsy as a self-declaration of a subjective feeling. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An admission of guilt in a serious crime could be viewed as a flimsy self-declaration, also all oaths, all admissions of sexual identity, and all religious identifications. All flimsy self-declarations that are treated seriously and with immediate and severe consequences beyond polite use of a different pronoun. And there is a medical consensus that the feeling of gender is more than subjective. Is your gender something that you just decided on today? Is it a choice you keep making the same way daily? Would you, on a whim, tell people at a place of your employment that you were the opposite gender consistently for a week? For the remainder of your life? __Elaqueate (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally probably wouldn't do that, but if I did, does that mean that my Wikipedia article (assuming I had one) should immediately change pronouns? I'm sure you'll agree that changing all of the pronouns in an article is quite a bit more jarring than changing someone's religious affiliation in an infobox, especially when you're using the pronoun "she" in conjunction with a picture of someone who is clearly biologically male. I'm not saying that it's necessarily wrong, I'm just saying that it is jarring and potentially confusing to the reader.

You're asking me if you did something that you say you wouldn't do, should you be treated as if you were the type of person who did that kind of thing? Yes, if you were the kind of person who would do that kind of thing. That's kind of the point here. You're not the kind of person who would do that. That is probably why people use the same pronouns for you consistently. You're also probably not the kind of person who would lie about their preferred name to friends, as people rarely do that, so when you self-reported your name, your friends generally went along with it, without needing your paperwork. You could be playing a big hoax on all of them, but that is statistically unlikely, isn't it? If you told them you wanted to change your name, and the greater circumstances made it unlikely you were joking, then you could rely on most of them changing how they addressed you. When people announce that their gender identity is different than their biological sex, and in terms and setting that suggest they are not joking, that is not an announcement with no context, in a vacuum somewhere. In the societies we live in, where people are risking their entire social support and risking what happens to trans people, it is more like an oath than an off-the-cuff statement that can be taken back at will. You understand that the same words can be taken more seriously in some contexts than in others, I hope. We are judging the context here, not the fact that a person can say words anytime. You talk about confusion to the reader. Well, that's learning things. The Peloponnesian War isn't immediately understandable either. If we write things explaining actual context, we educate. If we write based on oversimplification of a nuanced and actually complicated world, we're just lying to make the reader comfortable. __Elaqueate (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the medical consensus is that gender identity is "more than subjective", that implies that it is objective. Things that are objective are testable. If gender identity were objective, then there would be a method that could be used to reliably determine someone's gender identity that doesn't involve the person telling someone what their gender identity is. Wikipedia defines objectivity as something that exists "freely or independently from a mind (from the thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject)". There is no such test (that I know of) that can determine the gender identity of a person without requiring a self-identification from the subject. Therefore, gender identity is subjective. There may be some genetic conditions under which someone might be expected to have a greater chance of identifying as a transgendered person, but that doesn't make gender identity objectively testable. If I get a DNA test that shows I'm at an elevated risk to get cancer, that doesn't mean that I have cancer (or that I'll ever get cancer). In the end, someone's gender identity exists only in someone's mind, even if there are other external factors that might increase the probability of their gender identity not matching their biological sex. If you walk into a morgue and someone pulls out a random dead body, there is no way for you to reliably determine what that person's gender identity was when they were alive. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 23:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Objective reality is not dependent on whether humans currently have a test for it. Just because we gather evidence based on self-reporting doesn't mean that something objective isn't being reported. Dizziness, anxiety, depression are often only self-reported, but the fact of self-reporting doesn't speak to the amount any of those things are solely in the mind. You certainly wouldn't say the majority of hospitalization-level cases of depression were "just choices". If someone says they are gay, we generally accept that as reflecting a reality. The article currently asserts that Manning was an atheist as a child. There is no medical test for that. You can't tell all kinds of things we happily report about people from morgue evidence. Do you consider your gender identity more of a fixed thing or a subjective choice that's something you thought up? __Elaqueate (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not let Scotty's point get lost just because he used a really bad analogy. Let's take a more plausible one. Say that I decided to identify myself as "Welsh". That wouldn't be wholly unreasonable: my mother is part Welsh, my father was predominantly Welsh. Should I be able to get a hypothetical Wikipedia article to identify me as being Welsh? Probably not. People that wanted to honor that self-identification would have to overcome such reasonable objections as my Japanese birth, my holding a USA passport and citizenship, and that I have never been in Wales. It's probable that people would decide to include a sentence like "Williams describes himself as Welsh", but not much more. There are limits to self-identification, and it's reasonable to debate what those limits are.—Kww(talk) 20:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there were thousands of people who had made similar claims and had been tested, vetted, interviewed, and believed by medical community at large, and if I knew you were risking social standing, a good chance of physical retribution up to and including murder, the good graces of your entire social support group, then I would take your claim more seriously if it contained none of these factors. If your metaphor contains no consequence equivalent to what actual trans people face or if your metaphor contains no chance of a successful transition such as trans people have repeatedly achieved and been recognized to achieve, then it is an uneven metaphor that does not advance our understanding of this specific type of "self-identification". A comparison has to be roughly equivalent to be respectful. If someone says they signed up for the army, you can't say you know what they feel like because you signed up for HBO, or you signed up for a fictional trip to Mars. __Elaqueate (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is relevant to setting criteria as to when self-identification will be accepted, and none of which makes a debate over any particular instance of self-identification unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 22:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but these metaphors don't address that debate. It is not disproving whether a particular instance of self-identification is acceptable, when people only and exclusively compare it to a variety of situations where it is not acceptable. For example, I'm not proving that "Horses can't run" if I only list some examples of things that can't run. That just proves a point no one is arguing, that "sometimes things can't run." It doesn't prove the compared things are alike. You aren't proving "women" are the same kind of thing as "the Welsh" by comparing them. The metaphors used here only prove "Sometimes self-identification isn't enough in this world." Great, no one is arguing this isn't the case. This only becomes non-helpful at the point where someone then asserts these metaphors offer enough evidence that this specific category of self-expression isn't adequate. Do you see the problem here? The metaphors are problematic because there is an implication that the things compared are equivalent enough, with no assertion or argument about how they are the same, or because someone is trying to pass off a different non-contested point as if it is the point of the debate itself. __Elaqueate (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elaqueate, I believe the overall point is that some people don't believe that self-identification alone is enough to require an immediate change of title and pronouns in a BLP, and taking that position is not necessarily discriminatory. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 23:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"some people don't believe that self-identification alone is enough..." Nobody thinks self-identification alone is enough. Please include me in that; I need to know that the context is one where the person's not joking. But usually when someone announces they are trans in a public and conspicuous way, it is not an abstracted self-identification without any context. When someone makes an oath, they are not "just saying certain words". The argument that a person publicly admitting an incongruous gender identity is just self-identifying relies on the idea that 1. People generally announce they are trans in a flippant, insincere, or unconsidered way, or 2. People are not knowingly facing major imminent and direct consequences of undeniable gravity from that announcement. I don't think all self-identification should be taken seriously, but this kind of self-identification happens in a context that makes it more credible than if it was abstracted speech. When people say things like "I quit" or "You're fired.", we believe them in context and they are "just someone saying something" that have force because of the context. It's not just the words, "I'm a woman" that have force, it's the words given in a context where they're not a joke. I haven't seen anything that convinces that this context wasn't serious, and in this case it wasn't even solely self-reported, it was reported through a media source that had an interest in vetting it to make sure their subject was making a sincere announcement. __Elaqueate (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory speech by DebashisM

X) During the course of the dispute, DebashisM (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ([188]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof. Kirill ^[talk] 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be making findings based on single posts during the heat of this controversy, unless perhaps they were truly extreme. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The evidence doesn't support this finding. We should not be discouraging dispute resolution among editors. Again, is this supposed to be a serious proposal? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I find this comment to be disrectful in tone towards Manning, I don't see that it qualifies as discrimitory speech against people with gender dysphoria. Stating that the name change issue might require a more complex analysis than simply going by Manning's own statement shouldn't be considerd discrimatory. I will note that Associated Press in their decision to change the name underlined that they had considered the seriosity of Manning's wish to be identified as a woman and in doing so considered more than just Manning's own statement; they write. "Manning’s case also does not involve a spur-of-the-moment change. An army psychiatrist testified at trial that Manning was diagnosed with gender-identity disorder in Iraq in 2010. On the basis of this testimony, the photograph of Manning as a woman and the private’s own signed statement, it seems clear that Manning’s new identity, including the name Chelsea, is a real thing to her." This is a kind of complex analysis that we typically leave to reliable sources as it would be original research for Wikipedians to do the same analysis. DebashisM's comment was made August 24 at a time that AP was still using Bradley/male pronouns, AP's statement that they after having considered the case would start to use Chelsea/female pronouns was made August 26. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory speech by WeldNeck

X) During the course of the dispute, WeldNeck (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ([189]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof. Kirill ^[talk] 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I do not think we should base arbitration findings on a single comment during the heat of a controversy, unless perhaps they are truly extreme. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The evidence doesn't support this finding. We should not be discouraging dispute resolution among editors. Again, is this supposed to be a serious proposal? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Is stating a fact really going to be considered discriminatory speech? Reality is that Chelsea Manning is a guy. Maybe he wishes he was a girl and wants to look like a girl, but he will never truly be one. All he can ever hope to achieve is becoming a convincing imitation of a girl. Saying someone is being discriminatory by stating the truth is absurd.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, that someone feels that a comment like that is just fine in an arbitration case about this precise issue suggests (a) you're never going to reach the people doing it (b) you're going to need some examples or something so that at least their comments can be struck or similar - David Gerard (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate....your comment is about as helpful as a sharp stick in the eye.--MONGO 02:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be said, because it is reality. That it upsets people is not surprising. Reality can often be upsetting. Do you believe we should tell people that it is no longer acceptable to state reality?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that your view is unequivocally "reality" is simply not supported by reliable sources - indeed, your view of human gender and sexuality is at odds with modern scientific understandings of human sexuality and gender, much less sexuality and gender throughout the known universe of living things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reality is not a matter of opinion nor determined by consensus. How a person feels does not change a person's genetic makeup nor does it change how that individual can reproduce. Not even SRS does that. A person noting that and nothing more is not discriminating against anyone or saying anything hateful. To suggest it is worthy of sanction is stifling legitimate positions on the issue and choosing sides, since anyone saying the opposite will be free to speak.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was, at one time, "reality" that the Sun revolved around the Earth. It was, at one time, "reality" that Pluto was a planet. It was, at one time, "reality" that two men could not marry one another. All three of those "realities" are no longer real. Your unequivocal statement of "reality" is equally subject to failure. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory speech by DHeyward

X) During the course of the dispute, DHeyward (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ([190]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof. Kirill ^[talk] 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was unhelpful to the tone and content of the discussion, as DHeyward has acknowledged below, but I do not believe it necessitates a finding in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

~~Agree~~. Agree in spirit of being hurtful, not definition of "discriminatory". I used a poor choice of words prior to the major news outlets acknowledging Chelsea Manning. I've stated many time after that Bradley Manning should be a dab with a link to "Chelsea Manning" bio and the other Manning related articles. In the larger scheme of things, I don't believe the name "Chelsea Manning" has achieved enough notability per WP:COMMONNAME nor do I believe we should rewrite the past with her current preferred name or female gender pronoun especially in articles outside her bio per the MOS on name changes. I always refer to Chelsea in the present tense using her current name and gender and the narrative present tense voice in her bio should reflect "Chelsea" with feminine gender terms. I explained this a few days ago on Sue Gardener's talk page. Using the term "exist" was insensitive and unintentionally hurtful. I apologize for it and to anyone that took it as invalidating her identity or invalidating transgender people in general. --DHeyward (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should qualify that I don't agree with either the definition of "discriminatory" given earlier or that what I said was discriminatory in nature. It was hurtful and insensitive. It did not, however, rise to what I would consider discriminatory speech, otherwise known as 'hate speech'. It did not incite any type of violence nor could it be interpreted as such. Without intent, the word discriminatory is an improper finding. --DHeyward (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

An admonishment as I see it is essentially a request that a named editor not repeat the offense. Otherwise it does not impede continued contributions to the subject matter in question...correct me if I am mistaken.--MONGO 11:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MONGO. An admonishment is a formal request that the the named editor do or not do the stated thing (depending on the wording), accompanied by a relevant finding of fact about what that editor has done or not done. Going forward it is really relevant only to future disputes and dispute resolution involving that editor. If editor A has been admonished not to make personal attacks about editor B, and a few months down the line there is a dispute involving editors A, B and C. If editor A has not made any personal attacks then the admonishment doesn't come into play other than as an example of editor A's behaviour improving. If editor A has made personal attacks against editor C then they have no really learned their lesson and can likely expect harsher sanction. If editor A has made personal attacks against editor B that is an arbitration enforcement matter and harsher sanction is significantly likely. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which part is the poor choice of words? "Exist"? Again, we should not be discouraging good faith discussions among equals or from editors from perusing dispute resolution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that the subject's chosen identity "does not exist" is the statement in question, I believe - and it is indeed discriminatory. Good on Dheyward for stepping forward and acknowledging that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a disagreement. We do not topic-ban editors for simply having a difference of opinion. We do topic-ban editors for edit-warring, personal attacks, tendentious editing, sock-puppetry, etc. I suggest that we confine ourselves to what is actually under ArbCom's remit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory speech by Tarc

X) During the course of the dispute, Tarc (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ([191], [192]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof. Kirill ^[talk] 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc: You really don't see how talking about putting lipstick on a pig when discussing a transgender individual might be considered derogatory? Kirill ^[talk] 13:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I fail to see how the offering of one's opinion qualifies as "discrimination", as nothing I said was vulgar, obscene, or harassing as a few of the diffs for others users are below. Just a straight-forward "I believe X, and do not believe in Y", and it has also been kinda ignored that my support of the article move back to "Bradley" was based on WP:COMMONNAME policy at the time. I have also said, several times, that if the article eventually moved to "Chelsea" following another discussion I wouldn't raise a finger of protest, as I actually respect consensus around here...one of the few that does, it seems, as many only support consensus when it goes their way. If I cannot even say what I said, neutrally and non-aggressively...just a simple statement of opinion, then going forward you need to propose a policy to mandate all transgender-related article renames are discussion-free. You're on the cusp of wiki-criminalizing one side of this debate, and if that's what you want to do, fine. But come out and say it. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be room for editors here to have opinions that go against some "consensus view" that may exist in the real world, in reliable sources etc. Such editors should be free to state their opinions, even if stating such opinions in public is often associated with discriminatory speech. It can actually help if editors with such views make clear what their personal opinion is. But they should be careful with the way they make their points. Then, if these personal perceptions cannot be backed up by relevant reliable sources, it should not lead to discussions that go on for a very long time.

In this case, if there were anything relevant about the possibility that transsexuality may not (always) be a real issue (which would require Tarc's view on transexuality to appear in reliable sources and sources that invoke that in Manning's case), then that would justify this being raised. Also, such a discussion based on reliable sources would then more focussed on editing constructively. In contrast, if one continues to raise personal views that are not supported by reliable sources, then that's almost a guarantee that bad arguments will be raised to defend one's position (if there are good arguments then these would have appeared in reliable sources). Quite apart from any OR issues for actually editing the articles, you are then at a risk of engaging in discriminatory speech even if you intent not to do so.

After all, a bad argument will in this case involve saying things about transexuals which are not true (in general), which is going to be perceived as discriminatory speech by the transexual editors here and many other editors who know about and care about this issue. Count Iblis (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does one have to cite reliable sources when expressing an opinion? Tarc (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to, but if there are no good sources then what you are saying is just your opinion that you (i.m.o. at least) should be able to present on talk pages. However, because it's then only your opnion, it doesn't carry much weight in discussions the content of articles, and therefore it should not play a prominent role in these discussions. What went wrong (not per se with your involvement, but more in general) is that these opinions did end up playing a prominent role which led to a bad atmosphere in the talk pages for the reasons I explained above. Count Iblis (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lipstick on a pig is a rhetorical expression, with roots into the 16th century, it is not a comparison of a person to a pig. Didn't we go through this faux outrage at the national level in 2008? Tarc (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair to say that this comment represents your opinion on the rest of your contribution? __Elaqueate (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better phrasing than "get stuffed" could have been chosen, but at the time I was rather piqued that GLAAD had actually stated that "gender-bending" is a discouraged term. There's a line between guarding against discriminatory speech and stifling anything that could ever possibly be conceived as causing offense. IMO, they crossed the line

And you didn't cross any lines, in your opinion? You don't see how claiming that a theoretical "heifer" is never going to be Marilyn Monroe is not going to be reasonably interpreted as a simple riff on a 16th century metaphor? And you were using that metaphor specifically to describe the claims of transgender people, right? If you say people are only upset about the specific words chosen, what was the simple opinion you were trying to express, without the metaphor? __Elaqueate (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe I did, no. I feel that people are intelligent enough to recognize and interpret a metaphor and to not fall back on a literal interpretation of words. Further, I contend that no one in this discussion ever actually thought I compared Manning to a pig, but they saw an easy context to exploit for gain in these discussions, which is exactly what Palin did in my link above to the '08 story. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you have not answered my question. What was the opinion you were trying to express with this metaphor? Once an intelligent editor unpacks your metaphor as you suggest, what was the simple idea were you trying to convey there? __Elaqueate (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, isn't that kinda obvious when one knows what lipstick on a pig means? Some feel that changing one's outward appearance does not change what they actually are at the core, i.e. a man who calls himself a woman is still male. Is that clear enough now? Tarc (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a woman who's had to spend her life pretending to be a man is still female, if not in the reproductive sense. We're always going to have trouble if and when we have to decide who people are inside, and can't simply follow who they say they are inside and assume good faith on their part. There are always going to be tough cases, as deciding between calling her Breanna and Bradley was, that was a long-running dispute elsewhere and apparently reached Wikipedia at some point, but following her most clearly stated identity is more workable than the alternatives. Ananiujitha (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't just saying they were physically male.... "This guy is "Bradley Manning", a man and a male, both sex and gender. Period." Is it possible to interpret this speech as being discriminatory to the claims of transgender people as a class, when it is being used here to influence the making of a decision? __Elaqueate (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence doesn't support this finding. We should not be discouraging good faith discussions among equals or from editors from following dispute resolution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ironic thing here is that once a new Rename/Move Discussion takes place, I plan to evaluate the situation anew. If at that time the preponderance of reliable sources are using "Chelsea Manning", and that is found to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, then I may just vote to support the rename. Beyond personal opinions here, the important thing is that we do things in this project according to policy. Not emotion, and not leading the way for other sources to follow, which is the antithesis of what an encyclopedia is. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory speech by Hitmonchan

X) During the course of the dispute, Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ([193]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof. Kirill ^[talk] 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this editor's comments were unnecessarily crass and offensive. While I'm still reluctant in general to support arbitration findings based on single postings, the diff that has been cited is not defensible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

None of these appear to be serious proposals. I've stopped reading them at this point. I suggest a clerk remove or collapse Kirill's proposals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the attached diffs AQFK? Hitmonchan said "Only when his testicles are ripped out of his scrotum and replaced with synthetic ovaries and has his sex changed from "male" to "female" will I call Manning a "she"". Please explain how that is not discriminatory speech? Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even I object to this one, as the words used were rather crass an unnecessarily provocative. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The language is unprofessional, or even crass as Tarc puts it, but we don't as far as I know, have any policy against crass language. The closest, as far as I know, is WP:CIVIL, but it would be quite a stretch to say that this was uncivil, especially when we let editors call each other "cunts". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"especially when we let editors call each other...". Is this strictly true? Where is this happening? And if you don't think that word is discriminatory, are you using that standard against the submissions here? __****

Discriminatory speech by Theofficeprankster

X) During the course of the dispute, Theofficeprankster (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ([194]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof. Kirill ^[talk] 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discriminatory speech by Dirac66

X) During the course of the dispute, Dirac66 (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ([195]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on evidence presented by Adam Cuerden. Kirill ^[talk] 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Sandifer: while it's true that insensitive (and, often, outright offensive) statements ended up poisoning the well, during the move discussion, you can't ignore that accusations of bigotry were problematic as well, especially when they were indiscriminately aimed at all those who were arguing in favour of using "Bradley Manning" as title. Both of these behaviours fostered a toxic environment which drove away reasonable editors on both sides of the disputes and created an "us vs. them" mentality. Statements such as [a]ll arguments for using "Bradley Manning" are transphobic are, in my opinion, incredibly inappropriate, because they betray a battleground mentality which makes calm discussion impossible (which doesn't mean that transphobic comments are ok and those who made them should not be called out on them).

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, we are a tertiary source, we report what's found in reliable, secondary sources. We don't make news and we don't shape reality; I'm sorry if this can be perceived as an attack on the trans community, but as many others have already said this is not the appropriate place for advocacy on trans issues. To ask us to consider [that the rename] might reasonably be perceived as one, whatever the internal procedural justifications is exactly the reason why we have WP:NOTADVOCACY.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 15:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree. I think you need to be more judicious with who you single out as engaging in discriminatory speech and I feel this doesn't reach that standard. While I'm sure some here would consider this 'discrimination', this kind of statement doesn't seem like the kind of remark that needs to be condemned. Linking gender to biology may be discounted in some circles, but I feel it's a point editors should be permitted to say, especially when (as it is here) it is mitigated by a statement that we should follow sources' choices. -- tariqabjotu 15:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking, I agree with all of the "discriminatory speech" findings, and would politely point out that many of those objecting have elsewhere argued against the idea that transphobic speech should be forbidden on Wikipedia, providing a rather large block of salt with which to take their objections. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate the broad and unsubstantiated suggestion that the opinions of those objecting should be ignored. Just state your position, and let others' speak for themselves. -- tariqabjotu 17:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm opposed to the broad definition of transphobic speech which has been evidently used and defended (by you) as encompassing any action that contradicts the POV of those making the accusation. Editors have called those in the "support" column transphobic, personally and widely to include a majority of comments that were not transphobic, and you've defended that accusation. If such a broad definition were applied to theophobia, you could be accused right now of making hateful comments towards religion. That is the absurdity we're dealing with here. You've set the bar for transphobia so low that anything that doesn't appease you is called transphobia. In what other context is that acceptable?--v/r - T P 17:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. And, Phil, your comments at BD2412's page after the RM discussion are indicative of that problem. It seemed to be inconceivable to you that the discussion could have achieved the no consensus conclusion, with the article moved back to Bradley Manning, without -- in your words -- "embracing hate speech as policy". -- tariqabjotu 17:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Pretty much. It's actually black and white. Either Wikipedia allows transphobic bigotry or it doesn't. I hope it doesn't. (Redacted) Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nothing else really needs to be said here; you've proven TParis's point. -- tariqabjotu 03:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Salvio, I think you fail to either understand or respect the seriousness of this issue. Misgendering and misnaming trans people is one of the most basic forms of discrimination against trans people, because it amounts to a flat-out rejection of their identity. It communicates the unequivocal message that "your identity is invalid." And it's not just an attack on the person being misnamed or misgendered - it's an attack on trans people as a whole, because it dismisses the basic validity of trans identities. It's incredibly, staggeringly harmful. That act - the denial that a trans person is, in fact, who they are - is the underlying justification for every single act of violence and prejudice against trans people. Which is not (obviously) to say that misgendering a trans person is the same as active physical violence against them. But it is to say that misgendering trans people actively perpetuates the idea that trans people are not who they say they are, which is the same idea that's used as the justification for when trans people are murdered, denied medical care, et cetera. Misgendering and misnaming dehumanizes trans people.

In that regard, misnamed article on a trans people is offensive in the same way and scope that the use of a racial slur as the standard term of reference for a racial group is offensive. In that regard, any argument for it is discriminatory and transphobic. I don't use either term to imply malicious intent. I am, in fact, sure most people who do not realize just how bad misnaming is do so out of innocent ignorance. Others do it out of well-meaning ideological positions. My ability to believe that good faith leads to horrific outcomes is vast, and there are only a handful of edits made in this dispute that I genuinely believe to have been made in bad faith. But nothing is gained by pretending that misnaming and misgendering is not as bigoted as it is. WP:BATTLEGROUND does not require us to treat issues with less seriousness than they have. The sixth largest website in the world actively and consciously engaging in hate speech is, in fact, terribly serious. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil isn't just making that up - there's been considerable reaction to this precise incident from trans commentators taking the article renaming as an attack on all trans people in the manner Phil describes. Given this, I urge the committee to consider it might reasonably be perceived as one, whatever the internal procedural justifications, and that may well be important and relevant - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also considerable outrage about certain disorders in both DSM-IV and DSM-5. However, they also are not an outlet that will discard their process and rules to settle for less outrage. Their goal is to diagnose and treat disorders that they have identified and they methodically go about doing it. Same is true for IPCC that has generated outrage in certain groups. Would you be as supportive of IPCC catering to people that deny Climate Change in conflict to their core principles and processes?. Catering to outrage that is not aligned to our principle put Wikipedia (and any other credible organization with core principles) in an untenable position and it doesn't matter whether an editor agrees with the outrage. We have processes and procedures to deal with content. Short-circuiting it doesn't ever help us. --DHeyward (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By your broad definition every single person that was in the entire conversation that didn't unequivicoly support renaming to Chelsea at that time is conducting hate speech is deeply offensive. I myself, while wanting to rename, could find no reason that could be couched in policy that would amount to more than the subject dislikes it. I have more than a couple of trans friends and while they are near and dear to my heart often times asked the same question they don't give me the same response on issue in the trans community when I ask questions (I tend to explore subjects I am ignorant of.) However according to what you wrote I deserve to be labeled as horrifically hateful of a community that I have friends in. I understand some of the community may agree with your statement but the majority of comments (aka the actual non transphobic ones) based arguments off of the reality that Chelsea wasn't the common name yet. Hell at the next page move discussion I expect many individuals will side with Chelsea as the common name (myself included) because all the news sources have indicated that they will use it as a the common name while discussing the subject. Unless they do a reversal of the policy in their own style manuals, even if the name by sheer hits is not more common, it will become so through time. Hell if the move had waited a week before immediately going off the deep end it would have had common name arguments in favor. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio - I would politely point out that the entire underlying principle of WP:BLP is the recognition that, as the sixth largest website in the world, we have tremendous influence on reality and that this comes with a moral responsibility. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

What I see in this user's comment is a personal opinion, an analogy, then a policy-based reason on why to name the article Bradley Manning. If Lokshin is finding fault with even this sort of thing, then I ask again if there is any argument that can be made to keep the article named "Bradley Manning" that is not considered transphobic or discriminatory? Tarc (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. None at all. Which, to be clear, is not a comment on anyone's intentions in opposing the name change. I'm sure those who oppose the name change believe they're doing so for the right reasons. But yes. All arguments for using "Bradley Manning" are transphobic for the simple reason that they are arguments for an inherently transphobic act, which is to publicly misname a trans person on the sixth largest website in the world. There's no way around that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a myopic view.Two kinds of pork (talk)<

Not really, no. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. "All arguments for using "Bradley Manning" are transphobic."Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Two kinds of pork: Ask yourself, do you truly believe continuing this subthread might end in Phil changing his perspective? If not, why bother? -- tariqabjotu 03:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no allusions that he will change his perspective. However this sort of comment he made is emblematic of someone with a conflict of interest, which is only fair to point out.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very strange thing to say, Two kinds of pork. On what basis are you saying Phil Sandifer has a COI? Sue Gardner (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this is my opinion, but I would think a reasonable person can surmise that Phil is putting his personal views at the front of the line. That is the very definiton of a conflict of interest.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, thanks Two kinds of pork. I thought you were using COI in the ordinary meaning of someone using their privileged position to advance their personal self-interest, but you are using it in the narrower Wikipedia policy meaning of someone putting their own goals ahead of those of the encyclopedia: I get it. I still disagree with you: I think Phil Sandifer believes Wikipedia is worse (less high-quality, less reputable, less accurate) if it misgenders someone, and I don't think he sees any conflict between his personal views and Wikipedia's goals. But I understand that you see it differently. Sue Gardner (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, as I have pointed out before,

The argument "WP:COMMONNAME specifies that the article should remain at Bradley Manning because a majority of reliable sources use that name" is not transphobic. It's a policy-based argument that does not attempt to cast aspersions on the article subject nor does it invoke personal opinions about transgender people.
The argument "Transgender people are mentally ill/not real/lipstick on a pig/has a penis/delusional" is transphobic. It's a non-policy-based argument that casts aspersions on the article subject and invokes personal opinions about transgender people.

There is a clear and unambiguous difference between the two classes of argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there's an ambiguity here caused by two subtly different uses of the word "transphobic." One is based on personal opinions, and thus cannot be taken as characterizing anything other than the person making the statement. The other, however, uses "transphobic" as the generally accepted term for "discriminatory against transgender people," and can be used in a wholly depersonalized way. For an analogy, consider versions of the common observation that the death penalty in America is racist. In this regard support for the death penalty can accurately and reasonably be described as a racist argument, but that in no way implies conscious racism on the part of any given death penalty supporter.

For my part, at least, I've consistently used "transphobic" in this latter sense, to describe any argument or action that results in material harm to trans people. Thus to my mind, both of your bullet points are examples of transphobia. But if you use the more restrictive definition, only the second one would be, yes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

X) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Parties engaging in discriminatory speech topic-banned

X) All parties found to have engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity in the course of this dispute are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 04:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This remedy is too indiscriminate (and, also, overkill), in particular wrt those who only made one offensive remark, especially considering the (IMHO) unreasonably loose definition of "discriminatory speech" which has been adopted in this case.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: It sounds very much like you are defending the act of discriminating itself. I suggest you instead rebut the notion that you have engaged in discrimination, which was presumably what you intended to do. AGK [•] 21:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Appropriate, though I would be careful to distinguish parties who made one-off comments out of ignorance from parties who consistently disparaged transgender people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I assume you're referring to all the editors you've listed above. It seems excessive to topic ban all of them, particularly when for some editors there's only one diff of evidence (and sometimes the evidence isn't even compelling, as noted in respective sections). -- tariqabjotu 05:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot support this proposal blind. I think some who engaged in discriminatory speech should be topic banned (or should have been topic banned). I also think some of those who engaged in hysterical accusation of "hate speech" and "transphobia" (both on and off wiki) should face similar sanctions. But without first knowing who will be "found to have engaged" in what activity, I cannot support a blanket proposal like this blind. Topic bans, I think, should be considered on a case-by-case, person-by-person basis. --RA (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you listed me as saying something "discriminatory", I cannot support it. I recognize now that it was hurtful but certainly not "discriminatory" in the manner proposed. It's apparent that by "discriminatory" you are implying that it is a euphemism for "hate speech." Everyone has discerned a difference in Chelsea Manning after her announcement and used their discriminatory ability to react to it whether it was Morwen and Josh or Tarc. A discriminating mind perceives changes much like a discriminating palette detects differences in wine. Whether it's preferential, deferential, non-preferential or non-deferential is where most of the speech lies. Reasonable people can have different but reasoned opinions. It seems rather odd to propose a remedy that is the exact same feeling often expressed by transgender people and coincidentally, the title of Julia Serano's new book Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive. Sounds like a topic ban is what she is fighting. --DHeyward (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I haven't refuted that what I said was hurtful. How can I? But, as you see where I was mentioned specifically, I did answer. I can only apologize for it and I have. I have also made it a priority to become more familiar with the issues, speech, positions and people in transgender groups/movements before participating here. I find hurtful speech as indefensible as "hate speech" so I am not going to defend it, but I've removed hurtful speech from my vocabulary as much as I am able. It was never intended to be a denial of her personhood, rather an expression of her notability (and notability going forward for the next 35 years - more as the policy that the U.S. Army stated for serving soldiers that are confined to the detention barracks - she is still enlisted in the Army as "Pvt. Bradley Manning" and confined to the detention barracks at Ft. Leavenworth. Her discharge doesn't commence until her detention is served. Again, the Army's identification isn't her identity). My statement was before major sources switched and it was before I was aware that particular wording was especially hurtful. So I cannot defend it as it was hurtful and I was called out for it. Was it hate speech or transphobic or discriminatory? I don't think so as it wasn't intended to be and most actions so ascribed are conditional on mens rea rather than strict liability. Once I became aware what particular terms offended people, I apologized and corrected my words to more closely express the idea without offense. I have not heard any complaints since it was listed on the evidence page. I don't think it should be used to shut me or others out of the conversation or articles any more than I think any other editors should be shut out. I still hold that the Bradley Manning page should be a dab to all the Manning related articles, with a "Chelsea Manning" article for the bio. If we are not going to do that, I believe our article titling policy requires Bradley Manning. It has nothing to do with her gender identity, though. --DHeyward (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Short version: I apologized for those that were offended and mistook it for denyiny her existence when Kirill first listed it as a finding of fact above [196]. I didn't understand the history of that language at the time and hurtful it is perceived. I explained it as to what I was thinking (notability in addition to 35 years confinement subject to the US Army conduct rules) when I wrote it. I've received no negative reactions since then. Kirill has nevertheless continued to press for a sanction despite getting feedback and giving none. He borrowed the evidence from an editor that I don't think supports a sanction based on his above comments. I chose to apologize for any offense or harm due to its rudeness rather than defend it. I only take issue with the characterization of my intent. My comment wasn't significantly different than this one [197]. Even though it was listed in evidence just as mine was, they weren't added or proposed for sanction. I am simply at a loss as to what exactly Kirill is accomplishing or asking for here. --DHeyward (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Did anyone actually engage in discriminatory speech? I know that you posted a bunch of findings the other day, but very few diffs were presented and of the ones I read, none of them actually supported the allegation. It seems to me that you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't appear to exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the diffs, there wasn't any "discriminatory hate speech" from any of these editors. Pointing out biological truths is not discriminatory hate speech. Manning's biological sex is a valid argument for how to name the article, as is his personal feelings and wishes. It is not fair and just to ban half the argument from the debate. Them From Space 17:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Took another look at the diffs. This one does appear to warrant a finding, but only due to the last sentence. Some others are tasteless, but still not hate speech. What's surprising is the amount of logical opinions being listed up above. For instance, pointing out that Private Manning was born a male and is still biologically a male is certainly relevant to the discussion of the article, and is in no way, shape, or form, discriminatory. Them From Space 18:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so that user in question said "He is a woman only in his own (sick) head", which I assume everyone here would agree was rather inappropriate. But since when does a single sentence culled from a single comment necessitate an immediate leap to an indef ban? The problem with pretty much all of Kiril's rhetoric so far is that the punishments do not fit the crime at all, as they are grossly disproportionate. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, obviously editors who make comments comparing transgendered people to dogs or similar offensive comments have nothing of value to add to such discussions, and should to be topic banned from transgender issues. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative decision vacated

X) The closing administrators' decision in the requested move discussion from "Chelsea Manning" to "Bradley Manning" is vacated due to the violation of the policy on biographies of living persons therein.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 04:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This remedy is dangerously close to a ruling on content: I disagree on the merits, but I believe this is outside of our remit anyway.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support this. I think their decision was well within their purview. I also think it's a content ruling and a very problematic interpretation of the BLP policy. Risker (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider this proposal a content ruling, and therefore unsupportable. AGK [•] 23:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Wow. -- tariqabjotu 05:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this - the close was deeply flawed on several points of policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree per here. The close was made by a troika of administrators with the conclusion that consensus was that the title Bradley Manning was not a BLP violation. Arguments (what there were) to the contrary didn't stand up. And since there was on consensus for the move to Chelsea Manning it was reverted to Bradley Manning. Consensus can change about locating the article at Chelsea Manning but we know now that having the article at Bradley Manning is not a BLP violation sp correction by DHeyward, revert if intended. --RA (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify for me - the outright declaration that the title is not a BLP violation. Is this declaration, in your mind, the consensus that emerged from the discussion? Or is it a ruling by three administrators? If the former, how did a discussion that was closed as no consensus and that had more or less balanced !votes on each side create such a clear consensus? If the latter, why does the arbcom not have the authority to declare that the closing administrators wrongly interpreted BLP in finding that the default title was "Bradley Manning" and not "Chelsea Manning?" (This being what Kirill's proposal above actually says - that a good faith BLP action requires consensus to revert, and thus that a no consensus close should not have changed the title to Bradley Manning. It does not actually rule that there was a BLP violation.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the close was in accordance with Wikipedia:Closing discussions and took in the entirety of the discussion. Any complex discussion is made up of facets. In this one, two major facts were (a) whether to move the article to Chelsea Manning; and (b) whether the title Bradley Manning was a BLP violation.

There was consensus that the title Bradley Manning was not a BLP violation (arguments to the contrary where very weak, stretched and in most cases not even substantiated). Reasons to move the page to Chelsea Manning were more substantive (e.g. her announcement and how this was being reflected in in sources) but so too were reasons not to move (e.g. wait for sources to definitely change). Ultimately, there was no consensus to move the page to Chelsea Manning.

There is a wiki-lawyer-ish argument that the content claimed to be a BLP violation cannot be restored without consensus to do so. I think that runs contrary to Wikipedia:Five pillars. I believe the troika made the sensible decision to revert the page move removed because it lacked consensus and the original title was not a BLP violation.

I've added a proposed principle on this above: #Restoring content boldly removed citing BLP. --RA (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is based on a false premise, the remedy is inapplicable.—Kww(talk) 17:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The finding begs the question. "There was no BLP violation, whence the administrators restored it's location based on No Consensus to move it." The analysis is extremely flawed that there is a BLP violation, the least of which is that the foundation didn't pop in and oversight it or blank it if the decision was incorrect. It's certainly not obvious or beyond debate. --20:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thryduulf,Charmlet: Yes, we did come to the conclusion that the title of "Bradley Manning" was not a BLP violation. We had to. In the end, the article had to go somewhere, despite the fact that the community was split on where it went. Part of our analysis was whether any policy or guideline could be legitimately held to prohibit or mandate either title, because if that were the case, our hands were tied: we 'd have to follow policy, and close the RM that way based on strength of argument. We certainly had to look to the community's arguments and weigh them in making that determination, but the determination had to be made. As it turned out we decided that no policy, including BLP, forced the decision and we wound up at the default location for no consensus for a contested move. If the community had chosen "Chelsea" that would have been fine. If it had chosen "Bradley", that also would have been fine. It chose neither.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Gorand, it would be nice if you stopped stating personal opinion as fact. The title is not a BLP violation: the majority of people participating did not believe it was, and the three admins evaluating the result came to the conclusion that the arguments of those claiming that it was a BLP violation were unpersuasive and could not overcome the numeric majority.

Now, if you want BLP to say that Wikipedia will swiftly and unfailingly title articles to match the preferences of the people involved, fine: go get a consensus to make the policy say that. It doesn't today.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP doesn't work that way. It is a policy containing general principles, not solutions to every eventuality (an approach most legal systems gave up centuries ago). The policy is subject to interpretation and reason, and its spirit matters more than its letter, as established by other policies. There can be no doubt as to how the policy, seen in the context of other relevant policy and guideline documents, is to be interpreted, as many editors (Sue Gardner, David Gerard and Morwen among others) have argued convincingly. The reason we have this arbitration case is because the original move discussion was seriously flawed, and its outcome, as pointed out by Kirill, based on a misunderstanding of policy. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, that isn't why we're here at all actually. The case was taken to investigate issues of possible administrator missteps and decorum/conduct issues of several editors. It was not filed to try to get Arbcom to reverse the move request, as that is absolutely outside of their authority to do. Kiril's proposal is, for lack of a better word, unconstitutional. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, I know that you wish that was true, but the administrators closing the RFC did not find Gerard, Morwen, and Gardner convincing, nor did the majority of participants in the discussion. Even editors that thought "Chelsea" was the better title didn't think having the title at "Bradley" was a BLP violation.

I disagree with Tarc on a lot of things regarding this discussion, but he's right on that point: the focus of this arbitration was supposed to be whether Gerard had abused his tools and to sort out whether something could be done about the transgender bashing and hysterical screams of transphobia that had polluted the discussion, not an effort to override the close.—Kww(talk) 14:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A BLP violation is decided by simple majority? I thought it was based purely on your idea that there was a negligible chance of harm to the subject. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very selective misreading: note the clause "the three admins evaluating the result came to the conclusion that the arguments of those claiming that it was a BLP violation were unpersuasive and could not overcome the numeric majority". —Kww(talk) 17:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree with this. There is no way that a discussion closed as "no consensus" can result in a consensus that there was or was not a BLP violation. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion would be the greatest abuse of ArbCom's power in its history. ArbCom does not rule on content, period. Them From Space 17:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf - the consensus was not on the BLP violation, the consensus was that there was no consensus for the move (now my brain hurts). ArbCom does not have the power to rule on this - and even such they cannot overturn the community consensus (there would be huge backlash) or lack of it in a content dispute. However, a recommendation on the consensus ArbCom sees on whether BLP applies, how it applies, and the consensus on the RM would be appropriate - as long as no action is taken. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 20:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charmlet, I'm sorry but I don't understand that comment - there are too many consensuses and no consensuses for me to follow. I know it is very difficult to write such statements clearly (I've failed several times in the past), but I can't give a meaningful response until I know what you mean. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I supported the move to "Chelsea" and disagree with the close but I can't support this. The problem with Bradley Manning is it insults Manning; it fails to take account of her dignity where we can do so without diminishing the article. However, WP:BLP doesn't expressly require us to take account of the dignity of subjects under those circumstances. It mentions the Foundation's wish that we should do so - as an observation regarding how another entity feels - but it isn't part of our policy. I believe the presence of that "footnote" allowed the closers to take it into account and I think they should have. But given its "Oh, by the way, the Foundation would prefer us to take account of our subjects' dignity. Meh." status, as a kind of unimportant afterthought, I don't feel the closers were obliged to take note of it.

So, given the present status of the subject's dignity in WP:BLP, the closers were open to find that WP:BLP did not apply (or that it did, if they chose to read the Foundation's resolution into our policy. We should change our BLP policy to unambiguously reflect the aims of the Foundation and normal humane behaviour. But let's not discuss that here.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin should be stripped of his Arbcom seat for this blatant power grab, this committee is not vested with the authority to dictate content. What a travesty. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sensible proposal by Kirill, because 1) the title does indeed violate BLP (either it does or it doesn't), and 2) BLP overrules whatever anyone says in a move discussion. Although not strictly necessary in regard to how we solve the title issue (because we will soon have a new RM), it will be a good thing to establish and reinforce how BLP is interpreted in regard to this matter (viz., article titles that promote the opinion that someone's identity/gender isn't real). Josh Gorand (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binding discussion on article title

X) The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on the title to be used for the article currently located at "Bradley Manning".

As with all decisions about content involving living persons, the policies on biographies of living persons, reliable sourcing, and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area.

The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for one year. The Arbitration Committee will announce the names of the three editors no later than one week following the close of the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on the motion authorizing the Jerusalem binding RFC. Kirill ^[talk] 04:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should recommend that the community hold a focussed discussion on the article title, but I do not agree we should make the result of the discussion binding. AGK [•] 21:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree. This would just prolong the dispute longer than necessary. Also, it seems odd that you above propose that the decision of a triumvirate be vacated, but then propose that a binding discussion be held and closed by... a triumvirate. More than three hundred people participated in the original move request; you're unlikely to get something better than that. If you think the admins' reversal of the move to Chelsea Manning violated BLP, it seems you've already decided the article can't be at Bradley Manning. While there are other options (like the roundly rejected Private Manning proposal), if that's how you feel, this proposed binding discussion -- or any further discussion about the title -- would be pointless. -- tariqabjotu 05:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not fond of the "binding for a year." I think that's an awfully long time for any aspect of an article about a currently newsworthy subject to be locked. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal fails to take into account the determination by the closing panel of administrators to allow initiation of a new move request thirty days after the close of the previous request. A large number of editors have worked commendably to put together Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request, which is slated to launch shortly, and is likely to succeed. There is no reason to interfere with this process at this point. bd2412 T 13:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are going to force the existence of a discussion that is already being prepared, but reserving the right to preselect the people that will close it? After you have predetermined the way that BLP will be applied? I think not.—Kww(talk) 17:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Even if WP:BLP were to apply to the title, it would still be edit-warring to move it to the rejected Chelsea Manning; it would have to moved to some neutral name such as Private Manning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How and where has "Chelsea Manning" been rejected? All we know is that an RfC resulted in approximately equal weighting of arguments for and against "Bradley Manning" being the title. Some of the people preferring the "Bradley" title indicated they would be happy with "Chelsea" as a second choice, some people indicated they would not be, but the majority did not indicate either way. I have not seen any good faith arguments made that titling the article "Chelsea Manning" would be a BLP violation (all the arguments against it have been for other reasons). Further, while the "Private Manning" name suggestion did not receive a great number of comments, a plurality of those it did receive were not in favour so it would not automatically be an acceptable title (the "Pvt Manning" and "Pte Manning" suggestions were clearly rejected iirc). Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. Let the upcoming move discussion take its course. In the event that that discussion settles on "Bradley" because not enough sources yet use "Chelsea", this proposal would lock in "Bradley" for a year, even if the preponderance of sources shift to "Chelsea" before the year has elapsed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

X) {text of proposed remedy}

So, by that, I'm not faulting him for the fact that his idea of what causes harm didn't gain consensus. No, I'm saying that a desire to conform to MOS:IDENTITY (as seemed to be David's stated position initially) was not sufficient to invoke BLP in admin actions. While Morwen and David articulated some potential harm in the Bradley title through their joint statement, it seems David -- given what he keeps pointing to as an adequate explanation -- felt a desire to conform to (his reading of) an MOS guideline was enough to permit a BLP protection. With all that, I'm not comfortable with the finding you proposed, my rewording, or any other that suggests the way David handled this was optimal. -- tariqabjotu 16:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Sue Gardner should know, but the document Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is divided into sections and subsections, each of them being referenced by a specific tag. Perhaps User:Sue Gardner could tell us what was the specific subsection according to whose understanding User:David Gerard was acting with? Pldx1 (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some kind of appeal to authority? Sue has already demonstrated that she lacks understanding of Wikipedia policies. David determines which section he acted on and the community determines if his actions with an accepted interpretation of that policy and/or if he was within reasonable interpretation.--v/r - T P 17:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: I think you misunderstood Pldx1; he asked for Sue's input on what part of BLP David "acted in accordance with" because she proposed this finding. -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I did, but my point still stands: Sue understands how to run a non-profit, she doesn't understand how the project itself works.--v/r - T P 00:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much editor commentary was ill-informed about the topic and added nothing to the discussion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is true. Whence blanking would have been a preferred BLP alternative as it says to do. A page move to a new name and article rewrite on prison sentence day or the day after is extremely shortsighted and obtuse to believe that it wouldn't generate a large response as it seems to imply that her gender announcement was more important or equally important to her sentence, pardon request, and other items to her biography that are interesting to the non-activist crowd. It had all the wisdom of holding a Klan rally on MLK day in the middle of the parade route. The discussion to change the article to "Breanna" more than a year ago had less heated opposition and comments and certainly not the noise level it got for this change. Why certain editors thought that Wikipedia should be first before nearly any of the sources on a high traffic day for "Bradley Manning" to say her new identity is the "most visible and important thing that happened" sounds a bit as if the goals of WP were not aligned with the goals of the editors. The rapid move turned what should have been a dignified and respectful change into a circus and that harmed everybody. --DHeyward (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it be noted that this actively drove people away from the discussion - and worse, from Wikipedia itself - as has been documented at length - thus skewing perceived consensus (and the eventual numerical count used by the RM closing admins). That being the actual problem with such speech in a discussion - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to highlight David's claim here, as I think it's one of the most important - the fact that overt transphobia was an active part of the discussion poisoned the well irredeemably, especially with the number of editors who blended rank transphobia with citations of policy, thus causing the toxicity to creep into all aspects of the discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: "as has been documented at length" Please point to that documentation. @Phil Sandifer: You're kidding yourself if you believe that accusations of transphobia didn't also poison the well and drive off editors who would've supported WP:COMMONNAME.--v/r - T P 19:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It's possible some were driven away by some insensitive or uneducated comments and also possible that those with valid arguments about some issues regarding the manner in which this page move was handled infuriated others, because from my backseat, the manner in which the page move was handled reeks of overt activism.--MONGO 16:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Remedies

Morwen and David Gerard are not admonished

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree, obviously. -- tariqabjotu 16:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of whether David Gerard's actions were a good-faith application of BLP, there are questions over his conduct (e.g. unnecessarily locking the article when he was involved; refusing to explain his actions; attacking others when they asked him for his rationale).

As pointed out elsewhere too, there are also (probably less serious) questions about Morwen's conduct too that are aside from whether she was acting in a good-faith application of BLP.

The issue here is more than good faith. TBH I don't think anyone questions their belief that what they were doing was right. The more serious questions are around conduct. --RA (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"refusing to explain his actions" You are repeating an assertion here that by this stage you know to be false, and that you have read the evidence against - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's very easily put to bed, David. Remember this conversation? You said that you had BLP concerns with the Bradley Manning title and you said that you had explained what those concerns were. All I asked for was a diff to where you explained before then why you believed having the article at the title Bradly Manning was a violation of BLP policy.

Now, can you provide that diff? Or did you wrongly accuse others of incivility when all they were asking you to do was account for your administrator actions? --RA (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. BLP is a very broad policy to delete harmful information. Not replace it with information that is contentious. Blanking the page would have been an acceptable BLP action until the name and gender achieved consensus with reliable sources. Gyrating between versions is not applying WP:BLP, it's edit warring. --DHeyward (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Might be simpler to phrase it in the affirmative, using a finding of fact - "The conduct of Morwen and David Gerard was consistent with a good-faith application of BLP." I do not know if Arbcom will vote to approve a remedy that explicitly does not do something - an absence of admonishment in the final decision would have the same effect. But I agree in principle. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their actions were consistent with WP:BLP but were their subsequent actions consistent with WP:ADMINACCT (David particularly)?--v/r - T P 16:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful one could conclude that the actions of Morwen and David Gerard were the right ones done in the wrong way, but perhaps one might say that there might have been some excessive zeal...though definitely not anything that would deserve sanctions of any kind.--MONGO 02:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for excessive zeal. Compounded by David Gerard's bullheadedness, tart responses and lack of accountability. --RA (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who made ill-informed comments that did not add to the discussion are admonished

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

On that day, the topic was "After a three year legal battle regarding the largest unauthorized disclosure of classified material in the nations history, Pvt. Bradley Manning was just sentenced to 35 years of detention in Leavenworth. In a moment we'll be speaking to his lawyer as in addition to his conviction and sentencing, his lawyer announced that she is Chelsea Manning and is a woman." On that day, the conclusion of a 3 year legal battle was the topic. There were plenty of informed editors on the topic. Her announcement about being "Chelsea" and a woman are notable. Hoisting her onto the petards of activist agendas or hanging her in chains to put an agenda to the top of a list when there were so many eyeballs being sucked to the article for her prison sentence, generated those comments. Seriously, it was like watching a child kill their parents and then complain about being an orphan - and then WP rewriting the entire "murderer" article as if "orphan" was the most important thing to realize because we wouldn't want to harm orphans - "oh, and if you don't know much about orphans please don't contribute to this newly assigned 'orphan' project article." Second, the term used to describe comments was transphobic, not offensive. Offensive usually connotates the feeling of the person that is offended. Transphobic on the other hand places it on the commenter that otherwise has no reference to what the accuser is stating. "I feel offended by that comment" usually generates an interogative of how or why. "Your comment was transphobic" starts a fight. If you are not aware of using "I" words in resolving disputes, it is a pretty common method taught to express feelings. I have not been able to successfully use any form of "transphobe" as an "I" statement. "I am hurt when you use words that deny people their existence or identity" - bingo, people listen. Meaningful dialog will never occur when statement like "Your remark is transphobic." Nor are hidden you statements like "I feel like you are transphobic." No one is revealing how they feel when the term is any derivative of 'transphone.' It simply is not possible to say "I feel transphobed by your words" and make any meaningful statement. "I" statements are preferred over "you" statements. --DHeyward (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I echo DHeyward's comments that "transphobic" was used instead of "offensive." I find "transphobic" offensive, but I guess there is a double standard here where the "oppressors" are offended. Look, bottom line here is that if editors did as Sue suggested and says "I find that comment offensive" it would have been a huge improvement on the situation. That's not the approach that was taken, it's intellectually dishonest to describe the situation as if it was, and this this finding of fact flies in the fact of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPA.--v/r - T P 12:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very strongly support this principle. Though I think it could be expressed more succinctly. Primarily this principle relates to the awful "dude has a dick" type comments. But it applies also to the loose labelling of contrary comments as "transphobic". In heated discussions, it is best not to make snark or mocking comments. In a BLP it should be prohibited to do so about living people. But it is also unwise to start labelling people with offensive terms just because they don't share your view on an issue or because their views on the issue are not be as passionately felt as yours. In short, remain civil. --RA (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Editors who labeled other people's comments as transphobic are not admonished

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, if a remedy along these lines is proposed, I'll certainly oppose it as entirely unacceptable. Accusing other people of bigotry is unacceptable and should lead to sanctions, unless said accusations are made a. with evidence and b. at the appropriate noticeboard or on the editor's talk page. (cf. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Casting aspersions).

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree strongly with Salvio here. This is entirely the wrong message to send and goes against previously-stated principles in other cases and our policies against personal attacks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Really? I think I just threw up in my mouth. In what other context on Wikipedia is calling anyone any label without any evidence acceptable? Does this not itself run afoul of WP:BLP? Did you speak to your legal team before you wrote this? I'd really not be surprised when the first named editor gets called transphobic, it's endorsed by you, and something happens. You might want to reconsider your stance considering your role in WMF. Sue - Please take a look at the evidence page. I oppose this principal on the whole, but even if it were supportable, I demonstrate on the evidence page that single comments were not simply called transphobic. Entire groups of editors were called transphobic in big swoops and those comments were directed at the people and not the transphobic comments themselves. If you haven't looked at the evidence page, as you mentioned this is your first Arbcom case (mine too), than you haven't followed the process.--v/r - T P 12:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the proposal is tightly worded - calling arguments and views transphobic is acceptable. This is distinct from using it as an erasive label that constitutes a single identity. "That's a transphobic statement" and "you are a transphobe" are as different as "that's a dumb idea" and "you are an idiot." Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to Smowton, I'm not sure it was an intended distinction or a natural flow of language. I believe that "There are a lot of transphobic people here" is different from "there are a lot of transphobic comments here." In the case of Josh Gorand, he commented on the people though he named no one specifically. So what's your take on that? Is he 'not to be admonished'? Considering he's one of the only people we're taking to task here for such accusations, whom else besides him is Sue trying to protect? His comments were clearly about the people.--v/r - T P 15:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time for you to drop your WP:STICK a month or so after it was first rejected? Wikipedia is clearly not going to sanction anyone for correctly pointing out transphobic hate speech. We are going to sanction those who made the hate speech, which is the only right thing to do. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked at Josh's comments in any detail - they're not an aspect of this case that particularly interests me. If he crossed the line into personal attacks he should be sanctioned. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not made any personal attacks whatsoever, that's a blatant and frivolous falsehood presented repeatedly for over a month by the lobby who insist we call Manning "Bradley", nor have I called editors transphobic, except when referring in general terms, without identifying or discussing any specific editors and in a clearly justified way to the overall problem that clearly transphobic commentary/overt hate speech that compared Manning to a dog and so on (as cited on the evidence page) was part of the move discussion and shouldn't be given any weight. My focus has always been on unacceptable commentary, not editors, a matter that in itself doesn't interest me much. And, for the record, I've in every case used much milder words than you used yourself in this debate on several occasions; I'm merely being singled out by TParis because I actively participated in the debate and called out unacceptable commentary by his side. The fact that an editor gets aggressively targeted by the opposing side with endless attacks in countless venues, where they have been found to be baseless every time, for over a month, for having pointed out transphobic commentary over a month ago, is itself a major part of the problem, both in regard to how Wikipedia treats transgender topics more broadly and in regard to editor behaviour, specifically that of TParis and other editors who have argued that we should use male names to refer to self-identified females. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) I've not used countless venues, I've followed a process which starts at ANI, then generally an RFCU but can go to Arbcom. The Arbcom process starts with the case request page, moves into the evidence, workshop, and finally the decision page. Those are not different venues, they are a progression of a process. You really should educate yourself on that process before making unfounded accusations. 2) You'll want to check again what editors have said. The reactions to your comments is far more critical than you've led yourself to believe. 3) You made personal remarks about groups of editors. Other editors called out poor behavior without using the incendiary speech you used. 4) You'll want to recheck my position on the subject before you say that I support the use of male names. I support whatever the RS's use per WP:COMMONNAME and that which does the least harm.--v/r - T P 17:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they are not productive. Nobody can correct your belief that it's transphobic. It lacks the appropriate "That comment makes me feel ...." aspect of assessment. Transphobic, as a word, is toxic to conversation. It's designed to stop debate, not enlighten debaters. Saying "That comment reduces people to the status of being less than human and is unacceptable." is much better than "That statement is transphobic." It's even better than "That comment reduces people to the status of being less than human and is transphobic." It simply shuts people out of the conversation if you try to label their comment with a word and put them in a box. This is wikipedia and it's all written words so typecasting people with words, whether it's a slur, misgender, offensive label or anything else that evokes a negative emotional response is unnecessary. Saying a comment is transphobic is really saying the editor is transphobic because there is no objective way to review the statement they made. "That comment is transphobic" is heard as "Only transphobic people would say that." --DHeyward (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to have "debate" with people who compare the article subject to a psychotic person believing herself (obviously using the word "himself" instead) to be a dog. They should rather be blocked on sight for BLP violations. In this case, numerous editors made such comments, with no administrative response whatsoever. Would we have allowed such a thing to happen on any other article on a non-transgendered person? Josh Gorand (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I refer to the definition of "transphobic": "intense dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people". Making a distinction between the describing comments as "transphobic" or the person who makes a comment as "transphobic" is artificial. It is an attack on the person no less than labelling someone (or their comments) as racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, etc. The decision to do so must be taken with great caution and at one's own risk. Labels like that do not assume good faith. During the dispute, the term was lashed around against contrary views and continues to be done so after-the-fact by participants in the dispute off-wiki against named users on-wiki (from the perspective of some of them suffering from a sort of unwitting bigotry). That's not on. --RA (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even see how this proposal could be taken seriously. Of course unsubstantiated accusations of irrational fear and hatred can be actionable.—Kww(talk) 23:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous. "TERF's" are labeled transphobic. Post-SRS women are labeled transphobic. "cotton ceiling" lesbians are labelled transphobic. None view it as anything less than hate speech. As an experiment, please seek out "cis gender" lesbians friends and acquaintenances and find a few that are not willing to date functional pre-SRS trans lesbians (it's not hard). Then call them transphobic TERFs unless they are willing to have you set them up on dates. After all, calling them transphobic is within the realm of an acceptable form of discourse. Then seek out straight "cis males" that have only dated "cis women" and ask if they are willing to be set up on a date with a functional pre-SRS straight trans woman. Call the ones that don't wish to date them as transphobic. Seek out a "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" passable post-SRS woman that is post-transition and experienced being transsexual their entire life and say she is transphobic if she believe that some self-described trans women are cross-dressers or have autogynephilia (because she's dated them and knows they are). There are accounts of all of the above. All think it is hate speech. All despise the groups that use that hate speech to describe them. Transgender is not a monolithic group and name calling both within and out of the community is not constructive. --DHeyward (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@Sue Gardner:, I'd like you to review two sections at the evidence page, Josh Gorand inappropriately attacked editors, and Josh Gorand caused a hostile_environment by casting aspersions. Then please comment here as to whether or not you still stand by this Proposed Remedy. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TP, note the text of the proposal specifically restricts to describing a comment rather than a person or a group, so it should not catch the cases you describe about "Entire groups of editors". Chris Smowton (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that was an intentional distinction or just a natural use of language.--v/r - T P 13:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a proposed remedy phrased in the negative should be approved - far better to make a finding of fact that explains why no admonishment is forthcoming. But I don't know that such a finding would pass either, given the comments here. At a minimum, you'd need to propose a matching remedy that admonishes editors who called out other editors for transphobia (as distinct from highlighting comments). And while I agree with TParis that the conduct on this point was too much to ignore, I don't think that calling for Sue's resignation from the WMF is useful in this context, on this page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't called for her resignation. Perhaps you haven't heard, but she has decided to leave to pursue activism in internet freedom. She estimated 6 months from the Mar '13 interview. So she's presumably only waiting for the board to select a replacement at this time.--v/r - T P 14:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is relevant to this proposal. But when I read your comment initially, I could've sworn you asked her to reconsider her position (i.e. her job) as opposed to her stance (i.e. her position). So, sorry about that, I stand corrected. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone says that some comments made by others are transphobic does not make them transphobic, I see this as bad faith right there. If someone is talking about Negros in context with reliable sources describing slavery does that make the person racist? I agree with Salvio 100% if there is no evidence to support the claim then it is the editor who threw out the comment who should be admonished. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A certain amount of devil's advocacy here, since personally I think a slap on the wrist for Josh (but not Phil) is in order, but at the time they were both having their dearly-held beliefs trampled on somewhat, and if they spoke too harshly we might let that slide given the circumstances? It would send a poor message to punish pro-trans editors for getting angry at transphobia, actual or perceived, particularly if it was greater than the punishment meted out for actual anti-trans rhetoric. Chris Smowton (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh give me a break. Hatemongering manifestos are ugly and sickening when coming from either direction, and both sides are guilty here. Anyway, there are not supposed to be any "sides" in this debate, as least as far as advocating some cause, whether it be gender rights or anything else. Advocacy is forbidden in Wikipedia when it comes to content. Naming an article should be a procedural debate, not idealogical. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those that referred to others as transphobic should not be admonished but do not agree that using that term is acceptable discourse.--MONGO 02:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, if you are objecting to terfs, among other people, being called transphobic, some terfs, among other people, have earned that label, by claiming that "the practice of transsexualism should be morally mandated out of existance," "all transsexuals **** women's bodies," or by outing trans women, or the like. I know someone who was doxxed, and accused of violating wbw space at Michfest, when she had not even attended Michfest. Although the "cotton ceiling" was and is a problematic term, afaik a certain notorious serial doxxer is misrepresenting it. And "autogynephilia" is a fringe theory. Ananiujitha (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that in the context of a Wikipedia discussion on a talk page, nobody can "earn" an insult. The proper remedy for poor behavior is not an insult based on poor behavior but the proper administrative sanctions based on poor behavior. There are policies for how to deal with someone who behaving in a transphobic or racist or sexist manner, but "calling out" someone that "earned it" is not among them.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if someone demonstrates actual transphobia, by even the narrowest definition of the term, then calling them transphobic is not an insult. It's a description, and that's what I meant by saying that some had earned that [description]. DHeyward was complaining about terfs, off-wiki, being called transphobic, so I was pointing out that some of them are transphobic. No two ways about it. Ananiujitha (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ananiujitha: I specifically chose selected groups that would not be considered part of the systemic bias arguments that have been used elsewhere. Systemic bias is often used to justify using attack terms like "transphobic" as a "productive way to educate the privileged" when in fact it is designed to marginalize people that just disagree. Feminist groups, LGB groups and trans groups have all been labeled "transphobic" depending on the particular trans activists' goal. Whether valid or not, it's never an accepted label by the target. I've never heard anyone say "You're right, I'm transphobic" even if they hold what society would view as unequivocally transphobic positions. Universally it is viewed as derogatory language. I am aware of feminist violence against trans woman. I am aware of post-SRS women (women that are identified as male at birth and undergo gender confirming surgery as adults) being doxed by feminists as "not women." I am aware of those same post-SRS women being called "cis gender" and transphobic because they are "passing" and enjoy "cisprivilege". I am aware of trans lesbians that call lesbians transphobic over the "cotton ceiling." I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist and have no way to verify autogynephilia other than to say it is a diagnostic category in DSM-5 . It appears that it became "fringe" when instead of being noticed as a common symptom of transvestic fetishism (the DSM-IV paraphilia diagnoses and unrelated to Gender Identity Disorder), it became it's own disorder under the same set of transvestic paraphelia's. It is unrelated to "gender dysphoria" (the DSM-5 version of "GID" in DSM-IV). Criticism appears largely political. (Julia Serano has the largest critical section in the WP article and she is an activist and chemist, not a psychiatrist or psychologist) as apparently some believe it may move certain persons that identify as "trans woman" into a non-transgender grouping and thereby losing influence in feminist issues and possibly LGBT issues. I'm sure you can see the reason why someone that says "I'm a functional trans lesbian that wants to retain a functional penis" seeking to influence the goals and priorities of trans women and feminists would not want to be contradicted by a diagnoses that explains she is really more of a cross-dresser than a women with a penis. There are some feminists and trans women that agree that those persons diagnosed with autogynephilia should not be setting feminist or trans woman goals and priorities. That is not transphobic, it's the reality of politics within those groups and they believe that men are simply using another tactic to control them (and explains why it is only a trans woman and feminist issue). All of the groups reject the transphobic label. I don't make any claims about which groups are right or wrong but you'd have to be blind not to see that the groups are fighting and they are using words to fight it with. I'd submit that within trans* community editors at Wikipedia, there is a large systemic bias arising out of activism that is aligned with Julia Serano's goals but that is not necessarily a representative view of trans* or feminist views. That's probably a predictable outcome given the normal draw of wikipedia and the people that edit it. I think most trans activists that are fighting for trans* rights sees the disagreements above and recognize them and may feel strongly about them one way or the other. But the "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" post-SRS trans women, the functional non-SRS trans women, "cotton ceiling" lesbians, and the "TERFs" all have their beliefs and all think they are valid. --DHeyward (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:DHeyward

This is part of how Wikimedia operates as a host. No policy dictates a particular content. Policy dictates what material will be removed. Once policy becomes "Joe must be called Orange", WMF is now the content owner. This is counter to the WMF stance of only being a host for material with a TOS that certain material will be removed. I believe all WMF policies that deal with content start with "Content that violates policy X may be removed." Not replaced. Not changed to Y. "may be removed" (not even "shall be removed" because of the duty that would impose.). Extending policy beyond deleting the offending material misstates it and actually prolongs the problem. This has been imposed beyond just BLP policy but to copyright as well. Just like BLP, copyrighted images may be deleted at any time and there is no obligation that a "free" image of the same thing be available before it's deleted. --DHeyward (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Editors are protected when they remove material in good faith asserting WP:BLP authority

4) WP:3RR and other sanctions are not appropriate when an editor, in good faith, removes material in accordance with BLP policy. This is not the same as removing BLP violating material, only to replace it with a different, contested version. Material should be removed or pages blanked if there is a content dispute that involves different views of WP:BLP. Blanked pages should be protected and WP:3RR along with blocks and sanctions if editors repeatedly add or restore material that is contested until consensus about compliance is reached. WP:BLP is not a refuge to maintain or create a preferred version of an article. Blanking and deleting, until consensus is reached, is the only proper course to take in order to protect living persons from harm as the community resolves the issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Blanking and deleting are protected broadly by BLP, adding or modifying are subject to BLP scrutiny but actions of adding, changing or restoring information that is contested his a high bar to meet. Until the community decides what should be the proper version, if any, or whether the issue is not a BLP issue, but a content dispute. The editor that is blanking and deleting negative or contentious information is the only editor protected by no-3RR and the other protection provisions. WP:BLP is never a reason to lock a page with contested information or a contested version. It should be blanked it BLP is the reason for protect. --DHeyward (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Blanking" in this context doesn't seem to make sense, because there is no such thing as a null article title. The only option would have been to delete the page entirely, which would likely have been even more disruptive and controversial. Are you saying that Morwen should have deleted the Bradley Manning page, rather than move it? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That comment has brought a very interesting thought to my mind. If Bradley Manning as a title was a BLP violation, then why was Bradley Manning as a redirect not a BLP violation? I can understand why some terms may be very undesirable as titles but still exist as redirects, but surely a BLP violation should not exist in any way on the encyclopaedia? --RA (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are intended to aid readers. There is no question that many people would know her as Bradley, and therefore a redirect is necessary to help readers connect the old to the new. Redirecting from one to the other serves readers while minimizing the potential for harm. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be blue links Bradley Manning Chelsea Manning and Breanna Manning. The issue is whether the main article is under Bradley or Chelsea. Blanking and removing links would resolve the issue of insulting people that type in "Chelsea" and are sent to "Bradley". Blanking them and removing the redirects removes any type of denial or affirmation of which name is "correct" until consensus is reached. they would be blank articles with blue links until BLP issues are resolved. --DHeyward (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a little off topic) Yes, but the argument made was that the title Bradley Manning was a BLP violation. My question (or point) is that if the string "Bradley Manning" is a BLP violation as an article title, why is not a BLP violation as a redirect? A BLP violation is a BLP violation no matter where it appears.

Imagine a clearly BLP-violating title ("Gay lord motherfucker" for the sake of an example and with genuine apologies for offending anyone). Obviously, that's a BLP violation. It cannot exist as a article title or as a redirect. It needs to be wiped from the database post haste. So, if "Bradley Manning" was a BLP violation as an article title, how could it be left stand as a redirect?

What I'm getting at is a rule of thumb for determining if an article title is a BLP violation in cases like this (and I'm off topic WRT this proposal but I want to trash it out, if you don't mind). If an article title can exist as a redirect without being a BLP violation then it is not a BLP violation as an article title. It may not be the most desirable title for the article, but it is not a BLP violation. --RA (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, yes!! Absolutely. Morwen believed that both the title, redirect direction and pronouns in the article were incorrect. Further, all attempts to "correct" were not successful, nor could that massive an edit be done immediately. BLP doesn't mean we will "eventually" get it right. It means, "if it's not right, it's not there." "Bradley Manning" should have been blanked. "Chelsea Manning" should have been blanked and the redirect removed. That is not a permanent action, rather it is the only way to properly react to the belief that it's a BLP violation. The edits, revers, page move wars all under the BLP umbrella was a serious misinterpretation of what it's there to do. Blank the page (still a blue link), remove the redirect (going to "Chelsea Manning" lands you at Chelsea Manning, but it's blank). Fix the BLP violations with consensus, determine the location by consensus, determine what redirects are to happen by consensus. Why people think we couldn't have blank pages for a few days without redirects misses the entire purpose of being NOTNEWS and BLP.

Comment by others:

Per NorthBySouthBaranof, BLP requires only removing or changing the minimum amount necessary for compliance. If one sentence is in dispute only that sentence need be removed, regardless of how acrimonious or otherwise that dispute is. As an article must have a title (for technical reasons) blanking a title is not possible, and so if the title is a BLP violation then it must be changed. If there is a dispute about whether the title is a BLP violation it must be changed until there is consensus that it both wasn't and that it should be reinstated. Deleting the article is only suitable if there is insufficient non-violating material for an encyclopedia article (e.g. attack articles and BLP1E cases), which clearly did not apply to Chelsea Manning's article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think of "changing" as removing then adding. Removing violating material is the BLP policy - whatever the size of that material. Then adding properly sourced, neutral, material back is fine. Removing all of the article is also fine. Removing all of the article and removing redirects to the article is also fine if it's all a BLP violation. I submit that the article name and pronouns drove the belief of a BLP violation and there is no other solution other than blanking all pages and removing redirects as an initial solution - there is no eventualism and it can't be instantly corrected. BLP violation corrections are not "works in progress". Part of the offense, as it is explained to me is that a person typing in "Chelsea Manning" gets "corrected" to "Bradley Manning" with the redirect and that is believed to be offensive. As @Smowton: put it "You typed Chelsea Manning but you really meant Bradley Manning, we corrected it for you automatically." If we had two blank pages (One "Chelsea Manning" and one "Bradley Manning") and they weren't links to each other, it's just two blank pages. No one is offended. It's protected so no one can create material. And when consensus is reached, the material is added to those pages conforming to all policies. There a TONS of BLP's that have been blanked and/or stubbed as the content is sorted. Blanking and deleting actions of editors are strongly protected by WP:BLP. Reverting by editors to a version that is contested and challenged is not protected at all by BLP and why we are on this page right now. Had josh blanked, removed redirects and protected the pages because of BLP until name and gender got sorted, his argument would be 100X stronger as he acted strictly under the BLP policy. But as it stands, it's just an opinion that one version is "more" BLP compliant. If we make it more clear that delete and blanking are the BLP concepts outlined in policy for BLP issues, we can avoid BLP "edit wars" over the definition of compliant. We can sort the content behind the scenes and with consensus and remove the linking problem until the home of the article is established. We are not required to have a Bradley/Chelsea Manning article 24/7 available to everyone. Heck, 30 days of a blank page with neither being redirected would have been a thoughtful and considered approach to this issue. --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is against policy. Perhaps it should be policy, but presently only removal of unequivocal BLP violations is protected from WP:3RR and WP:EW assertions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tóraí: Re: how can a usage as a title be BLP-dubious but not usage as a redirect? Simple: context matters. Use as a title conveys this is the primary or definitive identifier for the subject, use as a redirect conveys this is an identifier for the subject, but the redirect target holds primacy. And yes, I know WP picks article titles not primary identifiers as has been discussed ad nauseum, but the fact that readers are very likely to read a title as a primary identifier generates the possibility to convey a slur against the subject and thus BLP concerns. Chris Smowton (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re redirects: A redirect is a search term, and does not imply that it is a correct identifier for the target and we have thousands of redirects from misspellings and incorrect titles. It is possible for a redirect to be a BLP violation, but the harm caused by a redirect is always substantially less than the harm caused by an article title (even where they are the same term) because it is normally only visible if you already know it and it is not presented as correct. Redirects from incorrect names also function as a way to educate people who use the incorrect term what the correct term is - educating people is the primary goal of Wikipedia; also they strongly discourage duplicate articles from being created at the wrong title (in good faith or otherwise) and so have the effect of reducing the likelihood of a BLP violation being added to Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right is better than first for BLP articles

5) WP should strive to get BLP's right before they strive to be first. After one or two BLP page moves over move protection by admins, it should be obvious that the material is contentious and if one of the claims is that it is a BLP concern, it is preferred to blank the page or the section until the issue is resolved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The power of BLP is vested in deletion and removal. Until a particular version or decision is made, no information is better than incorrect information, unnecessarily harmful information, partisan information or unreliable information. --DHeyward (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There is no technical or policy-approved means for an article to exist without a title - so a "no information" remedy is infeasible in a dispute such as this, where the claimed BLP violating material is the title itself. And I would argue that, while "Right" might be better than "First", they both trump "wrong" and "harmful". If you accept the premise that the Bradley Manning title was harmful to the subject, then leaving it in place is untenable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be a Bradley Manning Chelsea Manning and Breanna Manning blue link. Those aren't going away. Bradley Manning won't be a red link even if the decision is to move the article under Chelsea. The argument is whether editors are sent to "Bradley Manning" or to "Chelsea Manning" after redirects are resolved. There is a belief that it is a BLP violation to correct "Chelsea Manning" by redirecting the user to "Bradley Manning" so the first action to fix this one particular BLP violation was to swap the direction of the redirects. It is absolutely within policy to blank an article and leave the title. The title, by itself, is not a BLP violation. Correcting an editor that types "Chelsea Manning" and gets "Bradley Manning" is seen as denying her identity. Whence blanking those pages and eliminating the redirects eliminates that problem until consensus is reached. --DHeyward (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask how this applies in this case. It was moved after it was unambiguously sourced that she had come out as transgender and stated her preferred name. It's not like this was doubtful, or uncertain.

The idea that transgender people should be judged based on media acceptance seems a rather questionable policy. Where there is genuine doubt - newspapers reporting on a rumour, or such, that would be one thing, but the actual case at hand is quite different.

I think it's bad policy to go with a "trial by media" route for BLPs. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Page Title wars between Bradley Manning and Chelsea Manning were disruptive

1) After the invocation of WP:BLP and the first two reverts, the proper action would be to blank both pages, eliminate redirects and work the issue out through various forums to achieve WP:BLP compliant versions with compliant redirects and titles. Continuing to war over the title and keeping the article in a status that may possibly violate BLP was disruptive, harmful and unnecessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

BLP doesn't say we must have something. Blanking the page while the dispute was resolved would have been proper and sanctioned by WP:BLP policy. Restoring disputed versions, regardless of which side believed was correct, was disruptive. It put wikipedia at the front of the story instead of blanking which would have allowed sources to settle. As it is, we have a version for 30 days that a number editors from both sides are unhappy with and claim there is frozen BLP violations. This is untenable. 30 days of a blank page where editors can work behind the scenes to achieve consensus would have been better than what we have. --DHeyward (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above. Blanking an article doesn't remove its title. I can't imagine that it would have been less disruptive if Morwen had used administrative tools to delete the page entirely, rather than make a good-faith attempt to fix the BLP problem while keeping the article available for readers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title Bradley Manning isn't going away, ever. Blanking Chelsea Manning and removing the redirect would have corrected the issue that is being complained about until consensus was achieved.

Comment by others:

Just no. All BLP requires is that material that is a or violation is removed permanently and that material that might be in violation (e.g. if it is disputed) is removed until there is consensus to reinstate it. There was a title that some thought was a BLP violation and a different title that nobody thought was a BLP violation but some people objected to on non-BLP grounds. The correct course of action is always to remove the minimum amount necessary to achieve compliance 0 blanking the article would be a massive over-reation. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect, the persons name, all the gender pronouns and the picture were proposed as BLP violations. That's about every sentence in the article. Plus it flip-flopped locations over page protection with revert wars on pronouns. Blanking, keeping blue links alive but blank with no redirects doesn't affirm or deny anything about the name or gender of the subject. It's done all the time. Even stubbing both article locations with a neutral, identical intro without a redirect could have been accomplished while the community deliberated. I don't see how editors can claim that all of those BLP issues could be fixed at once and indeed it wasn't. It was a disaster that led to a 30 day title lock and arbcom. How disruptive would blanking been and working on consensus until all the BLP issues were resolved would have been? That's what the policy says to do. Pretending that it could be fixed incrementally through edits is exactly what the policy says not to do. The other conclusion would be that none of it was a BLP violation and it's eventualism is fine for these types of issues. --DHeyward (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a single case in which a page name might be considered a BLP violation and it wouldn't be absurd to say that BLP should be ignored. It may be that other considerations show that it isn't a BLP violation in the end, but saying it can't be considered at all? That's a patently bad finding. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars between two versions of an article are not shielded by 3RR protections of WP:BLP

2) Edit warring between two versions of the article, rather than between a deletion and an addition, it is by definition a content dispute. Editors did not realize that disputed information that is considered a BLP violation should be removed instead of changed to their disputed version After realizing that they are content warring over a BLP issue, page blanking should have occurred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a routine remedy applied by neutral administrators in protracted BLP disputes. That shouldn't change because the persons doing the edit warring are admins and working through page protections to get their version. Regular editors in content disputes are often subject to blanking and protection and that should be no different for this case. The amount of information available to world on Chelsea Manning is not small and a blank article would have eliminated all of the negative publicity and given the impression of being thoughtful and deliberate as we wait for the sources to settle. Instead, we gyrated constantly for weeks and became the story. --DHeyward (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This appears to be demanding that a WP:POINT violation should have occurred. Again, you're attempting to construct loopholes in WP:BLP - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Charmlet

If you want to go there, in America I have the right to call Ex-private Manning whatever I want. On Wikipedia, we follow what reliable sources say. We do not synthesize the information, we wait for reliable sources to synthesize and report a person's gender differences, then, when a majority of them have switched, we switch. If they switch. You seem to think that Wikipedia must bend to the subjects wishes - which would be against WP:NPOV, and WP:OR among other policies. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 20:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia runs on consensus

3b) Wikipedia runs on consensus. This includes consensus of Wikipedia editors as to content, sourcing, and other issues, but also includes the fact that Wikipedia relies on the majority of reliable, secondary sources to determine certain things about articles.

5) Comments that amount to political correctness, including, but not limited to, "misgender", "transgender rights", etc. are not appropriate on Wikipedia. Discussion of how articles are titled, and how subjects are referred to, is acceptable, but should not verge into the realm of attempting to push political correctness on Wikipedia, or an idea onto political correctness.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Far too sweeping and overstated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Absurd, and in contravention of the Foundation's non-discrimination policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely disagree. Absurd, as Phil Sandifer says. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be tamed by political correctness - but we should not prohibit people from making "politically correct" comments. A lot of what is called "politically correct" is just another POV. We need to discuss all POVs fairly in order to arrive at NPOV (which may not be "politically correct"). --RA (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

So expecting the same respect for trans people, specifically, or any marginalized group, generally, as for more privileged groups is "disruptive"? And words which describe a lack of respect are "disruptive"? Ananiujitha (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness has no place on Wikipedia. Your idea of "respect" is completely different than mine. Thus, discussions about what respect is needed are inappropriate, as they amount to righting great wrongs through Wikipedia. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By that measure political incorrectness could also be seen as disruptive. There have been plenty of people who could be described as activists for the cause of ignoring what the medical consensus is on transgender people. And many comments were supported by claiming to be fighting against "liberal ideologies" and "the gay agenda", in opposition to the fact that transgender people are found in every social strata and political persuasion. Wanting to hold the tide against "Political Correctness" instead of dealing with arguments and editors directly could also be viewed as an attempt to right a great wrong. __Elaqueate (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing the merits of proposed principal, all I want to point out is that medial consensus and mainstream social consensus are different measurements.--v/r - T P 23:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying those concepts are the same thing. I was only pointing out that people can be portrayed as activists for a variety of causes. It's probably better to deal with actual and specific arguments and editors. __Elaqueate (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to political correctness is never a good argument, what matters is what the reliable sources say. But if you judge the behavior of the editors using information from reliable sources, you have to conclude that the arguments by the "transsceptics" were not based on reliable sources, they were actually arguing more on the basis of what they personally would consider to be "politically correct". Count Iblis (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Explained it better than I could have, thanks. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Sandifer - please show me where the Foundation's non-discrimination policy applies to editors, who have no financial, work, or other relationship with the WMF? I could be wrong, and if so I'll gladly correct myself, but afaik their non-discrimination policy is for their employees. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy explicitly protects "users and prospective users." [209] Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. It protects users. From who? I don't see anywhere in that policy that says it applies to editors, since it's a WMF policy, not a meta policy, it leads me to believe it is for foundation employees (like most companies have). Please seek clarification from the WMF before continuing this. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, given that it also specifies employees, it's clear "users and prospective users" refers to something other than just employees. What do you think it means if not, you know... users? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've got to side with Phil on that specific point. We can argue about what constitutes discrimination, but that policy clearly applies to users of the WMF websites. Wikipedia editors would be included.—Kww(talk) 04:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - That policy is a WMF internal company policy - applying to it's employees. It is obvious that is the case, unless they wish to edit it and affirm differently. It applies to their employees discriminating against employees, and users, based on that stuff. That's what company non-discrimination (also seen more narrowly as "equal opportunity employer policies") policies do. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. - WP:NPA, an official Wikipedia Policy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments in the above principles. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness is not required

6) Political correctness is not required to edit Wikipedia. Political correctness is a term that encompasses ideas about ethics, politics, and religion. What one person feels is politically correct, morally right, etc. may be different from what another feels is. Thus, it is not expected that everyone will have the same ideas of what is morally correct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We already have policy on this at WP:NOTCENSORED. That is a pertinent policy to bring up in this dispute. To some degree, some editors, argued that we should censor the title Bradley Manning. But that wasn't entirely their whole argument either. --RA (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disagree. Wikipedia editors should be expected to share a core set of basic moral values and should display basic respect for the human dignity of people who are the subject of articles. Formerip (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness in this principle refers to beliefs beyond the basic respect expected of all. The political correctness referred to here would include ideas such as "transphobia" or "transphilia" (to invent a term for the other side), each of which is considered correct by large portions of the American public. You cannot claim that one of them is required to edit - as that is attempting to push your views on other editors. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using a poorly-defined term, particularly one like "political correctness" which is often used to dismiss valid concerns (not always, obviously - see "poorly-defined"), would make this finding outright dangerous. Look, I'm going to presume, for now, you're trying to make a valid point, but drop the buzzwords, and say, in simple, unambiguous English, what you mean, because these all-too-easily interpreted as special pleading for the right to attack transsexuals.

(Which rather backs one of my points - effect and intent can be quite different things. I'm presuming you're trying to keep people from crying persecution without evidence to shut one side up. But your phrasing is... all wrong.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that RA has a point, by the way - any attempt to remove a better-known former name entirely should be resisted. Luckily, few, if any, are advocating that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually advocated that in this case? - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly nobody has presented evidence that anyone has tried to or proposed to remove or censor the name "Bradley Manning" completely. When there is more than one possible title for an article, choosing one is not censoring the others. For example titling our article "Mumbai" is not censoring the name "Bombay". Thryduulf (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Editors admonished and reminded

1) Every editor in this case is admonished for their combined conduct, both before, and during the case with regards to these controversial issues. They are reminded that any further continuation of this behavior will result in sanctions, if not applied as part of another remedy here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

"Every" editor who participated is admonished? Not a single one spoke reasonably and acted appropriately? I disagree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Well, we do have a precedent. But I agree that it's possible that one of the editors spoke reasonably and acted appropriately, although I can't think of one in particular. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Mr. Rubin - I can't see anyone who acted in accordance with all policies, and explained such, without veering excessively into their own opinions on what is appropriate, etc. However, since everyone was involved in the combined misconduct, blocking any one group/editor seems over-reaching. If there's an editor who Arbcom feels acted completely appropriately, take this as a moot point. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I have no clue what type of) sanctions applied

2) All pages, in all namespaces, relating to Manning, the naming dispute, transgender issues, and political correctness are placed under sanctions that are as follows: An article may be protected (semi or full) for any amount of time if it is apparent to any uninvolved administrator that editors are attempting to "politically correct" the article. Administrators will not be considered involved unless they have a) extensively edited the article, or b) have interacted with the user on Wikipedia before.

Secondly, blocks starting at 1 week in length may be applied to any editor who appears to be advocating political correctness in Wikipedia, after adequate warning. If it is in question whether the editor deserves a sanction, an administrator should post at an appropriate place for community consensus or Arbitration clarification.

Thirdly, all administrators that have been active in this case are considered involved for the purpose of this sanction, and are thusly prohibited from applying, or removing, any of the preceding sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Excessive deference to what is sometimes termed "political correctness" can be harmful, but this and the other proposals in this series go far too far in the other direction. Compare Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Sensitivities of subject-matter. Even if you feel that sensitivity to others' feelings has sometimes been taken too far, the remedy is certainly not to prohibit sensitivity altogether. Nothing like this is going to be adopted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Let's just leave "political correctness" outside of this whole discussion. There's always a tension between small groups seeking respect and recognition and the rest of society. Sometimes it goes too far, but to try to dismiss the negotiation as "political correctness" is as divisive as words like "transphobia". Haven't you people been reading your Hegel?—Kww(talk) 23:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is real big, if anyone else has a better way to split it up please do such. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want to block editors, starting at one week, for trying to ensure the same respect for marginalized groups as for privileged groups, or for criticizing your proposal to block editors for this? Either I'm reading this really badly, or this is really bad. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness is not "respect", it is a bunch of people attempting to force their beliefs upon others. Your attempt to characterize it as such is disruptive and, frankly, a flat lie. I'm not even going to entertain your comments further after this. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, you dismissed basic respect, and discussion of disrespect such as misgendering, as "political correctness," and so you don't get to define "political correctness" as if it excludes basic respect. I am not the liar here. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define misgendering? I for one believe (as many scientists do) that gender is a chromosomal thing. If you are born with 1 (or more technically) Y chromosome, you are male. If you are born with only X chromosomes, you are female. That is sex. That cannot be changed. Thus, referring to an XY-male who feels he is a female as a "he" or as a "male" is not incorrect, nor is it misgendering. Your idea of misgendering is politically correct, but not scientifically accurate in any way, and seems to me that your definition of misgendering is only serving your beliefs with regard to transgender persons. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to define misgendering, I would say that it is to address or refer to someone as something other than their preferred gender, or in some cases, their presenting gender. Julia Serano probably has a more specific definition. Either way, yes, it assumes trans people's identified genders are their real genders, and it could come under criticism, for example, from those who argue there are no real genders. So in an article it might be seen as pov-pushing, but in discussion, it's probably the clearest term for what it is. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for chromosomes, I don't know what my chromosomes are, but I know what my gender is. I know there are a lot of conditions that can result in someone appearing, for all practical purposes, I think sometimes but rarely including reproduction, to be one sex, while having the chromosomes of the other, or mosaicism, or an exchange of cells in pregnancy. For example, the SRY gene can be absent on the Y chromosome or transposed onto a X chromosome, and that's not to mention all the endocrine variations. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, since "political correctness" has no agreed definition, and since "political correctness" seems to be a way to label and dismiss basic respect for marginalized groups, I don't see how this proposal could be applied fairly, consistently, or in keeping with human dignity in biographies of living persons (sic). Ananiujitha (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I've been unclear - this only applies to editors who are disruptively advocating their view of political correctness. Editors who are merely discussing issues regarding politics/morals aren't applied to this (sorry for the confusion). ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Why wouldn't ordinary responses to disruptive editing be enough, though? You could say that political correctness isn't/shouldn't be a shield for disruptive editing and the like, and could sometimes be pov-pushing. I don't know how that would work in practice. Ananiujitha (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically what I'm saying - people cannot claim "politically" or "morally" correct as an excuse for disruptive editing - and anyone who appears to do so should be reminded more strongly, as (as I said above) that type of opinionated stuff and controversy does not belong on Wikipedia. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, wow. This is just... terrible. This sanction is incredibly open to abuse, and basically serves to instantly shut up one side of a debate, if they make a single argument based on... things Wikipedia policy says we support. (WP:NPA) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Pldx1

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Membership doesn't imply expertise

5) Property $x\in X$ doesn't imply the property " $x$ is an expert about $X$ ". Using plaster doesn't imply an expertise over construction of buildings. Being Korean doesn't imply an expertise over Korean history. Being an human person doesn't imply an expertise over human sexology. Being transgender doesn't imply an expertise over transgenderism. Moreover, being quite recognized as an expert on a Wikimedia portal wouldn't imply anything, and surely not having an actual and effective expertise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vociferous self-anointed advocates

6) Disliking vociferous self-anointed advocates does not imply a phobia against the advocated group. Pretending the contrary is one of the greatest misdeeds of these vociferous self-anointed advocates. It should also be noticed that, more than often, the real aim of the self-anointed experts appear to be pushing their personnal interests into the "advocated" group, rather than pushing the interests of that "advocated" group into the global world. Such recognizable pattern can only ignite already controversial situations and should be addressed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Admin rights cannot be shared

7) Two or more users here ~~can~~ may share whatever they want, except from their user's rights. This is even more required when administrative actions are performed: each action of that kind must be decided in the personnal and independent conscience of the performing administrator. Doing otherwise would trump all the rules concerning the conflict of interests. When two or more users are acting like one (e.g. by publishing common statements), they should be counted as one when applying the rules for involvment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree with the last sentence. Issuing a joint statement is evidently acting in tandem, and exposed the WP:INVOLVED and WP:TEAM concerns around Morwen and David Gerards actions. --RA (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm sure I know a bit more than others, but apparently (temporary or real) passwords can't be shared either ;P Otherwise, agree with this. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 'may' sounds better. Pldx1 (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are not supposed to marshall their domain of authorship

8) Admins are required to be neutral. On top of that, they are also required to respect the due decorum to appear as being neutral. In order to exercise herself into non-involvment, an admin must exert a significant part of her admin work outside of her domain of authorship. A quite retired admin should better retire completely rather than try to save the world in one only click: no efficiency without practice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Policies are policies, while guidelines are guidelines

9) Enforceable policies have to be stated into a policy page. The Manual Of Style (MOS) is a guideline. It rules the dashes, the gender of the ships, PhD v. P.hD., possessive apostrophes, serial commas, etc. MOS even describes countries that are sufficiently western-white-male-thirty to deserve a Capitalized Southern Part, like "southern Poland but Southern California".

Therefore MOS:IDENTITY, as presently written, belongs to a set of gnome directives. The Arbitration Committee will never ever take any sanctions based on any part of a document with such a guideline status, except from ultimately enforcing:

"Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

The common name rule

1) The rule of the common name is the de facto rule for the name of an article. The article about N.J. Mortenson is named by her stage name Marylin Monroe, the one about K. Middleton is named by her royalty name Duchess of Cambridge and the article about Chelsea Manning is named by her enrolment name Bradley Manning. There is nothing extraordinary in that: their respective movies, marriage and US Army enrolment are the key reasons for their notability. Moreover, that common name rule has already been enforced in many cases, despite strong oposition from their respective advocacy groups. Doing otherwise in a specific situation would only disrepute Wikipedia for acting as if the Ukrainian Kyiv, the Southeast Asia's Myanmar or the Muslim Yusuf Islam are not western-male-white-thirty enough to deserve their own exceptions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There is no such "rule". Common name is one common method for naming articles, and in the absence of other issues it is usually preferred (look at any article about plants for an example of where it isn't). The name for each article is decided by examining all the issues involved, and no one naming scheme applies across the whole encyclopedia. Where the common name is a BLP violation (as is not uncommon with articles about suspected criminals) it must not be used. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Not following some advocacy group' shouldn't be described as 'Causing real harm to real-life persons'

2) Chelsea Manning is mostly notable for having published a large number of classified U.S. documents, the 'Collateral Murder' video among them. She was sentenced to 30 years because the prosecution invoked some kind of bee-ell-pee policy as a trump card against the Chelsea Manning's editorial choices and the wide-world's right to information. We have here a pattern of pushing his own point of view by describing 'hurting the feelings of some advocacy group' as the more emotional 'causing harm to our soldiers' (and thereafter omitting to describe what were the actual harm inflicted on actual living people). When writing an Encyclopedia, we should rather promote NPOV thinking, i.e. calm, rational, thoughtful and fact-seeking as our primary mission. Acknowledging that Chelsea Manning accessed all these classified files using her enrolment name "Bradley Manning" cannot harm her in any way, nor any other real-life person.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I can't make heads or tails of this. Who is "pushing his own point of view" and what does a military prosecution have to do with Wikipedia content policies? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This seems quite confused, and I'm not sure what all of it is trying to get at. The final sentence though, "Acknowledging that Chelsea Manning accessed all these classified files using her enrolment name "Bradley Manning" cannot harm her in any way, nor any other real-life person" is not true. It has been aptly demonstrated that referring to trans people by their birth names can harm them and other trans people. However, in this case nobody is arguing that we should exclude the "Bradley Manning" name from the article because the encyclopaedic relevance of the name outweighs the potential harm. The encyclopedic relevance of using that name for the title is less and the potential harm greater than in the context of the article, such that it is disputed what the correct balance is. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but has there been any discussion as to what harm would be done? I understand both sides have good points as to why harm may (not) be done, so I'd like to see input from the wider community (if it has happened) as to their opinions. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time right now to hunt out the specific discussions, but from memory there was some of what I think you are looking for in one of the discussions on the MOS:IDENTITY talk page (probably archived by now). Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll poke around - If you find any links (and remember :P) please shoot me a TP message or an email. This is completely out of curiosity, fyi. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 20:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen&David Gerard acting as only one user

3) Factional action is often difficult to prove. The very fact that User:Morwen have authored and published the answer of User:David Gerard to questions about his administrative actions proves beyond any doubt the lack of independence between the joint actions of these two users. From the begining, User:David Gerard was an involved admin, with an high duty to explain his acts. Even if proven, the invocation of an immediate necessity of avoiding a real-life harm to a living person would only have changed "explain and act thereafter" into "act and explain thereafter". For this reason, User:David Gerard should have been diligent to explain and justify, proving that he was really acting from a duty of care rather from a personnal opinion. Missing to do that has not helped the controversy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's plain to me that David Gerard was too WP:INVOLVED to take administrator actions in this case. It is also plain that there was an element of WP:TEAM work a play. --RA (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have an infernal gall to claim WP:TEAM of anyone else given you (a) directly stated you were in a WP:TEAM (b) refused to name them when asked, and still haven't - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, I said a number of editors contacted me by email expressing dissatisfaction with the conduct of one or two administrators during the incident. That's not WP:TEAM. I'm not inclined to name those who contacted me because I consider those emails to be private. --RA (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's infernal gall because, based on no evidence, you allege conspiracy on my part and defy me to disprove it - but when you openly admitted conspiracy on your part,[210] when you're called on it [211] you claim "privacy", as if your blatant tag-team isn't one. - David Gerard (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The first part of this (acting as a single user) has been rebutted several times in several places, it simply is not true. Whether David was invovled or not, and whether he sufficiently explained his actions are entirely separate points that are dealt with elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy About Living Persons must be cited with precision

3) Each and every subsection of the policy about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is taged with a specific identifier. These identifiers, like WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:BLPSOURCES are the ones that should be used when discussing about policy violations. The weasel expression BLP violation should be avoided and, when used to cast generic aspersions instead of providing factual evidences, addressed by discretionary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes. Someone citing BLP must be precise and explicit about what the violation is. --RA (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Precision is helpful, but not always necessary. When someone is basing their comments on the introduction, the policy as a whole or the spirit of the policy, for example it may be misleading to refer to a specific section. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the users are remainded of their duties

4) The AGF letter-soup should be understand as "Act in Good Faith and Assume Good Faith ... or prove bad faith beyond any doubt, but nevertheless continue to Act in Good Faith".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Title

X) ***text***

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

^ courtesy of WS

Proposals by User:Thryduulf

Proposed principles

Admins expected to familiarise themselves

1) Administrators are expected to familiarise themselves with a situation, including relevant policies and guidelines, before taking action related to it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators cannot be expected to be familiar with situation on Wikipedia (this is a corollary of WP:INVOLVED I suppose), nor with every policy and guideline. However before taking any action in a situation, they are expected to familiarise themselves with the facts of the case and with any policies and guidelines that have been cited. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP actions may not be reverted without consensus

2) Actions taken to ensure compliance with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy must not be restored ~~without~~ until consensus is determined. reworded following comments below Thryduulf (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's impossible to know what your are undoing if those citing BLP do not explain their action. In this case, Morwen moved a page (not citing BLP). David Gerard locked it (citing BLP). Tariqabjotu then undid Morwen. Did he revert an action taken to ensure compliance with BLP? It wasn't obvious because David Gerard didn't explain his action. --RA (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hobit. To give a BLP protection to actions that can't achieve consensus in favor of them simply aggravates our existing problem of admins making weak BLP claims as justifications for actions.—Kww(talk) 05:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible and draconian. That means I can go to any BLP today, remove some well sourced content about some guy who raped some girl, and then say "BLP says you can't restore until consensus" - if the article itself is poorly policed and has few editors watching, how do we achieve consensus? Alternately, I could *add* material to an article, and claim the BLP requires it. Claims of BLP must be backed up with strong reason. The only strong reason in this case would be that knowledge of a transgender person's birthname could harm them, but it was already public - thus, no harm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf The problem is, this finding would prevent someone from simply reverting a bogus BLP claim, until ANI had weighed in on the matter. People edit war over BLP claims ALL the time, adjusting the wording until they find something both sides agree with (or bringing in new sources, etc). Waiting for ANI to rule is, frankly ridiculous. BLP is NOT, and never has been, a TRUMP card.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It is apparently disputed whether this is the case if the action has not been explained, but that is irrelevant in this case as the actions were explained. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as this gives "first mover" rights to the initial action. If the initial action is wrong or unjustified, then there must be latitute to correct it quickly without a morass of nitpicking "let's discuss". Tarc (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sorts of "wrong" that a BLP action can be. In the first something is removed because it is suspected of being harmful without encyclopaedic justification - this must absolutely be discussed because only consensus is capable of making that decision; if it turns out that it wasn't harmful or was encyclopaedically justified then it will be reinstated and the encyclpoedia has lost nothing. The other type of wrong, which is exceedingly rare, is when an article that was neutral is made non-neutral under the guise of BLP - in that case all that is required is for another user to remove the non-neutral version citing BLP and replace it with a third version if necessary. Discussion will quickly sort out what is and is not a BLP violation. I really don't understand why anybody thinks that retaining something potentially harmful is consistent with BLP in any scenario. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some concern about BLP being used as a trump card and not all BLP enforcement actions are going to be sacrosanct.--MONGO 13:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with principle. In repsonse to Tarc, plainly incorrect actions will ordinarily be corrected quickly, because consensus against them will quickly be found. If that does not happen, there is no basis on which to say that the action was plainly incorrect, and so a morass of nitpicking will be the way to go. The only alternative to this approach, for practical purposes, would be to say that BLP actions can be undone whenever someone has an arguable objection, which is clearly not what is intended by the policy (indeed, it would render the policy meaningless). Formerip (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but this again as discussed in numerous other places does not seem to be the case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer "...until consensus can be determined". I think BLP claims should stand until it becomes clear there isn't consensus to back it up. So it would be a trump card, but only for a short time and if there isn't consensus there is a BLP problem we'd revert back in fairly short order. BLP claims shouldn't by default win the discussion but to minimize harm they should win for a short time. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a fair point. Formerip (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: I've changed it to very nearly that (until consensus "is" determined rather than "can be" as I think that will avoid wikilawyering) as that is what I mean. BLP actions don't guarantee anything other than that information which is alleged to be a BLP violation is not in the article until consensus says it should be - in the case of things that are clearly not BLP violations that consensus will be arrived at swiftly and no harm will be done. Thryduulf (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the primary difference in wording is that a NC result means we go back to the old version. BLP actions often need to be fast, but if it turns out there isn't consensus that that action was correct, we revert. Hobit (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Obiwankenobi: If someone makes a BLP edit you disagree with on page that is lightly watched then you raise awareness of the topic in a suitable place, such as the BLP Noticeboard, the relevant WikiProject talkpage, the talk page of an article related to the relevant section/information (e.g. if information about Joe Bloggs was removed from the Joe Bloggs, Inc article then mentioning it at Talk:Joe Bloggs would be appropriate), etc. If you feel the action was taken in bad faith then take it to WP:AN/I or other suitable dispute resolution forum. In this case, the assertion has never been that knowledge of Chelsea Manning's birth name was a BLP violation, the assertion was and is that using her birthname as the article title was and is a BLP violation. Attacking straw men does nothing but make your point invalid. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Tariqabjotu reverted a BLP action through protection

1) Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) knowingly and deliberately used his admin tools to revert through protection an explicit BLP action without consensus [212][213]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. This finding says that admin tools were used by Tariq. If that's true, than it also requires that the subsequent move through protection also be considered an admin action and per WP:WHEEL that David Gerard would be the admin at fault.--v/r - T P 13:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, obviously. "Knowingly and deliberately"? No. I've already rebutted the second diff when it was provided on the Evidence page (it corresponds to Point 3); that diff has nothing to do with what I knew and understood at the time. -- tariqabjotu 14:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Let's break this down:

"Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ..." Yes.
"... knowingly and deliberately ..." Yes.
"... used his admin tools ..." Yes.
"... to revert ..." Yes.
"... through protection ..." Yes.
"... an explicit BLP action ..." No. Tariqabjotu reverted Morwen's page move, which was not an explicit BLP action. Tariqabjotu did not revert David Gerard's move protection, which was cited as a BLP action. --RA (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't. --DHeyward (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If this is not abusing admin tools I don't know what is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, more to it than that, and I don't know about abuse, necessarily, but Tariqabjotu did indeed revert through protection. This happened. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tariqabjotu, I read the section you link to and I'm still unclear. You agree you moved through protection. But are you saying you weren't aware of the projection at the time? Something else? Hobit (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was obviously aware of the protection. However, I was not aware that it was protected because David felt the name Bradley Manning as a title was a BLP violation. My purpose of linking to the section above is specifically to debunk that idea that this diff (which Thryduulf cited above) is proof that I did know the article was protected for that reason. As I say in my rebuttal, as I'll summarize again, that diff is in a thread where, in response to someone asking how this diff includes an explanation, Thryduulf explained that referring to a trans* person by their birth name (or indeed any living person by any name) against their express wishes has the potential to cause them serious harm. The diff Thryduulf has provided here as damning proof is me simply me saying that the explanation Thryduulf provided isn't in the diff David provided. -- tariqabjotu 19:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear how you go from your idea that There are several issues here, the most important of which is WP:BLP." to the idea that there was no indication of BLP issues, nine minutes later. __Elaqueate (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are always BLP issues surrounding biographies of living persons; my determination was that there was no violation in the move back. And, to clarify, this wasn't "no violation, despite David asserting this was one", this was "no violation, and no one had said this was one". I began looking at the talk page several minutes before I posted the comment on WP:RMT, and saw BLP mentioned several times, but ultimately it appeared almost exclusively in regards to gender pronouns and never asserting that Bradley Manning was a BLP violation. -- tariqabjotu 14:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this as plausible, but only if I assume you didn't see even a possibility that the name change was based on a BLP basis. What does "almost exclusively" mean here? __Elaqueate (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um... it means exactly what it says. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine. -- tariqabjotu 15:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tariqabjotu did not familiarise himself before acting

2) Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was not familiar with MOS:IDENTITY and so "could not fathom" why BLP applied. Instead of familiarising himself with the guideline, asking for clarification and/or reading the discussion already taking place, he would ignore it and revert the BLP action, despite admitting he knew the situation was controversial. [214][215]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. The result of the RFC demonstrates that the interpretation of MOS:IDENTITY is not as clear cut as this proposal suggests.--v/r - T P 12:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, obviously. I've already rebutted this evidence when it was provided on the Evidence page (the two diffs here correspond to Points 2 and 3, respectively). The evidence and editorialization are faulty and taken out of context, as I said in my rebuttal; in fact, the first diff presented here has nothing to do with what I knew and understood at the time. -- tariqabjotu 14:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS does not gate policy. BLP is predicated on removing harmful and/or unsourced material. Nothing has ever been established that the article living at "Bradley Manning" is a BLP violation and the arguments that it is are weak. MOS is not BLP so whether or not he was familiar with MOS is irrelevant. Not only that, our MOS on article titles would leave it at "Bradley Manning" unless we grant a giant exception to transgender individuals where their notable name is trumped by their self-identified name. --DHeyward (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This needs wordsmithing but it is gross violation of what is expected of an administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to it than that, obviously, but this did happen. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Identity is a guideline, and guidelines can be set aside if there are greater policy issues at play such as WP:COMMONNAME. At the time of the move, the admin was in good faith following the policy laid out by this project. Just because one does something that you may not have done if you were in his shoes does not make it a sanctionable act. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong, and maybe wordsmithing this would clarify it a bit. But he did make the move, and did explicitly disregard the BLP element - which speaks more to the "How does BLP impact situations like this" issue than the "OMG desysop" one. There should be a finding about what Tariq did and did not do, if only to support a remedy later on - whether that remedy admonishes Tariqabjotu for shenanigans or acknowledges that he acted within the scope of admin discretion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing a BLP action through protection is not routine editing. It is not a matter of making a judgement call as to how serious the alleged breach is. Tariqabjotu's action could only have been warranted if he was sure that it would be unambiguously and uncontroversially in line with policy. It is not plausible that he could have been sure of that, and there is evidence to the contrary. Formerip (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard explained his BLP action

3) David Gerard explained how and why the BLP policy applied to his actions [216][217][218][219]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. What Thryduulf has just demonstrated is that David Gerard did not explain himself. Pointing to WP:BLP does to equate to explaining how a situation applies.--v/r - T P 12:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. TParis's analogy below is perfect. The fact that some people already know why the grass is green doesn't make "Because the sun shines" a valid explanation. Also, presuming one were to find the first two diffs in the dense conversation on the talk page (where nearly every other BLP reference was in regard to pronouns), it's not even clear the BLP-violating action is having the name titled Bradley Manning. And no one is denying that the last diff constituted an explanation; the issue is that it took him that long to provide one and rebuffed, rather stridently, earlier requests for one. -- tariqabjotu 14:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. In the first three diffs, David Gerard states the article is a BLP and that he is acting under BLP policy. However he does not explain "how and why the BLP policy applied to his actions". David Gerard was asked persistently by several editors to explain how and why the BLP policy applied to his actions. He did not do so and was incivil in reponse, accusing those who asked him for a rationale of incivility for doing so. (See my evidience.)

After three days of being asked to provide a rationale he provided a brief one here to me that included further accusations of incivility. The final diff above links to a statement submitted by Morwen (not David Gerard) to which David Gerard put his name a whole five days after his admin action citing BLP.

That sort of attitude fails WP:ADMINACCT abysmally. --RA (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Given how frequently this is being denied, it is necessary to make an explicit finding of fact. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~None~~ One of those explain why he thought it was BLP. They all invoke BLP but ~~not~~ only a single one says why. Quotes from the first as an example [220]It's also a WP:BLP, and Manning's statement (as Morwen notes above) pretty much perfectly matches the consideration in question. As such, I've put in a protection against moves for the same time period as the present autoconfirmed edit protection, which should allow enough time for all the discussion the change to the subject's documented chosen name will need show no reasoning to why it was BLP just the invocation of the policy. The others just as blantantly do not address the issue. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had to correct myself the last one is the joint statement issued more than three days after the initial invocation of BLP. Hardly a timely response when people ask the question why in my opinion. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first is precisely the explanation within five minutes of the action. What you mean is that you don't personally agree. It was accepted by others within the first two hours, as I noted, so claims that it would not constitute a reasonable immediate explanation for a BLP action for anyone are simply false - Thryydulf, you might want to note that as well, with diffs - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'explanation' was the equivalent of someone asking why grass is green and you say "Because the sun shines." You stopped short of an explanation and expected that a vague reference would suffice.--v/r - T P 13:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And for quite a few editors, it did. If the explanation was inadequate, that can be a finding as well (and I proposed something that touches on this, above). But there was an explanation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to get down to and have a finding of fact that defines what an "explanation" is? Again, saying grass is green because the sun shines is not an explanation thought it is part of an explanation.--v/r - T P 14:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who cared to read the policies and guidelines linked, David's initial explanation read "This is a BLP action because Manning is a living person who has clearly expressed a preferred gender identity and MOS:IDENTITY states we should use the name and pronouns that reflect a persons latest expressed gender identity". Whether you agree that MOS:IDENTITY said that or not and/or whether we should follow it in this case if it did is irrelevant - it is a perfectly valid explanation. If you do not understand an explanation given, disagree with an explantaion given, or think it is incomplete it is still an explanation. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've got the 3 diffs above, which one says gender identity, MOS:IDENTITY or anything other than WP:BLP? The 4th diff, the one that actually does say the things your talking about, was on the 27th, 5 days later.--v/r - T P 16:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An incomplete explanation was obviously inadequate. Gerard should have recognized this immediately and corrected the situation, but instead he reacted to challenges rather poorly by being obstinate and at times appeared condescending. Some perceived an impression of arrogance, which certainly didn't help matters.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two more diffs of DG giving rationale in the early days: firstly this cites a perceived compulsion to refer to trans people as they current identify themselves due to MOS:ID and LGBT guidelines, and then after questioning by Tariq this response defers to explanations of BLP violation given by other users and particularly Bearcat. He doesn't cite a particular diff for Bearcat but at that time the page looked like this and the most likely citation is Bearcat's comment of 22:17, 22 August 2013 beginning "For the record, how Wikipedia reflects the name and gender identity...".

This is not ideal since it imports Bearcat's statement wholesale, but ultimately endorsing someone else's statement must carry similar weight to making that statement yourself. Chris Smowton (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(to be clear I do think DG dragged his heels more than was appropriate here and should be admonished as such, especially considering the joint statement indicates he did have a rationale to give; just pointing out that the diffs given above are not the whole story Chris Smowton (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Tariqabjotu dysysopped

1) For deliberate violation of the BLP policy and gross violation of the standards expected of an administrator, Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is dysysopped. He may only regain the tools following a successful request at WP:RFA a minimum of six months after this case closes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The proposed sanction is excessive and disproportionate for a single good-faith action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This proposal is entirely out of all proportion. And even so, let's recall what happened: A page was moved boldly. Objections were raised on the talk. A technical revert was requested at formal noticeboard. The page was moved locked by David Gerard citing BLP. Tariqabjotu responded to the technical request and moved the page back to the original title (having said he would look for possible BLP violations first).

There was nothing in David Gerard's citing of BLP that indicated moving the article back to Bradley Manning would have caused a BLP violation. On the talk page, David Gerard indicated that he locked the page merely to "allow enough time for all the discussion the change to the subject's documented chosen name will need" (i.e. 7 days). It was perfectly legitimate for Tariqabjotu (in response to the technical request) to restore the article to the original title while the proposed discussion took place. --RA (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unsupported by the facts of the case, results of the RfC, Manning's lawyer and all around common sense. --DHeyward (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Based on the findings of fact above, there is no question that Tariq can remain an administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think this is extreme but I may be in the minority. Hit with a fish, maybe admonished if it becomes a FoF but for a single action on a contentious issue at editor request sends a signal that Admins shouldn't try to get into these situations as they have everything to lose for one contentious action. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Very nearly a laugh, but really a cry, as one would say. This rests on the false premise that an article about a transgendered person that is titled under their genuine at-birth name is in fact a BLP violation. That's an opinion, and a rather extreme one at that. If we were to follow this to its logical end, then everyone who voted in support of the move back to "Bradley" should be blocked as well. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them took administrator action to revert the article to the offending title? After acknowledging that the article had been moved because of BLP, and disregarding that concern without discussing the issue with the protecting admin? Tarc, for good or ill, actively pushing admin buttons is a much different thing than voicing support for a position in the very discussion from which we plan to draw consensus for (or against) that position. Your logical end isn't logical at all. Whether or not you agree with the premise that the Bradley Manning title is a BLP violation, you cannot just disregard that concern when it has been cited explicitly as the reason for move protection at the article. Do I think Tariqabjotu should be desysopped? Absolutely not. But we should not dismiss concerns about an admin action that both ignored BLP and increased drama. It happened, it made things worse, and it should be included in findings. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After acknowledging that the article had been moved because of BLP, and disregarding that concern... I did no such thing, and it doesn't appear that was even why the article was moved. Observe how Morwen reacted when she heard about the new name: instead of immediately moving the article (and citing BLP), she posted on the talk page and waited fifteen minutes. Observe how Morwen reacted when she saw that her first move was reversed: instead of immediately restoring the title to Chelsea Manning (as David did after my move), she posted a query on the talk page and waited twenty minutes. Those aren't the actions of someone who saw a BLP violation. And, again, I present the ambiguity in David's comments; there was no articulation that there was a BLP violation in the name Bradley Manning. Yeah, we know now that David felt Bradley Manning was a BLP violation, and you may have inferred that then, but he doesn't say that. If the article had been moved to Private Manning, would that have been a BLP violation too? There was just as much indication that that was a violation as there was that Bradley Manning was a violation. -- tariqabjotu 19:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. You're saying Morwen waited too long for someone to believe she thought it was a needed change? That if the change was made with more haste and less talk page discussion, then it would indicate they thought it a BLP violation? You're holding up Morwen as an example of how David should have acted? Your evidence is that Morwen posted talk page queries and waited, before making moves. Is that what you did before you moved? (I don't know whether you did or not but it's an interesting question if you admit that it is a better way of doing it.)__Elaqueate (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to believe something needs to be changed, and it's another thing to believe something is a BLP violation. I have little doubt that Morwen thought the move was a needed change; the fact that she didn't launch a move request and didn't wait for a whole lot of input before moving the article demonstrates that. However, if she thought the original title was a BLP violation, she wouldn't have even bothered seeking a second opinion first; she just would have moved the page and mentioned BLP in the moving reason (as David did in his rapid reversal of my move). Now maybe Morwen thought of BLP as a reason for supporting the move later on, but it didn't seem to be a reason for her initial moves. I'm not holding up Morwen as an example of how David should have acted nor am I holding her up as an example of how he shouldn't have acted; they're two different situations. -- tariqabjotu 07:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're contradicting your own argument. You assert that Morwen waited too long for you to believe she thought it was a BLP violation. You then say she acted without a move request or enough input. Too slow, and simultaneously too hasty. And if you believe that action against BLP violations should be taken immediately and discussed after, then you can't fault the immediacy of David's move, even if you dispute the quality of the explanations afterward. __Elaqueate (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no contradiction. I'm saying it doesn't appear she moved on the basis of BLP concerns, and therefore the move was hasty. This is not an indictment, though; people can move articles for whatever reason without acquiring consensus first if they feel their actions are uncontroversial. David's move was based on, at least in his mind, BLP concerns, so there is nothing wrong with the speed of his move. I don't believe I've faulted him for that specifically, but for other issues (e.g. not promptly explaining how he saw that as a violation, blaming me for not inferring what he didn't state previously, being too involved to perform admin actions). -- tariqabjotu 15:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of this assessment, are you saying that you didn't think anyone had expressed BLP concerns or concerns that the subject of the BLP faced harm when you made your contested move? __Elaqueate (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind I see here you thought BLP was the most important issue, nine minutes before you reverted the title. __Elaqueate (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This can't possibly be a serious proposal. Tariq behaved entirely appropriately concerning the admin tools.--v/r - T P 12:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not...no way. There is no pattern of admin abuse and this is no way serious enough to warrant removal of the tools. Frankly, the manner in which the page was initially moved and then the overt collusion to get the page protected and the spamming of like minded activists to support this fiasco is a far worse example of misuse of position and or tools than restoring the page to a long standing title....even so, I will vehemently oppose any sanctions against any administrator in this case.--MONGO 13:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It is important for Arbcom to be clear that Tariqabjotu acted contrary to what should be expected. But de-sysoping would be a disproportionate reaction to an isolated error of judgement like this. FWIW, I think it would be a good thing if he acknowledged the error of judgement, but that's up to him. Formerip (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move warring through protection is a problem. Move warring in the face of a (debatable) BLP issue is more so. But I think an admonishment is enough to get the point home. No reason to sacrifice a good admin just to drive the point home when an admonishment will do fine. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "move warring"; reverting controversial moves is a standard WP:RMT action. If you have an issue with that being so, attain consensus to get that provision removed. -- tariqabjotu 19:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and I had this discussion earlier [221]. The TL;DR version of my argument "Policy is plain that admins shouldn't edit under protection without consensus. You did and you changed to your preferred version." To claim that RMT applies to a protected page is, IMO, a huge stretch. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[222] Thryduulf, aren't you friends with David Gerard and Morwen in real life? Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a policy argument. What are you trying to infer here? This seems grossly inappropriate. And desperate, somehow, in that you're not challenging an argument at all here, you're just trying to discredit the arguer. Do Wikipedia Meetups preclude Wikipedia editing? This seems to be, "I enter into evidence this picture of my opponent, drinking beer in a pub with a ferret." __Elaqueate (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that I have met both Morwen and David Gerard, just as I have met many other Wikipedians, but that is completely irrelevant to everything on this page. I have met Rich Farmbrough and I supported restrictions on him at his arbitration case; I have never met Andy Mabbett yet I was one of the most vocal supporters of him in the Infoboxes case. Finally I think it is bizarre that you posted this irrelevance on a proposed sanction that has nothing to do with either Morwen or David Gerard? Thryduulf (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting actually quite creepy now. Morwen (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Please note: This set of proposals is not intended as a draft of a complete decision in the case, but consideration for supplementing and in some instances replacing specific items in Kirill's draft. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Non-discrimination

1) Wikipedia welcomes editors and readers equally regardless of personal characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Comments that unnecessarily demean any person—whether it is a fellow editor, an article subject, or any other person—on the basis of such personal characteristics are unwelcome. Offensive comments of this kind, especially when extreme or repeated after a warning, may be grounds for blocking, topic restrictions, or other sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'd add "national origin." Also, having "gender" and "gender identity" listed as two separate things implies they are two separate things that are "different". That may not be well received as I don't think transgender persons (or anyone really) consider their gender to be different from their gender identity regardless of any state of transition. "gender expression" might be a replacement for "gender identity" in your principle sentence as I believe there is a distinction between gender and gender expression (e.g. we present Manning's gender as female, her gender identity is the same as gender but her gender expression changed through her life as part of her transition). Again, I defer to others that are more knowledgeable about the current state of language. --DHeyward (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

5) The BLP policy applies to all parts of any Wikipedia article in which a living person is referred to, including the title of the article and all other portions of the page. For example, in the unlikely event that unsourced negative information about a living individual were to appear in an article title, the title would need to be changed immediately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

WP:Article titles is a policy in and of itself. I'd be inclined to state it as the WP:Article policy incorporates and reflects the current understanding of BLP policy (and if it doesn't it should be amended). In no case should two policies conflict such that one is used to hammer the other and vice versa. By their nature, we don't cite titles, rather they reflect the policy of titles. If there really is a concern that the WP:Article titles doesn't currently reflect BLP, we should spell out a "Living Persons" titling section that addresses it and has WP:BLP point to it rather than trying to have a WP:BLP policy that addresses numerous types of divergent content. We already acknowledge that redirect have a lower standard than article titles. That is hard to rectify in the WP:BLP policy but fits well within the WP:Article titles policy. I'd be inclined to state all article title concerns are reflected in the WP:Article titles policy, including BLP and refer BLP issues with titles to the title policy..

Comment by others:

This should be stating the blindingly obvious, but alas it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed in principle. I'm not sure how this applies to this particular dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and individuals' names

6) The BLP 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 to expressly address this issue, such as by identifying factors relevant to making this decision. In the interim, such issues should be addressed with understanding and sensitivity toward the dignity and well-being of the article subject, counterbalanced if appropriate with any other encyclopedic considerations that may be relevant.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Precisely true, and a core part of my reasoning in closing the earlier discussion. BLP certainly has a bias in favor of self-identification, but that bias is not so strong as to outweigh verifiability and usage by sources.—Kww(talk) 22:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True and I'd move all the principles into the WP:Article titles policy. The problem is that MOS guidelines were mixed with BLP policy in an unholy alliance to conflict with Article titling policy. Put all BLP issues regarding titles in the title policy and there is no longer any authoritative disputes of policy. --DHeyward (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Prior to the Manning affair though, many people felt that the specific, stable guidance provided by MOS:IDENTITY did expressly indicate that articles about trans* individuals should be referred to, including in article titles, by their most recently expressed name and gender identity. The reasoning for this is that BLP says we shouldn't unnecessarily harm living people, MOS:IDENTITY makes it clear that referring to trans* individuals by their birth name is unnecessarily harmful = using birth names as the article title is a breach of BLP. Personally I have seen nothing in any of the evidence presented to dissuade me from this view. Regardless of that though, where it is disputed whether a title a BLP violation, it should be common sense that that title not be used. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy (BLP) cannot be "breached" by the failure to follow a guideline (identity). There's a reason why mos:identity is just a guideline; the notion of "birth name is unnecessarily harmful" is not a widely-accepted position of the Wikipedia community. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first statement is accurate. The second sentence, "It may be desirable for the community to clarify the BLP policy..." might be an accurate description of the proposer's wishes, it's only a recommendation as to how policy should be changed. The final sentence "In the interim..." has no basis is policy. I remind the Committee that it is beyond ArbCom's remit to ignore, overrule or invent policy. ArbCom must stick to conduct issues only. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the case. WP:AP: ArbCom acts as a "final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes" (emphasis mine), not exclusively for serious conduct disputes". ArbCom has used its remit in the past to ignore, overrule or invent policy as it saw fit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the BLP policy

7) Given the visibility of Wikipedia articles about living persons, which often become the top-ranking search engine result for an individual who is the subject of such an article, the community and this Committee have repeatedly emphasized the importance of adhering to the BLP policy and, at least as importantly, to the intent and purposes underlying the policy. In some circumstances, the correct application of the BLP policy to an article is clear, but in other circumstances, good-faith disagreements can arise. A dedicated noticeboard has been created to discuss such situations; it would be highly desirable for more administrators and other experienced editors to watchlist and participate in that page, so that all BLP violations or alleged violations can receive the same prompt attention, if not the level of participation and controversy, that the one underlying this case has received. It is a mistake to believe that the BLP policy, or any other written policy, could possibly anticipate, let alone resolve, all types of disagreements that might arise on any given subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Inappropriate comments during discussion of the pagemove

1) Many comments during community discussion of whether the article title should be "Bradley Manning" or "Chelsea Manning", and whether this individual should now be referred to by male or female pronouns, were inappropriate and in some cases overtly offensive, particularly during the early part of the discussion. While a majority of editors who posted on both sides of the issues made sensible observations and expressed them in a reasonable way, far too many others did not. For example, several editors who favored keeping the article at "Bradley Manning" made demeaning comments that coarsened the debate and brought it into disrepute, such as by offensively comparing the life choices of individuals self-identifying as transgendered to someone's pretending to be an animal, or by making crass and gratuitously indecorous references to anatomical changes. On the other side of the issue, a handful of editors who favored the title "Chelsea Manning" stated or implied that everyone favoring "Bradley Manning" was necessarily doing so based on "transphobia" or was advocating "hate speech," which certainly was not the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Diffs available above (on one side of the issue) and on the evidence page (on the other), if desired. This paragraph would replace all the specific findings Kirill has proposed accusing specific editors of "discriminatory speech." Except perhaps in a couple of extreme examples, I think including those findings would be seriously undesirable, for the reasons I've discussed in Kirill's section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for Phil Sandifer, I did not wrote that no one advocating "Bradley Manning" did so hatefully; I wrote that it is not the case that everyone advocating "Bradley Manning" (as of a given point of time) did so hatefully. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I quibble the wording - I do not think it can be said to "certainly" be untrue that misnaming a trans person is hate speech, and would not imagine that the arbcom actually intends to make such a broad and definitive ruling about this. I recognize that I'm probably intended as the target of this bit of the finding, and if the committee really wants to slap me around a bit out of some spurious commitment to making sure both sides have at least some findings against them, so be it. But at least tinker the wording and go with some claim like "which was unduly incendiary" instead of issuing a proposal that declares misnaming trans people to categorically not be hate speech. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to stress something, which I've said before, but that bears mention again: descriptions like "transphobic" and "hate speech" are not necessarily comments on intent, but on material outcome. To quote hate speech, "hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group." Note that this does not indicate that the speech is uttered maliciously, or that the speaker is hateful - it notes that the speech is incendiary and promotes violence and prejudice. Transgender people are often the subject of violence specifically because of the belief that they are in some way lying or deceiving people by claiming their identities. Misnaming reinforces the idea that their claimed identities are false, and thus normalizes the justification for violence.

I think this is a very important point to make, because it's crucial to understanding how systemic discrimination and bigotry happens. (And that is what I absolutely believe happened here.) It's not a matter of a small number of people with nefarious intent - it's a matter of a large number of people with good intent but who are ignorant and, for whatever reason, reluctant to listen to the voices of trans people and to treat them with the seriousness they deserve. To me that is the real and awful horror of bigotry and hate speech: it's usually not malicious. It's far more banal than that. It's usually well-intentioned, if not terribly well thought through. Hate speech is often caused by good people trying to do the right thing and failing.

Yes, I've been absolutely unwavering in condemning actions that I believe do real and material harm to trans people. Of course I have. Because that harm is being done to people I love. But I've never once impugned the motives of anyone supporting the "Bradley Manning" title. I've been unsparing in describing the consequences of that title, yes. I've condemned support for it because of the harm that it causes, and I've condemned that support in strong words. But not once have I accused anyone of doing anything hatefully, or of being transphobic themselves. Nor would I ever. I was wrong about a lot of these topics in the past - in fact, my first hostile dispute on Wikipedia was over trans issues, and I was on the other side of the issue from the one I'm taking now. I espoused transphobia. I espoused bigotry. I supported article wordings that were hate speech. I don't think I was a bad person then. I think I was just wrong, and my wrongness had dreadful consequences. And the same applies to the people I've criticized here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think I understand what you mean by this proposal, and I don't agree with Phil that you intend to say that "misnaming trans people is categorically nothate speech", but I can see how it can be read that way. Misnaming trans people can be hate speech if done deliberately and/or maliciously (and I would argue that some of the misnaming falls into that category). However, misnaming trans people done accidentally or through innocent ignorance is not hate speech (e.g. the comment associated with Cls14's move is not hate speech because he was genuinely unaware that Manning had identified as a female named Chelsea). Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, as NYB's last sentence gets to the heart of my evidence submission. Sandifer's even doing it again, right here in this section, claiming that supporting article wordings not favorable to transgenders is transphobic hate speech. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very uncomfortable with the last sentence of this proposed finding of fact. I think it is tempting to assume that blame for a hot discussion should be somewhat equally distributed (Okrent's Law) -- but in this case I think it would be incorrect. I don't believe there's evidence to support the statement that even "a handful of editors" stated or implied that everyone favouring "Bradley Manning" was motivated by transphobia or was advocating hate speech. I have read the entire evidence page including linked diffs and although I saw a few comments that come close to supporting the sentence, I do not believe that, closely read, they actually do support it. Sue Gardner (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's what we call confirmation bias. Those who entered into this affair with their minds already made up, quick to exonerate their like-minded comrade-in-arms from any wrongdoing, have proven to be the most disruptive element by far. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to whether that handful of editors have only expressed that the "Bradley Manning" Wikipedia article couldn't be the home of the article and not be transphobic or anti-trans or a form of "hate speech." That's the extreme position that's contrasted with arguments that "Chelsea Manning" Wikipedia article couldn't be the home because she's "not biologically female" or that's "not her legal name." There are certainly editors that have expressed both extremes. They have used those arguments as the only basis and the only underpinning they believe is necessary for their arguments. If an editor finds themselves at those positions, they are holding the "handful of editors" expressed above. The vast middle makes arguments on notability, commonname, identity, reliable sources, BLP, etc, and don't fall back to transphobic, anti-trans, hateful, biological, or legal name as the underpinnings of their arguments. The vast majority have an opinion that is not rooted in the absolute belief that a reasonable, open minded person could hold a different view than themselves and aren't being duped by some hidden force such as systemic bias, unseen privilege or political correctness. It's obvious that there are opinions about where the article should live. How those opinions are expressed have run the spectrum, though, and saying that an one sides opinion is always reasoned because the argument is palatable to the observer is not consistent with an objective view of those arguments. Simply stated, if your reaction to the article staying at "Bradley Manning" is a transphobic result or your reaction to the article moving to "Chelsea Manning" denies her biological sex, your in that handful group. Cogent arguments for both results have been made without those conclusions being drawn. Even benign "You'd agree with me if only you didn't have the privileges they didn't" or "You'd agree with me if only the political correctness movement didn't influence you" arguments are expressions that bely that type of argument. --DHeyward (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Tarc

Proposed principles

Template

1) Editors are expected to comment on the substance of others' edits. Attempts to discredit people's views based on personal traits such as race, creed, nationality or sexual preference are in most cases Personal Attacks. Accusations of bias in article text can be resolved through normal editing procedures, however editors should not lightly accuse other editors of bias. Such accusations, if not backed up with evidence of such bias, could be considered a personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[1] urtesy of WS

[1]