Easy tiger. Read what I wrote. "It was considered "transphobic" by some in the last discussion to claim Manning was a man". That is purely true - some people DID indeed consider such statements transphobic. Whether I *agree* with it is a different, and much more complex, issue, that I'm not going to get into. But the statement itself is true, in spades.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fluffernutter this is not OK, it is an opinion, it could have been phrased better, but removing it because you disagree with is it NOT OK. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's what you meant, Wombat, but your point has made me realize that I probably could have phrased my comment there better. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you fixed, but it is always good to be as precise and as accurate with language as possible, so my guess is I owe you thanks for fixing whatever you fixed. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Obiwankenobi: I removed Kosh's commentary because it was inflammatory to the conversation and a borderline BLP violation. I am attending to the RM solely in an administrative capacity, and my goal is to keep the conversation from running off the rails into BLP violations and personal attacks. In light of that, "[person who identifies as a woman] is a woman" is neither inflammatory (you'll notice that no one from any side of the dispute has objected to comments of that type prior to this) nor a potential BLP violation (a significant portion of the community feels that denying a transperson's gender identity is problematic on BLP grounds, but no one feels that affirming it or not addressing it is a BLP violation). So comments affirming Manning's gender identity may be contrary to the guidelines, but they are benign in comparison to comments refuting it, which have been shown to cause ill will and disruptive derails, and I am trying to use the lightest touch possible in adminning the RM. I took (and will take) the step of redacting someone's comment only in the case of things that are likely to cause serious issue.

@KoshVorlon: As I noted on your talk page, this topic area is under discretionary sanctions. That means that administrators are given wide latitude to take what actions they believe necessary to keep the topic area under control. I redacted your comment under that provision, based on the reasoning I just explained to Obiwan; discretionary sanctions would also empower me to topic-ban you or restrict your ability to participate in the RM, but I felt that the issue could be dealt with with a lighter touch by simply redacting the inflammatory parts of your comment and asking you not to restore them. I realize this makes you feel hard-done-by, but again, I did this with an eye toward keeping the RM from derailing, not due to any personal animus toward you or your opinions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, of course) Hi. I've undone your edit here. I don't really have more to say than what was in my edit summary. I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments you have that your redaction was appropriate (I briefly scanned through your recent contributions looking for a rationale for your edit), but currently it appears to be selective enforcement of a questionable discussion guideline. That's neither fair nor acceptable. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mz. I'm a bit surprised at your behavior, given that I noted in multiple places (though admittedly not in my edit summary itself) that the redaction was done pursuant to the active discretionary sanctions in this topic area. I'm sure you're aware that discretionary sanction-based administrative actions are not intended to be reversed by anyone except the implementing admin, arbcom, or a community consensus. If you read up a few lines, you will see my rationale explained quite clearly. I'm open to other ideas as to how to handle inflammatory commentary that the speaker refuses to remove without redacting it, but in my judgment, redacting while leaving the vote is the least harsh measure available to me at this time. As far as selective enforcement, that's not the case (except inasmuch as, explained above, one style of commentary is more problematic to the health of the conversation and our BLP policy). Kosh's statement was the first one I attended to of the day, but I doubt it will be the last; I'm keeping an active eye on things and am catching up progressively on what happened on the overnight shift. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can create a list on this talk page of all of the comments throughout the relevant page that you feel are inflammatory and we can discuss them as a group. It's difficult to look at your singular redaction as more than selective enforcement, but if, as you say, it was the first you intend to do of many, perhaps you can share which other comments you find inflammatory and we can gauge the overall tone and your proposed reaction(s) together. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people take *strong* exception to claims that Manning is a woman. We had many of these last time, and there are plenty to be found out in the wider world. Ultimately, the reason for this guideline is that no-one is clearly 'right', as woman and man are just words that have societal definitions attached to them, there isn't a clear societal consensus on, to what extent, a transgendered woman is fully a woman. (see Womyn born womyn and other such spaces where transwomen are rejected as being fully "women", due to the fact that growing up male has given then a different life experience than those born women) These debates can be endless, are currently ongoing, and only lead to accusations of transphobia or excessive trans-advocacy and forcing a redefinition of the terms "women". (just google cotton ceiling for some eye-opening debates on to what extent trans* women with functioning male sexual organs should be accepted by cis-lesbians). Nonetheless, such debates are totally useless for a discussion here, especially those about the title of an article. We don't have such discussions around the title of George Sands article for example, nor Dame Edna. I think a firm statement that claims from either side about the "true" gender should be dropped (people can feel free to say "She identifies as a woman", but stating the GRAND TRUTH that Manning IS INDEED A WOMAN, without the other side being able to argue the opposite, will just cause problems.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think some people would take strong exception to claims such as "because Chelsea Manning is a woman" (in italics in the original), "gender identity is not defined by one's sexual organs", and an apparent suggestion that those who disagree with moving the article are transphobic (which is being discussed elsewhere). As I said, this specific redaction was selective enforcement of a questionable discussion guideline. If someone wants to police all comments on the page in an even-handed manner, that would still be questionable, but would at least be fair. At the moment, one particular person's comments were redacted while there is plenty of inflammatory rhetoric in the opposing section. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obi, I agree with you that these kinds of arguments are a bad idea, but silencing people, in my opinion is worse. Instead of silcencing people, how about asking them to clarfy what they are talking about? My guess is a lot of people when they say "Manning is a man" mean "Manning is geneticaly male" and they beleive that since genetice are the only scientificly verifiable thing they are what important. However wrong you may belive this arguemt to be, silenceing it is not the right option. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wombat, just to note in case it's become obscured: I am not editing people's comments out of the blue. Each time I have come across a problematic comment, I have reached out to the editor to ask them to rephrase what they said to make it less problematic. Unfortunately, so far people have been refusing to rephrase themselves. I have been doing my best to leave the substance of each vote untouched, removing only excessively inflammatory commentary.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would you scientifically verify that someone is "genetically male"? There are lots of chromosomal variations at the edge - for all we know Manning was born intersex, or ...? Or, even barring that, how are we supposed to verify whether Manning has a penis or not? It's an interesting subject for debate about gender identity, but it's ultimately irrelevant to the title of the article - I have no idea what Kristin Beck has in her pants, nor whether her chromosomes are XY, XXY, XYY, XX, YY, or any of the other possible variants (some of those I made up :) ), but we wouldn't move that article to "Chris Beck" because in the public's eye, there is no Chris Beck, only Kristin. This is not a forum, and claims that Manning is not a real "woman" piss off trans* allies, while claim that Manning is now 100% a woman piss off other people, and ultimately, neither side contributes ANYTHING to the discussion. Even if one side is right, e.g. if one side proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Manning has a penis and Manning is XY with normal male karyotype, and they even prove that Manning doesn't have GID after all, it was just a mistake, and Manning's internal gender is still male - even with all that, "Chelsea" may still be the best article title if a vast majority of sources use it!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obi, that is an argumet for the talk page, not here. I am simply saying censorship of opinions is wrong and trying to clarify why I think that. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point is, such arguments have NO BEARING on the proper title, so the last place they belong is at the talk page. re: censorship, I agree, and if I had my druthers, anyone could say anything, but last time it was a mess, so we were hoping people would self-censor to some degree. The bottom line is, some people will never agree that a trans* woman is fully 100% a woman. some trans* advocates will never accept that a trans* woman is anything less than 100% fully a woman, and entitled to all rights and privileges thereof. This has not yet been sorted out by society, and we aren't going to sort it out here - as such, the easier path is, leave it out, as it doesn't impact what we're doing, which is building an encyclopedia. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asking the user to clarify is both appropreate and OK, but in the case of Kosh's comment, and please take this as the constructive critisim that it is, you did a poor job. I would have put the whole comment in one of those collapse boxes with the title "Potentally inflamitory statment of oposition" or some such thing. I hope that idea helps. Serously, you are in a crappy spot and I don't mean to make your job any harder, just censorship of opinions "really grinds my gears" CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wombat, that's a useful option to consider. And thank you for understanding that I'm trying to do the best I can. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to talk page stalkers and watchers: I appear to be attempting to admin Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request singlehandedly at the moment; this means that I'm doing things on the fly according to my best judgment. Going by only one person's judgment is never a great idea in a case like this, and I would very much appreciate if any uninvolved admins or experienced editors could a) sanity check my administrative choices and let me know what they think here, and b) join in with trying to keep things flowing smoothly at the RM. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi - I wasn't yelling at you at all... sorry it came across that way. I really was stating all the claims of transphobia are bullshit, because they really are. They're being thrown around to silence anyone that wants state the obvious, Bradley Manning's a guy. And @Fluffernutter, saying that isn't a BLP violation. You now have consensus on a 3 to 1 basis showing your revert is incorrect. Don't revert back please.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]