Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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:

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 [7], 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]

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

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Explaining BLP justifications

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]

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:[8][9][10][11][12][13] - 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]

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:

1. Prior to performing any admin actions, he simply cited MOS:IDENTITY to support the name change, in a talk page discussion.
2. 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.
3. He didn't provide an explanation when asked by several different editors, rudely accusing them of IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
4. The explanation that had his signature attached to it was actually written by someone else.
5. He has opined that he was clearly right, despite the RM discussion -- and its result -- showing that he wasn't (clearly right).
6. He believes "This is a BLP" constitutes an explanation of where and why he sees a BLP violation.
7. 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 - TP 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

1) 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]

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 - TP 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.[14] But after seeing this edit,[15] I'm not so sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

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:

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]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

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? [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. 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 - TP 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]

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

(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:

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Proposed principles

Transgender and Biographies of Living People

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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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]

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 [24] 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:'

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]

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 [25][26][27]. 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 [28]). 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]

Comment by others:

Disagree. One month is a short duration below the usual for an Rfc.--MONGO 14:56, 12 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]

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 - TP 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 - TP 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:

1. There were horribly bigoted attacks on transgender people in the discussion.
2. The admin triad disregarded these.
3. 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 - TP 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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Proposed principles

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]

Proposed enforcement

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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP

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 - TP 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 - TP 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 [29], 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]

[incomplete]

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 - TP 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]

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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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]

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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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[30] 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]

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:

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]

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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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[31][32][33][34][35] and battleground behavior[36][37][38][39]. Attempts to discuss these with Josh Gorand has resulted in more accusations[40][41][42].

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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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[43][44][45][46].

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

@AGK: Also on the evidence page.--v/r - TP 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 ([47]). 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 - TP 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.[48] 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:

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:

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 - TP 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]

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:

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]

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]

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). [49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 [56][57] other editors' comments, and by persisting in repeating[58][59] the same, at this point deliberate, misrepresentations multiple times over a period of several weeks, after his misrepresentations had been pointed out[60][61] 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[62] by omitting the first part of the sentence to give the sentence a meaning completely unrelated to the actual edit[ [63], 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[64] 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]

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:

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]

Proposed principles

Administrator accountability (WP:ADMINACCT)

1) Administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, they are expected to be accountable for their actions. Accountability requires administrators to be civil and open in explaining the rationale behind an administrative action that they have taken. Administrators are expected to respond promptly, civilly, fully and honestly to queries about their actions as administrator and to justify them when needed.

Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, fail to meet the expectation of accountability may be sanctioned or have their access removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. -- tariqabjotu 14:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Administrator involvement (WP:INVOLVED)

2) The community broadly construes the meaning of an administrator being involved. Administrators need to mindful of potential sources for conflicts of interests or of having having strong feelings affecting a dispute.

It is important that administrators not only be uninvolved but be seen to be uninvolved. Administrators therefore need to consider how others will perceive their actions, interests and potential conflicts of interests.

Where potential for involvement (or the perception of involvement) exists, administrators should seek the assistance of an uninvolved administrator by posting concerns to an administrator noticeboard rather than taking action themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. -- tariqabjotu 14:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No personal attacks (WP:NPA)

3) Wikipedia is a collaborative project based on rational discussion between collaborators with different perspectives and knowledge. Personal attacks harm collaboration, divide editors and inhibits rational discussion. It therefore harms the project.

It is never acceptable to direct discriminatory epithets against another contributor or a group of contributors. This includes directing epithets such as "racist", "sexist", or "transphobic" towards other editors or their contributions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

So if it is a personal attack to describe someone as transphobic, surely then it is a personal attack to say of Chelsea Manning that "Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe y'know." [65] Or is it OK to attack the subjects of articles as "a one-day circus freak show"? [66]

If it is OK to make arguments which fundamentally deny the humanity of transgender people, then pointing out that those arguments fundamentally deny the humanity of transgender people cannot possibly be prohibited. Either both are wrong or neither is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 - TP 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]

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 - TP 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]

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 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]

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Proposed principles

BLP is a fundamental principle

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:

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]

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 be viewed transphobic on WP? Be honest. --DHeyward (talk) 03:17, 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]

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 - TP 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]

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 [67] as a specific case of a principle dating back to 2004 [68].

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 - TP 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 - TP 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 [69] and transgender activism[70]. 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. [71]. 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 [72]. 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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]

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 - TP 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: on the other hand perhaps you could assume good faith. Chris Smowton (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 - TP 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]

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]

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]

(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]

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 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.

Recruitment of other editors equals a warning

1) The admin can and should keep a watch on the talk pages of those who edit controversial talk pages here on Wikipedia, those seen to be recruiting editors should be given a warning at the very least while repeat offenses lead to a topic ban for x amount of time as the admin sees fit. There are differences between recruitment and canvassing that I feel should be looked at and judged case by case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Advocacy to be dealt with WP:1RR

2) Advocacy to prove a point is disruptive, yes people are going to have their opinions but in all cases these should be neutral and respectful.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: