Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveManning

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 – NE Ent 23:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning[edit]

Can some uninvolved admins please keep and eye on Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning and the talkpage. We have a high profile BLP whose subject has today announced a change of gender and what name the article should be at, what pronouns should be used in the article and which policies apply are generating tension; the article has already had five moves today and some of the comment on the talkpage is getting heated. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are no legal papers or documentation affirming an actual change of gender, and that the subject has not used the name in any known legal capacity as far as I can determine. Collect (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the move was premature at best, but I'm more worried about the behavior of some editors in BLP/N and the article's talk page who seem to think that anyone who objects to it is a "transphobe". Definite dearth of AGF there. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 15:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And editors opposed to the new name are also being called ignorant.--v/r - TP 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, please don't bring the argument about the name here. The issue (including the points you've raised) is being actively discussed on the article's talk page, and that's where it should stay. This thread here on WP:ANI is just a request for more administrator eyes on the discussion to handle any necessary policy enforcement (WP:NPA and the like, I suppose). —Psychonaut (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We also need people to keep an eye on the article feedback, where some inappropriate comments have been popping up. — Scott • talk 21:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A mega RM debate is already underway. The article has also had two attempted copy & paste moves. As Bradley Manning is currently edit protected this just resulted in a redirect loop; however the other c&p move went for Bradley manning. We're probably going to need more protections all over the place whilst this one rages. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Edit warring and the first block I can spot on this. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly advise all admins to cease fire and allow time for consensus to develop. Technically WP:WHEEL has already been violated at least once here, and even a single instance can lead to being desysopped by ArbCom. nobody wins when admins wheel war, so please just don't do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it hasn't necessarily been violated at least once. David Gerard (talk · contribs) believed he was reverting a move based on BLP, which is a valid exception to wheel-warring. That is, unless, of course, you're arguing that I was the "at least once", which seems like a hard case to make, given WP:RMT explicitly allowing requests reversing undiscussed moves (and, by definition, admins to act in accordance with them). -- tariqabjotu 19:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is going to be a contentious close, because the closing admin will have to weigh up both consensus and policy/best practice. I'd therefore like to preempt any dispute about an involved closure to ask that none of the admins who took admin action on the article today (or, obviously, who edited it or expressed a view anywhere) be involved in closing the move request. The best thing would be to post a request on WP:AN/RFC for someone entirely uninvolved to make the close. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked on WP:AN/RFC for an admin with no involvement in this article to oversee and close the RM. That will hopefully head off any problems in a week's time. If someone here or there would be willing to volunteer, that would be very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you haven't seen Slate? Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations, Perfectly Reflects Chelsea Manning’s New Gender Liz Let's Talk 20:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no conceivable reason for us to want to garner such a headline, even though it may feel good for now. We are not the news, and what's right today might be wrong tomorrow. Like it or not, we need to be conservative--not in a political sense, but conservative nonetheless. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The UK news sites appear to be considerably more on-the-ball than their US brethren, who are presumably the whole world to Slate bloggers. In the UK, even the Daily Mail article is consistently "Chelsea", "her", "she" - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there were discussions in July at the medicine project on this issue, and a decision was made to keep it at GID. I'd suggest opening up an RM. DSM-V is an American framework for example, so I think we need discussion and arguments from all sides on that one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The move by Abductive was made without consensus; a requested move (not page move warring) is the appropriate way to handle this discussion. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the discussion there someone uploaded the file File:Bradleywomanning.jpg. Besides having uncertain copyright status, the filename appears to be a jab at the subject of the photo. If the file is to be kept, could I ask an administrator to rename it to something more neutral? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page title war[edit]

Ok so this has something to do with the previous discussion of Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning but not the same points. There were several over redirects on the article and the ongoing dispute upon the page [1][2][3][4]. Now I understand that the original move was bold but the first revert should have started a discussion should it have not? All individuals involved will be notified. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All individuals for this posting have been notified. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've been accused on the talk page of abusing my admin bit, which is puzzling, since I wasn't aware that moves over redirects with no history needed it. Someone is demanding I apologise to Wikipedia for it, even! I got an apology from the person who did that first revert - they'd assumed it was vandalism. Since then there has been a quite active WP:RM discussion. I'm not sure what admin action is required - despite all the repetitive tendentious policy-ignoring arguments it's not got to the stage of banhammering people yet, surely? Morwen (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) What administrator action is necessary here? The back-and-forth moving has stopped and the matter is being discussed on the article's talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny I am not involved anywhere and don't really care about the current dispute. I noticed something that was on going after the talk page made a point of saying that it would need to be brought to the attention of ANI since these were administrator actions. Further I am not requesting admin action of this but instead admins to actually watch what is currently going on since the last time it changed over was a mere 4 hours ago. While this may have stopped permanently (one could only hope) if it should flare up again or someone decide to do something unilateral then it can be addressed with previous behavior identified. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue I see here is with David's last revert. Standard operating procedure, as suggested by WP:RMT, is to revert undiscussed page moves that are likely to be controversial, upon request. David invoked BLP in reversing that technical move [which I performed], so his action does not meet the mens rea element of being wrong, but I am struggling to understand how WP:BLP applies in this instance at all. In the ongoing move request, most of the supporters of the Chelsea Manning title cite MOS:IDENTITY instead (no comment on the applicability of that to the article title), and those who invoke WP:BLP, including David, have failed to elaborate upon what part of that policy the Bradley Manning title violates. -- tariqabjotu 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative note: Since I have no interest in the outcome of the RM discussion, I have volunteered to shepherd it for the duration, and close it in ~ seven days. In the long run of decades and centuries, it really doesn't matter where this article sits for the length of an RM discussion, so long as the title is not libelous or nonsensical. bd2412 T 21:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The title is nonsensical. It's a violation of wikipedia sourcing rules. And the admins who continue to abuse wikipedia by reverting and reshaping the article according to their personal opinion, should have their admin privileges revoked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I have neither reverted nor reshaped anything, and I have no personal opinion about what this title should be. I have merely volunteered to close this discussion once the appropriate time has passed. bd2412 T 14:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the above is utterly characteristic of Bugs' lack of AGF on this issue - essentially arguing that anyone disgreeing with them should be severely punished - I propose Bugs be topic banned for the duration. It's a contentious debate already, and Bugs' contributions (off-colour jokes, attacks on the integrity of Manning's lawyer) are adding vastly more heat than light. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no "off-colour" jokes. An "off-color" joke would be one you can't say on regular TV. I don't do that sort of thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Bugs has also demanded my apology for supposedly abusing my admin powers, when I've not even used my admin bit in the entire thing. Anyone could have done what I did. Morwen (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't demand an "apology" from you - I recommended that you do the right thing and revert your abusive, non-consensus moves back to "Bradley" until or if the valid news sources generally start saying "Chelsea" instead of "Bradley". Speaking of "lack of AGF", aren't you the one that called anyone opposing your page moves "transphobic"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a) you said 'The move to "Chelsea" was wrong, every time. Move it back to "Bradley", and then you can apologize to the rest of us, for abusing Wikipedia and for abusing your admin privileges'. I have not used my admin privileges this entire time! Strike out that lie and you'll go some way to making peace. b) I have done no such thing. I said that there are a distressing number of people making transphobic arguments. There were and there still were Look at the number of people saying the trans people don't really exist and shouldn't be acknowledge at all. I at no point said that *all* the arguments were transphobic. Morwen (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You "can" apologize is not a demand, just a recommendation. And you don't need to apologize to me at all, just to Wikipedia in general, for allowing your advocacy to override Wikipedia rules. Move the page back to "Bradley Manning", and things will be fine. If the name ever legally becomes "Chelsea" and/or is recognized as such in the media broadly, then you'd be justified in moving it to "Chelsea". But not until then. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any dog in this fight, but I just find it interesting that this was changed instantly, whereas the RM on A. J. Allmendinger failed despite their being plenty of evidence his preferred styling is 'AJ' because "the majority of sources" (before he changed how he styles it) use punctuation. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban for Baseball Bugs?[edit]

I think we can close this now - runs for two days with a clear no consensus outcome. Not going to happen.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The longer I work on the talk page of Chelsea Manning the more egregious comments I see from Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) including: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. The BLP violations, Tenacious Editing, Personal Attacks against the article's subject and Wikilawyering are not hard to see. Would it be possible to topic ban Bugs from this BLP per this Arbitration remedy? --Guerillero | My Talk 04:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those links in isolation, which admittedly has the potential of stripping context, I would say that he is making an ass out of himself but might not be crossing the line such that that remedy comes into play. In my humble opinion, of course. But his evident zealotry is concerning and if I was a betting man, I'd predict a community invoked topic ban is inevitable at some point if he doesn't tone it down. Resolute 04:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd thank God if I were you that gambling only comes to those who wish to profit. I believe Bugs attempted to speak truth to advocate. A hard task indeed. †TE†Talk 04:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Resolute. Some of what he's posted in those diffs is just strongly-worded argument, and some of it is rather snarky, tasteless, and dirsepectful, but none of it alone rises to the level of banworthiness. But if you look way up and squint your eyes right, you can see a tiny speck which must be a big banhammer falling from the sky. I sure hope he steps out of the way before it makes impact. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn; please see my new comment below. –Psychonaut (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the more egregious things he has said have been missed: [10], [11], [12] and [13]. Frankly, personal attacks like these warrant a block, not just a topic ban, as it can spill over into other parts of the site very easily. There is also a good deal of political bias laden in his comments, from what I have seen, such as his "The Guardian hates the US" comment, which also makes this a conflict of interest issue. Haipa Doragon (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also going to call out User:Tarc for a couple of rather vulgar comments on the same page: [14] and [15]. I know it's not quite relevant, but I'd rather this be nipped in the bud with what are serious personal attack and COI issues. Haipa Doragon (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The advocate-admins have already hijacked the page, and now they want to lock it down from any challenges to their own biased viewpoints, despite their blatant violations of the rules about sourcing and their twisting of facts to make a bogus "manual of style" argument. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of that, true or false, justifies your personal attacks. Your actions are as accountable as anyone else's, and you have repeatedly attacked other editors, as I have demonstrated. If you want to continue editing, you should be apologizing for that and demonstrating that it will not happen again, not weaseling out of the issue with distractions. Haipa Doragon (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Distractions" like their hijacking of the page and violating Wikipedia rules... and threatening blocks for pointing that out, which would be a further abuse of their admin privileges. They own the page, and dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the invented phrase "advocate-admins" over and over again doesn't make it a fair or credible characterisation of anyone's behaviour. It's also abundantly clear who it's intended to refer to, so it's not really any different to a direct personal attack. I still favour a topic ban as a merciful option, though. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I was going to be neutral but "The advocate-admins have already hijacked the page, and now they want to lock it down from any challenges to their own biased viewpoints" remark above put me over the fence. Bugs needs to step AWAY from the ticking bomb! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see anything particularly objectionable in any of the diffs provided. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AQFK. What personal attacks? GregJackP Boomer! 11:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm all for healthy discussion, but Bugs' comments have consistently been beyond the pale - when I attempted to engage with him on his talk page, he instantly removed my remarks. Regardless of the different sides to this discussion (and the idea that this is somehow the result of "biased reporting" falls a bit flat when newspapers as diverse in their views as The Guardian[1] and The Daily Mail[2] are using the female pronoun to refer to Manning), Bugs' remarks are a clear indication of some of the prejudices and opinions that Trans people have to deal with every day. Trans Media Watch offer a coherent guide to journalists and publications writing on Trans issues [3]. Bugs is far from being the only offender, but is clearly the most visible and seems to be leaping upon every single comment in that discussion, essentially claiming that anyone with opposing views is clearly "abusing Wikipedia". Is this really the healthy debate we want to nurture here? Horatio Snickers (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and a hearty thanks to Haipa Doragon for canvassing at my talk page, as I would not have known of this discussion otherwise. Stating an objection to the automatic "we must call he a she" advocacy of the LGBT advocacy campaigners is not in itself uncivil, a personal attack, or disruptive. These are tactics being used to remove opposing voices from a discussion; critics of Israel are called antisemites, one becomes a homophobe for raising objections to gay innuendo in unrelated articles (e.g. fisting in Crisco), and so on. It's the oldest trick in the Wiki-book. As for Bugs specifically, his presence in ANI's unrelated to himself can be a bit trying on everyone's patience, but when involved in a substantive topic, his candor is sorely needed in the face of politically-correct tinged censorship. It doesn't hurt that the policy on article naming convention overrides any Style Manual on identity, a point which has yet to be adequately rebutted. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but support a block for disruptive editing if this continues. Baseball bugs has engaged in delioberately inflammatory rhetoric which, if it was not deliberately calculated to offend, certianly has offended in an entirely predictable way. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "I identify as a rabbit" is a personal attack now? And what's wrong with "tenacious" editing? Strong support for the Lapine-American in his tenacious struggle against the forces of Daffiness and Elmerhood! --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If this is what it takes to get a topic ban, then 80% of the people involved in the discussion would be outta here... Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom. Consistently offensive and unhelpful comments. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Horatio Snickers and Guerillero.--В и к и T 14:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Resolute, ThinkEnemies and Psychonaut. Bugs is making an ass out of himself, but time has clearly shown that doesn't bother him, but he doesn't rise to the level of personal attacks or BLP violations. On the subject of disruption, there is plenty of it in that subject area and we need an admin to patrol. I'd suggest both sides police themselves. Those here in the support column should address those calling others transpobes and ignorant.--v/r - TP 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Baseball Bugs' comments have created a markedly hostile environment. --April Arcus (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Someone being a jerk or making crass remarks isn't the same as engaging in a BLP violation or personal attacks, these aren't personal attacks on a BLP: [16][17], this is most certainly not [18], this is a BLP violation [19]. From what I can see, there is a lot of rhetoric on both sides. Note that if there are future BLP violations administrator action does not require community discussion. I also don't see why requests for arbitration enforcement aren't done through WP:AE (obviously no need to move at this stage, but for future reference perhaps). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, some of the comments are distinctly douchebaggy. And yes, the attempts at enforcing the BB:Valid Sourcing policy against feminine pronouns for male-born transgender individuals who self-identify as female are blatant bugsilawyering, particularly as the policy is changed the moment its demands are met (e.g. first, it makes WP usage contingent on "non-tabloid" reporting practice, then when The Guardian and The Independent are cited BB:VS suddenly requires CNN). I think it was the patron saint of patience Monica of Hippo, or maybe a sysop who's name I've forgotten, who said: "See, it'd be so much simpler if we could block for simple douchebaggery." Writegeist (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've changed my mind since my last posting upthread. The sheer volume of jerkish, crass, provocative, and disrespectful comments has risen to the level of disruption. Individually, I was willing to rationalize them as merely strongly worded retorts, but taken together they are creating an extremely hostile and even threatening environment. There is no longer any doubt in my mind that his behaviour amounts to Wikipedia:Harassment as defined in the first paragraph of that policy. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm arguing in favor of Wikipedia's own rules. Sorry if that fact offends you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does not offend me that you are arguing in support of Wikipedia's rules. What offends me is the vitriol, calculated insensitivity, and relentlessness with which you are now prosecuting this argument. Turn your flamethrower down, Bugs, before the community steps in and takes it away from you for good. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm very close to kissing wikipedia goodbye as it is. The continued gross violations of the core principles of wikipedia, with advocacy winning out over the way wikipedia is supposed to work, is extremely disheartening. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please tell me how "Try not to make wikipedia look stupid, eh?" is even a remotely acceptable comment to direct towards another editor. Note that that editor's actions do not justify such a comment. Haipa Doragon (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The advocates for this change, in defiance of the rules, are making wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Another attack. It is not helping your case to use further inflammatory rhetoric on a thread concerning your potential sanctions for such actions. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you think it's a good idea to make wikipedia look stupid, I don't know what to tell you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I was criticizing your tone and language, not your opinions regarding the topic itself or another editor's actions. It is inexcusable to call someone's actions "stupid" no matter the context. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I agree that Bugs is very much out of line, and, in fact, so much entrenched and without any kind of perspective that I see no chance that he will ever constructively participate on this topic. So I support a topic ban - maybe three months is enough for now. But on general principles, calling someone's actions "stupid" may not always be polite, but, at least for me, is sometimes necessary, and covered per WP:SPADE. I'd rather see honest opinions than sneaky pseudo-civility. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • There are many ways of criticizing someone's actions without resorting to such insulting and incendiary language. Bugs crossed that line multiple times and has done so even on this page, and such "honesty" is not a virtue when used to put down and intimidate other editors. This is an editor who has shown blatant disrespect and disregard for other editors, who therefore cannot work with other editors, and that warrants site-wide sanctions. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The height of arrogance and of making-wikipedia-look-stupid is right smack on website's the front page: "Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning)"??? That wording is an absolute abomination. Yesterday it said "legally Bradley Manning", which is true. This "formerly" bit is living proof that Wikipedia has sold its soul to POV-warriors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support topic ban from anything to do with Manning, for continual assumptions of bad faith. While there may be some ABF going on on the other side of things, Bugs is the only person I see who is completely unwilling to drop the stick. This has reached the point where he's now tacking on his indignation to every single thread relating to Manning—see, for instance, #User FS making legal threats below. Note that while there have been some BLP violations, I don't think they rise to the level of warranting a BLPBAN (and, indeed, if they did, we wouldn't need to discuss it, since an admin could oppose it unilaterally); rather, this !vote is for his behavior toward other contributors. Bugs has made his point on the talk page more than enough times for everyone to hear him, and if he's unable to walk away on his own, it's high time we make him. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm unsure as to how so many people have missed the personal attacks in question, that I quoted, but Bugs has repeatedly referred to editors as "stupid", the most egregious quote being "Try not to make wikipedia look stupid, eh?", as well as unhelpful, sarcastic comments such as comparing someone's comment to a post on the Onion and the analogy comparing trans people to rabbits, and even slander here: [20] regarding Manning's intentions. These are blatant and repeat violations of policy to which the user has not shown any intention of apology or changing his behaviour whatsoever and therefore warrant a complete block from Wikipedia activity. Haipa Doragon (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, mild incivility isn't seen by many editors as being block-worthy these days. This is a deeply contentious ideological and political issue, and Bugs simply happens to be on the opposite side of your own opinion on the matter. While he may be brusque, and the comments rub some PC types the wrong way, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. This comment in particular is one I've seen raised elsewhere in off-wiki boards for example. It is not beyond the pale to suggest the timing of the "call me Chelsea!" announcement is a bit peculiar, coming on the heels of the 35-year prison sentence. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repeated comments calling editors or their actions "stupid" or putting down their comments as mere jokes on par with The Onion do not constitute "mild incivility", they constitute intimidation and manipulation, even, dare I say, bullying to get a point across. Political and ideological topics are not even remotely an excuse for these actions and I do not support leniency just because someone couldn't keep their cool. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your opinion on the matter seems to be in the minority, so maybe it is time to drop the stick, back away, and stop badgering people just because they disagree with you. Tarc (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given some of your edits, I am surprised you're still even here. You've already gotten away with phrases like "gender-bending" and "bullshit criticisms" on the Manning talk page, but how you haven't been held accountable for some of your past edits is beyond me. To quote just some of your edit summaries: "I will strike this part only, if it is going to make Bob's undies bunch up" [in reference to another editor], "quite Gestapo-like" [again, to another editor], "article is still under that retarded "1RR", regrettably", "If you're offended by THAT, then I'll probably offend you in far, far worse ways if you choose to come to my page complaining about something", "learn to read", "we're not listing every minor rtarded thing done by the media". You have no business in trying to shut me up for calling out other's personal attacks, let alone on this site at all. Haipa Doragon (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will lecture the likes of you as I see fit, buddy-boy, especially when you fallback on ad hominems and strawmen. This thread isn't about me, but if you feel the need to make one then kindly hit the "new section" link at the top of this page and knock yourself out. We're here discussing a topic ban proposal for Baseball Bugs, a proposal that simply isn't gaining the consensus that you had hoped for. Instead of accepting that sometimes one's opinion simply does not and will not carry the day like an adult, you are resorting to badgering, berating, and belittling those editors with whom you disagree. You keep say things like people "fail to understand", but the thing is, we do understand. These comments made simply do not rise to an actionable level that warrants a topic ban. So take some advice; stop whining, stop attacking other editors, and let this straw poll play out as it will. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I find it funny how you accuse me of ad-hominem in a post that also patronizes me with the phrase "buddy-boy" and compares me to a child. All I have done in this thread is argue for the blocking of an editor I have found extremely disruptive and try to argue against points others have raised. You have no place pointing out so-called personal attacks with such a history of disgusting and degrading slurs, attacks and put-downs. Haipa Doragon (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • All you have done in this thread is harass and berate those with whom you disagree, and in a thoroughly Streisand effect-ish kind of way have probably done more to drive more editors to oppose than had any appreciable effect in supporting your cause. My "history" is a strawman argument, deployed to detract from your present examples of slurring other editors in this very thread. How does it feel to have become the thing you profess to hate? Tarc (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Do quote the so-called "slurs" I have used, and we can compare them to "retard" and "gender-bending" and the other vulgar attacks you have used already. Frankly, this thread is as much about you as it is about Bugs because you have acted as badly and, in some areas, worse than him. I really don't care about "what goes where" with regards to opening a new thread. Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You have repeatedly belittled editors who vote oppose and claim that their oppsition is because the "fail to understand" what a personal attack is. That itself is insulting. Then, the suggestion that this thread is at all about me is quite frankly asinine and shows just how far into the deep end of the pool you have waded. Go start a topic on me,; it'll be closed in 5 mins tops. I think I'm about done being trolled by you, and as this topic ban proposal of yours is a guaranteed fail, you may consider this the proverbial "last word". :) Tarc (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Fair enough, looking back at that sentence I see it as an unfair assumption about other editors. I apologize for that. I have tried very hard though to raise my objections to what I see as incredibly objectionable editing on both your parts, however, and with that, naturally, comes terse and frank language and tenacious discussion. I do not intend to denigrate or belittle anyone and I certainly believe I haven't compared to the slurs, sarcasm and bad faith that have been going around. Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AQFK. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The problem is not Baseball Bugs. The problem is that article should not be called "Chelsea Manning." 68.195.91.181 (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not what you say, it's how you say it. There is no cause noble enough to warrant disruption of this magnitude. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 21:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is cited as a reason for the topic ban, but it is preceded by this which I find more toxic. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm not a fan of Baseball Bugs in general, but in this case several admins are getting away scot free with far worse policy violations than a little soapboxing on a talk page. Also, another user posting something far more inflammatory on that talk page has been blocked for ... gasp ... one day User talk:LudicrousTripe#Bonus_points. An indef topic ban for BB would clearly be disproportionate. Maybe 12 hours next time he says something naughty. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither this nor Bus stop's comments are even remotely pertinent. Just because policy isn't being enforced in one area doesn't mean it shouldn't be in another. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Topic bans are suppose to be the last resort to long standing disruption. Nothing here fits that definition. JOJ Hutton 20:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. His comments are ignorant in the extreme, but it's an argument, so we have to canvass all views - even his delusional views about the transgender issue being a confection to bolster the appeal, and Tarc's cartoonish, 2-dimentional, 19th century "understanding" of gender and sex. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we only need those views pertinent to the article. Insults and political statements do not count towards that, and the former in particular is utterly intolerable. Haipa Doragon (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bugs has a history of acting out and not being able to control his behavior at BLPs about whistle-blowers. Last time it was Edward Snowden and now it's Manning. His contribution to these topics is clearly hostile and a net negative. Removing him can only help calm an already inflamed situation. Noformation Talk 21:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a short topic ban. Give Bugs some time to cool down. If the disruptiveness continues after the ban expires, impose a longer ban. His comments are obviously way over the line of our policies governing personal interaction (and his unwillingness to accept reliable sources that contradict his personal views indicates that this isn't just a case of someone soapboxing and making the editing environment unsafe, but rather of something that affects Wikipedia's articles), but I'm willing to allow for the possibility that he's a worked up and will become a productive user if he takes an enforced break from the topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport a topic ban. This is not the first time i have seen such behavior from Basebull bugs. He tries to disrupt the project anytime somebody disagrees with him. Pass a Method talk 22:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a topic ban. Some comments are a little snarky, but on the whole his points are well thought out and relevant. Talmage (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a topic ban as a preventive measure to limit further disruption. As the diffs at the start of this thread show, Bugs has been making personal attacks on other editors, personal attacks on the living person who is the article's subject, and soapboxing on his own POV about a range of issues. That conduct has not eased despite requests to back off, and it disrupts the formation of a consenus on the substantive editorial issues here. As suggested by Roscelese, I think it would be best to start with a short topic. Hopefully, that will be enough time to cool down, and if that isn't the case then a longer ban could follow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A topic ban would be merited, but it's an important principle of Wikipedia that admins with high edit counts are allowed to be as twattish as they like. This is for very good reasons which are unclear. Formerip (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs is not an admin. And a high edit count won't keep an admin from being blocked, either - see below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 00:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I stand corrected on the first part. On the second, yes it will, so long as the offence is being twattish. Even extremely twattish. Every single time.
Instantly overturned blocks do not make a great counter-example, in any case. Formerip (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, essentially what you're saying is, Bugs would merit a ban but shouldn't because some other people get away with things? That's not how it works, as I've said already. Haipa Doragon (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying a topic ban is merited, but proposing one is pointless. Formerip (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - and instead suggest one for FormerIP who can't be bothered enough to check on basic facts before making a decision on what should happen. (And in any case, calling them twattish is twattish.) --Onorem (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to bother disputing that last comment or pointing out the obvious logical extension. Formerip (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose topic ban. But he/she needs to cool the jets. --RA (✍) 00:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose topic ban. Nothing of his jokes is of a bannable grade, although a stern warning might be helpful Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are not "jokes", they are personal attacks. There is nothing remotely amusing about repeatedly calling people "stupid", mocking someone's comments as if they were an article on the Onion (a joke site), the nonsense bad-faith accusations he has been making or the allegations and political bias he has introduced. These actions, especially when repeated so many times, disrupt and abuse this site and its editors and warrant severe sanctions against the violator. It is ridiculous how many people fail to understand this. Haipa Doragon (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference was not to editors being stupid. The reference was to making Wikipedia look stupid. There is a considerable distinction between an assertion that editors are stupid and an assertion that editors are making Wikipedia look stupid. Bus stop (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(more - Topic Ban for Baseball Bugs)[edit]

the best answer for bad speech is more speech.
— Mike Godwin[4]

Oppose per Godwin NE Ent 02:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • How does a question asking if a particular Arbcom precedent would encompass circumstances related to Baseball Bugs' current editing endeavor—presumably to establish authority for the sanction and support the request if made become a discussion for imposing the unrequested topic ban? With Guerillero's question now moot; I oppose the egregious notion that Baseball Bugs should be topic banned for his eloquence in advocating one side of a contentious content discussion. I'll venture a guess that mine is the first contextually correct use of egregious although a majority will likely see mine as hyperbole. :) John Cline (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just an IP and I'm !going to !vote, but I see little benefit in allowing Bugs to continue. Failing to take action on behavior like this, especially with an editor with known discipline issues, just encourages more of the behavior. Given the other problematic users on the page, failure to take action is also saying to them that "this is the accepted and expected behavior of established members of the community." Is Bugs's behavior what Wikipedia wants to see? 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I'm just going to be frank here. I am close to fucking tears here with all the intimidation and bad faith levelled against me by the two utterly unaccountable editors in question who deride me with their every edit with things like the ideas that I am a "troll" and I belong in the "funny pages". I have tried to get across for some time now the point that personal attacks are intolerable and how badly they disrupt the site, but apparently the swath of Bugs' and Tarc's put-downs and sarcastic responses, and the latter's disgusting slurs, are not enough for any sort of action whatsoever, despite the fact that neither has bothered to apologize for such misconduct. I have both mental health and gender issues, and I know more than most in this thread how the vile "retard" "gender-bender" rhetoric hurts, both psychologically and physically, and the simple and very stark fact that it kills people. The inaction on the part of administrators to enforce rules, and the willingness to let sanctions on bullying, intimidating, bad-faith editors slide via some "straw poll" charade, the last couple of days, is a sodding disgrace to the project and I hope will help tarnish this site's already awful reputation. Haipa Doragon (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's comments like these that make me want to say Oppose to the proposed topic ban. Discussions such as this should not be used as a soapbox for broader issues about the rights and abuses of transgendered people, or emotive comments about statements killing people. Baseball Bugs' statements are clearly insensitive, but (based on the diffs presented), do not seem to constitute personal attacks. Further, it may be that Manning's statements about a change of gender could be part of a legal defence strategy. However, because Baseball Bugs has not backed away from the dead horse, I'm leaning towards Support.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban. I'll also be frank, and I'll try to avoid the worst of my usual discursiveness. I like Baseball Bugs. Sometimes I agree with him wholeheartedly and admire his tenacity for upholding policy and principle. Even on the occasions when I vehemently disagree with him or am annoyed by his inserting fatuous humor in wildly inappropriate contexts, I still like him. I'm 99.9% sure he means well, and I think he has done more good around here over the years than he's sometimes given credit for. In this instance, his conduct has been absolutely inexcusable. The diffs linked at the top of this thread are deeply troubling for several reasons. For one thing, they indicate an inability on his part to check his personal political opinions at the door, which is something that any Wikipedian should be prepared to do before wading into a contentious discussion about a controversial topic. They also point to a complete disregard both for the the project's responsibility to the subject of the article (a living person) and to the sensibilities of his fellow editors, many of whom share Manning's specific minority status and even more of whom are sufficiently grounded in the 21st century to be offended by callous remarks directed towards any minority.

I don't have a crystal ball, but I suspect that Wikipedians reading this thread not so many years from now will be appalled less by Bugs's behavior than by the amount of support he has received in the wake of his awful behavior. If Bugs had expressed the slightest bit of contrition after being called on what he did, I'd chalk his transgressions up to ignorance and look at the whole thing as a learning opportunity. Instead, he has adopted a classic IDHT posture, and he has been aided and abetted in doing so by multiple editors. Sad indeed. Rivertorch (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support short ban perhaps 6 months. I too like Baseball Bugs and appreciate some humor, but with over 14 people advising "Support" he seems to have no limits to the jokes, so a limit should be imposed, to reduce wp:DE disruption with other editors. Many people would know to avoid similar numerous jokes or innuendos in this topic area, as not helpful to collaboration. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support topic ban for BLP violations and other unacceptable comments on the talk page of a biography of a living individual. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/bradley-manning-woman-chelsea-gender-reassignment
  2. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2399923/I-Chelsea-Manning-Bradley-Manning-announces-woman-intends-start-hormone-therapy-transition-female.html
  3. ^ http://www.transmediawatch.org/Documents/Media%20Style%20Guide.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/technology/20link.html
  • Support indefinite topic ban as proposed. Any positive contribution Bugs may have made to the talk page has been far outweighed by repeated, and frequently gross, BLP violations. This is despite many warnings to cease and a good few people recommending his walking away. He is far from the only editor to have behaved badly there, but being in a crowd of people making BLP violating comments does not excuse your individual behaviour. Given that everything short of a topic ban has failed to have any effect we are left with only the one option short of a full ban, and I don't want it to come to that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Judging by his posts here, he apparently sees nothing wrong with his behavior and fully intends to continue on this path. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The POV warriors of all stripes are having a field day. BB's conservative politics are well known, let him have his say. It's a discussion, after all. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly this. If BB's comments are enough to cause hurt feelings, then there are plenty of other things in the real world (and by that I mean outside world, sans computer) that are even more scary. You can't have a political discussion, especially for a controversial topic like the one at hand, without some degree of bark. What BB has said on that article talkpage is nothing compared to a day's job of the Australian Prime Minister taking and giving banter left and right during parliament. Most IRL politicians have spines, so why can't Wikipedians? --benlisquareT•C•E 03:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What absolute nonsense. This is an encyclopedia, not a political forum or a legislature, and we cater to far more varied ilk than either of those. The idea that everyone, of all ages, political beliefs, disabilities, genders and all other such distinctions should just buckle up, "have spines" and accept abuse from others is the most atrocious and disgusting way I have ever heard of to run a site like this and I am sickened by your disregard for fellow editors. Haipa Doragon (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you have no compunction against lambasting an editor you disagree with, even calling their thoughtful regards (assuming good faith) nonsense. Even while I disagree with the disgusting double standard you would impose upon this site's governance, I do not believe your voice should be silenced (though it may appall some) with such an atrocious suggestion as a ban. :) John Cline (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have anything against lambasting Benlisquare in this situation. He showed blatant disregard to my feelings, which have been extremely hurt in the past few days by both Baseball Bugs and Tarc, and called practically the entirety of this site's editors spineless. I am right in expressing my disgust and sickening towards those actions. Haipa Doragon (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to understand that this is a controversial topic, which naturally attracts prickly behaviour. There are many ways of avoiding such behaviour, including avoiding controversial topics. I'm quite certain that you know quite well and clearly what you're potentially walking into, when you enter a controversial conversation. The real world and modern society does not have walled gardens to protect adults from things that might hurt them, and Wikipedia isn't any different; you will come across hurtful material from time to time. Finally, regarding me calling "entirety of this site's editors spineless", please don't put words into my mouth. "If all As contain X, why can't Bs contain X" is not the same as "all Bs do not contain X". --benlisquareT•C•E 06:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The hurt feelings via the slurs, sarcastic intimidation and patronizing I have received from some are not my idea of mere "prickly behaviour". Being told that I should just grin and bear it just adds to that. I'm upset and sick to death of the sterility and lack of compassion aimed against me in this thread and being told how trivial and irrelevant my feelings are is the last nail in the coffin. Thank you all (except a few) for your apathy towards me and thank you BB and Tarc for driving me away from this project as soon as I was trying to get back into it. This is the most worthless the internet has ever made me feel and I congratulate you for that. Haipa Doragon (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I believe I understand your motives. I do want to be clear that I am not attempting to exacerbate the genuine pain I believe you've expressed. I will even apologize for deliberately inserting inflammatory snark to illustrate my opposition to the ban request. And close by wishing you the best, as well as the others who have commented here; regardless of whether or not we agree. Peace. :) John Cline (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Snarky speech is expected of a controversial political discussion, regardless of venue. BB is not supposed to be a priest giving a sermon in a church on Easter Sunday. It is understandable that emotions fly high at times like this, and he should not be punished for natural human behaviour. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close the RM discussion early (IAR)?[edit]

(@BD2412:) Given that that:

  1. the Manning page is currently very highly trafficked;
  2. this move is causing controversy in a number of areas across the 'pedia and is very visible (linked from Main page);
  3. the move discussion is very highly contributed to; and
  4. there is a high degree of homogeneity in !votes on both sides

... can the RM at the Manning page be wrapped up early per WP:IAR? I don't foresee any new insights arriving and it would be better to decide the matter than to let it go on for a week IMO. I'd suggest closing it 24hrs from the when it was posted (as opposed to 7 days as per a regular RM). --RA (✍) 01:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a search on for multiple admins to eventually close it so this would be premature. And I suspect some people are holding back on commenting a few days to see what the actual trend in the sources is. An early close would just be one extra controversy that isn't needed. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...to see what the actual trend in the sources is..." Which itself indicates the move was premature.
We can always return to question of moving it to Chelsea Manning (if the result of this RM is to restore the original title) but it doesn't serve the project to have a mess like this on a highly visible article. Mop it up quickly for now and get it right next time. --RA (✍) 01:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An early close will be just as problematic; it will create the appearance of wanting to cement an existing voting trend before other editors have a full and fair opportunity to discover the discussion, weigh in, and set forth all arguments to be considered. This is not a WP:SNOW situation, where one outcome is inevitable. bd2412 T 01:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think an early close would be the right thing to do, do you really want this mess to drag out for the next 7 days? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal. The current title of the article is, in my opinion, inappropriate, but it's not a crime or a BLP violation or a whatever other extravagant catastrophe people are claiming. With redirects, no one will have trouble finding the article anyway. The overly motivated editors are going to rage without respect to whether the formal argument is closed or not. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note however (just to get it out there in advance) that I will not be opposed to closing the argument early if discussion has clearly petered out, or if it clearly becomes a WP:SNOW situation, or if it becomes so ugly and uncivil that blocks are being handed out left and right. This is not, by the way, a call to make it ugly and uncivil, as that will end up being all the worse for those who engage in bad behavior. bd2412 T 02:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit strange that this article was controversialy moved and then frozen by a byrocratic procedure for seven days while at the same time being featured on the main page... Normal procedure would be to revert and the discuss the new name. Space simian (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, there was no consensus to move the page to Chelsea in the first place, some editor just did it and the wars started with the page frozen in it's place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A technical revert to allow for discussion was reverted citing BLP. There are no BLP issues with having the article title at Bradley Manning. There are however major policy issues when a news site declares that "Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations" (src) on a biography of a living person. Wikipedia ought to be behind major sources, not ahead of them, on BLPs. --RA (✍) 08:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a news site, it's some blogger who happens to be on slate.com - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's how slate.com works. The piece on Wikipedia "beating" news organisations is a front-page headline on the site (link). But in any case: wow, way to miss the point. --RA (✍) 09:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing is a train wreck. IMHO you've got people who really don't have a neutral point of view pushing for changes, mainly to get it changed to Chelsea. They then insult people who think it shouldn't be. I'm staying well clear of that. One of the main instigators is a supposed respected member of the community! I think I was the editor who initially reverted it back to Bradley after it was changed to Chelsea. Now I don't mind either way but there was NO discussion at all about changing it, protocol was NOT followed and TBH I thought the name change was trolling to begin with as I read about Manning for the first time when he/she appeared on the front page. Cls14 (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must object to that characterisation of the events The record shows there was a small discussion and consensus in favour of moving it when I did it! Yes, this has somewhat dwarfed by the scale of discussion afterwards, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Morwen (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move request discussions are supposed to remain open for seven days, precisely to avoid that sort of thing. bd2412 T 11:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And undiscussed (or improperly discussed) moves are reverted to allow discussion. --RA (✍) 11:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see, the move was reverted; and the reversion was reverted; and so on. That is not a matter involving me. I have volunteered to close the current discussion once it concludes. That is all. bd2412 T 14:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, another abuse of Wikipedia: Blatantly defying the "bold-revert-discuss" principle. And even worse when done by admins, who should know better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are never supposed to "beat" anyone, because everything must be properly cited and referenced. I support a technical closure (revert to the status quo) and then restart the discussion. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is only one proper source on Chelsea Manning's correct name, and she has been completely clear. If you're more hung up on having secondary sources all in a line than demonstrating basic respect for a person's identity, I assert that you've taken your eye off the ball. --April Arcus (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Manning's alleged "name change" has no legal standing and is not being used that way by sources. It is, at most, a nickname chosen by the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That I'll disagree with strongly. It carries no more legal meaning than a nickname, but for someone transitioning it's a lot more meaningful than that. Hobit (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That personal issue is beyond wikipedia's purpose. Once broad sourcing starts saying "Chelsea", then you'll be in the right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks[edit]

As standard operating procedure with any LGBT topic, the activists have come strong with accusations of -phobias for anyone who doesn't support their point of view. I'd like to request an uninvolved administrator with no strong opinion on LGBT topics to patrol the article's talk page and warn/block for personal attacks of this nature unless there are very real -phobias present. Such comments as (paraphrasing) "Anyone supporting is ignorant" or "Only those with transphobia have supported returning this article back" or "It's evident those who still use 'Bradley' have transphobia" are inappropriate, chilling, and discussion-stifling. Diffs on request.--v/r - TP 12:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. Those making such ridiculous accusations are doing nothing to help the situation, and if anything are making it worse. GiantSnowman 12:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try to understand their perspective, and counsel them to make their arguments without using inflated rhetoric. Calling Manning "it" is clearly deliberately offensive, and the reaction is predictable. Let's not criticise those who were trolled, where trolling has taken place. The entire debate could do with less indignation on all sides. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guy is right. Strong action needs to be taken on that page against those making inappropriate and thoughtless comments (as well as addressing hyperbole from the other side). --Errant (chat!) 14:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"thoughtless comments" are exactly where strong action need not be taken. We don't execute folks for having a brain fart. Nor do we execute those who disagree. Perhaps some folks intended "it" to be gender neutral. You don't know what's in people's head, that's why we have WP:AGF. Calling each other names is not going to help Wikipedia at all. If you can prove trolling, as I did say "unless there are very real -phobias present," then fine but do not shoot the good faith contributions because they don't share a POV.--v/r - TP 14:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the comments on the page are inappropriate - whether good faith or not. And strong action need not take the form of e.g. blocks, but someone making a strong statement to those individuals about sensitivity to a subject per BLP. Anyone describing Chelsea as "it"... well it's not a defensible thing to say and anyone doing so cannot be doing it for a positive reason. Either they are trolling, being abusive or a complete idiot - whichever one of those they need to be stopped from making matter worse. --Errant (chat!) 15:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find "not defensible" to be a pet-peeve. Of course you find it not defensible, you disagree. I'm not saying this to ABF, but being an idiot is a defense. We need to separate good faith stupidity and bad faith malevolence and treat them appropriately. Calling the good faith folks transphobes is not helpful.--v/r - TP 16:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to AGF? Why is someone using "it" immediately decreed the Antichrist? It could - just could - simply be an editor, who doesn't know how to deal with trans prononous, trying to be as neutral as possible without realising they may have caused offence. GiantSnowman 16:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh, AGF my ass. What rational person would call an individual, in any context, "it". That is globally a disparagement. As I said - either they are being deliberately negative, or stupid (hence, AGF that in some cases they are simply stupid). In either case they shouldn't be contributing. :) But what we term it is a side issue; the page is stuffed full of personal commentary about Manning and people need to be dissuaded from that in whichever way is most appropriate. --Errant (chat!) 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a consequence of an illegitimate action, in this case a controversial page move without consensus or any valid basis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@User:TParis I agree the rhetoric is inflamed. And a large part of the problem is that we've got some people who have a lot of exposure to trans issues. And we've got people to whom it is a weird/sick/or just unheard of thing. Having had to deal with trans issues for 15 years (my boss at the time went from a male to a female, and let me assure you we all had no idea how to deal with it and originally suspected it was a joke), I'm finding a lot of those comments really offensive. "it" is way, way over the top. But yes, using "it" also might be cluelessness. Trans issues are pretty common in academia (where I live now) and in fact one of the most famous people in my field Lynn Conway transitioned in the 1960s! We know the expected language and understand the issues.
The basic theme is that people (Bugs and others) are being very offensive. Perhaps not on purpose (it's hard to guess motivations in person, on-line it's a crap shoot). To me, it's just as offensive as calling someone a chink or a nigger. It's just not acceptable. Sure, the person speaking may just be clueless, but the offense rises to the level that it needs to be addressed. And of course, we've got people who think everyone is being over sensitive. Again, being an academic, I get that too (political correctness is crazy here). But the line I draw is that hurtful words are rarely needed. Calling someone "it" is hurtful. Calling a trans person by their pre-transition name is also hurtful. I'd never do these things any more than I'd use "gay" as a pejorative or use the word nigger in nearly any context (other than this one in fact). And I'd expect in any kind of reasonable conversation others would do the same. I'm a person who uses swear words in normal conversation (even in front of a class). But those words aren't hurtful (if used correctly). The difference is key. I think it's fair to ask people to accept that they are being hurtful. It's also fair to ask others to try to explain the issue (I needed it explained to me those 15 years ago) rather than just calling them names (trans-phobic or whatever...) Hobit (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Errant, your assuming LGBT issues are global, widespread, and generally undisputed. Outside of liberal dinner tables, I'm not sure that isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be. You've been around long enough, picture this in a different topic area. Global warming, perhaps. Zero tolerance beliefs are harmful. Advocacy is harmful. We cannot allow folks to treat Wikipedia as a battleground. Wikipedia isn't the place for "Strong action" and certainly not name calling. It's the place for good faith. I'm pro-LGBT, I believe people should be able to live openly about their true selves without fear, and you see my take on this whole thing. That's because I see it both ways. But living openly involves opinions as much as it does sexuality. We cannot allow attacks on opinions simply for their mere disagreement with our own. We must seek only to crush those who, in bad faith and full intentions, seek to humiliate, cause fear, and disparage others. (After ec) Hobit, I don't think we disagree.--v/r - TP 16:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well-stated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself largely agreeing with TP. As much as I hate to say it, there is a difference between homophobic/biphobic/transphobic comments and, say, racist/sexist/anti-Semitic comments. Namely, that the latter cannot usually be excused as ignorance, while the former (very unfortunately) often can. A lot of people just don't understand transgenderism. That some people don't realize that calling someone "it"—for whatever reason—is offensive saddens me, but that doesn't mean they're bad people. We don't allow the promotion of fringe views here, but (once again, unfortunately) it's not a fringe view to believe that people can't truly change gender, or the like. So while it might be acceptable to go to some people and say "Hey, just so you know, saying 'it' or things like that is often seen as offensive, and we have some users here whose feelings might get hurt by seeing something like that," we don't need to actually punish them for what they said.

That said, any oppose support !votes in the RM based purely on the belief that people cannot change genders aren't pertinent, since RMs are about Wikipedia policy, not social issues. My suggestion to the closing admin (whichever poor sap that may be) is that they discount any oppose support !votes that just say that "he's still a man", and also any support oppose !votes that just say "it's transphobic to not move it" (since that view discounts a perfectly reasonable WP:COMMONNAME argument, even if I personally disagree with said argument). !votes that aren't about Wikipedia policy should not be counted in Wikipedia decisions. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that everyone making rude comments on that page is a bad person. But regardless of context (e.g. LGBT) referring to a living person as "it" is clearly disparaging - and aside from any transphobic intent it is a stupid, unpleasant thing to say. But we're getting bogged down in a total side issue; whether the comments are in good faith or not and what to call them. The core issue is we have a talk page where a number of editors need reminders to contain their comments to policy issues, and refrain from personal commentary abut the individual in question. Who is going to stop faffing around and step up to do that?? I was previously involved in discussions on that talk page, otherwise it would be me. --Errant (chat!) 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm involved too, can't be me. I feel sorry for whomever volunteers too.--v/r - TP 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't edited at or about the subject, and would like to consider themselves neutral - though I opposed Risker's blocks, below. That said, after all of this drama, I do feel an overwhelming urge to pull an Ed Poor and delete the flipping article outright. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 02:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the admin actions[edit]

Can we get a little bit of discussion about the propriety of the admin actions that surrounded this page? In particular, I'm interested in the following exchange:

Incidentally, Morwen (talk · contribs) moved the article to Chelsea Manning earlier, but before the move protection (so not an admin action).Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) also fully edit-protected the article at 14:41 (UTC), which was downgraded back to semi- at 14:49 (UTC); I'm not sure either of those actions are particularly controversial though.

I'm not at all suggesting that the article should be moved to Bradley Manning for the duration of the move request; that is obviously a very bad idea. However, these actions were before the move request began. So I'm curious about the permissibility of the move on RMT grounds and the move back on BLP grounds. I feel my RMT reasoning was quite self-explanatory (controversial, undiscussed move). I have tried to query David for an explanation of how the Bradley Manning title constituted a BLP violation, both on his talk page and the article talk page, to no avail. (Well, he would argue that's been explained a number of times, and I'm being dense, but you can be the judge of that.) -- tariqabjotu 14:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was and still am outraged and disappointed with the actions of David. David performed a move that was hugely controversial, and then proceeded to move protect the page. This served to stifle discussion and lock the page at a title that many found controversial. Page titles are not trivial; they have implications. The media pays attention to such matters. To make a controversial move and then to move lock the page is an astounding abuse of power. It makes me question why I contribute to Wikipedia, when those in power use their privileges with such reckless abandon.
I suggest David be blocked for a period of time, as a reminder of Wikipedia policies.
I also strongly disapprove of Morwen's external postings and communications, which framed the issue in an inaccurate and POV way. Namely, Morwen suggested that policy was clear on this matter when it was very far from clear. Misleading the media about the actions of Wikipedia is not only disappointing, but also damaging to our goals as a neutral encyclopedia. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well; clearly David's second move was wheel-warring, there's no doubt about that. There is, of course, an exemption in WP:WHEEL for obvious BLP issues, but you only have to read the talkpage to see that there's clearly no agreement that it was an obvious BLP violation - indeed, most of the proponents of the move are citing MOS:IDENTITY rather than BLP. So, yes, David should clearly not have moved the page back. Whether there's any mileage in pursuing that avenue is doubtful though. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is understandable how David could think it was obvious, though. I've warned David about taking further admin actions on this page. Other than that, I think we should chop it up to being accidental and move on. David clearly thought his decision would receive overwhelming support and because hindsight is 20/20, we can't blame him if he was wrong in that assumption.--v/r - TP 14:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But this action plainly does not fall into the BLP-related exemptions to WP:WHEEL or WP:3RR. The WHEEL exemption is limited to "Material deleted because it contravenes BLP. The 3RR exemption similarly is limited to "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." Changing the title of an article is not deletion of or removal of material. The applicable standard is not "good reasons for taking action based in the admin's/editor's interpretation of BLP policy," even if they believe their conclusion "obvious." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's go down this rabbit hole a bit further. These are the bits of WP:BLP that I think are active.

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. 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.
BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone,
Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

I would claim that misgendering people harms them, is certainly not responsible or cautious, and definitely not fair. Obviously this is a judgement call, but that's what WP:BLP requires us to do: use our judgement responsibly and with appropriate deference to the wishes of the subject. And I think honouring someone's well-stated wishes about a transition is so well within the bounds of appropriate that I can't believe I'm having to argue this still. It's not like we are trying to suppress the old information, or anything! Morwen (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHEEL only makes an exception of obvious BLP violations. As the talk page shows, it's not an obvious violation. You can argue the points, but the controversy itself is the defining factor that decides here. There are different interpretations of WP:BLP on this.--v/r - TP 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course in most cases of obvious WP:BLP violations there are going to be people who disagree that it is an obvious violation, vis. the people who made the bad change in the first place (or are refusing to allow a good change). It is precisely because of people who lack good editorial judgement that we need such a policy. Morwen (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There in lies the problem. It's not a handful of people who lack "editorial judgement," it's a slight majority. The (slight) majority opinion is that the BLP policy has been taken out of context. That a handful of people who are part of that majority are morally corrupt doesn't change the argument of the whole. But it doesn't even come down to that. The fact that the controversy hasn't leaned one way in particular strongly is the very demonstration that something was not "obvious" and the only reason David shouldn't be judged harshly is because he couldn't have known that beforehand. It's reasonable that he would have anticipated the outcome that he did. But his assumption was wrong, as demonstrated by the mere existence of the controversy itself, and that means that the action was not acceptable. However, I've warned David and that's all that needs to happen here.--v/r - TP 15:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not all that needs to happen - the page needs to be moved back to its original name until such time (if any) when moving it back to the current name is justified by Wikipedia rules. Which it currently is not. No legal authority and no valid news source is calling Manning "Chelsea". As the Army folks indicated, Manning can go through legal steps to legally change his name. Until any of that happens, "Bradley" is the real name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I was commenting on the previous admin actions that have already taken place. The RFC will determine what else needs to happen.--v/r - TP 15:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admins have no special authority to defy the "bold-revert-discuss" principle. The only real issue is that the page needs to be reverted to "Bradley" until or if it becomes appropriate to rename it "Chelsea". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not how WP:BLP works. Unless something has changed recently, Wikipedia is not a democracy and we don't take votes to ignore core policies. Morwen (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to break the below thread to address this. You're right, that's not how BLP works. However, Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. When the consensus determines this is not a BLP issue, then BLP cannot be used by single people saying "is not a democracy and we don't take votes to ignore core policies". Ohh, and by the way, we do take votes on core policies. That's how they were created. We !voted on WP:V recently. The size of the discussion determines whether we can change or suspend policy. A small consensus doesn't override policy, but the size of this discussion means that we can determine how to properly implement policy. That's how Wikipedia works.--v/r - TP 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you do instead is unilaterally impose your personal view and violate those core policies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, you need to be open to the possibility that your interpretation of "core policies" may be incorrect. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would conflict with his desire to be an advocate for the subject of the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear to me that Morwen is participating in this conversation in good faith. She has explained her rationale and maintained a dispassionate and even-keeled tone. --April Arcus (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now Bugs has added to their earlier misstatement regarding my supposed use of admin bit (still not yet withdrawn as far as I can see) by misgendering not just Manning, but me personally. This is rapidly becoming a WP:CIVIL issue. Morwen (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The user name "Morwen" has no identifiable gender, so "he" is the standard default in English. If anything, it sounds more male than female, as it kind of sounds like "Morton" or "Marvin" or one of those. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Morwen lists her first name as Abigail, and Morwen clearly identifies her namesake as a female character. It would only have taken a minute to check either. --April Arcus (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Morwen being female does not excuse abusing Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of which, of course, could have been achieved by noting that the subject self-identifies as Chelsea Manning, and performing a pronoun switch. In general though I agree; whilst David probably shouldn't have moved the page back, I don't think we can castigate him too much for doing so. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A core premise of Wikipedia is that we report news, we don't create news. Reporting what the lawyer said is fine. Renaming the article and changing all the pronouns is a gross violation of the core premise... as noted by at least one reference that said Wikipedia is "ahead of the major news organizations". That, just by itself, demonstrates that Wikipedia has violated its own rules. Wikipedia is already a laughingstock, and this advocacy-driven move only makes that situation worse. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As I said earlier in this mega-thread, I don't feel David's actions meet the mens rea element of wheel-warring. However, I do question his unwillingness to explain afterward how he felt BLP applied or admit now that maybe it wasn't as clear-cut as he felt; on the contrary, he has claimed my inquiries were a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- tariqabjotu 15:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This claim is incorrect; my reasoning was the immediacy provisions of WP:BLP - we most definitely do not have the luxury of eventualism with BLPs - and MOS:IDENTITY, both in its words and its use in practice. I said this several times on the talk page as well, which is why you're giving the impression of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - David Gerard (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your "reasoning" for applying BLP is bogus. That alleged "name change" has no legal standing nor is it supported by broad sources. It is, at most, a nickname until something happens otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't derail this into another thread arguing the move. -- tariqabjotu 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The illegitimate move is the only real issue at hand. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thread is there for all and sundry to see; people can make their own determination. But, the fact that an article is a biography of a living person doesn't absolve you from explaining why an action you reverse (in this case, my move to Bradley Manning) constitutes a violation of the BLP policy. -- tariqabjotu 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it appears BLP trumps all other considerations. If subject identifies with a certain name and gender then BLP is clear that is the name under which the article should be titled and the gender should be identified as.--MONGO 16:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't how it works, no. WP:COMMONNAME is the guiding policy, it does not violate BLP in the slightest to refer to a person by the name and gender that they actually are rather than what they simply declare themselves to be. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Precisely. That name "Chelsea" has no legal standing nor is it accepted broadly by sources. Also, some months back it was "Breanna". What will it be next week? Wikipedia is not supposed to become a subject's personal advocacy tool. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • <ec>@User:Tarc Turns out a lot of us would strongly disagree with that including the mainstream literature in the area. It might be helpful to read our article on Gender. The word itself was rarely used outside of grammar terms until the 60s when it was used to distiquish between biological sex and the social construct. Your view of gender is pushing into WP:FRINGE-land. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's original research that's irrelevant to this particular issue. We go by sourcing and common usage, not by how a subject would wish their article were tailored. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That use of gender is OR? If so, our article on gender is in really bad shape (and the cites are all wrong). But I think where we disagree is this: calling a trans person by the pre-trans name, is, to a trans person, quite offensive. That makes it, IMO, a WP:BLP issue. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, it's OR. It's trying to apply a general discussion to a specific case. There is no valid source demonstrating that anything has changed legally or otherwise as regards Manning. The name is still legally "Bradley" until or if Manning pursues a legal name change and/or the general media (not just the advocacy sites) start saying "Chelsea". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trans people actually are their identified genders, regardless of whether they have filed their name change paperwork or are on hormones or have had surgery. I understand how that could seem weird from your perspective. Feel free to ping me if you want to learn more about it! --April Arcus (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Can you explain then why consensus-building move requests have not resulted in articles like Lily Allen and Cat Stevens (both subjects who have changed their legal and professional names) moved? And why it took consensus-building move requests to get other articles, like Ron Artest, moved? In fact, I'm struggling to think of any other example in which a move to a common name was reverted on BLP grounds. Consensus appears to be against interpreting BLP policy in the manner you have described. (Perhaps we need the policy clarified.) -- tariqabjotu 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that calling a trans-person by their pre-trans name is profoundly insulting and thus runs headlong into WP:BLP policy. I personally think the article should be at Bradley Manning until there is consensus otherwise. But I also think it's hugely insulting to not move it as rapidly as policy allows. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, being free of insult is not a right; a lot of people are insulted or offended or shocked by a lot of things, day in and day out. Those who wish to preserve the status quo and have Bradley Manning's current, ral name and gender preserves in the article are not "fringe" and are not "transphobic", they are simply people with perhaps a more conservative opinion than your own. If we wish to get into the "who is offended" schlock, I'll point you to Stephen Fry, who sums up my point of view perfectly. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My use of fringe was with respect to your use of the word gender, not with respect to you. And I think you'll also note that that above I've urged people to not use words like transphobic. So right off the bat, I really don't feel this is about people and I agree one can in good faith be opposed to this name change. In fact I'd say I know you well enough to be able to say I'm certain you aren't making your argument to to hurtful. That said, I do think that being hurtful to others is something to be avoided and I believe that this is profoundly hurtful. That doesn't mean we shouldn't cover the truth. If someone was arrested and it's relevant to their bio, we cover it. If someone stole from their employer, we cover it. But we don't offend when it's not needed. And in my opinion, referring to someone by their pre-trans name is offensive. That needs to be weighed against the potential of confusing or misleading our reader. That can be dealt with by use of redirects and a clear lede (Chelsea Manning, nee Bradly Manning) and I think that's the right way to deal with it. I suspect most news sources will begin to use Chelsea in just that way before this RM closes ... Hobit (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy any of that. This is eerily like the Muhammad pictures all over again, where the intent is not to offend, but to inform. It just so happens that sometimes the act of informing causes some to be offended, but that is the tradeoff that an encyclopedia must make; openness vs censorship. Y'know, it's not like we're walking up to this person and saying "hi Bradley!" or personally badgering/berating him. This is about writing an article about a person who is notable...and keep in mind that Manning isn't notable for this gender stuff, that is at best a sidebar to the notability of being convicted of passing classified intel and sentenced to prison. There was a lot of "fuck the government" going on to begins with here, and now even more bandwagoneering by the LGBT community who didn't give a whit abut Private Manning a few weeks ago. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, I agree with most of that and was thinking about the Muhammad pictures situation here before you brought it up. Like you said, I don't think it's appropriate to refer to a trans person by their pre-trans name in person. But just as we wouldn't call someone a name behind their back, I don't think it appropriate to call them a name on Wikipedia unless it's necessary to the article. In this case, it is. But that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the name change, and use the new name as the primary name in the article. I don't see how it hurts the article. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert in Wikipedia policy or bureaucracy, but preferring Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam strikes me as obviously and intuitively wrong. --April Arcus (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Gerard showed very poor judgement and a severe lack of understanding of policy in this incident. He did wheel war. That he defended doing on account of BLP policy doesn't explain his actions. It raises further questions because it demonstrates that he doesn't understand BLP policy (and the contexts in which content needs to be removed quickly on biographies of living people).
    We do not play fast a loose with BLPs. In fact, BLP policy is the very opposite:

    "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. 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..."

    This is a sensitive matter and was plainly going to be a controversial move. David's poor judgement and lack of policy understanding has resulted in one of the biggest dramas I have seen in years. Worse, the resulting drama on the Manning article is being reported in the mainstream media (with no small help from Morwen, I may mention) which does't serve the project well. --RA (✍) 23:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the media is not reporting the debate but making it sound like Wikipedia has in fact definitively decided to rename the article Chelsea Manning. I see that The News Statesman carries an interview with User:Morwen regarding her original blog posting here and Morwen's tweets on the topic are reported at Buzzfeed. I don't know who alerted the media to Morwen's original blog posting here or to her tweets. But this is what her writing off wiki about this has lead to and shows why it's not a good idea. I hope she and others will stop doing it. User:Carolmooredc 04:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard and Morwen are to be commended for making sure the article complies with BLP, a non-negotiable policy. It is clearly established that referring to a transgendered female using her former male name is an obvious violation of the BLP policy and related policies (like MOS:IDENTITY) and completely unacceptable. Especially when so many editors think this is a violation of BLP, this policy can absolutely not be ignored. Gerard and Morwen merely followed what is Wikipedia's policy, as pointed out eg. by Sue Gardner on the talk page in question. Josh Gorand (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really like to pump up Sue Gardner's authority, don't you? I get the feeling that every 5th comment of yours on any of the discussion pages involved seems to shoehorn in "Sue Gardner" between the other words somehow. Let me make this a bit more clearer, if it isn't already - many contributors here don't care if Sue Gardner is the top person in the Wikimedia Foundation, the President of the United States, or the Pope of the Catholic Church. Her opinion is accepted and taken into account within the discussion, however her opinion is not more equal than the opinions of others. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should get Jimbo involved too? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I might change my opinion if good ole' Jimbo sits down and stares into my soul like those old "pls donate ;_;" banners. For those who don't understand, this is a joke which involves sarcasm. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP is non-negotiable. Unsourced or poorly-sourced material that could compromise the safety or privacy of someone must be removed as quickly as possible. That is why BLP is an exception to 3RR. But is that really the issue here? If it is, then respecting Manning's privacy should require removing all mention of Manning's birth name. And clearly that is a ridiculous conclusion because the name/gender change is itself notable. BLP also states that properly sourced material should not be removed simply because the subject of the article doesn't like it. David Gerard himself clearly articulated that removing Manning's birth name and gender would be impossible. Not only is his argument that his revert was in support of BLP policy tenuous, the revert also violated WP:COMMONNAME, which Gerard should have known because Tariqabjotu had referenced the discussion in his change. The result of quickly changing the article title from a controversial name to another controversial name was mention in third party news sources about apparent advocacy on Wikipedia's main page. It also resulted in a week of heated discussion when a slower approach would have been more productive. So, does David Gerard understand that his revert was not an appropriate application of the BLP exception to 3RR? His statement on the talk page gives the impression that he does not. That is a problem, because admins are entrusted with tools that allow them to block edits by regular users. They are expected to understand Wikipedia policies, and they must avoid the appearance of advocacy when using the tools. An apology by Gerard would be in the best interest of the project. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several admins blocked[edit]

duplicating another thread below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think the blocks are good. All admins are very good admins and editors, but it is important to show that wikipedia is impartial in its enforcement of the rules. (even if the infractions are relitively minor, this is very high visibility atm) The blocks are not unduly long, and sending the signal to the masses is important imo. (As well as setting a standard as to what construes admins editing through protection) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, and I greatly respect Risker, the statement "refrain from editing protected pages in the absence of a clear talk page consensus on the appropriateness of a specific edit request" seems a step too far. We should and so far as I know are normally expected to use our own judgment on edit requests. Obviously there are exceptions and this seems to have been one. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocks as a result of admin edits to Chelsea Manning[edit]

Today, Risker has decided to block administrators Mark Arsten, Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11 for edit warring. She did so after posting a warning on the article's talk page stating that admins were explicitly restricted to edit the page because it was fully-protected. As far as I know: i) there is no edit warring; and ii) these edits were totally uncontroversial and most were done after being requested on the talk page. After being informed of the block, Mark Arsten answered to Risker at his talk page [21], explaining that his edit was made after a clear-cut request. Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11 have yet to respond.

Those three sysops were blocked for the duration of the page protection, but as I consider this to be: i) an over-reaction of Risker and ii) an incorrect assessment of what really happened, I have decided to take this matter here and see what the community thinks about this event. For the purposes of clarity, there are the edits that each of the three sysops did, and that were the reason of their block: Mark Arsten [22]; Zzyzx11 [23]; Jimfbleak [24]. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 17:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden for readability. All three users have been unblocked. For more details, see the discussion below. AGK [•] 19:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point to protecting an article is to protect it. I'm not sure how the edits made by these three admins were detrimental to the article. I saw them, but maybe someone else is seeing something I am not in these edits. Because I don't see anything block worthy in this. Kumioko (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Although I disagree with Risker on the particular cases, I think the approach is necessary. Strong, concrete and clear lines are needed to stop the editing through protection. Drawing the line so strictly makes it all the more clear. But I wouldn't have taken the same action.--v/r - TP 18:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) On first glances they appear to be poor, poor blocks indeed. Interested to see how Risker justifies them. GiantSnowman 18:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My biggest question is: what is blocking three admins for making these edits over a protected page supposed to accomplish. I am sure that none of them are dumb enough to do controversial edits since they have been sysops long enough to know that. As I see it, this action accomplishes nothing, and that's the problem. — ΛΧΣ21 18:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone point me to exactly where in the policy it states that NO edits are allowed, even by admins, to fully protected pages unless through an edit request? I think Risker is interpreting policy a bit liberally. Secondly, the block of Arsten was totally unjustified, just because one editor complained about it after the fact does not make this a controversial edit (the addition of a category which clearly applies and which is cited in dozens of news reports). I'm also quite sure if the discussion on talk expands and others join in to support removal of the category, Arsten would follow that consensus but until then, silence = consensus on this and no complaints were made about that category until AFTER the fact.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's block-worthy, but I will absolutely say that barring the removal of egrerious BLP violations or copyvios, admins shouldn't edit a fully-protected page even if it's not in the rules that they can't, because that's a good way of feeding the "admins are more equal than others" arguments that we see so often. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the policy that I read is pretty clear - admins can edit fully protected pages. It comes with the mop. The question for me is the content of the edits - obviously if there is edit-warring, tweaking something to conform with your own POV goes too far. But after full page protection, one admin went through and carefully corrected many of the he/she issues - and there may be some lingering - I wouldn't want admins to have to wait for a consensus on the very loud talk page before fixing some of the lingering pronoun issues. If fully protected means no-one should edit the page for any reason, well, thats what the rules should say. Please undo these ridiculous blocks, and ease up - there is a lot of media attention on this page, so I for one am grateful for admins who are still cleaning up bits and pieces, and threats of blocks do nothing to help here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are horrible blocks and they ought to be overturned immediately. Nothing in either the protection policy or the admin policy says that admins can't do minor gnomish edits to a protected page that they believe in good faith to be uncontroversial and that are unrelated to the dispute that has caused the protection. The admin policy says you mustn't use admin tools "to gain advantage in a content dispute". Making a gnomish edit like this [25] has nothing whatsoever to do with gaining an unfair advantage in a content dispute. If Risker thinks edits to protected pages can only be done after a formal edit request, she is simply mistaken about the policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's completely farcical. Zzyzx11 was fixing a date formatting issue, Jimfbleak a MOS issue, and Mark Arsten reinstating a category that had previous been removed by mistake (and had been edit requested). THat's one of the most ridiculous and bone-headed blocking actions I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A date formatting issue that had already been resolved differently a few sections above on the article talk page, BlackKite: and any admin who thinks date formatting changes are uncontroversial needs to rethink, because I have yet to see an article where there isn't at least some steam generated. And why exactly is a MOS change needed in the middle of an article protection? Will the project's reputation fall into disarray if the caption for an image mentions the name of the article subject? Risker (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 4) In all honesty, I think these are three horrific blocks. None of the edits, particularly Jimfbleak's, were remotely controversial. Mark's comment on his talk page is correct that people aren't shy about opposing anything on that talk page. I am in favor of accountability for administrators. Administrators should be held to a higher standard. This isn't holding administrators to a higher standard. This is preventing administrators from doing their job, which is to facilitate edits on protected pages. Go Phightins! 18:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion isn't degree of controversy, it's whether or not there is clearcut consensus for it. Risker (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that it's mainly admins complaining about admins getting blocked for making "uncontroversial" edits. But Mark Arsten's edit was almost immediately embroiled in controversy after it was done, and Zzyzx11's was being appealed as well. There's no reason to make finicky MOS changes during a limited page protection, either. Administrators editing through a limited page protection should always have a clearcut talk page consensus to do so. As is mentioned elsewhere, the talk page is huge, and proposed changes are often discussed in multiple places. Admins need to not act unless they're reading the whole discussion page to make sure there are no conflicting comments. There is little more infuriating to non-administrators than admins continuing to edit a protected page without regard to its status. "Protected" means protected from casual editing from everyone, and any edits made by administrators must be backed by some actual consensus. Let's be realistic: there's hardly an edit that could be made to this article right now that will be completely uncontroversial, and that goes for categories, markup, MOS fixes and typos. Risker (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, well if you hadn't noticed, this is the admin noticeboard. Are you going to undo these? They're completely ridiculous and they make you look ridiculous. If they'd actually been major edits I could have (sort of) understood it, but worthy of blocking rather than a serious trout? No, never. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I am sorry but that's not being realistic. "Protected" means that nobody should be doing content changes to the article, which would mean that they are taking advantage. Doing maintenance edits like correcting typos, fixing categories and such are allowed by policy and any admin can feel free to do them on any protected page. I still don't understand why your vision of this differs from the rest. — ΛΧΣ21 18:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)
As the admin who edit-protected the page, I must say I was disturbed at seeing over 30 edits to that article in the space of a day, since I protected it. It looked as if I hadn't protected it at all, and made me go back and check if I had actually protected it, and check the sysop bit of everyone who simply continued editing after protection.

That amount of activity in a protected article boggles my mind. I mean, I could certainly make edits that I could claim as "uncontroversial" too, but I refrained. Some of those edits have generated controversy, such as Zzyzx11's introduction of inconsistent mdy date formats in an article that was already specified as dmy, as appropriate for military-related articles. I see no warring between admins, but I do see reverts of prior edits, basically continuing a war.

While I am not convinced that these edits justified blocking, I also I do not believe that the blocks were unambiguously unjustified. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible, terrible blocks. If absolutely zero editing on protected articles were allowed, we wouldn't have an {{editprotected}} template. Those edits were reasonably able to be considered controverisal. Blocking someone for converting a few dates to American style on an American subject, per request on the talk page? Ridiculous. Blocks and preventative, not punitive. If you went to each of those admins and said, hey, [link to discussion], that wasn't as uncontroversial as you thought, I doubt any of them wouldn't have acceded to reverting. -- tariqabjotu 18:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:GOLDLOCK means almost everything must be discussed at the article's talk page before editing. If "almost" is in doubt, then do not edit the page at all. This is the first time I see an admin blocking another admin, and I find it just fair. Admins are not over the rest of the mortals.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These specific edits weren't horrific, but I sympathize with desire to block: it's apparently the only thing that will get some admins to respect full-protection. When an article is protected for a few days, there's no reason to go in and tweak it. It may not be an abuse of the letter of our protection policy, but protection isn't supposed to be a method to keep the article out of the hands of typical editors, its a method to prevent the article from being changed until some controversial issue is settled.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Uninvolved, non-admin opinion) Judging by the diffs provided by ΛΧΣ at the top of this section, none of the edits caused any substantive change to the article, nor were they contrary to consensus or controversial in any way whatsoever. As far as I'm aware, the purpose of page protection is to protect and the purpose of a block is to prevent disruption. It would seem that neither of those purposes was served by this block. I have no doubt that Risker's intentions were good, but no admin should be permitted to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and then use her tools to block those whose crossing of that line falls well within policy, but that does appear to be what happened here. Suggestion: unblock, trout, and move on. Rivertorch (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • By the way User:Amatulic has just fixed a typo in the article through protection. Now there's a decision for you Risker. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...which was properly done in response to an edit request on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling this a consensus to overturn. Will unblock in about ten minutes unless somebody beats me to it, after finishing a glass of white wine and getting those frozen trouts from my fridge for everybody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think two of the three blocks by Risker are clearly justified. The transsexual cat was clearly in dispute on the talk page (Mark Arsten's change; mulitple threads with "gender" or "transsex", none showing much consensus; consensus established in 4 minutes??), as was the date format change by Zzyzx11 (1st, 2nd and now a 3rd thread). It's sad to see here so many admins circling the wagons and denying the obvious... As for the edit by Jimfbleak it appears to have been an undiscussed personal preference. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unblocked. Ched had already unblocked Mark Arsten, and that was the only contentious one. I have therefore unblocked the other two. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)I was also alarmed by the number of admins who carried on casually editing the page after amatulic full-protected it. While uncontroversial edits can be made by admins during full protection, I would expect any admin to think long and hard about whether the edit they wish to make is a) truly uncontroversial and b) necessary to make in a period where the article is essentially shut down. Editing through full protection, rather like closing an AFD, should be done in a manner that reflects the consensus of participants on the page, not on the personal preferences of the admin doing it.

    Those things said, the article and its talk page are both disaster areas and good-faith mistakes appear tohave been the order of the day regarding these edits through protection. I would suggest that the blocks can probably be lifted, with their point made, and we can attempt to move forward with our admin corps now (hopefully?) more aware of their responsibilities regarding protection.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I endorse Risker's action. A fair warning was given and so continuing to edit through protection after that was outrageous. Warden (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PROTECT says that pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial, or absent an edit-request. Two of the edits were the former, and one the latter. So yes, I think you can say Risker should have phrased that better. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as necessary blocks; admins are not above the rest of the folks, and should not have edited through protection, after warning, in these cases which were controversial as demonstrated by Risker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, Sandy, how is changing a date format from dmy to mdy or changing a caption per MOS controversial? I'll give you the category one, but that? Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not collapsing the below, because it relates to the decisions to unblock and not the decisions to block. AGK [•] 19:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a shame that BlackKite, who had already participated vigorously in this discussion before it ran even an hour, has decided to lift the remaining two blocks. He is obviously not well-informed enough to realise that these were not uncontroversial edits being made, particularly the date format one; I'd expect just about every admin to realise that date formatting remains a highly controversial area in just about every article where it is raised. I've suggested to him that he consider reverting himself. After an appropriate level of discussion (i.e., more than an hour), an uninvolved and unconflicted admin or two who have not participated in this discussion or that about Chelsea Manning may well come to the same conclusion. Risker (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has the world gone mad? I wouldn't touch this article with a bargepole, it's an obvious bearpit. I didn't even read the talk page, and I find that I've been blocked for not doing so! I took one look at the article, thought I'd just mos the image captions and move on, and apparently I've committed a major crime. Why is an mos fix to the captions controversial? Looks likes someone's on a power trip to me. And I see that there are complaints about a (temporary) unblock to defend myself. Do I get blocked for 35 years? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, why did you feel it was necessary to make an edit to a fully protected article? Keep in mind that absent the fact that you have admin tools, you would not have been able to make that edit. How can you be sure that your edit was uncontroversial, if you hadn't read the talk page? More than half of it involves disputes about the interpretation of MOS, so a reasonable person would think that MOS changes may be controversial and would discuss them first. Risker (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, these were bad blocks, just based on your supposed "warning". It was horrible. You can't put a warning on talk page like that and expect anyone to see it. It's not like it was the top or in an edit notice, it's now mixed up somewhere in the middle of the page like any other thread. So, as an admin looking through "edit requests" I now need to scan the entire talk page for a freaking warning that I shouldn't be editing it for your supposed reasoning? Right. Hell, even after reading this ANI thread, I knew the warning was supposedly on the talk page and it still took me a few minutes to find it. If a user who outright vandalizes an article is "warned" like that and then gets reported to AIV, it would get declined in a heartbeat for insuffcient warnings. Jauersockdude?/dude. 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. It would probably result in a block. Unless, of course, they were an admin. Risker (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For a vandalism-only account? Sure. For an IP or another editor screwing around? Well, then I hope you don't work AIV much. Jauersockdude?/dude. 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Risker, Amatulić and Fluffernutter that it's disappointing to see so many admins believe they can edit through protection. There are three sections on the talk page asking admins not to do this: Editing through protection, Note to admins, and Administrators editing through full page protection.

    When an article is protected, admins are all editors in relation to that page, unless there in a purely administrative capacity. Valid admin actions include fixing serious issues such as BLP violations, and responding to edit requests that have consensus if there is good reason to make them. It doesn't mean that admins can act as super-editors so long as their edits aren't controversial in their view. If the protection policy doesn't make that clear, then I think we should fix it.

    As for the blocks, I wasn't keen on the block of Mark, because he was responding to what he saw as a valid edit request. With Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11, I can understand that they feel the block was a shock, but I also understand Risker's frustration given that she had issued a warning yesterday. Jim, the point is not that your edit was controversial, it was that there was no administrative reason to make it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, it's incredibly sad that it had to be done but the number of people continuing to edit that page after full protection is an absolute disgrace. Imo more admins needed blocking as reminders that they should just step back and settle down but it is at least reasonable to only count after the warning was given. It is completely reasonable, and in my opinion expected, for people to pause and sit on their hands. No changes should be made without full consensus on the talk page during full protection, unless it's a massive BLP issue and at that point you damn well be ready to defend it as such. MoS changes are NOT sufficient reasons to break protection. I'm sorry, but the blocks were completely reasonable. James of UR (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the blocks[edit]

Clear consensus that the three administrators should remain unblocked. There are enough subdiscussions on Manning-related issues. This one can be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

As Risker objects to Black Kite's unblocking of Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11, and has suggested that Black Kite reverts those unblocks, I think it would be best to try and establish community consensus in order to prevent possible wheel-warring and desysopping. So, should the blocks be restored? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unblocked - restoring the blocks would be punitive, not preventative. GiantSnowman 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unblocked per GiantSnowman. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that I must add a clarification here. I did not open this thread as a proposal that the Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11 be reblocked. I was simply trying to measure the consensus. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I have suggested to BlackKite that he revert himself because in pretty much any other situation an administrator would be censured for taking admin actions related to a discussion in which he has been an active participant; we'd expect an admin not to make a deletion decision if he took part in the AFD, or a bureaucrat to abstain from closing RFAs where he's voted. That is not quite the same thing as suggesting that these blocks be reinstated by someone else. Risker (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We block people here for doing things they know are wrong. That's why we have the warning system, even for vandals. When that changes, let me know. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unblocked and instead Block Morwen and Gerard, who are the direct cause of this entire iasco. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unblocked These blocks had a very flawed reasoning and purpose from the start. — ΛΧΣ21 19:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Comment from uninvolved editor) Reblock Full protection notice is visible at the top of any page, so nobody can say the protection was unnoticed. When in doubt, all the changes should go through a discussion at the talk page. As I said above, it's just unfair that admins can perform editing while the rest of the editors can not.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. I think the blocks have served their purpose though. If these admins continue to edit through protection in the absence of talk page consensus, ArbCom is the next step for abuse of tools. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) So, what's the point of {{editprotected}} then? Jauersockdude?/dude. 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm moving to an Unblock, as long as the admins involved commit themselves to stop editing fully-protected pages. We cannot be that severe. As said below, the point has been made.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unblocked until further edits are made. I think the point has been made by the blocks. 30+ edits in one day for a protection that lasts ONLY THREE DAYS is just not warranted, especially when some of those edits were controversial. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For one unsuspecting edit to a page with a warning hidden on a talk page, you are suggesting that I can't do any vandal bashing, spam deleting etc on any article!!!!!!. Nice job Risker, easier than going after the real bad guys. FWIW, I'll more than happily topic ban myself from the Manning article, which I had no intention of editing again anyway. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying, Jimfbleak. If you can't bother reading the talk page of a protected article and getting stuck in to understand why it's protected and what the issues are, you shouldn't be editing that page at all. Risker (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To take this forward, perhaps in future it would be better to put your warnings in an editnotice. That way, no-one can say they didn't know it was there. If you'd done that, I certainly wouldn't have been as quick to unblock. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An editnotice is a good suggestion, Black Kite. I'm not very good at creating those sorts of things, and would propose that one be created that is generic and can be applied to ALL fully protected articles. I have made some notes on your talk page, if you are up to working on its development. Risker (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical. Edit notices cause visual page pollution and information overload. I never read them. Protected pages already have big boxes at the top of them with the automatic protection notices. Whenever I see two or more big colored framed boxes at the top of a page, with five different levels of highlighted fonts in them and screaming colored highlighting and whatnot, I just mentally shut off and read none of it. (Best example is what I'm seeing right now in the edit notice of this page. Three big boxes, and I have no idea what any of them is saying, because I never read any of them). I'm sure I'm not the only one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're only talking about a very few contentious articles, here. Try to edit the Manning article now (I've tweaked the editnotice) and see what you think. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see four notice boxes using three different colours and six different types of highlighted text fonts. (Sorry, this is a bit of a general pet peeve of mine and only tangentially related to this issue, but I really think this kind of warning notice overload is one of the big useability issues that Wikipedia really really needs to fix.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the crap formatting, though ... I'm pretty sure that would've prevented the issue here, no? Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak, you shouldn't have edited the article not because there was a hidden comment from Risker to the rest of the admins at the talk page, but because the article was fully-protected. Isn't the intention of this to discuss the changes and reach consensus? I find strange that admins are trying to justify themselves in this basic point.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Blocks Admins should know better. It's not up to individual admins to decide what is or is not uncontroversial when it comes to editing fully protected articles, which is always the excuse. Only talk page consensus should decide what edits are made on a fully protected page. JOJ Hutton 20:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unblocked. I think the timeline is a little screwed up here. I don't think these Admins happened to see the warning that was posted on an overloaded Talk Page. As for Mark, on his Talk Page, an editor came to him asking him to make an edit to the protected page and he became aware of the warning after that edit. I realize this isn't a long block but I think that the Admins were not being defiant and were acting in good faith. With a discussion of this article on a half dozen different Noticeboards and Talk Pages, I can see how they didn't see every message made regarding this article. And if it wasn't such a high profile individual, there'd be no question that it should be edited to adjust to a different gender identity. She's not the first transgender individual on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unblocked - This all seriously needs a drama reduction right about now. Blocking other admins over stuff like this is just not the way to go, so let's just all call "no harm no foul" and drop this particular tangent. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd personally just say reblock because I think that the unblock was done hastily (considerably more hastily then the block). It seems we have too many admins pissy about their "rights" but not really thinking it through. That said, I'm willing to back off on that and say 'ok', they know they shouldn't edit now and that was the goal'. HOWEVER, if other admins continue to edit through the protection I would fully support any block against them. At this point if you don't know you shouldn't be editing you haven't done the due diligence required to edit through that lock. James of UR (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unblocked, and a trout for Risker. As Mark noted in his unblock request, had Risker gone to the admins and said "What the fuck are you doing, revert your improper edit through full protection", he (at least) would have done so. Or maybe, just maybe, Risker and Mark could have, you know, discussed it. How many times have we answered reports on this very page with "Why didn't you talk to the other editor/admin to see why they did that?" How many times are cases or complaints declined because no one asked the offending party to discuss the matter? How many new editors have been told to go discuss their concerns with the admin in question? Why didn't Risker, here, do that same bloody thing? 5 minutes, two edits, and the problem would have been solved. Instead, Risker blocked. I find that to be an appalling abuse of administrator authority. Risker's been here for a long time, and should know better. Or at least I thought so. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (in response to worries, that admins might be protecting their own in this discussion): I am not an admin, and I do agree that admins in general get blocked less quickly and unblocked more quickly for identical or similar breaches of rules, and I too find this imbalance to be problematic. Yet, keep unblocked mostly per Tarc. One of Tarc's sentences could be modified to "blocking editors over stuff like this is just not the way to go", and I could have added this to most of the posts I've made in favour of unblocking or not-blocking regular editors. Usually the subjects aren't admins, here they happen to be .., or no, it's not random, they are admins, here, because their actions could only have been made by admins. I still don't think they should be punished, and obviously they won't be editing the protected page unless they have a clear mandate to do so (and at least one of them has already indicated they'd be happy not to edit it at all anymore). I really think blocking regulars should remain a last resort, and I wish content-editors who aren't here to push a certain point of view were blocked far more rarely.---Sluzzelin talk 21:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unblocked. - If anybody needs to be blocked for misusing the tools, it is Risker. Carrite (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't bother closing the barn door after the horse bolted - which is to say, at this point, there's no point in a reblock. As I said above (in the now-collapsed section), I'm not at all sure this was a block-worthy offence, but it was certainly Something That Should Not Be Done, as with the rest of the editing-through-protection. Even if it's within the letter of the policy, it's way outside the spirit, and very much gives the impression of the article having been protected so that only the few, the proud, the admins could edit it without having to deal with the peons. Full protection means full protection - the encyclopedia won't burn down if some WikiGnoming waits a week. I wouldn't have overturned the block, but given that it has been, it's best to dispense seafood and move on, provided there isn't an encore performance. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unblocked. Good block, good unblock. Blocks are preventative. They served their purposes (that is, get sufficient attention to get the involved editors to stop), and got lifted. That's how blocks work. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admins should not be editing fully protected pages, except as the result of clear consensus on the talk page. As others have said, full protection is not about preventing non-admins from editing a page; full protection is to stop any edits on a page to allow discussion to happen and prevent disruption. It should not have got to the point when Risker had to threaten blocks. Now that the blocks have been undone, I don't think there is any benefit in reinstating them, though I would support blocking any admins who continue to edit inappropriately through full protection. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can see this going to ArbCom VERY quickly if punative blocks like the above are handed out like candy! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Risker is a member of ArbCom, at least for the time being. It would create a very ticklish situation if a standing Arb was taken to ArbCom for possible sanctions. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not looked into the situation enough to have a strong opinion. This point doesn't matter. Their being a standing Arb shouldn't provide any hesitation for the community to ask for an Arbcom decision. --Onorem (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether I personally would have blocked anyone or not, I can see why Risker did so and I am disappointed that so many of my fellow admins have been editing through the protection and undoing one another's actions. This situation needs cool heads and a willingness to proceed exceedingly carefully, and that is the exact opposite of what we have been seeing the past 48 hours. I have no doubt this will end up in arbitration, probably fairly soon, and discretionary sanctions will be imposed to stop this foolishness. Luckily for Risker she now has a reason to recuse from any such proceeding and can be done with this shameful situation. All that being said I don't see any point to restoring the blocks right now but if anyone else admins make any further such edits through the protection without a very firm consensus on their side they can and should be blocked. Being able to edit through protection doesn't make it automatically ok to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unblocked, more or less word for word per Martijn Hoekstra. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I was away during this wikidrama, but now I have time to respond: I feel that these blocks were punitive not preventive. I was in good faith responding to a request on the talk page about the date format.[26] As per previous consensus, and as written on {{edit protected}}, an admin is permitted to make edits that are either uncontroversial or unrelated to the content dispute. Because the talk page was long, and the target of rapid recent editing, I was not able to clearly see what the consensus was, and thus thought it was uncontroversial, and boldly made the change. In my edit summary, I stated that I thought it was uncontroversial.[27]. If I actually knew that this was controversial, I would not have made the change. The sensible thing that should have been done was to revert my edit and kindly point to me the discussion where consensus was established that the dmy format should be used on that article. Otherwise, if the community feels like that NO admin should make uncontroversial edits through protection, or that admins should be automatically blocked when they make a simple mistake like I did (instead of doing courtesy revert and discuss), consensus should be made to change WP:PPOL accordingly. -- knowing that admins like me will less likely respond to {{edit protected}} or any other similar admin assistance requests for fear of getting blocked by other admins. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And my response to anybody who still supports restoring the blocks: I will quote Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Purpose and goals: "A user who agrees to desist and appears to have learned from the matter, or where the situation was temporary and has now ended, may be unblocked early.". I affirm to desist from editing that article any further until the protection expires, and I have learned from the matter. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • By now, I would have definitely reverted my edits on the page, but because of this incident, it has successfully scared me away until the protection expires. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unblocked, per UltraExactZZ and Carrite. I don't see this as a good block, way to quick on the trigger. GregJackP Boomer! 02:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Block Risker for an hour because justice.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone instantly blocked me because I made a single moot edit to a fully-protected page, I'd find that pointlessly draconian. If this was my first block ever, as it appears to have been the case for Mark Arsten, I would actually find such a block to be an explicitly insensitive act of destroying a previously clean block log. Yes, a topic area can be very sensitive and inflammatory, but if we don't axe single-edit anonymous vandals, we shouldn't do the same to other editors, either. Restraint is a quality both Risker and others should have displayed here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unblocked. Editing through full protection is an offense which is, in my opinion, just barely not serious enough to warrant blocking without a warning that is guaranteed to be seen. The editnotice should have been utilized much earlier. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep unblocked - The blocks were an enormous misjudgement. Blocking someone for correcting a spelling error in the non-controversial surname of a BLP subject is utterly, utterly outrageous. WP:IAR applies, WP:COMMONSENSE applies, and Risker showed an alarming lack of the latter, and a disregard for the former. And Risker has also destroyed a previously clean block log of one admin, which is never good. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a bureaucracy, so why try and turn it into one? Note that I'm not accusing Risker of acting in bad faith, because I don't believe that they were, but that they need to be more sensible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protection policy discussions[edit]

A couple of points about protection policy:

  • WP:GOLDLOCK is the relevant section of policy.
  • This was discussed back in May 2013 at an RfC, see here. What I can't make out is whether that RfC actually came to any conclusions or resulted in any changes (or lack of changes) to the policy.

It looks like a new discussion at WT:PROTECT is needed to sort out some of the issues raised above (with a note left at WT:ADMIN as well). Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having fallen foul of this new policy, it needs clarification.
  • It can't be a blanket ban on editing all protected articles. I've tweaked my own FAs when they are protected as TFA. Obviously innocuous, but as I understand it, the wrath of Risker could have fallen on me
  • There needs to be some WP:AGF. If I'd been pointed to the threat on the talk page before being blocked, of course I would have reverted my uncontroversial edit rather than face the unexpected shitstorm that followed.
  • Is it suggested that we extend this principle to non-admins, and just block rather than warning?
  • On the AGF note, I saw some people objecting to the lifting of the block so that we could defend ourselves at ANI! Did they really think we were about to rush back to the Manning article? In the interests of natural justice, there should be a means to contest a block where the cause is clearly not malicious or deliberate controversial editing
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a new policy as far as I can tell. I've always been aware of the need to be careful around fully protected articles. Anyway, the point I was making is that discussion should take place at WT:PROTECT (with a note left at WT:ADMIN), rather than being discussed here. Discussion here won't actually result in any clarification of policy. That discussion needs to happen on the policy talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Day of personal attacks by Josh Gorand[edit]

There was a majority calling for a topic ban on Josh Gorand for the duration of the move request, but no-one closed it in time and the move request is now itself closed. I'm thus closing this thread as the sanction which many people were proposing would no longer serve any purpose.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good evening ya'all. During this whole Chelesa Manning article move debacle, supporters of a return to the previous title have suffered a repeated assault by several users. One of the more severe is Josh Gorand whom has accused those supports of transphobia, sexual harassment, and a few other things with little or no evidence or support. Diffs:

Also includes threats of off-wiki humiliation

He's also treated the issue like a battleground and has been very hostile to others:

I warned Josh that continuing to behave in this way would lead to a report here, and I was further accused of heckling in an edit summary.

While Josh has been very careful not to name a specific user in their name calling, their conduct has been inflammatory, chilling, and disruptive. The only result of their conduct has been increased tension and emotions. I request a topic ban for the duration of the move request.--v/r - TP 01:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Well, TParis, I see some likely miscommunications here. First, when posting to a talk-page, "This is your only warning" then that appears more like a *threat* than a case of "I warned Josh" as you stated above. Let's reconsider opening a real dialog on the person's talk-page. See, here's the deal: some formal debate sources lead people to believe that saying someone's remarks are "childish" might not be a case of argumentum ad hominem because there is no direct attack of saying the person acts like a child, hence not(?) a hominem fallacy. As an experienced debate judge, I would consider the phrases, "childish remarks" or "retarded ideas" as a veiled attack on the opponent. However, even some admins might oppose that notion and insist that saying the word "childish" is not violation of wp:NPA. Long story short, we need to communicate with other users in extended discussions on their talk-pages, or perhaps ask others to help explain the confusing issues, as with formal debaters. Even trying to post this clarification here is likely to anger people who want to delete it, or move it far from being the direct reply which is needed for a clarification of terms. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not called any editor childish, that is a pure fabrication concocted by TParis as is clear if one reads the comment in context[28] where I explained another editor's usage of the term transphobia (i.e. the mainstream, accepted definition of the term) and that the idea that one can refer to a self-identified female using a male name is not encyclopedic nor a mainstream position. TParis is only targeting me because he strongly disagrees with my position on the issue, which is incidentally also the position of Jimbo Wales, Sue Gardner and a long list of other editors. The way the quote is presented is typical of the dishonest personal attack on me by TParis, by excluding the very central first words of a sentence to present it like I said something entirely different from what I actually said. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Josh Gorand: Seriously? Your defense for calling another editor "childish" is to call another editor a liar? Seriously? So you defend one personal attack with another? Can we please have an admin enact the ban? It seems pretty clear that consensus is in favor of this topic ban. I don't see any reason to delay the inevitable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only personal attack here is the personal attack by TParis, including a multitude of false claims against me, and he is the one who has to be banned. I also note that you make personal attacks against me. I don't need to "defend" anything because I have never called any editor "childish" (in itself an extremely mild term in relation to what has been going on on Talk:Chelsea Manning in any case). Josh Gorand (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone need anymore evidence of this editor's inability to edit constructively in a collaborative environment than the post above? This editor defends one personal attack by making another personal attack and then defends both personal attacks with yet another personal attack. It's time to end this nonsense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Unless we also topic-ban everyone who has made statements comparing Manning's gender identity to a three-year-old child, a dog or other hopelessly offensive, transphobic nonsense. Pointing out the fact that there is a virulent undercurrent of transphobic ridicule and distaste in not all, but many of the !votes to move the article back to Manning's birth name is neither disruptive nor particularly wrong in any sense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Regardless of the position being argued against and regardless of the motivation behind that position, making comments like this in any Wikipedia discussion is wholly unacceptable. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd back up the Bushranger here - just because there are a lot of kettles doesn't mean all of them aren't black. I'm hardly blameless, I'll report myself for edits like this which are probably not entirely within the lines. I'd welcome being blocked if it means that an aggressive approach is taken to some of the actively detrimental behavior that runs unchecked during disputes like this. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The bits quoted are clear attacks on lots of other people with hateful language; I'm surprised that he wasn't already blocked for blatant NPA violations. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The comments in the diffs are clearly designed to chill the discussion of the matter, violate at a minimum WP:CIVILITY, and in some cases, clearly incorrect (i.e., the "convicted felon" comment, since as a matter of law, Manning is a convicted felon). I also don't have a problem with TP's suggestion - if there are other diffs, list 'em. Bushranger is also dead on with his comments. GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Editors objecting to changing a person's name or gender pronouns are not automatically 'transphobic'. If I wanted to become an American citizen, I could take steps to that effect, but I wouldn't be an American until it was official, regardless of how much I might identify as a US citizen. A person would not be discriminating against me for saying I'm not an American. I'm not saying the situation is as simple. What I am saying is that editors should not be so quickly labelled as 'transphobic' when their objections may be purely semantic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tease out the logic without knowing more, but it is apparently quite important to some people and it goes beyond mere "truth" or "fact". A comparison with Muhammad and the images is quite apt - this isn't something you'll understand from your perspective, it's just a question of whether Wikipedia is required to kowtow to unusual perspectives, especially at the expense of utility. Folks like the editor in question are (as far as I can tell) not factually wrong when they identify this as offensive, but the editor in question is being rather intolerant of other viewpoints and being extremely aggressive and belligerent towards anyone that disagrees. The problem with Wikipedia is that this is a winning strategy in most disputes - make the debate toxic enough and people will leave. WP:CIVIL is supposed to prevent the "shouting match victory" debating strategy. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - And what you are displaying is not transphobia, but trans-ignorance. It is not now and has never been required that a transsexual person undergo sexual reassignment surgery to be considered their preferred gender. In fact, SRS is the very last step in the transition process, and a transgender person wishing to undergo that surgery must first live as their gender for a minimum of one year. Gender identity is self-declared and the mere fact that Manning has declared her gender identity to be female is sufficient to make it so. Her biological sex is irrelevant - you cannot, and no one can, rebut or reject her self-declared identity. There is no way for you to prove that Manning's gender identity is not female. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 'displaying' trans-anything. I simply pointed out that other editors have other perspectives that do not necessarily make them 'transphobic'. I did not say that those other perspectives are necessarily correct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, you are. You're asserting that it's OK to deny that a person's self-declared gender identity is sufficient to make them that gender (as opposed to biological sex). Anyone who makes that argument, at best, is trans-ignorant. It's the same as claiming that a man who asserts a gay sexual orientation isn't really gay unless they have sex with men, or that maybe they are just confused. Those positions are today completely morally indefensible. If they continue to adhere to those arguments after they have been educated, it is perfectly fair game to consider them transphobic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. I didn't. I didn't actually express my own view at all. I stated that other editors may have different perspectives, and that those perspectives don't automatically make them 'transphobic' (a label you're forcing onto others). And that's all. I didn't say the only alterntative to being 'transphobic' is that the editors are otherwise 'correct'. Please stop your rhetoric.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone holds a " different perspective" doesn't mean that perspective is entitled to any respect whatsoever. There are a great many people who believe that the World Trade Center was a controlled detonation, or who believe that HIV is a government conspiracy, or who believe that Jews control the world economy. I am not required to give any of those ideas the time of day, nor am I required to refrain from expressing my opinion about those ideas. Those ideas are, respectively: insane, disproven, and anti-Semitic. It is not in any way prohibited for me to describe those ideas as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that any particular perspective is correct (or 'entitled to respect'). I said that other perspectives are not automatically 'transphobic' or 'trans-ignorant'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hearing this as "WP:CIVIL only applies to people I agree with" which is troubling. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please direct me to the place where WP:CIVIL has ever been interpreted to prohibit someone from calling an edit "homophobic," "anti-Semitic," "racist," "biased," etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to point out that those are comments about editors, not comments about edits, and violate the fundamental rule of WP:NPA - Comment on content, not on the contributor. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) That argument is irrelevant here anyway. Even if Josh is right, his attitude and behavior are in question, not his facts. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Dealing with this joker today has been mot trying on the patience, reminiscent of how Ludwigs2 acted during the Muhammad images debate. Users don't get to belligerently declare that their invokation of WP:BLP is some sort of divine right, nor do they get to slur every editor with whom they disagree as a bigoted phobic. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This sort of series of personal attack shouldn't be allowed. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support And this is the tip of the iceberg. I'd also like to point out that Josh took his attacks to the German Wikipedia, saying there that supporting the name Bradley Manning "is grossly insensitive and sexually degrading, if not bigoted" (in English, not German, rudely enough). Someone even came from the German Wikipedia to complain about English Wikipedians encroaching, likely as a consequence of those remarks and ones like them. -- tariqabjotu 03:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually sort of amused at Latin. I wouldn't be surprised if it's been moved in a few of the other less-used Wikipedias as well. Looking around, though, it appears that most of the others are moving it on their own choices. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is now blocked at Latin Wikipedia for move-warring la:Bradley Manning to la:Chelsea Manning. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this person is focusing on editors, not content. Kelly hi! 05:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: (Note that I am an involved person) This user has repeatedly thrown names at various editors that do not have the same opinion as him, including myself and others, both unprovoked and unreciprocated. Having a glance throughout the entire discussion, I've yet to see disparaging names being thrown at "pro-she" supporters, however phrases like "transphobic" used to describe certain editors with a certain viewpoint have been thrown around too liberally within this discussion, by this user and others, without any reprimand at all. This user has been warned numerous times that such terms shouldn't be thrown at other editors, good faith or bad, due to the negative connotations associated with said term. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: After spending the past few days reading the talk page of the article in question, the only conclusion that I've reached is that Josh Gorand is seeking to chill the discussion by labeling anyone that disagrees with his perception of gender identity as ignorant and hateful. While I'm on the fence about the RM, it's crystal clear that Josh is actively derailing any possibility of consensus (no matter how remote that possibility is) with personal attacks against anyone who dares disagree with him. Chillllls (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - calling out personal attacks and odious behaviour is not somehow worse than the behaviour itself. Compare the extreme provocation of Baseball Bugs, which is apparently being given a pass by the supporters here - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Josh's fortitude and restraint are to be commended. Paris has misrepresented his evidence. For example, this dif which Paris claims show "threats of off-wiki humiliation" only show Josh restoring another editors comment. It seems to have been the pro Bradley side who first threatened the move would bring Wikipedia into disrepute. The difference is, their repeated threats are blatantly counter factual, as all the flagged media coverage has so far been positive. Right wing advocates really need to take some chill pills, and avoid misrepresenting the facts. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The editor's behaviour is inappropriate irrespective of whether his position accords with Wikipedia policies. There are various possible 'benchmarks' for defining 'gender', from the superficial to the specific: self-identification (with or without behaviour or appearance traditionally ascribed to a particular gender), legal recognition of changed self-identification (with or without a name change), possession (at birth or by surgical re-assignment) of sexual organs for the production of egg or sperm cells (irrespective of functionality), XX or XY chromosomes (or variations). All of those factors can—in isolation or in combinations—be used for determining 'gender' in certain contexts, and none automatically identify a person as 'transphobic', which also depends on the context. As it happens, Wikipedia has very clear policies for biographies about living people, and that policy indicates that a person's self-identification is sufficient for gender identification, but that in no way justifies the editor's comments about other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Inappropriate attacks on other editors and throwing around of the word transphobic with abandon which frankly has done nothing to advance the situation. I do think there is some "transphobia" exhibited on that page, but the way this editor has painted everyone who opposed him with a transphobic brush is not helpful to the discussion. we've heard enough from him, so support topic ban until the move request is finished.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The editor in question needs to take a break from the page, and since he won't do so voluntarily, a topic ban is appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While some of the comments show indeed varying degrees of bigotry against trans people (perhaps not necessarily a phobia, but whatever), playing the "x-phobic!" card in such a sweeping way is a political personal attack, not very different from calling other editors "fascists!" or "racists!". While the editor is entitled to the opinion that some other editors' statement indicate a transphobia, she would be best avoiding it. --cyclopiaspeak! 11:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose. I believe that TParis's proposal leaves a great deal to be desired. The section heading is implies an inability to distinguish between criticism, which is allowed (up to a point), and personal attack, which is not. The accusation of "threats of off-wiki humiliation" is unsupported by the diff provided: for one thing, it is quite possible to use the phrase "minor celebrity" to refer to on-wiki notoriety, and for another, the "threat" can very reasonably be taken to be not a threat at all but a practical warning of inevitable consequences. I also have to say that the proposal seems more than a little strange in the context of the larger controversy, which a little ways up the page found TParis !voting against a separate topic ban on another editor whose conduct was hugely disruptive but who was on the other side of the fence when it came to the content dispute. Nevertheless, I do agree that Josh Gorand has displayed hostile, disruptive battleground behavior, and I imagine that a topic ban for the duration of the move request (i.e., per the proposal) might well help lower the tension and thus be of benefit to the project and the community. Rivertorch (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Added: However, after much further thought, and particularly after reading a comment by BrownHairedGirl, I believe a topic ban would be a net negative. Yes, Josh Gorand's response to other editors on the talk page was suboptimal, but I agree with the general thrust of what he said there. If the issue had been racism or antisemitism rather than transphobia, there would have been blocks and bans galore, and at most Josh Gorand would have received a mild admonishment. The double standard doesn't sit well with me, so I'm striking my support for this proposed ban. Rivertorch (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a relatively mild and restrained response to purposefully inflammatory behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As a person who has lost their temper over perceived or obvious sexism, I have to be a bit tolerant of some of the comments, though they are 10x more than I've ever shared in one discussion. But this threat linked above really is going too far: anybody involved in the decision-making here, particularly anybody who decides to move the article back to Bradley Manning, should be preparing themselves for a few days of being a minor celebrity Especially considering that at least one Wikipedian who supports "Chelsea Manning" name has been talking to the media about this and who knows how many contacted the media to make sure they saw her comments in other media or on her blog. There could be quite an organized campaign going on here. More worrisome, implicit is the threat of outing since making anonymous editors minor celebrities might be laughed off, but having one's real name bandied about could possible be humiliating and even lead to job loss. User:Carolmooredc 12:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to report you for personal attacks on me if you don't retract your false claim that I have made any threat. I have never written what you claim, this is an outright lie and a personal attack on me. 23:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND nor the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The repeated personal attacks are simply not acceptable and this editor is helping to contribute to a hostile editing environment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and noting that my opinion would apply to any topic at all, and is unrelated to transgender issues -- the level of vitriol vented was excessive. Collect (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Tariqabjotu. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 14:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose topic ban as first sanction: I suggest instead, talking to the editor as a human being, which I have found is an effective means of collaboration. Otherwise, based on the above Support comments, impose first block (see: block log) as a 24-hour block if User:Josh_Gorand has declared refusal to listen to complaints. After that block expires, then I suggest talking to the editor as a human being, which I have found is an effective means of collaboration. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As one who has been both blocked and topic banned, a topic ban is much less restrictive and more apt to correct the behavior. A topic ban allows one to work on other areas, a block shuts down all editing. JMO. GregJackP Boomer! 15:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sorry Wikid77, but Josh is not a little puppy who needs to be gently reminded of what is acceptable and what is not. He's been around long enough to know that this behaviour is not helpful, and as far as sanctions go, a topic ban that lasts only as long as the move request is open is extremely lenient given other available options. Resolute 15:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If Bugs stays, so does Josh. Crisis.EXE 16:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support topic ban for repeatedly casting severe aspersions, per ArbCom ruling [29]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Josh Gorand's behaviour, as decribed here, has been totally unacceptable. Thomas.W talk to me 18:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose With all of the uncivil words being spoken over the past two days, why single out one user? There is misconduct on both sides of this dispute. Banning or blocking one editor will have no effect on this heated discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As much as it pains me to support anything proposed by TParis, it's obviously necessary. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Zealotry like this brings out the worst in everybody. Stamp on it hard.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' I have seen this user make several unhelpful edits, if a user is more of a problem then someone there to engage in discussion they should be topic banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not attacked any editor at all and there are no personal attacks on my part. I, and a fair amount of other users, have explained what is commonly regarded as being transphobia in the world at large in general terms, namely referring to a self-identified female using a male name she has asked not to be used. Numerous sources for this are available. I, as well as several other users, have also pointed out that the talk page includes vast amounts of clearly transphobic comments, which is merely a fact, eg. comparisons of trans people to dogs, outright mocking of trans people and the subject of the article in particular, and gross BLP violations that degrade the subject of the article. All of these users should be blocked for BLP violation. Attacking a user who points out these BLP violations instead of doing something with the actual problem, would be a scandalous act, and contribute greatly to highlight what has been going on on the talk page of Manning and cast Wikipedia in an extremely dubious light in other media. This talk page is the worst thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia in regard to clear harrassment of the living subject of a biography, in violation of non-negotiable rules here at Wikipedia (BLP).

I request at topic ban for User:TParis, who appears to treat Wikipedia as a battleground, who has made this false request in retalitation for me disagreeing with him on the question, in an attempt to silence me, and who, judging from his comments, appears to have a very non-neutral stance towards the issue, responding to one of my comments that cited Sue Gardner with a link List_of_The_Big_Bang_Theory_characters#Mary_Cooper.

I also request an immediate ban of users who compare trans people to dogs or make other similar comments violating BLP.

I would also note that other users have already, long before this attempt to silence those who oppose degrading trans people, have already point out that the only unacceptable comments to be made on Talk:Chelsea Manning are the clearly transphobic comments, eg. comparisons of trans people to dogs. As User:Bearcat wrote,

"there has absolutely been offensive anti-trans hate speech being spouted on this page in the past 24 hours — and people who let that stuff slide without comment, but then get their noses out of joint about the word "bigot" being thrown around as if that were somehow more offensive than the original hate speech is, don't exactly get to claim the moral high road".

Josh Gorand (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also take note of the fact that User:TParis clearly misrepresents almost all my comments citing them completely out of context, often in a misleading way, and makes a false claim that I made a comment that I never made. So much for this alleged evidence. All of this amounts to a personal attack on me by User:TParis. I also take note of the fact that he ignored the incredibly much worse BLP violating comments that I responded to. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no "anti-trans hate speech" that I have been aware of in the past few days; this "Bearcat" should have been blocked for a such a statement. Being opposed to changing the article title of a transgendered person does not mean that the opposition is rooted in hatred or bigotry. This is the same sort of well-poisoning speech that infests the Israeli-Palestine topic area, where critics of Israeli policies become antisemites, and critics of Palestinian causes become Islamophobes. Nip this in the bud now, please; "Josh Gorand" here is far and away the primary mover in the denigration of editors who hold opposing points-of-view. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, I wouldn't say there has been zero anti-trans hate speech. There has been some and it should be dealt with. However, Josh has gone to the extreme and several times accused all supporters of returning to the old name of transphobic and hateful behaviors.

Josh, threatening to go to the media does not help your case and is treated quite harshly on Wikipedia. It has a chilling effect on editorial judgement. I'd suggest you either strike that or carry it out and accept the consequences.--v/r - TP 23:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to threaten me in regard to what I might possibly say about the Chelsea Manning case and the treatment of transgendered people in the media. You are the only one making threats, right here. Wikipedians are indeed already being interviewed about the case. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify...yes, there have been some puerile comments liek this one, but those are redacted and dealt with appropriately. But the "transphobe" shit is being slung at regular editors, such as myself, expressing opinions in a non-insulting manner. Being of the opinion that Manning should be referred to as "he" and by his given name is not hate speech. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, nobody compared transgender people to dogs. You keep bringing that up, but if I remember the quote correctly an editor found Manning's statement "I'm a woman" while being (in that editor's opinion) so obviously a man, as strange as saying "I'm a dog" when you're obviously not. I agree it's not the nicest of comparisons, but nobody said anything like "Transgenders are as [whatever] as dogs" or something remotely similar. Yintan  15:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, making that analogy is in fact a direct comparison - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Tarc, the comments of "You are a transphobe" to other editors for no reason in addition to the threat being made I do not see why at the very least this user should not be topic banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user has openly threatened Wikipedia as a whole. How is he not blocked? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NOMEDIATHREATS appears to be a redlink. But see my comment below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 03:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Josh, I don't think consensus exists to block you. But it's a narrow thing. What you need to do right now is calm down. "Leave me alone or I'll say mean things when interviewed" is not the comment of someone with the moral high ground. It is indeed a threat - and one that makes editors far less likely to take your position seriously, on its merits. You need to stop right now and climb down off the Reichstag. There are a lot of editors on that talk page who deserve blocks, and who aren't blocked - but getting yourself blocked will serve no one's interests. Stop it now. Calm down and start being more civil, or You may be blocked from editing. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 03:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for all the same reasons I opposed banning Bugs. Bugs has said some tremendously offensive things about our BLP subject, as have many others on that page. I take that much more seriously than Josh calling your ignorance of gender issues transphobia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Josh Gerand actually has a point. As someone who has been going through the archives and has read most posts there there are definitely some transphobic commments there. I dont see why we should sanction somebody for pointing that out. Although I would not have used that language, i nonetheless believe that we should not single this editor out. I checked all the links and they are pretty mild in my humble opinion. If everyone gets santioned for using confrontational styles, then i would support. Otherwise it would be pure hypocrisy. I hate inconsistency. Pass a Method talk 08:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Manning story is a touchstone for so many of the faultlines in both American and international politics that it was always going to be the locus of difficult editorial discussions. Despite that, there have been commendably few outbreaks of editors spouting their views on whether Manning is a hero or traitor, whether the issue is security or liberty etc.
    Many editors have calmly and civilly expressed divergent views on how to handle the article naming issue. However, throughout these discussions there has been a disgraceful strain of transphobia, as evidenced by (for example) the comments of BaseballBugs. Only a minority of editors have been transphobic, only a minority of those has been virulent. I like to avoid ascribing to malice that which can be explained by ignorance, and this topic has shown that many editors are evidently very ill-informed about transgender issues, but that has not deterred a number of them from spouting off without doing their background reading. (WP itself has quite good coverage of the trans stuff, so there would be no need for a google marathon).
    The community has repeatedly come down hard on editors who have used editorial discussions as a venue for spouting racist views, but so far I see no sign at all of sanction on editors who have taken a transphobic stance. That vacuum is a disgrace. Our discussions on Manning are being widely watched, and the tolerance shown to transphobia shames us all; and it also has a dangerous chilling effect both on trans people who are already editors and on those who might consider contributing. Some editors have tried to fill that vacuum by directly challenging the transphobia, with varying degrees of skill; some have been measured in their responses, while others have been far more forceful than is helpful. However, we should not be surprised that ppl have tried to fill the gap, and we should not victimise the individual editors who have tried to enforce the community standards which the rest of us should be enforcing for them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question- could someone direct me to where diffs of transphobic hate-filled comments have been posted? There is far too much on this issue now to try to read through it all to find them. I see comments on here saying that there were comments calling trans people "dogs" but I do not see the diffs. I do see various comments along the lines of "it is transphobic to call Manning "Bradley" when he has asked to be called "Chelsea" and I do not agree with that.Smeat75 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One could make this distinction in that regard: It is commonly considered, in the outside world, extremely offensive to refer to a person who identifies as female using a male name she has requested not to be used. Explaining that this is the case is not an attack on anyone, but an explanation of what is the common perception in society at large. I have seen comments like "If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog...", comments claiming the article subject is psychotic (one of the few comments subsequently removed by another editor citing BLP), and a ton of similar comments. They are all there if one reads the page, and I've seen a dozen or so editors pointing this out. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the evidence presented by Tparis and Tariq says enough. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with what BrownHairedGirl has laid out. Many of the comments do come of as transphobic and arguably those posters are not doing so on purpose. The case with Bugs and a few other frequent commenters is that they are pushing buttons and making hurtful comments testing the lines of common sense on purpose. It's unfortunate that anyone has to still point out how their comments can be seen as transphobic and even leads to further harm to transgender people. The comparisons to animals and other species are particularly telling. Once you see someone as less than human it's much easier to disrespect them altogether and excuse away poor behavior of all kinds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportfan5000 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the simple reason that the cause of this entire brouhaha is a couple of admins who used a desire to push a personal agenda to grossly override Wikipedia policies, thus making Wikipedia even more of a laughingstock than it already is. Those two are to blame for all of this. They, and they alone, are the ones who should be banished from that article's page. (Right after they've reverted to the previous version, to partially correct for their malfeasance.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see nothing in Josh's commentary that is beyond the pale in this type of situation. While it would be nice for everyone to be a little calmer, you can not really expect it under these circumstances.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose BrownHairedGirl puts it far more eloquently than I could but this has not been one of Wikipedia's finest hours. And it takes more than one editor or "side" to cause that. There have been some particularly nasty comments in that debate that are de facto not just about Manning but about all transgender people - comparisons with declaring one's self to be a dog and using terms like "gender bending" are some of the most direct but the whole question of just what gender is and who determines an individual's gender is pretty fundamental to the whole issue of trans, and some of the comments are inadvertantly or deliberately stepping into that one in ways that can be hurtful even if not intended to be. And yes there has been a general failure to handle this that wouldn't be there in cases of race or religion or sexuality. In such circumstances it's understandable that the vacuum gets filled by others in a less subtle and blunter way. The problem is a general one, not a specific user one. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose closure[edit]

If an uninvolved admin would look at this, it would be appreciated. It appears to me that there is about a 3:1 consensus by the community to topic ban Josh Gorand from discussing the move of Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning (and vice versa) until the discussion on the requested move is completed and closed. GregJackP Boomer! 16:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps 3:1 misunderstanding but not consensus: Over 9 people clearly opposed the topic ban, certainly as a first sanction to a user with a clean block log (hello: no blocks in 3.2 years). If anything, an admin would issue a warning or set a short, several-hour block and see if actions changed afterward. Plus User:Josh_Gorand only recently clarified, above, how his descriptive remarks of "transphobic" were definitions of the term, and in no instances was there a wp:NPA attack, which I had already concluded when tediously, carefully, fully, totally reading all the linked "evidence diffs" at the start, which merely showed definitions about "transphobia" and at one point, he asserted, "No means no" when he declined (a 2nd time) to rehash a lengthy debate logged elsewhere. Everyone has the right to say, "no" to someone pushing, barking edit-orders, which itself is a major problem: wrong to coerce an editor into editing/writing something they do not want to state or debate. However, I thank everyone for expressing their opinions, about the general dislike of the word "transphobic" and I suspect people know, now, to perhaps use the word less often in discussions when other phrases might be better. Otherwise, I concur for closure on this subthread, as "no consensus" or else a warning to the user. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There is clear consensus that the behavior is not acceptable, and it is not because all 27 or 28 editors are "misunderstanding" him. The comments and arguments in support are very clear that his behavior is not acceptable and is causing a disruption. Nor is it a call for a block, but a topic ban. GregJackP Boomer! 19:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly how a Topic Ban would work when we are talking about a Protected Article. It sounds like some editors just want this user to not discuss this case on the Article Talk Page, is that the case? Liz Read! Talk! 18:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it appears that they are tired of being labelled as "transphobic" or worse if they don't agree with him. It deals more with WP:CIVILITY and WP:BATTLEGROUND than anything else. There are plenty of editors on both sides that are discussing the matter in a more restrained manner. GregJackP Boomer! 19:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't counted the !votes here, but if GregJackP is right about a 3:1 preference for a topic ban, then we have an interesting situation.
The discussion on BaseballBugs reached no conclusion on restricting him, even though there was very clear evidence that he was using the article's talk page as a soapbox and a battleground. Many of his commnets are deeply offensive to trans people. Yet, we find much stronger support for sanctions on an editor who tried to explain why that sort of behaviour would be seen by many as transphobic. Sure, Josh Gorand has been crude and unsubtle in how he has gone about it; but the substance of his position is very close to that advocated by Sue Gardner, who of course contributed with her customary diplomacy. Her point is simply that accept a transperson's choice of identity is "fundamentally respectful of that person" ... and the corollary of that observation is a that a failure to accept their identity is a fundamental lack of respect. Sue's language is much less provocative, and gets the point across much better, but both Sue and Josh have on their side a wealth of material from reliable sources (such as peer-reviewed journals), if they chose to throw it into the debate.
So here we have an editor who is vocally and unsbtly taking a position similar to that of WMF's director, and facing sanction; while BaseBallBugs's aggressive repetition of scientifically-rejected stances gets praised as "truth". (WP:THETRUTH, anyone)?
Please folks, stop and think about this. In a few year's time, after all the exposure to Manning's case, more ppl will be familiar with trans issues and with the often surprising facts in reliable sources: that gender is not binary, that it many societies have long accepted that is not always congruent with physical sex, and that physical sex itself is neither binary nor determined by one indicator. (As a simple point of illustration, not everyone has an XX or XY chromosome, and some of those with XY have been regarded since birth as female). The uninformed ranting which has marred the article's talk page was bound to produce some heated responses such as those by Josh.
At some point in the future, the response to Josh will be seen more clearly as victimisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would take it very differently. Sue has established that one does not need to be combative and crude in establishing a reasonable argument. Whether Josh is right is <underline>irrelevant</underline>, it is how he has approached it that is worthy of action. To give a contrast conservatives are appalled by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, and Josh is being the WBC-equivalent: crude, nasty, and combative. I happen to agree with some of the things he says, but his behavior is indefensible. WP:WAX aside, Bugs bugs me, and that he's still an editor here after his years of abusive behavior surprises and amazes, but that doesn't make Josh innocent. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl has this exactly right, let's try to understand the motive of the messenger was not to disrupt but to stop the disrespect running rampant. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I quite agree with the IP on one point: Sue has established that one does not need to be combative and crude in making those arguments.
Others have similarly demonstrated that they can make case for naming the article "Bradley Manning", without being as combative and crude as BaseballBugs.
Yet Josh still faces possible sanction, while BB doesn't. Whatever the intention of any individual editor contributing to this discussion on JG, the fact remains that the community has already established that crude, nasty, and combative behaviour is fine from an anti-trans voice. It's only the pro-trans voice which still faces sanction.
These debates are apparently being widely watched. Is this lop-sided justice really what we want the world to see? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the "justice" where Wikipedia's rules against advocacy are so obscenely violated? Speaking of which, in my world "crude" means lowering oneself to the kind of language you can't say on TV. Show me where I've done that, and if you can't, then remove your lying personal attack. Oh, wait, you're an admin, so you can do anything you want to. I forgot. Silly me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Bugs, I mean the "justice" where your vocal advocacy and intemperate of a partisan position has escaped sanction. You claim that you were agitating against "advocacy"; but you yourself were strongly engaged in advocacy of another political position.
BTW, your language to me doesn't exactly help your case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with my language. Everything I say on this website I could say to my own mother, which is more than a lot of editors can say. The only thing I'm "advocating" is following Wikipedia policies, a number of which were demolished by this rename and by the insistence on keeping it renamed. So, I should apologize for defending Wikipedia? That would be obscene. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you read WP:THETRUTH. Didn't you spot that it is ironic?
Anyway, what Wikipedia policy justifies you using an article title discussion to pronounce that Manning's lawyer is trying to use "gender identity" as an excuse for committing crimes against the USA? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm none too bright, so enlighten me: What other reason could the lawyer have for bringing it up? And note that it was reported in the same discussion where the lawyer said he expects his client to be pardoned, and that he plans to force the government to do certain things if they don't do them voluntarily. So Wikipedia took a lawyer's hype and violated its core principles by turning Wikipedia into an advocacy arm for Manning. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BB, you continue to do a great job of pushing your POV about the merits of the case presented by Manning's defence lawyer. However, it is not Wikipedia's job to re-run the trial, and it is not appropriate for editors to use editorial discussions to try to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not Wikipedia's job to jump out in front of the sourcing, especially as Wales himself says "it will probably be mainstream in six months", or words to that effect. First, he has no more right than anyone else here to invoke a crystal ball. Second, if that proves true, then rename the article six months from now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Changing what we do in order to look good for the media would be nauseatingly dishonest. My understanding (without digging into the details) is that BB is accused of making crude comments about trans individuals and about the subject of the article. JG is accused of making crude comments about other editors. They're both violating the general principle of meta:dick, but JG is accused of openly violating WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and other much more specific policies. This isn't about "sides" this is about editor behavior, and we have to trust our fellow editors acting as admins to make the right decisions about the arguments presented. Yeah, the media will spin it one way or another, but this is not the PR department for Wikipedia, and PR is not what we are deciding. We're trying to write an encyclopedia, whether we look good doing it is not a major concern. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? It doesn't matter anymore. If you go to Wales' page, you'll see that he himself supports this rename, himself using arguments that violate Wikipedia's policies. It is now official: Wikipedia has "jumped the shark". It's hopeless. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@IP 71.231.186.92.
I don't advocate doing anything to either please or dissatisfy the media. I merely point that if editors proceed with this partial and lopsided exercise in punishing misconduct on one side of a dispute while taking no action to worse conduct on the other side of the argument, we can in this case expect that imbalance to be widely reported.
You are apparently quite happy to administer punishment selectively. However, I hope that editors will reflect more carefully on where this is heading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not selective punishment, it is a finding of fact that what Bugs' said was of really no consequence, while Gorand's repeated slurs were. The former displays a vested interest in the betterment of the encyclopedia as a whole, whole the latter is quite obviously only here to advocate within a very, very narrow topic area, and lashes out at anyone who is not 100% on-board with his point-of-view. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl - this is not about selective enforcement, it is about behavior and consensus. You know that the Project works on consensus. The community has looked at both individuals, BB and JG and has determined that BB's behavior did not rise to a violation, while their view on JG's was different. Not only that, but it was by a significant margin. I've been in the minority position before, and I understand that it is not comfortable and that one can disagree with the consensus and its decision. None of that is germane to the closure however. If the community has determined, as it apparently has, that JG is to be topic banned from the Manning discussions, that is the community's judgment. JG has appeals that he can make, but further discussion here seems to be pointless. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarc. Your comment could be more useful if you had learnt to distinguish between a finding of fact (i.e. what happened), and a value judgement or explanation placed on those facts.
Anyway, you reckon that Bugs's anti-trans pov-pushing rants such as this is "a vested interest in the betterment of the encyclopedia as a whole", while Josh's denunciation of that sniping is unacceptable. God help us.
@GregJackP, I do hope that Josh will appeal against any such determination. The selectivity is so blatant that I hope that somewhere in Wikipedia's processes we have a mechanism to overturn it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I resent your jumping on the "transphobe" bandwagon. You, as an admin, should know better than to do that. Your "anti-trans pov-pushing" claim is false and a personal attack. In fact, I am quite sympathetic to the cause. What I am not sympathetic to is taking a lawyer's hype as license to abandon Wikipedia principles for the sake of personal agendas. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And making similarly false claims about BrownHairedGirl is not an equal personal attack because...? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about, the "I resent your jumping on the "transphobe" bandwagon" line? Well, BHG kinda shouldn't have done that, and her further comments display a distinct lack of respect for the consensus of the community that unequivocally finds fault in Gorand's rhetoric but did not on Bugs'. Life is full of disappointment, not every decision goes the way one wants them to. The mature thing to do is to respect that. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between accepting a decision and respecting it. I quite accept that the community has made a decision about BB's conduct. However, I regard it as a bad and dangerous decision which as resulted in a POV-warrior feeling licensed to continue POV-pushing, and I am entitled to deny it respect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to claim that I'm pushing an "anti-tran" POV. That is a lie. Stop it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You stop pushing that POV, then I'll stop noting it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to lie. I AM NOT pushing an "anti-tran" POV. As I've already said many times here, once the sourcing supports it, as per Wikipedia's own rules, then you can rename the article. Otherwise, you're abusing Wikipedia to make it an agent of advocacy, to create artificial notability to this story. Once CNN starts saying "she", you're on safe ground with this name change. They aren't, and you're not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course quite entitled to your view that a trans identity is a whim[30]. However, dismissing someone's identity as a "whim" when reliable sources indicate that it dates back to 2009[31] is a POV, and one which is derogatory to ppl who identify as trans. You should not have used the article naming discussion to push that POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're unaware of the fact it was being reported as "Breanna" some months back, when someone was trying to get the page renamed to "Breanna Manning". Fortunately, that was stifled, but it only delayed the inevitable abuse of Wikipedia for the sake of personal agendas. There is a long list of reasons why this renaming was illegitimate, and they've all been ignored, because someone wants Wikipedia to be an agent of change rather than just a reporter of change. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of that;I have done a lot of background reading on this in the last few days. However, the substantive arguments about page naming belong somewhere on the article's talk page.
ANI is a place to discuss conduct, not content. The conduct issue here is your sopaboxing of your theory that this is a whim. Please stop abusing wikipedia as a venue to spout your theories about the motives of a BLP subject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, behavior, which is why I've said over and over here that the two admins who caused all this trouble are the ones who should be held accountable for it. As for editing the article talk page, you don't have enough money to get me to go near it again. Not even if you were to do the right thing, and rename it back to its previous title until such time as Wikipedia rules allow renaming it to "Chelsea". Which, so far, they don't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't seem to understand that discussion of the article's title belongs on the article's talk page.
You are quite entitled to your view that those editors acted wrongly. However, others have been able to make that point without soapboxing about the motives of a BLP subject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "soapbox" about that lawyer, I merely pointed out the obvious. That's really not important, though. The subject of the article is still legally that other name, and for the Wikipedia front page to say "formerly" is the height of arrogance, and runs the serious risk of making Wikipedia look extraordinarily stupid. You claim to be concerned about Wikipedia's reputation. As long as you continue to defend renaming the article, which was a gross violation of Wikipedia rules, then your claim does not ring true. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, I may be a nobody, a know-nothing, but note this comment in the Washington Post article on the matter:[32] "Greg Rinckey, a former Army prosecutor and now a lawyer in Albany, N.Y., said Manning’s statement could be a ploy to get transferred to a civilian prison. 'He might be angling to go there because he believes life at a federal prison could be easier than life at the disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth,' Rinckey said." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Josh has not just denounced that kind of sniping as unacceptable. If you read the diffs at the top, he has called anybody who supports this move as conducting harrassment of the subject, sexual harrassment of the subject, virulent hatred of transgendered people, libel, gross sexual harrassment, a violation of human decency, said they were obviously motivated by transphobic hate and said that anybody who moved the page to Bradley should be blocked instantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.93.178 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BHG is right. Sanctioning Josh for impugning the motives of editors who insist on calling Manning "Bradley" while not sanctioning Bugs for impugning the motives of our BLP subject would be demonstrating a clear double standard. All I ask is that both cease that kind of rhetoric on the article talk page, and both appear to have done so. So, what's the point of sanctioning either now? These ANI discussions appear to have had the desired effect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The desired effect was to abuse Wikipedia by turning it into an agent of advocacy, and you've succeeded. Congratulations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can spout this shit here or on user talk as much as you like, but if you start up again on article talk I'll propose site banning you for IDHT and incompetency. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only incompetency here is the two admins who renamed the article illegitimately. They caused all of this trouble. P.S. What you just said is the epitome of what most of us consider "crude", although I doubt that one admin farther up the section will call you out on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, stop it, this is he same stuff you started to do at the tail end of the Muhammad case. Frustration over something not going your way leading to lashing out at those that you think "get away with it" is not helpful. 3:1 in favor of a topic ban is what it is, you can't point at at another person's case as the consensus was that the two were simply not the same. Tarc (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - feelings have been running so high the last few days, admins as well as others have performed rash actions, said things that were unwise, this is really a unique situation. I feel handing out bans or blocks to anyone right now would not be a good idea, I would recommend admins issue warnings for incivility as they feel appropriate, hopefully things will cool down a little, admins can watch the situation, and if conduct does not improve, move up a step to blocks or bans then.Smeat75 (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ill will is a consequence of the behavior of two incompetent admins. They are the sole cause of this problem. Any solution, other than reverting their name change and banishing them from that topic, will be a major fail on Wikipedia's part. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Transphobia_on_Wikipedia (permanent) contains a collection of some of the comments I and many other users consider to be transphobic, i.e. BLP violations that are deeply offending to the article subject. I don't see any of the editors making these comments being sanctioned at all. Jimbo also clarifies that "We ought to very strongly defer to how people identify themselves, but for various pedantic reasons, some editors insist on calling people by names that they very strongly reject. I consider that a BLP issue of some seriousness."

I also reiterate that I have never called any particular editor transphobic, but merely addressed the contents of comments comparing the subject to dogs or Minnie Mouse, and explained the general concept of misgendering someone is considered offensive and a BLP violation.

If dozens of people wrote comments on a talk page, like "Jews deserved to die in concentration camps", and someone responded that the talk page contained several anti-semitic comments, it would be the worst form of hypocrisy to attack the latter editor while giving the first ones a free pass. The same would be the case if someone suggested that we rename the article Holocaust "Holohoax", and someone responded that that title is considered anti-semitic in society at large. Referring to a self-identified female using a male name is the worst of insults and a denial of the humanity of that person. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also just to clarify: I have never edited the article Chelsea Manning at all. And not any other trans topics for that sake. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the above comment, I no longer think a topic-ban is adequate. This guy needs to go, plain and simple. You're comparing those of us who wish to follow Wikipedia policies to Holocaust-deniers? You are a sick, sick person. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Settle down Cowboy. Many experienced editors, right up to Sue & Jimbo, have asserted that policy supports the current title for Chelsea's article. So your claim to following policy is contentious at best. And Josh is comparing no one to Holocaust-deniers. They have merely made the very common mistake of reaching for the most powerful available example to illustrate the general point that it's not good to sanction those who call out genuine bad behavior. Please don't make personal attacks such as calling a good editor sick! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a bar fight. Just because someone is offended doesn't give them the right to start throwing punches. The sheer level of intensity is out of place if nothing else - the Godwin problem is typical of JG's rhetoric. I don't recall him "explain"ing anything, I remember that he just started shouting "anyone who disagrees with me on anything at all is an ignorant bigot". Was there a WP:BAIT problem? Very likely, but it was a deviancy amplification spiral and JG chose to ramp it up instead of cooling it down. Singling out JG is probably inappropriate, there were definitely others involved, but JG came across as the loudest and the most ridiculous of the bunch and topic-banning them all would derail the discussion and lead to lopsided outcomes that are just going to generate more controversy. Yes, others were naughty, but his behavior was unacceptable. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is telling that User:Joefromrandb claims that comments like (as cited (=linked) in my comment that he responded to) "And he could say he wants to be called Minnie Mouse", "I don't think this project should be running around willy-nilly just because someone woke up this morning and said "today I am a girl!", "Wikipedia is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda", "What would you do if s/he self-identified as a dog, cat, broomstick, or banana then?" are "those of us who wish to follow Wikipedia policies" (sic!). It is indeed ironic that the same user goes on to call me "sick, sick" (I have not compared anyone to Holocaust deniers, that's absurd), especially in light of his behaviour in general; calling other editors things like "a fuc**** disgrace of the lowest order" seems to be his usual rhetoric. This user seems pretty much representive of the kind of editors who are the real problem on this article talk page. The only personal attacks to be made in this debate are the personal attacks by those who insist on referring to Chelsea Manning as "Bradley" (a name she has asked not to be used) against various editors (like me, who was just called "sick, sick") and against the article subject, who has been called psychotic, compared to a dog, compared to Minnie Mouse and otherwise been ridiculed by these editors. (on Talk:Chelsea Manning, the User.Benlisquare has today also resorted to a string of personal attacks against editors Jimbo Wales and Sue Gardner, responding to a comment that included a link to a statement by Wales on the issue with comments such as "Who is this Jimbo Wales guy?", "Are you saying that we should follow his holiness' wishes?" and "I bet he doesn't even bench press") Josh Gorand (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, those were not personal attacks against those 2, it was a tongue-in-cheek allusion to this meme. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:Alright I need to post this since this has gone toxic enough that people need to calm the fuck down. If you all don't descilate the conflict I will be reporting this to ARBCOM since at a minimum there have been multiple statements from multiple sides that would have come squarely down on indefinite blocks to various parties. DRN is worthless in this environment since the settle down warnings have been laughed at as people decided to double down on their personal attacks. Either learn to keep your vitirol to yourself and at least attempt to edit in a collaborative environment, step away from the page or be prepared to defend yourself at ARBCOM. As a side note I will point out the last person I saw there use the "But I am RIGHT!" defense was indefinite blocked and I really don't see how this will wind up any different. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Issue is resolved for the moment. As long as the environment stays non toxic ARBCOM involvement is premature at best since we can at least hope for DRN processes. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you don't really think "enough warnings have been laughed at". Clearly you want us to laugh at another one. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Laugh all you want the only reason I didn't post it straight away to ARBCOM is that I am currently in a training class so my time is stretched thin. I have more than 40 diffs that show major issues dealing with IDIDNTHEARTHAT, IDONTLIKETHAT, NPA, and various other policies. Everything that is of concern deals directly with individual behavior and not the content/article title dispute. I will happily toss this to ARBCOM and I am certain that the huge dirth of AGF, the caustic PAs and other things will make it abundantly clear that this issue isn't going away especially after I link to people ignoring the uninvolved admins telling people to knock it off. Tivanir2 (talk) 132.3.37.84 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah there, how bout coming down a notch? Arbcom takes cases when other community options have been exhausted or prove to be intractable. So far IMO ANI is handling it well enough; Bugs topic ban was denied, Josh Gorand's is hopefully closing in the affirmative, but it could go otherwise. Risker's blocks of 3 admins were overturned, and the RM to bring the article back to "Bradley Manning" has yet to be closed. Arbcom would be premature at this juncture. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has actually taken it down a few notchs since my post which was the desired effect and I no longer see it as necessary to be honest. I understand (especially for issues like this one) that tensions run high. My only problem was it went so far off the deep end that it was seriously causing issues just reading what was ongoing (as I do not have time to be more active on editing due to my class.) As long as the environment remains respectful ARBCOM is not the avenue I would choose. I am striking through my ARBCOM post as no longer on the table at this point as I believe my key problems were resolved. Remember everyone it is exceedingly easy to be respectful while disagreeing vehemently with others.Tivanir2 (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would send this to ARBCOM, right now this war has dragged out out for 5 days it has left the Wikipedia community divided and needs to be repaired. Even after the final say is made and the move is closed there are so many editors involved now I can see bitter feelings lasting beyond the move discussion, in a possible move revirew, ect... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Arbcom doesn't adjudicate content disputes, nor can it alleviate butthurt. Let's wait and see how the Gorand topic ban and the Move Request back to "Bradley Manning" goes. If the fallout from either or both leads to renewed and amplified bad behavior, then a filing may be appropriate. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87 - no one should want to take this to ArbCom unless everything, and I mean everything, else has been tried (like DRN, RFC/U, etc). ArbCom is a last resort, and a lot of people will get hammered. It's not fun, it's not neat and clean, and it is definitely not bloodless. Anyone whose conduct has not been impeccable is subject to topic bans, conduct sanctions, blocks, etc. Five days is only a drop in the bucket as far as the amount of time ArbCom will take, and it will draw out the time even longer. More feelings will be hurt, some will resort to WP:BATTLEGROUND and the WP:WIKILAWYERING will run rampant. Tarc is right - be patient and see how this plays out. GregJackP Boomer! 23:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sorry I am just getting tired of this being drawn out so long. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I think it's pretty clear that the consensus of uninvolved editors are in favor of a topic ban. Can we please have an admin enact community consensus? This has gone on for too long. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the consensus of those editors is the exact opposite. What we see here is an attempt by editors pushing the BLP-violating and MOS:IDENTITY-violating POV that transgendered females should be referred to using male names (like yourself) to silence those voices who advocate the opposite view in the Manning move debate; the opposite of fair debate. I have, incidentally, also said nothing other editors didn't also say. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Josh, I don't think there is consensus for a topic ban - it was thin leaning toward support two days ago, and almost all of the (very well argued) comments since have been to comment or to oppose. Had I not commented over the weekend, I'd be closing it right now on that basis. But then you go and make statements like this one and shoot yourself in the foot. Goddammit Josh, what the hell are you thinking? This comment proves every argument in favor of a topic ban, and I'm strongly inclined to just block outright for disruptive editng and WP:IDHT. Have you heard nothing that was said over the past 5 days? You might have the right of this issue, you might not - but no one cares when you act like this. You can disagree without being disagreeable - or so the theory goes. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Ultraexactzz, you're a good guy and a good admin, but I don't think that you are correctly evaluating this—as of today it is running 28-14 in support of a topic ban, a 2 to 1 ratio or about 67% to 33%. It's actually quite clear. And the more he talks, the more he shows the community exactly why the ban is necessary. GregJackP Boomer! 16:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's narrower than that, by the numbers - 25-14 by my count just now. In my view, the strongest argument either way is from Brownhairedgirl, as per usual - and the late comments are almost entirely on the oppose side. I think, at least until I started engaging with Josh, that it was narrower on the merits than numbers would suggest. Hell, even some of the supports agreed with Josh on some of the finer points. But you're absolutely right, GregJackP, Josh keeps digging, and every comment just cements the consensus that is emerging. Whole thing makes me shake my damn head. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the strength of the arguments. :) I guess I recognize his behavior because it was the same type of behavior that got me topic banned years ago. It's a mindset, and unless he lightens up and relaxes instead of doing what he has been doing, it will catch up with him. You know, if he would make a voluntary offer to avoid the topic for a couple of weeks, the support for the ban would probably evaporate. GregJackP Boomer! 23:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that's not a bad idea at all - but I doubt that Josh would agree, for precisely the same reason that a topic ban has such traction. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 01:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying I cannot defend myself when I am the subject of baseless attacks by opponents in a content dispute (only involving discussion, not article edits)? There is nothing wrong with what I pointed out above, nor does it violate any policy at all. I was not the one who started targeting other editors by starting such a debate that opened with gross misrepresentations of perfectly valid debate and even a quote I never wrote at all. The one starting this was not some neutral party, but an opponent in that content dispute who had himself already made inappropriate comments, eg. comparing Sue Gardner to a fundamentalist on that talk page. I am the victim of personal attacks and inappopriate behaviour here, I am the one who was just called "sick, sick" in this very debate without any sanction at all taken against the person who did that. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that editors have proposed a topic ban for you because they feel that you assume their bad faith when they disagree with you - and that you do this by accusing them of pushing a POV and of being Transphobic. You then accuse an editor of pushing a POV and attempting to silence people who agree with you - pretty much exactly what you've been accused of doing at Talk:Chelsea Manning. Can you not see how this is problematic? I'm not talking about other editors - I'm talking just about you and your conduct. Dozens of other editors agree with you on what should happen with this article, but many of them are able to articulate that position without questioning the motives of other editors. "The article should stay where it is because you guys hate trans people, and are dicks" is not a tenable position, even if true. "The article should stay where it is because of these policies, common sense, and Wikipedia:Avoiding harm", on the other hand, says exactly the same thing without questioning other editors. This thread is about your edits - "They should be sanctioned too" isn't worth considering as a rationale against a topic ban. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to a position as a point of view (POV) is standard Wikipedia terminology, but it seems I am singled out for everything I say regardless on this page by some editors despite being common debate terminology on wikipedia. I have not called any editor transphobic, only the contents of comments that are clearly transphobic according to the accepted definition of the term (as has several other editors, including several administrators), such as comments comparing Chelsea Manning and transgendered people to dogs. We would not be having this debate if the issue was race, antisemitism or anything else than the vulnerable minority transgendered people are. We would in that case instead have sanctioned those who made the actual abusive comments, not one of the dozen or so people who pointed this out. I have never ever said that "The article should stay where it is because you guys hate trans people, and are dicks" or anything along the lines of calling other people dicks or other name calling; this thread is indeed full of false claims that I said thing I never said at all. This is the real problem. People are verbally abusing me on this talk page, calling me "sick sick" without an eyebrow raised, and making claims I said things I have evidently never said, while I'm singled out for valid comments that do not in any way violate any policy at all. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, I'm not saying that you said the you guys hate trans people quote, but it's an example of the sorts of arguments that aren't going anywhere - just as the Keep because of some policies bit is an example of a policy-based argument (though obviously it would be more detailed if real). I'm familiar with the definition of POV, thank you very much, but my concern wasn't with the POV part (everyone has one), but with the "Pushing" part. You're seeing anti-trans advocacy in every editor who disagrees with you, and you're continuing to hammer the point home. I believe your point has been clearly made, and debated in several places. Now's a really really good time to back down a bit and let discussion go where it will. You're going to get a lot farther by being calm and assuming good faith in other editors (whether they extend you the same courtesy or not) than by continuing to agitate against their pov-pushing and BLP-violating ways. You've made your point. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I am not the one going on, I was not the one starting this discussion here at all, I'm not really interested in discussing other users at all, unless forced to. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As someone uninvolved in this matter except voting for the topic ban, that is how it is. Civil discussion is encouraged, no, required here. I do not care whether or not you specifically stated that someone was transphobic (a word I was ignorant of prior to these threads). Whatever your specific words, there is no call to be treating other editors like they just crawled out from underneath a white hood. The specific words are not important, your manner of communication is. Cut it out and engage civilly or find something else to do. You have views, you clearly hold to them strongly. Yet society has not moved to the point where your views are the mainstream. That may come to pass, but Wikipedia is not a leading indicator.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The one starting this was not some neutral party, but an opponent in that content dispute who had himself already made inappropriate comments, eg. comparing Sue Gardner to a fundamentalist on that talk page." I have made no inappropriate comments and I have never mentioned Sue Gardner at all. You'll have to redact that or show a diff.--v/r - TP 14:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had pointed out that the move by Morwen was " a straightforward application of policy also supported by other more specific policies", and to that effect quoted Sue Gardner who had explained why this is the case above. You then responded with a link to List_of_The_Big_Bang_Theory_characters#Mary_Cooper, described on that page as "A devout Fundamentalist Christian from Texas". It seemed to me like you were comparing Gardner to that person. Or maybe you were saying I was a fundamentalist? That's an incredibly much worse personal attack than anything I have been accused of saying here. Indeed, administrator Morwen had also just said "it's ridiculous the number of people making transphobic arguments against a fairly straightforward page move. It's ridiculous that anyone would think they saying new here that hasn't been hashed out before, that we are supposed to rebut each one individually", which seems essentially to be what I am accused of saying. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why we have an WP:AGF and WP:NPA policy. You have no idea what I meant and so you made up an interpretation to accuse me off. Good job. What I was actually doing was comparing quotes. I said "And that's your interpretation." In Season 4 Episode 3, Mary Cooper says to Sheldon while discussing evolution, "And that is your opinion." When I wrote my comment, I heard it in her voice. Thus, I linked it for other Big Bang Theory fans to enjoy the humor. You may retract your accusation now.--v/r - TP 15:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take note that you state now that this was your intention, but it was certainly reasonable to interpret a link to a "fundamentalist" as a personal attack at the time. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the WP:AGF policy says not to interpret anything but to assume good faith. WP:BLP, which applies to me, says you cannot attribute negative information to a BLP without a source.--v/r - TP 15:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are in error I'm afraid. If BLP applies to you, it applies just as much to me, and you have been making a whole multitude of accusations against me without adequate sources, including claims I wrote comments I evidently never wrote and claims of personal attacks which did not exist, e.g. in the very first link in your post above where I didn't discuss any person whatsoever. And you didn't exactly assume good faith yourself, misrepresenting almost all of my comments in your opening comment above. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Evidently, you haven't done a great job reading what I wrote in that first post: "While Josh has been very careful not to name a specific user in their name calling." You see, I'm very careful to be accurate in what I write. I corrected the single misquote (while leaving the mistake visible for transparency) the moment it was brought to my attention. As for the rest, you are welcome to argue that I mistook the context but all your behavior has done thus far is prove them.--v/r - TP 16:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing the contents of transphobic commentary in a way that is mainstream, reasonable, not relating to specific Wikipedia users and not in any way different to what several administrators and other users have said on the very same page, is not a personal attack on anyone. I am reasonable. I don't make personal attacks. My positions are mainstream and adhere to Wikipedia policy. I am the one who is verbally abused; unlike the opposing side, I have never ever called anyone things like "sick, sick", "disgusting" or "arrogant". Josh Gorand (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TParis, I think you're correct as to policy, but I also think that Josh was offended by the comment. And I'll bet others were too. I haven't watched that show in years, and wouldn't get the reference - so I read it the same way that Josh did. And in the context of this topic, linking someone's comments to a member of a religion that would (presumably) object to the BLP subject's conduct (in transitioning Male to Female) - well, I can see how that would be offensive to some. In that context, would you please consider reverting the comment? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offended you don't watch that show, it's amazing. I'll not revert it, it's a perfectly legitimate comment were one to WP:AGF or even ask me. However, I'll change the link to the youtube video as I did above for context.--v/r - TP 16:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See this edit.--v/r - TP 16:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Indeed it appears that a significant number of those who want to sanction me for having used the term transphobia in a way that is reasonable and not in any way a personal attack and in a way several Wikipedia administrators have also used the term on the very same talk page, are themselves engaging in personal attacks on the very talk page in question, eg. user:tariqabjotu who just accused user:David Gerard of "arrogance" and being "disgusting", as in [33] and [34] (with further accusations of "manipulation", "collusion"/bad faith and more). There is a problem in regard to the conduct of many of the users favouring moving the article to "Bradley", both on talk:Chelsea Manning, and here, where I was called "sick, sick". Josh Gorand (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sick, Sick, Sick was a bad word choice what it should have been was hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite. In my mind you lost a lot of credibility when you continued to complain about editors comparing transgender persons to dogs but insist that comparing other editors to holocaust deniers a valid and proper edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.142 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again, more verbal abuse and name calling directed at me, but will be culprit face any sanction? And no, I have never ever compared anyone to Holocaust deniers. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what name were you called? He says you lost a lot of credibility by your conduct. The purpose of AN/I is to discuss editor's conduct, and in this thread yours. The IP is saying that your conduct is poor. I would be more interesting in your telling us how your conduct productively advanced the discussion, rather than telling us what you did not say.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this discussion is about the conduct of users who call me things like "sick, sick" and "hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite". My conduct is not the problem, because I have done nothing wrong at all, nor said anything not also said by dozens of other editors, many of whom administrators. I'm not really impressed by an anoymous editor who goes on to harrass me calling me names like "hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite" (and "sick, sick"?), alleging I am the one having lost "credibility". As it happens, my credibility is fine, because I argue in a serious manner, without name calling, unlike some other editors here. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you just have to put up with things. I've been called more names than I can count, and here that includes "transphobic" (like Wehwalt, I never heard that term until recently), which is bad enough, but being tagged as a "political conservative" is the most offensive thing I've ever been called. But you just have to chalk it up to ignorance on the part of the claimant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The quote you linked to has Tariq saying to David, "Your arrogance knows no bounds". I do not see anything about David being disgusting.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Josh Gorand appears to have a bit of a problem with selective interpretation of other editors' words. In this case, "...who just accused user:David Gerard of "arrogance" and being "disgusting"", the latter refers to this edit summary of "+ reply: this attitude is disgusting". As one can see, that is not the same as saying "so-and-so is disgusting". Tarc (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. I read about it in the Signpost, I'm busy with stuff, so I'm going to carefully depart, hoping that no one accuses me of trainspotting or whatever it was. That being said, just from a glance at things, I'm raising my eyebrows at some of the actions taken by administrators, but won't have the time to look into it further unless they seek some position in future that requires community approval, in which case I'll buy the popcorn. Good luck to all.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General sanction: "transphobia"[edit]

Closing own request. It won't have consensus and will only invite ill feeling to keep it open. --RA (✍) 17:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Passions are quite high on that article. I don't think Josh's exchanges are very much worse than many other participants. An exchange Josh had with me is cited as being evidence of misbehavior. To be honest, I feel it could have come from anyone on that talk page.

A problem I would identify is the wide accusations of "transphobia" (both on the Manning talk and related discussions elsewhere). These accusations (which Josh is also guilty of making) are incivil and do not assume good faith.

I propose a two-week general sanction against accusing others of "transphobia" on Manning-related discussions. During that period, trans issues and the importance of recognising the chosen gender of trans people can of course be discussed - but it must be done without accusing others of "transphobia" or similar accusation.

--RA (✍) 12:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as written -- singling out one disruptive behavior among many. I'd support general sanctions against all disruptive behavior on Manning-related article and talk pages. NE Ent 13:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Punishing the calling-out of bad behavior and sanctioning the bad behavior itself is not a good idea. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Roscelese's argument. Calling someone "transphobic" is the bad behavior, a personal attack, and not civil. Additionally, it chills free and open discussion. I also support sanctions against bad behavior on the other side, where it is appropriate. Everyone needs to chill on this. GregJackP Boomer! 13:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support sanctions for the name-calling if and only if the behavior prompting it - ludicrous comments saying that to be transgender is to be mentally ill, comparisons intended to mock the idea of transgender, declarations that Manning will always be a man no matter what happens - were also sanctioned. This isn't a horse-trade, but simply a request that policy be enforced evenly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I need to clarify. If someone states that they believe that someone (as a subject of the article) who is transgender is mentally ill, that is not a personal attack, nor is it a violation of civility. It may well be WP:FRINGE (I'm not really up on the science, etc.), but it is not an attack. If that same individual states that any editor who supports the transgender position is mentally ill, that is a personal attack and sanctionable. Someone who believes that the earth is flat is an idiot, but calling an editor an idiot for saying the earth is flat violates WP:CIVIL. There are other acceptable ways to address the argument without shutting down conversation, none of which involve name-calling (on either side). I agree that the policy should be enforced evenly. GregJackP Boomer! 14:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obvious to me that bigoted remarks create a hostile editing environment even if they're not directly targeted at a particular user. If someone writes on a talkpage about kikes who control the media, are they perfectly okay because they didn't call a specific user a kike? Of course not. People get blocked for this sort of thing all the time; what you're arguing is that transphobic remarks should be an exception. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support In fact all such neologistic name calling should be sanctionable. Collect (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an argument. Either accusations are sanctionable or they are not, but "transphobia is reasonable so it shouldn't be called a phobia" is not policy-based. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Josh or yourself want to point out specific issues of transphobia, they can be discussed and sanctioned appropriately. However, the broad namecalling is not appropriate. If you'd like help, we can compile a list together.--v/r - TP 14:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to GregJackP. I'm not terribly involved in this article, but if your suggestion is serious, I'd be happy to help with the list. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm serious, I want it all to stop. I read what you just said to GregJackP and I think we're along the same mind here. I think a cross-!vote effort might be beneficial overall if you want to team up. We can meet on IRC, compile a list on a subpage of one of our userspaces, and then propose specific sanctions for individual editors. As Black Kite expressed below, this subject area would be harmed by general sanctions, but targeting specific editors would be a good idea.--v/r - TP 14:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on IRC, but maybe I can e-mail you some things. I would also suggest, in either event, drawing a distinction between describing users as transphobic and describing remarks as transphobic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are proposing 'targeting specific editors', I would suggest that you do so only on the general basis of breaches of WP:CIVIL, regardless of the position they were taking on the Manning issue - any list based solely on usage of the term 'transphobic' could only ever be seen as partisan, and thus would only inflame the situation further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree which is why I am suggesting a bi-partisan effort to clean up the discussion.--v/r - TP 15:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I'd misunderstood. I'm not sure how a 'bi-partisan effort' could realistically be organised though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do IRC, but I'm willing to help. GregJackP Boomer! 14:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support See my comments in previous subsection.[35]--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A grossly offensive and inflammatory suggestion in itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imagine if editors at the variouus homosexuality-related articles (which attract a large number of editors who are clearly homophobic) were barred from pointing that fact out. That would be ridiculous. If people are throwing the term around with little or no justification, then that is clearly sanctionable anyway; we don't need yet more wikilawyering over it. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion is for a temporary avoidance of the term about a specific issue. Imagine if editors at a specific homosexuality-related article were using it as a soapbox—in such a situation it may also be appropriate to avoid using inflammatory terms at such a discussion, particularly when it is very simple to just cite the Wikipedia policy involved instead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We might just as well consider a blanket ban of calling users "activists". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GregJackP. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 14:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if on case by case basis: People get blocked for calling others "antisemites" since it often has been used to shut down discussion of valid policy issues on articles, including BLPs. Similarly someone using "transphobic" in the same way should be liable for sanctions, unless as in both cases the statement is obviously abusive and insulting, as opposed to a policy based comment or an ambiguous or innocuous comment that someone reacts to in an overly sensitive manner. I personally don't say "sexist" but do point out when a specific comment is a stereotype of women or could be seen as an insult by women; education better than insults. And obviously if a person is being subtly or openly harassed repeatedly by a couple editors in a pattern than looks antisemitic or sexist or transphobic, it might be reasonable to discuss that possibility. User:Carolmooredc 14:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Absurd. For the next two weeks, transphobic behavior cannot be called out for it is? Absolutely ridiculous. Msnicki (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calling out other editors is not the purpose of the project. If someone is factually wrong, it should be easy to explain that they are wrong without resorting to name calling and labeling. Transphobic is an intentionally incendiary term (it's an accusation that the person is not only wrong but insane) and it has no place in a civil discussion. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Make it a two-week ban on transphobic behavior, then get back to me. The term is not "intentionally incendiary" except to transphobes. Unlike calling someone insane, which everyone understands as a vague, judgmental, dismissive and disrespectful insult, transphobe has a pretty specific testable meaning. It either applies or it doesn't. But no matter. If we can't use the word transphobe, no matter how technically correct, what word do you suggest? Msnicki (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "fellow editor that I strongly disagree with?" Name-calling does not help us write an encyclopedia, and the insistence that people must be able to label their opponents (especially with labels that are intentionally denigrating) indicates a problematic approach to editing. See my discussion with NorthbySouthBaranof above on this weird idea that WP:CIVIL applies to people that you disagree with. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no "transphobic behavior" on that talk page or within this discussion. What there has been are the opinions of people who do not agree that just because a man says "I'm a woman now" that an encyclopedia article on the man should flip the title and the pronouns within before the proverbial ink is even dry on the news of this name-change in the first place. People who disagree with the editorial decisions regarding this article can do so for non-hate/bigoted reaosns, y'know. Be an adult and accept that. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds that calling other editors transphobic, bigoted, prejudiced, and the like is not allowed AT ANY TIME, the idea that it just needs a two-week timeout is ridiculous. They call this "playing the race card" when it comes to discussing African-American issues, e.g. "oh, you oppose affirmative action? well, you must be racist." This needs to be squashed completely. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a completely misguided idea. While there are people like Bugs who are just being willfully offensive, I have a feeling that some people saying "But he's still a man" don't know that they're offending. This proposal forbids people from saying "that's not OK" Crisis.EXE 15:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Being unoffended is not a right, I'm afraid. I am completely justified in voicing an opinion that Bradley Manning should still be considered a man in his article without having the "you're a bigot!" hounds sicced upon me by the Manning proponents. Tarc (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are saying I should lose my right to tell you that you're offending me? Crisis.EXE 16:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You can say you're offended, you can say it's not right. What you cannot do is call people names. It's offensive.--v/r - TP 16:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Telling someone that they're being offensive is not name calling. Someone told me yesterday that I shouldn't be allowed to get married, is it name calling if I say that person was being homophobic? Crisis.EXE 16:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Telling someone they are being offensive is not name calling; we agree. Calling someone a name (transphobic) is name calling. You can treat people however you want on the street, you cannot call people names on Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 16:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half support - Blatant transphobia: there is no reason not to call it for what it is. It may happen and it doesn't need to be stopped. However, supporting a sanction on whoever calls someone "transphobic" just because they happen to have read WP:COMMONNAME or similar. --cyclopiaspeak! 16:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as bigoted restriction of trans phrases: It is just not helpful to have such a narrow restriction, as censorship of one side in a debate, but allow the word "heterophobic" as being an obvious slant toward bigoted treatment of one group of editors. I am thinking, "transphobic about transphobia" as a transphobic fear of actions being judged as transphobic. It appears the whole thread, #General sanction: "transphobia", might be a transphobic reaction to talking with trans editors. -Wikid77 17:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It was intended as a general sanction against incivility. Asking editors not to call others "transphobic" is not transphobic, any more than asking folk not to call others "anti-semitic" is aniti-semitic, or restricting people from calling others "anti-Irish" is anti-Irish. --RA (✍) 17:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can't even believe this conversation is happening. Do you want to frighten away every transgender Wikipedian who might take an interest in this topic? --April Arcus (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually sort of offensive in itself. I'm reading this as "Transgender wikipedians can only interact with others if they are allowed to insult them when they disagree." Yeah, they're a group that struggles with recognition, yeah, they're a group that is used to unpleasant conversations, but claiming that they can't hold a civil discussion is pretty repulsive. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this thread of my own accord so as to avoid generating any ill feeling. I will ask however that people do refrain from name calling. Just as bigoted remarks about trans people is not welcome, neither is name calling of good faith contributors. As pointed out during the course of the discussion, name calling is already sanctionable under policy. See Wikipedia:Civility. --RA (✍) 17:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose all wikibloodletting[edit]

At this point I'm in opposition to all banning, blocking, bitching at Risker, et. al. The problem lies not in ourselves but in our language: historically English supposes temporally constant binary gender assignment, whereas "gender and sexuality are far from clear cut and that gender may really be a spectrum of grays, not the black and white we tend to see."[1] Since the real world language lags far behind the emerging science it's unrealistic Wikipedia can come up with a truly satisfying solution as to how to properly respect both the Manning as an individual and the readership at large: there are compelling arguments for both given names and various pronoun usages. While as Wikipedia editors we don't have to agree with each other we should respect each other per the quintessential comment on content not on contributors standard. The best way is for everyone one of us to first scrutinize our own behavior and address our own beams before worrying about other's motes. Yes it possible to start dishing out sanctions but that's go to continue down a long acrimonious road and I think the cost will outweigh the benefit. Wikipedia has succeeded not because of admins and arbitrators and wp-this and wp-that pillars / policies /guidelines / essays/kitchen-sinks but rather that most editors most of the time are generous individuals working towards the greater goal of the best encyclopedia, ever. Let's precede forward remembering that and accepting that there is no solution to the Manning article that won't, in some sense, be inadequate and work towards crafting the best possible compromise. NE Ent 13:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Szalavitz, Maia (August 22, 2013). ""I Am Chelsea Manning": Why Gender Isn't So Easy to Identify". Retrieved August 24, 2013.

An alternate proposal to deal with incivility regarding the Manning topic[edit]

Instead of targeting "transphobic" as proposed above we could put some additional expectations on assumptions of good faith which would cover both "activism" allegations and "transphobic" allegations. It's clear that topic-banning a single word is not going to have the desired effect. Give admins the authority, usually with one warning but with no requirement for warning, to topic-ban an editor for a short period (e.g. an hour) if the editor in question is demonstrably incapable of assuming good faith, with the intent of having a chilling effect on any attempt to bring up any editor's motivation for their position as part of the discussion. If an editor returns after the hour and persists with similar behavior, any admin may topic ban the editor in question for the remainder of the move discussion; this remedy will be applied regardless of context and may be modified based on consensus on a case by case basis. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support micro blocks (1hr, etc.) for allegations of "activism" and "tranphobia" on Manning-related discussions after a warning, escalating for repeat offences thereafter. Like above, I think would only need this general sanction for 2 weeks. --RA (✍) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Manning case should not be used as a soapbox about the rights of transgendered people in general.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Wikipedia is not censored and neither should be political opinion. This entire mess was created because WP decided to be more Righteous than the Associated Press, who today ran articles referring to "Bradley Manning" as a "he." You wanna fix the problem? Fix the title and the running gender uses. Carrite (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Carrite, Wikipedia should not be making political statements, we are an encyclopedia not a news source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is caused by lack of civility, due in no small part to deliberately intemperate language used by some parties. This is an easy situation to manage. Warn them to tone it down, and if they don't, apply blocks of escalating length. Contentious biographies and rhetorical exuberance do not mix. Some people are behaving like McCarthyites, others like OutRage. Neither is appropriate. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as proposed. The IP is right that there has been too little AGF here. However, AGF does not require editors to tolerate the use of editorial discussions as a venue for editors to spout off their own personal and political views, and the proposed sanction appears to require editors to accept the misuse of these discussions for those purposes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add a similar optional warn/microblock/escalation for editors that are getting off topic? To be honest, at this point I don't care either way where the page ends up, but this type of behavior and the utter failure of Wikipedia as an institution to deal with those that have openly turned it into a battleground is a serious, potentially fatal flaw in the project. If Wikipedia becomes nothing more than just another Web 2.0 location for people to spout their opinions, it will cease to be useful as a resource and will fail. Unless, of course, it's really a plan to take over the universe and not actually an encyclopedia. I'm guessing not, but the Manning incident was easily predictable through what the novel calls psychohistory.71.231.186.92 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting out of hand[edit]

Throughout the last few days, we've had fights on 2 pages, name calling, hate crimes, accusations of name calling, random blocks with no warning, and some wheel warring. I've lost track of what's going on,and I think everyone else has, too. I woldn't be surprised if this ends up going to ArbCom. Can we all relax please? Crisis.EXE 10:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it needs to be locked down and go to ArbCom, because it's gone beyond the realms of insanity now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the fact that an ArbCom member is involved in all of this? Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 16:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And ArbCom User:Salvio_giuliano proposed the current Manning topic ban againt self-identified trans editor User:Sceptre, allowing an indef topic ban by a vote of only 3 editors. -Wikid77 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to know is why no action has been taken on the person or persons who started this mess. The proper move process was not done and as a result we have made the news for taking a POV stance as well as a divided community when it comes to this issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editors of the Manning page knew about trans issue/name year ago, so rename was expected. -Wikid77 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I support Morwen and David Gerard etc etc, action does need to be taken towards them, instead of this being a proxy thread for idiotic topic ban proposals that are unproductive and end in nothing. The requested move should've been the first thing. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 17:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, wp:MOSIDENTITY is very clear about direct renaming in this case, and major media sources say "Chelsea". Already 8 other-language wikipedias have renamed page on 22/23 August with Chelsea (Swedish WP, Persian, Turkish, Dutch, Danish, Catalan, Finnish, plus redirects for Chelsea in French, German, Italian, Norwegian, etc.). -Wikid77 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS is intended to produce professional-looking articles and not as an authoritative rule to settle disputes about content, though it is intended to quell trivial discussions like pronoun usage. WP:COMMONNAME specifically controls how we name our articles (the subject at hand). It is obvious to me that the two disagree, and both are relevant. Whatever this is, it is not "obvious" from pre-existing documents what we should do in this case. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is that Morwen did not back down when there was opposition to the change. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I say action I do not refer to a ban like I saw what happened above but something I feel should be done to let them know that what they did was not okay. What they did by not following policy had a ripple effect and as I have said before Wikipedia should be known for being neutral whenever possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see wp:MOSIDENTITY about renaming, when a person signs their legal notice announcement as "Chelsea E. Manning". -Wikid77 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't imply anything about banning them - I was just making a point. I don't even know if desysopping would also be a good idea. A block may be appropriate though. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 17:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Morwen's move/s was/were hasty, but that's about all she's guilty of (at least on Wikipedia). Performing a move without discussion happens all the time, and there's nothing inappropriate about it. She, of course, should have known the move was controversial though, and I gather she did, judging by the fact that she posted a notice about the impending move and waited fifteen minutes before actually doing it. It also would have been a good gesture if she had returned the article to Bradley Manning once she saw all the objections, but she was not compelled to do that. -- tariqabjotu 18:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But, she did discuss it beforehand. You should stop asserting that she did not - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the time Morwen moved for the first time, this was the state of the thread you speak of. I'm sure that by most people's standards, that is not discussion. Now if you want to maintain in your mind that it was, go ahead. But we don't need you to repeatedly butt in to tell people that they're "factually incorrect", demand people "stop asserting" something, and shove IDIDNTHEARTHAT in people's faces because their rather popular sentiment about something doesn't fit your rigid idea of the Truth. -- tariqabjotu 03:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hate crimes? What the heck did I miss? --Malerooster (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a little OTT... Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 18:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When everything is a hate crime, nothing will be. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping three days after the announcement, things would have died down a bit. It's still so recent, I think it's too soon to take a case to ARBCOM. Looking at the cases they take on, this would still have to be a divisive article in a month or two before they'd consider. They typically examine disagreements and warring that has been going on for years, not less than a week. The correct route would be to go to Dispute Resolution first. ARBCOM is where irresolvable cases go that have failed to be settled through other DR processes. Just an observer's opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meat puppets?[edit]

Now bear in mind that I'm the author of WP:HUMAN so I have not beef with IPs, but take a look at this section of !votes from a poll on MOS:IDENTITY (related to the Manning issue):

  • ...
  • For --209.179.28.175 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Because it's best to respect other people's choices about what they want to be called (and because people will more readily correct the pronouns they use for pets than for trans* people. Don't be jerks, dudes)
  • For --66.25.60.220 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For --154.20.4.32 (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For --65.118.91.205 (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For --24.24.229.107 (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For --70.251.131.104 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For --172.250.75.11 (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For --89.139.14.177 (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For Because the fact that 'hey, should we respect someone's identity?' is even a QUESTION is appalling. --Igpykin (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For --24.136.121.231 (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For We are not 'meat puppets'; some of us have simply had to play defense in these lengthy, slogging journeys toward LGBT rights so many times that we hardly have anything more to say. The common refrains of 'but they haven't REALLY transitioned yet' and 'what if I wanted to identify as beige, would you still respect that?' are so played out, you have no idea. --75.132.1.7 (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For as a trans* person, I go through a ton of hardship every day trying to convince people to adhere to my pronouns and agree with my gender. Just because I hadn't come to any self-realization, or come out yet, that doesn't mean that my gender was any less valid before I came out. People are arguing that it lacks integrity if we don't out trans people as being originally assigned a different gender, or that it'll be too confusing, but the fact is that the only gender that matters is the one that person chooses to go by. You're not being confusing because you're actually referring to the person by the correct gender, rather than a confusing false one. Treating trans* people anyway else is nothing short of arrogance and transphobia. --98.203.224.199 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For --75.18.188.140 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • ...

User:Betty Logan is removing swathes of !votes like this:

Do we have a meat puppet problem, I wonder? --RA (✍) 20:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whatever the circumstances an involved editor in a discussion should not be removing comments for any reason whatsoever, especially not comments that support a different position to them. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have only removed clear SPA accounts i.e. IPs that have not edited previously this year or accounts newly registered today. The survey is to assess community support for MOS:IDENTITY and the SPAs are derailing the survey. It is pertinent to point out that no-one is actually saying I shouldn't have removed this or that name, they are simply objecting to the removal of a couple of dozen SPA accounts. Also, I am not the only "involved" editor doing this, two others have also including one on the "other side", so I find it a bit unfair I alone have been reported at ANI. Do we really want dozens of SPA votes in this survey? If not, I don't see the problem with editors from either side removing obvious SPA votes (IP editors that have not previously edited this year and newly registered accounts today). We are assessing community support for a guideline, so editors canvassed from outside of Wikipedia clearly are not equipped in the way of knowledge about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to make offer a policy based rationale. I am a bit saddened by the poor faith on display here, since anyone can individually review each and every vote I have removed, but no-one is actually questioning my judgment. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Well I for one do question your judgement. When closing a discussion, I rarely attach much weight to the vote-count of SPAs, but I do scrutinise their contributions for any points which add to the debate. Sometimes they do indeed make pertinent points, and I pay particular attention to any such contributions which are supported by non-SPAs.
      Other contributors should have the option to endorse any such contribs, and an assessment of what weight to give SPA comments should be left to the closing admin. By deleting them (rather than tagging them with {{spa}}), you have impede the closing admin from exercising their discretion and weighing whether there has been WP:CANVASSING.
      I am sure that you meant well, but please restore any deleted !votes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not unless the same is asked of the other editors who also removed SPA votes. I didn't initiate it, and I won't be singled out for a good faith action that other editors have also taken. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I question your judgment as well. In fact, I was kind of appalled. Did anyone else actually remove comments that had reasoning? Perhaps if so hat person needs a stern talking-to as well. Personally, I think it's super WP:BITEY to remove comments solely on the basis that they are from newly registered accounts. If they have a justification for their vote, who cares if the account is newly registered? If its not a persuasive justification, isn't that something for the closer to consider? If someone registered for Wikipedia because they had an opinion about MOS:IDENTITY, shouldn't we encourage them to stay and be a productive editor that gives reasoned explanations for their actions rather than scaring them away because they haven't been around for very long? AgnosticAphid talk 23:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is if they're signing up because of offsite canvassing in order to stack the !vote. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there is some poor faith directed at me personally so I am just going to review the course of events in the hope that someone without an axe to grind will deliberate over it:

  1. I started a review of MOS:IDENTITY at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Survey, in the hope of assessing community support for the guideline. It seems to be controversially deployed in many discussions, so I thought it would be interesting to see how much support it genuinely had.
  2. The survey became compromised by nearly a hundred meat puppets, after User:Boomur advertised the survey on his blog.
  3. The number of SPA votes was dwarfing the survey, which was solely positioned to assess community support for the guideline. No changes or alterations were being suggested, I simply wanted to know if the guideline had broad support from our regular editors.
  4. Boomur supports the guideline, but to his credit removed about 40 SPA votes in the survey.
  5. I am against the guideline, and removed roughly the same number. My criteria was IPs that had not edited this year except for the survey, and newly registered accounts from today. I did so in good faith, because I thought it was the correct course of action, and no-one had objected to Boomur doing it earlier in the day.
  6. IP editor User:99.192.78.111 also supports the guideline, and removed SPA votes.
  7. No-one argued that they weren't SPA accounts, apart from User:David Gerard (who supports the guideline) at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Discussion_of_the_above_survey who accused me of removing "logged in voters" under the "guise" of removing SPA accounts. This is not the case; I removed two registered accounts that registered today.
  8. Despite not initiating the removal of SPA votes, and despite the fact that the majority of the SPA votes were removed by two editors who "support" the proprosal, I, and I alone, have been reported here at ANI by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid (who incidentally supports the guideline) for removing the SPAs, but he failed to list the other two editors who also removed SPAs.
  9. User:BrownHairedGirl has asked me to restore the votes I removed, and I am prepared to do this but only if the same is required of the other two editors.
  10. I have been around here for a few years and when a page usually gets flooded by agenda driven anonymous editors it is usually protected. The discussion is clearly being swamped by off-site canvassed SPAs, and I think this issue could easily be resolved if something was done to stem the influx of the SPAs.
  11. I think it is only fair if my actions are considered in conjunction with the other editors who have undertaken similar actions.

Betty Logan (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi, since i was mentioned above i just wanted to clarify two things: 1) yes i assume responsibility for the flood of anon votes but please note that it was something i did not intend at all; i'm very embarrassed about how popular my note about the survey has become and i can't apologise enough. 2) i personally only removed anonymous edits that had no reason given. i provided the number of editors whose "votes" i removed as i took them off in the survey as a comment (there were exactly 40 votes i removed). i had placed the votes i removed into a txt for posterity's sake; however my computer unexpectedly shut down before i saved the file. in any case, i'd be willing to go back through the page's history and restore the votes i removed, if that is called for. sorry for any inconvenience. i don't think any of the three of us (Betty, the anonymous editor, and I) intended to skew the survey in any way by removing the votes we did, and any such effect was merely accidental. oh, and by the way, i'm a girl! ~ Boomur [talk] 00:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boomur, as I noted to Betty, I am sure that you meant well.
However, WP:TPO does not support the action either of you took. Regardless of whether any other editors have yet been identified and asked to revert, please can you both do so? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted mine, but I'm not doing the other 50+. Betty Logan (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Betty. I do understand your honourable motives for removing those posts, but reversion was the right thing to do. I'm sure that Boomur will soon follow suit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i've gone ahead and added back the 40 "votes" i removed. sorry again! cheers ~ Boomur [talk] 03:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: I, and I alone, have been reported here at ANI by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid (who incidentally supports the guideline) for removing the SPAs, but he failed to list the other two editors who also removed SPAs. Betty, very sorry if you thought I was reporting you. I don't suspect your good faith in any way. What I meant to report here was the incident of meat puppets. Not you're action.
It's hard to know what to do in circumstances like that. You made a decision. Most people it would seem don't agree with it but you made it in good faith and people should be encouraged to do that. --RA (✍) 11:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok RA, I was a bit tired last night and stressed out, but mostly because another editor was accusing me of making deceitful edit summaries (which is simply not true) and removing "valid" votes. I just wish editors would ask you clarify why you are doing something rather than making allegations straight off the bat. Betty Logan (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I restored all the votes I removed, and User:Boomur has restored the ones she removed too. I also took the liberty of restoring the ones the IP removed, so the net effect now is that nothing has been removed. I have also tagged all the SPA votes using my criteria above (no edits this year for IPs, and newly registered accounts in the last day). I still recommend an impartial admin purges that survey though, because it has been swamped by canvassed votes and as a result it is difficult to get a sense of the community's thoughts on the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than removing any of them, it would be best to move the canvassed !votes to a separate section, and collapse them. That removes the visual intrusion, but ensures that the !votes are still available for scrutiny by anyone, including the closing admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're creating a lot of work for Betty Logan. Let's remember that for next time, but this time let's just be satisfied that they've tagged the SPAs.--v/r - TP 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spreading beyond Manning[edit]

Lauren Harries has been in the news lately; her article has been edited by an IP to change the pronouns with the edit summary "Corrected". Are we really going to have to lock down evey article on any trans subject?! Timrollpickering (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hit BLPN yet? - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's nothing new; watchlist enough pertinent articles and you'll see misgendering like that is very common on articles where trans folks are involved. Revert, leave the user a note, and hope they don't intend to cling to their ignorance. --Fran Rogers (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It really would not be a bad idea to place all BLPs of trans people under pending changes protection for this very reason. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close without action[edit]

It seems this is far too divisive for us to reasonably decide on any conduct issues here. Policy and content-related issues should be taken to the appropriate fora, but we should mothball this drama magnet of a thread.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The message this sends is "keep fighting the good fight!" Wikipedia admins will not stop you in your crusade to make the WP:TRUTH known! Wikipedia *IS* a battleground, ignore that silly WP:NOT page, no one pays attention to it anyway. I'm overstating, of course, but was anyone surprised that Manningate spiraled out of control when admins consistently refuse to do anything about behavior that openly ridicules the expectations of WP:CIVIL? There isn't even a token action taken to show that anyone in the admin corps even cares about the trainwreck that happened. It reminds me of what Lincoln said to McClellan: "If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time." Why are you an admin if you refuse to enforce the rules? 71.231.186.92 (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one single action has come out of this mega-thread (except the three admins above being unblocked, although I'd hardly say that action came because of this thread). It's too divisive, as you say, and no admin who hasn't been involved in this kerfuffle already wants to be sucked in by performing any sort of administrative action. But, it seems unconscionable that issues of misconduct are not addressed simply because the issue is so hot. I know ArbCom is an effort of last resort, but what intermediate avenues exist that have any chance of resulting in some substantive outcome? And, how can this forest fire not be something warranting drastic action? Are we really going to walk away from this with "lots of people did bad things, so rather than admonishing all of them, we're going to admonish none of them"? -- tariqabjotu 02:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if you don't warn at least the users who did the most damage then the mindset becomes "Hey I can do it again and get away with it" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The users who did the most damage are the admins who made this illegitimate name change in the first place. Oddly enough, the actual story is of so little general interest it has dropped off the CNN.com front page altogether. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to repeat yourself so often bugs! If anything your continued insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong is starting to become a serious issue! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 02:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It ain't just me. Every one of the allegedly rule-based arguments excuses for the name change have been demolished by other editors. I'm just saying this may as well fizzle here, because the general public no longer cares about this story anyway, so in the end all the name change accomplishes is to make Wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it is simply too hot to handle. It would be better for everyone to abandon the drama boards and try to work out solutions to these problems in more appropriate venues. Once the situation dies down there may be a chance to re-examine certain conduct issues, but at the moment it seems it is just too intense to resolve calmly.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that bothers me is that what is going to prevent this from happening again? the what if's are there things were not followed properly how do we now all learn from it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The dilemma is that nothing is going to happen to the two admins who caused this problem, so how is it fair to sanction anyone else? It's to be hoped that when or if this matter comes up again, the subject will have taken proper steps to get a legal name change and/or that valid sources will have decided which name to use, and then there won't be an issue anymore. That's what Wales and his crystal ball are saying. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Your impression of a broken record is not helping at all. You've made this comment twice now in half an hour in the same thread. We get it already. -- tariqabjotu 02:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I'm glad to hear you've finally seen the light and agree with my assessment of the situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Just... never mind. -- tariqabjotu 02:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't close something with such a clear consensus as "no action" just because it'd be contentious. There's nothing wrong with manning (pun unintended) up and making a tough call. Tarc (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A tough call from what? Throwing temporary topic bans at people which will end pretty quickly? "Microblocks" (seriously???)? Unless proper action happens right here, right now, this thread is nothing more than an engine for causing drama. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 08:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most admins don't have the fortitude to deal with the inevitable consequences of closing this in accordance with consensus. It's sad, but understandable. GregJackP Boomer! 11:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two admins who created this problem certainly do. They may as well close it, as that would be the perfect bookending of this fiasco; and Private Manning is now off the public radar anyway. We are just around the corner from the point where the only Mannings in the news will be Peyton and Eli. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were several failures here:

  1. First, the page was moved to a different title without consensus. Too bold, perhaps, but an unsurprising event and nothing worth getting worked up about. It was reverted quickly after the lack of consensus was identified.
  2. Second, the page was wheel warred back to the controversial title and locked at that position. This was less understandable, meta:the wrong version aside, the justification for the wheel warring was an extreme stretch from what WP:BLP actually states, though it is consistent with the general sense of the policy. Again, understandable, but in hindsight far more troubling because it was a nonconsensual use of WP:IAR to override WP:COMMONNAME (the specific policy that exists to resolve controversial move wars). If the foundation wanted to formally act to make it happen, that's fully within their authority, though they've traditionally taken a "hands off" approach.
  3. Third, the requested move discussion was a bloodbath of personal attacks, notably accusations of tendentious editing and bigotry. While unsurprising given the heated rhetoric that often accompanies controversial discussion, in hindsight it is troubling because it appears that there was no attempt to address the issue.

I don't see any reason to get worked up about the first, it was a typical human mistake from an overeager editor. The second is a bit more troubling, BLP might have been a convincing argument for a move but failure to immediately update an article's title, especially when reliable sources are in chaos, is not a valid emergency. The action showed a callous disregard for consensus on behalf of DG, and IAR is supposed to allow consensus, not empower mavericks. The third we've been discussing above and it may as well be written off as an outright failure. I personally think that JG's attitude is troubling, and that he continues to behave in the same fashion indicates that admin action would be preventative and not punitive. Having DG block JG would have a certain poetic justice to it, and for our promised response from the twitterati would show that action against JG is not about his position in the argument but his behavior. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary of item 2 should also include WP:ADMINACCT and WP:INVOLVED. Item 3 should include the fact that some actual comments were problematic on both sides: some hateful comments on the support side and some overly broad accusations of bigotry and transphobia on the oppose side. Also, you seem like a rather rational person who understands WP policy well, why don't you register an account? You'd make a decent admin someday.--v/r - TP 15:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the IP is very well aware that he can create an account. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 15:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But is the IP aware that based on their conduct, I'm left with a positive impression of them and may support a run for adminship if they had an account and continued to be reasonable, objective, and educated? Can't run for admin as an IP.--v/r - TP 15:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I had one, but I found that having a watchlist encouraged me to get involved in Wikpedia's drama (like this argument) and I find that editing from an IP I'm more motivated to do actual work when the desire strikes, mostly with WP:MED articles. That aside, I would strongly encourage some evaluation if we have other editors that were involved in the debate and continue to fail to meet the expectations of WP:CIVIL. A lot of the defense of JG is WP:OSE, and my opinion has always been "that's no reason not to fix this, and maybe we should fix those too?" Again, the focus is on prevention and not punishment, though documented warnings might be appropriate if there's no reason for an actual admin action in those cases. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woooo HEE! I haven't seen drama like this since... since... well I, don't remember ever seeing drama like this. (Edited quote, forgive me but it does get the point across.) Was Wikipedia:Esperanza even gaining of this much attention and speculation? Anyway i'm just going to point the community towards WP:DROPTHESTICK and request closure of this matter. It seems to me like there is nothing left on this matter, and i'm positive that many people would like it to stay that way. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 18:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Closing this whole case down. It is currently taking up over half of the ANI page and there is little indication that we will have a real consensus on anything.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That it's not an easy question is no excuse to toss it aside. Admins are volunteers, we can't expect too much of them, but actively encouraging laziness seems like a bad idea. Civility is supposed to be kind of a big deal, and not turning the encyclopedia into a war zone is also indicated as kind of important. If we care about those values, we owe it to the project to not just give up the instant it starts looking difficult. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As above. Thanks, Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 17:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Per my comment above. There is clear consensus by the community. The only question is whether there are admins who support consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 00:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. I too see a clear consensus here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support. One side seems overly-eager to punish someone who disagrees with them and has the nerve to call out items which a reasonable person can see is transphopic, intended or not. The talk page itself, where the problems have been have calmed down a bit and even some of the posters here who have continued to refer to Manning as Bradley against her wishes have slowed down the rhetoric. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that if we close this and just put everything to bed what is stopping this from happening again? As I have said before over time the mindset gets to be if I can do it once and get away with it the next time will be the same right? How many times are some of the admin going to look the other way? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There will always be fear that history will repeat itself but perhaps the closing person can address that by making a positive suggestion. It doesn't make sense to give bad behavior a pass to everyone else and punish on of the few that calling out bad behavior. If similar circumstances arise then perhaps just remind those who are repeating poor choices that they are being disruptive of the process. Justice isn't really justice if it's only meted out against one person who was arguably trying to stop transphobic speech. Some of those comments were extremely violent and Josh was addressing them. He should be given a medal for it and coached how to do it more constructively next time. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how the community at large viewed his actions. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the community at large has generally ignored the nonsense and simply voted their view. The opposition to Chelsea having her gender identity respected is quite opposed to what Josh is saying and that has become obvious and a lesson for future editors to note. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Action needs to be taken against the admins involved. A valid close would be that a move back would be too much drama. But the admins who caused this chaos (through a mix of WP:INVOLVED, WP:TOOLMISUSE, WP:RAAA, WP:ADMINACCT) need to be held to account. --RA (✍) 09:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical oppose, but what's the point? I see a clear consensus above, hence my "technical" oppose, however any action that potentially is taken has come too late. What on earth is taking so long for an outcome to be finalised? Have a look at the section above regarding Josh's proposed topic ban: "I request a topic ban for the duration of the move request". Even if he were to be "topic banned", the entire move request debate finishes tonight (it's already Thursday), which means that such a "topic ban" (lol) would be 100% useless and ceremonial. From the looks of things, nobody from the community outside the dispute wants to bother getting associated with this giant, stupid mess. Decision making has become indecisive, and in the end nobody will end up doing anything. Nothing will be fixed, and we will end up seeing the same problems time and time again in the future. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, indeed, what's the point. Nothing is being done to sanction the two admins who caused this enormous brouhaha; and the name change is going to stay; a serious black eye for Wikipedia, with editors putting personal agendas ahead of Wikipedia's rules and reputation. A very sad situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you feel something should be done to sanction either Morwen or David then rather than stating it endlessly in multiple places perhaps you can be the one to initiate the procedure and accept whatever the outcome is. You may well not get the result you seek but it will settle that one way or the other. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a total waste of time. The way this article name saga has ended up is sufficient demonstration that no one (including Wales himself) cares about the rules anymore. So why do I stick around? Because wikipedia is still my first go-to place for information, and because I haven't completely lost faith yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bugs, please drop the stick.
            Wikipedia has policies and guidelines rather than firm rules. It's not unusual for those policies and guidelines to conflict, as they have in this case. The problem here is not that those who disagree with you don't care about the policies and guidelines; the problem is that they weigh them differently. Unless you can accept that there are good faith reasons for taking a different view to BB, then you will remain in a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's assuming good faith in spite of strong evidence to the contrary in regard to the two admins in question. Morwen claims that she thought it would be a relatively uncontroversial move while David Gerard claims the BLP policy was being violated, allowing him to wheel-war. I don't buy Morwen's claim, as she has been here for ten years nor David's as he took several days to explain his rationale all the while claiming to have explained it and the rationale is tenuous when used just as an argument for moving/keeping the page at Cheslsea and falls apart when used as a mandate to do so (it is mandated to revert obvious violations of BLP and is an exception to wheel-warring). 2.102.186.231 (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Morwen clearly had a personal-agenda reason to move the article twice. Maybe less clear with the other admin. But it was an illegitimate move, and makes wikipedia look stupid. Although, by now, very few readers probably care, as Manning's story has been bumped from mainstream news by more urgent stories - like the possibility of diving into a war with Syria. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, I think that everyone knows now that you disagree with the moves. However, high priority is given to BLP issues, so if Morwen genuinely believed that there was a BLP issue, then the move had a good justification. (Whether it was actually the right thing in all the circumstances is a narrower question; but a genuine belief of a BLP problem is in general a prima facie good reason to act).
OTOH, if Morwen didn't believe that there was a BLP issue, then there was no grounds for the second move ... other than that the editor who had reverted her move said it was OK to undo the revert.
If you want to claim that BLP is never a reason to change an article, then go to Arbcom. If you really believe that Morwen acted in bad faith, then go to Arbcom. But continued sniping here is just wasting your time and everyone else's. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Morwen's stated that her reason was that she thought it would be uncontroversial, also admin powers weren't used. Thus, not much can be done regarding her conduct. David on the other hand maintains that the title was an obvious BLP violation requiring wheel-warring. Unless he develops an understanding of BLP, his admin powers should be revoked. Not as punishment, but as a preventative measure against disruption. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if that's what you want, you know where Arbcom is. Sounding off here is pointless. --16:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
David Gerard acted entirely in accordance with what Wikipedia policy mandates and is to be commended for that. That BLP applies is not just his opinion, but the opinion of a vast number of editors taking part in discussion of the issue, among them Sue Gardner and Jimbo Wales. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A majority of people support moving the title to Bradley. A vast majority who oppose haven't mentioned BLP. A vast majority who have mentioned BLP have issued it as a trump card without elaboration or mention of where it applies in the policy. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I was under the impression that the community can revoke admin privileges? 2.102.186.231 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Involved" admins certainly can be de-sysopped, and those two should be at the top of the list. The BLP claims are bogus - such claims have already been demolished by other editors. There is, so far, no such person, legally, as "Chelsea Manning". As the Washington Post pointed out, that stuff is part of a lawyer's ploy to try to have his client assigned somewhere besides Leavenworth. The fact that wikipedia allowed itself to fall for such a scam is really depressing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While disregarding the established practice (or is it a policy/guideline?) of discussing potentially controversial page moves, Morwen didn't use her admin powers and I doubt will be de-sysopped for that. David can however, and I think the community should decide on that, rather than Arbcom. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just wrong[edit]

What really sickens me is that per WP:SOAP, WP:POVPUSH, WP:POINT, and WP:TITLECHANGES the whole thing was wrong. If Wikipedia had just stayed out of it and the reliable sources began using Chelsea more then we would have moved the page anyways, the fact that two admin went against so many policies and that people are just going to let this go is something I do not understand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are apt in that they support the pointedly offensive position that Chelsea is not allowed to speak her own truth about her gender identity, that she is not allowed to be respected as a living person, and that everyone who does not follow a radically conservative understanding of what gender is remains villainous. I'm glad Wikipedia is on the right side of history on this one. I see no reason to prolong the entrenched cultural warfare being espoused on this matter. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Policies are clear on these things so things like this don't happen, you should read some of those policies, if Wikipedia had just followed the reliable sources and not jumped in right away much of this would not have happened, that is why the policies are in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP seems to trump any argument for disrespecting a living person. Perhaps it should be made more clear that when someone changes their gender identity the article should reflect that change, oh wait it already says that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP says we should be very sure about what we are reporting. We say a lot of very not nice things about, say, Bashar al-Assad that he would probably prefer we didn't say, but that doesn't mean we're going to change them - we have reliable sources that state these things. Like it or not, transgender is not just an ignorance issue, it's also an issue that people honestly disagree on what's going on. Society's views have changed somewhat, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground, not a place to make things right, and not a place to change society's views. We're just here to report what is, not what should be. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is to just let it go. As you said, in the end, eventually, we would have arrived here anyway. So there was some immediatism involved, based on very strong feelings held by some editors. Is that so horrible? I saw this whole mess's most unfortunate part in the escalation of insults made in disorderly haste, as often. And yet ... a lot of editors admitted to having been confronted with the concept of transphobia for the first time. Awareness is not a bad thing. Some insult also stems from innocent ignorance, and we've moved a step forward in this area too. So, let's drop it and move on. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's good advice, thank you! Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Eventually, we would have arrived here anyway"? Where does it allow for that editing philosophy in the guidelines? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im not saying it would have been done, im saying that Wikipedia should have waited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the harm is that it created a lot of unnecessary drama, it sends the message that when it suits your intrest do as you like to other admins/editors and outwards it might make people question if Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia that only reflects the "sum of all human knowledge". --Space simian (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a policy for transgendered people. It's called MOS:IDENTITY and complements the more general principles set forth in WP:BLP. Being a lawyer myself, I find it incomprehensible that this move was met with any opposition at all, because the policies are quite clear and it is really an open and shut case according to Wikipedia's existing policies. It seems like a mere accident that neither of those policies specifically mention article titles in the case of transgendered people, but the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY is very clear and it would be extremely inconsistent to have an article titled, e.g., John Doe, that referred to that person using the female pronoun. There is ample precedent for moving articles when people explicitly change their names, as a matter of factual accuracy (a new situation arises and the old name becomes outdated), e.g. in the case of Kate Middleton and in the cases of other transgendered people who have biographies. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lawyer with no understanding of what libel means? Yes, it is libel, gross sexual harassment, a BLP violation, a violation of MOS:IDENTITY, a violation of human decency, and obvously motivated by transphobic hate, 2.102.186.231 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone are based in the US or care about Anglo-centric definitions of "libel" or similar terms that are often used more broadly in common parlance elsewhere. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find that quite funny that you say that, and then expect everyone to follow left-wing US/Anglocentric definitions of "gender" and "transphobia". Keep in mind that the Arab world outnumbers the Western world by both population and land size, and that the societal norm for certain things would be death by stoning. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are neither "left-wing" nor "US/Anglocentric" definitions, but the mainstream definitions in the democratic part of the wold. And I'm neither American nor left-wing. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream? Comedy gold. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK, but barring a feature request that I suspect would be unduly controversial, death by stoning isn't really in the domain of things we can do on Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't twist my words. It was an example demonstrating how such definitions are fringe when you take into account the entire global population. If they aren't even accepted by half of the US population who are right-leaning and extreme Christian, how can these definitions be accepted as global or "mainstream"? --benlisquareT•C•E 04:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

think the community should decide on that, rather than Arbcom. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actions of admins that are hidden from unprivileged editors[edit]

I ran into User:GorillaWarfare early in this incident for taking action with administrator tools that were hidden from users, an issue to which I asked her about, She responded and seemed to have a resonable explination, but anyone who uses admin tools to do things that are hidden from users makes me suspicous. Can a few admins go over the deletion logs for the Chelsea Manning page (and talk) and review the changes to make sure nothing that violated policy happend? CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You already had that assurance from uninvolved User:Seraphimblade and indirectly User:Tariqabjotu who's on the other side of the debate from GW. The edits in question is clearly inappropriate, and unrelated to the dispute in question.
As an aside, all deleted contents are hidden from non-administrators, if you are suspicious of "anyone who uses admin tools to do things that are hidden from users", then you are pretty busy being suspicious of every single deletion... -- KTC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contentious issue with some administrators potentially abusing their powers, as a general issue I think review is in order. I do agree that those specific edits were reviewed, but when something is this contentious it is not a bad idea to go back an look. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manning incident: sanctions/actions against David Gerard and Morwen?[edit]


I've been contacted off-wiki by a number of editors expressing dissatisfaction with the conduct of one or two administrators regarding the recent Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning incident. This is supplemental to concerns raised on wiki across various talk pages.

The on-wiki actions immediately preceding were that Morwen moved the article following a brief discusion. This was reversed almost immediately by Cls14, through a misunderstanding, and moved back by Morwen with Cls14's blessing. David Gerard then fully (admin) locked the article at Chelsea Manning.

The move was contested on the talk page (e.g. example) and formal objection was raised at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests by StAnselm with a request to move it back. This was answered by Tariqabjotu who moved it back to Bradley Manning. David Gerard then moved it back to Chelsea Manning citing immediate BLP concerns.

The following is the relevant sub-section of the article history:

  • 15:34, 22 August 2013‎ David Gerard: (David Gerard moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect: Reverting move per WP:BLP)
  • 15:32, 22 August 2013‎ Tariqabjotu: (Tariqabjotu moved page Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning: Requested at WP:RM as uncontroversial (permalink) [reversing undiscussed move])
  • ...
  • 14:31, 22 August 2013‎ David Gerard: (Changed protection level of Chelsea Manning: Highly visible page: MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 00:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (expires 00:23, 1 September 2013 (UT)
  • ...
  • 13:43, 22 August 2013‎ Morwen: (Morwen moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect: let's try this again. Manning has announced transition quite publically via TODAY: [36])
  • ...
  • 13:22, 22 August 2013‎ Cls14: (Cls14 moved page Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning over redirect: This is a bloke called Bradley Manning)
  • 13:18, 22 August 2013‎ Morwen: (Morwen moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect: per [37], we need to do a bit of a copyedit on this!)

However, the thrust of concerns with administrator conduct occur after the fact. Without commenting on the merits of each of these individually, among the concerns raised are:

  • WP:INVOLVED: administrator(s) taking action had pre-existing and strong feelings related issues
  • WP:RAAA: the actions of another administrator by were reversed without sufficient cause
  • WP:WHEEL: administrator actions were reversed by the administrator(s) who performed the original action
  • WP:ADMINACCT: administrator(s) failed to communicate or explain their actions sufficiently or promtly enough
  • WP:ADMINABUSE: administrator(s) were abusive and threatening to editors who questioned their action
  • WP:TOOLMISUSE: administrator tools were used where a conflict of interest existed
  • WP:SOAP: the move, lock and subsequent discussions were a form of advocacy
  • WP:TITLECHANGES: improper process was followed
  • WP:TEAM: the issueance of joint statements and use of the plural pronoun to explain individual actions has raised concerns about team action
  • WP:ATTACK: the use of press interviews to cast aspersions on the motives of on-wiki opponents
  • WP:MEAT: the use of social media to publicise actions
  • WP:CON: administrator actions were taken without sufficient cause in policy or consensus
  • WP:GAME: the citing of BLP policy to justify immediate action without sufficient credibility
  • WP:BLP: insufficient responsibility, caution and dispassion were shown in actions affecting a biography of a living person

The question is what what actions can/should be taken against the administrators involved. This includes the possibility of seeking that the administrators involved by de-sysoped.

There was a consensus among those who contacted me to wait until the RM discussion closed before raising the questions here. This was so that as to be clear that the questions here are separate to the question of which title the article should be at. I believe that now, in the interim between the discussion closing but before the result of the discussion is announced, is the optimum time to raise the concerns.

I have raised them here (and have not advertised it widely) rather than at any other forum because this is usually among one of the least drama-filled forums.

I have strong feelings on the subject. I feel that action should be taken against at lest one of the administrators involved. That sense became stronger as the issue developed over the course of the week and I saw more of the conduct of party's involved.

Do other have comments on the matter or feel similarly minded?

--RA (✍) 09:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from David Gerard[edit]

It is not entirely honest of you not to link to what was actually posted explaining the actions.

Morwen and I acted individually at the time, in good faith and according to policy and precedent, but after much (individual) response to individual questions (often repeatedly, e.g. in response to you), we wrote a response together (Morwen wrote it, I tweaked it), explaining the policy we had each applied in minute detail. (We each considered it obvious enough that one person could write it, the other tweak it and both sign it.) This is not WP:TEAM.

The rest is largely looking for things to complain about on a decision that they fundamentally didn't like, and alluding to any mud you think might stick. I don't question there's people who didn't like it, but that's not the same as it being the wrong thing to do. Here's the original explanation, copied from Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_request#Supplementary_.21vote_rationale (to which you responded already at Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_request#Supplementary_.21vote_rationale ):

Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request#Supplementary_.21vote_rationale [copy replaced with link, since it is only admin actions which are under discussion here.– Smyth\talk 18:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)][reply]

The only thing it left out was that WP:BLP mandates immediacy right there in the intro:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (my emphasis)

I don't expect people to like a BLP decision they disagree with, but it was a BLP action, in good faith, in an immediate situation. Your post here looks like an attempt at forum shopping. In fact, it's bringing it back to the same forum a second time.

I'll note also that Morwen didn't use any admin powers whatsoever, and acted after a quick discussion on the talk page - and Cls14 acknowledged this. And hasn't touched the article since. And you know this already, and still bring a claim of more. - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion[edit]

Well, I would note that the good-faith efforts of administrators attempting to uphold BLP, despite the suggestion of WP:GAME, deserve more leeway than RA's providing. I do not see it as hugely irresponsible to read BLP and the MOS:IDENTITY guideline in the way Morwen and David Gerard did, and with that reading, their actions seemed perfectly justified, as seen in David's response above. Nor do I see anything in the aftermath of the decision more damning than a slightly terse style of response from David Gerard, who later attempted to better explain his reasoning alongside Morwen in a manner that hardly seems to rise to the level of WP:TEAM.
But that doesn't much matter. Are you questioning Morwen's and David Gerard's fitness as editors? If so, AN might be able to help, though I have difficulty believing that a topic ban or block would be merited for good-faith, if bold, move actions that aren't part of any kind of pattern of abuse. If you're discussing the tools, why write this up here at all? Why not take it to Arbcom, given that no other dispute resolution forum can make decisions regarding the misuse of tools or the fitness of administrators? This dispute is inevitably headed in that direction anyway, and beginning another endless conversation about it on AN seems counterproductive. Archaeo (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I probably did get terse, and my apologies - though that would be from answering the same questions from editors (including RA), or refuting the same statements from editors that were factually wrong, over and over - hence seeing a need to write up something tedious and detailed.
I'll note also that the intro pissed a lot of people off by seeming to presume all opposed were simply ignorant of trans issues, for which I also apologise; the intent was to come across as speaking in good faith. And in any case, editors (and there were lots of them, including objecting admins) who fundamentally question that transgender is even a thing, and deny the scientific, medical, legal and social consensus, would be unlikely to listen to anything we said on the subject anyway - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Archaeo: "Why not take it to Arbcom..." I wanted to invite other people's comment in a central location. With the RM discussion behind us, we can reflect on the admin decisions (including conduct) undistracted from the question of article title.
I don't want to proceed with anything formal (even anything as formal as a RfC/U) without a discussion first. At a very minimum that wouldn't be fair to David/Morwen. They were under pressure during the RM and now that that's past they may be able to express themselves better (and may even express regret at some of their actions in hindsight). I also think too much has been done too hastily already. We can discuss the issues this incident has raised without hasty action, whatever our feelings are.
I don't think that every issue raised against David/Morwen is of equal merit. I listed them all above with the caveat that I was doing so "without commenting on the merits of each of these individually". David's conduct (in particular) has raised a lot of questions. Some will just underline that we are all WP:NOTPERFECT. Others, I believe, raise questions about (1) his judgment and (2) his conduct that need answering.
But before we go running off to ArbCom, let's talk and reflect on what could have been done better. Including, asking how serious it was and if sanctions should be taken. --RA (✍) 11:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't made any claims, and you use the word "consensus" above to speak of an unnamed group of complainants in a way that actually does mean WP:TEAM. And when I posted my actual detailed cited response, you attempted to hide it from view - and then did so a second time, after I had expressly asked you not to do that. Please DO NOT yet again attempt to hide my response to your complaint - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(For context: [38] RA hides and DG unhides a part of DG's post. [39] RA hides it again. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

@ErrantX: also commented on the matter in their archiving note:

{{archive top|This is getting tiresome. This Noticeboard is not the place to deal with discussions of this nature - it is a place to request administrative actions, or propose specific blocks/bans/sanctions for !vote. Lengthy (and it will be lengthy) discussions like this are not what we are here for. As already indicated; you have a [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Manning|sub-page of AN/I]] to hold discussions. And for sanctions related to use of admin tools then [[WP:ARBCOM]] is the ''only'' venue open to you. For a more general discussion, there is a plehtora of talk pages, such as [[MOS:IDENTITY]] talk which would be appropriate to raise these sorts of things. --'''[[user:ErrantX|Errant]]''' <sup>([[User_talk:ErrantX|chat!]])</sup> 11:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)}}

- David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points from ErrantX. I chose AN because I hoped the calmer atmosphere there would be more conductive to a positive discussion. I've moved the thread here at the same time as ErrantX's comment per a suggestion on my talk page. --RA (✍) 11:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Comment : This right here is what sets us apart from all the other serious Encyclopaedias; I applaud RA for having started this, however I fear it will be for nothing. I can not believe that there exists any admin that seriously thought the WP:BLP policy means we MUST in all speed rename this article. At all material times and during all material events that go into what makes this person notable the name everyone knew him by was Bradley Manning, (s)he has now made a statement indicating that (s)he wishes to be called Chelsea, so what ? that's their right, just make sure that the article says that, but there is no reason to rename it especially when it was linked to the main page. What do I think should happen? well I will leave that to others, but at very least I think the admins involved need to demonstrate they understand BLP or hand back the mop. LGA talkedits 11:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment David Gerard acted in accordance with what Wikipedia policy mandates, in accordance with talk page consensus (at the time) and specifically in accorance with BLP, and should be thanked for that. David Gerard's action is what makes Wikipedia encyclopedic and distinguishes this project from non-encyclopedic websites. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support short-term (one month) topic ban for BLPs for Gerard and trout for Morwen
This was a clear abuse of the tools by Gerard. I know he acted in good faith but recent events, such as the statement by Manning that she understands her old name will be used to refer to past events, have significantly weakened the BLP argument. The privacy argument given above by Gerard is incredibly weak, Manning could have no expectation of privacy in this manner around the name Bradley because of the extensive media coverage. Finally, the urgency with which Gerard acted, even going so far as to move-lock the article and immediately override an admins policy-based decision to move back pending RM represent abuse of the tools for " reasons " which many seasoned editors and admins disagreed with. Nothing prevented Gerard from acting calmly and opening an RM, or at least talking to Tariq, but instead found it necessary to wheel war. The BLP urgency quoted clause above is about removal of unsourced material, not about removal of well-sourced information that subject may find distressing. I support a topic ban on all BLP edits for a month during which Time Gerard can take time to understand the thrust of the BLP policy and especially when use of admin tools is needed vs reasoned discussion and consensus.
Morwen's actions in this matter on-wiki were more balanced and did not constitute abuse of the tools; however her actions off-wiki merit a rather stinky trout. By politicizing her action and portraying editors who disagreed as trans phobic and posting self-congratulatory posts off-wiki, Morwen violated at least in spirit the rules around off-wiki canvassing at the very least, and did nothing good for the wiki in the meantime. Discussions are always more tense when there is media scrutiny, but we don't need to go looking for it nor invite it. Morwen should seriously consider not using such moments as a soapbox --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: are you part of the unnamed "consensus" group of editors RA speaks of at the top? (If said editors comment here, they should identify themselves as part of the group, as RA has already stated they are in fact working together on this complaint, so as to avoid the appearance of false consensus.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, David. What I wrote was that, "There was a consensus among those who contacted me [off-wiki] to wait until the RM discussion closed before raising the questions here." I was contacted by a number of editors, who all expressed concern at your conduct. But there's no secret gang of editors out to get you (that I'm aware of anyway!). --RA (✍) 12:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That avoids the question - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not contact RA off-wiki. I think my only interaction with him on this matter was here User_talk:Rannpháirtí_anaithnid#Chelsea_Manning, where I suggested he needn't press for an explanation as it didn't seem to be forthcoming, and to wait until after the RM closes if he felt further action was necessary. Note that I also don't agree with de-sysopping which I believe RA wants, so I'm not part of some cabal.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I also don't agree with de-sysopping which I believe RA wants... Your suggestion above seems more reasonable to me. That is the fruit of calm discussion. --RA (✍) 12:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - David Gerard (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rule against expressing one's opinions on a matter in the media outside of Wikipedia. On the contrary, it's a good thing to have media scrutiny, in general (as in the Seigenthaler case), and in this case in particular. Wikipedia editors don't get to censor outside media commentary, that's ridiculous. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this appears to be an attempt at a retrospective rule because they don't like the result. Media volunteers get asked about Wikipedia articles and procedures all the time, and as a charity funded by public donations, we arguably owe the world some level of explanation. Morwen isn't a usual media volunteer, but got dragged into the role, and IMO acquitted herself and Wikipedia quite well. Morwen's comments in the articles were commended for their clarity on the comcom list, fwiw. "I don't like the original decision" is not in fact the same as disgracing Wikipedia somehow - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes that were carried in the media by Morwen were of her casting aspersion on editors who didn't understand "our" policies, were misinformed, or transphobic, and carried an aura of "I'm an admin on wikipedia, I know the rules, and all of these jokers opposing are just dead wrong" - and in some cases, they weren't framed as her personal opinion, but rather using the royal "we". "We" use the royal "we" all the time on wikipedia, but off-wiki she speaks for no-one but herself - but some of her quotes did NOT do so. I agree, one is welcome to express one's opinions, but when you are the one who conducted two separate page moves, holder of an admin bit, and purports to speak on behalf of wikipedia and be the interpreter-in-chief of wikipedia BLP policy (which, as illustrated by discussion, was broadly debated on fair grounds by seasoned editors and admins), it all adds up to a step too far, and a wet trout is clearly merited here. This quote illustrates what I'm talking about
  • "they're supposed to look at the actual debate, rather than just weigh the number of randoms who have expressed their opinions, bigoted or not." (i.e. suggesting that those who !voted were just random people passing by tossing a (poor) opinion
  • "“A number of us have been arguing all afternoon,” says Brady. “Our manual of style is very clear and has been for years, but as it is quite an obscure issue we do get people righteously wading in with no understanding of the subject.” “At worst they are using it as a platform for hate speech (there haven’t been many of these today, at least.) At best they are relatively clueless but unhelpfully raise the same pro forma objections like they are something new,” she adds. (i.e. again disparaging any editors who don't agree with the move as being relatively clueless)
I don't think Morwen disgraced wikipedia, but she willfully misrepresented our consensus process, especially around article titling, and made claims of clarity in policy that ipso facto do not exist nor as of yet have broad consensus (indeed, majority leans the other way - we have yet to see how the closing admin will close, but frankly I think it will be reasonable to close in almost any direction.)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At that point I had no way of knowing the that the raw numbers would be against us like that. And many of the initial early objections were really crude - count the number of comments comparing trans people to dogs or murderers or people who have declared themselves to be King - if I'm not allowed to call that sort of stuff "transphobic" or "bigoted" then I'm not sure what the point of those words is.
If it is decided that the consensus does back the initial move, what happens to this here, anyway? Morwen (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get deeper into the transphobic discussion here. That word has meaning, but was abused in the course of the discussion to tar all those opposing with the same brush - most gravely by Josh, whereby at least 25 editors !voted for him to be topic-banned as a result, but you also used it a bit broadly too, and from a media platform. Where the page ends up has no relevance to this discussion - the ends do not justify the means here - and the drama caused by the early page move caused the DISCUSSION to be much more confusing and less reasoned than it could have been, and has now led to an even thornier problem, which is, if there is a finding of no-consensus, where does the page end up? To respond to your first point, you also didn't have any way of knowing that the raw numbers would be *for* you like that, so you spoke too soon, too publicly, and with too much certainty, which was hence parroted, about wikipedia processes. One of my problems with this whole story is how the media congratulates us on moving first - in fact we should in general move last - otherwise we are not neutrally representing the way reliable sources talk about things, and are becoming a cause of citogenesis. The Commander Breivik mention, odious as that fellow is, is actually a good one - as if the media had moved en-masse to calling him Commander Breivik, we would have done the same. They chose NOT to (although some supporter's blogs do). In this case, it seems at least the liberal media is moving to calling her Chelsea, and I believe WP should follow suit if that becomes clear. On Aug 22, however, it was NOT clear, and we jumped the gun, and there was much nuanced discussion in the media of what to do. We should have waited, and let THEM sort it out, then follow. (Note: pronouns is a different case, and on that I would be for an immediate switch) If we take the reductio-ad-absurdum, if NO media moved to call her Chelsea, we would have egg on our face and look ridiculous. That hasn't happened so it's a moot point, but it illustrates the potential danger of being too far ahead of the story. Editorial policies of the NY Times should be different than ours - our job is to let the world decide what the story is and what things in that story are called, and then do a service to the reader by calling them the thing they are most likely to recognize.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to argue further about WP:BLP/MOS:IDENTITY versus WP:COMMONNAME here. I think we've already gone over that ground already. You think I'm right and you're wrong; and I think you're right and I'm wrong.  ;-) Quelle surprise. Morwen (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, this whole section is offtopic here, as the thread is about behavior of two other users
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, as determined, I have not done anything wrong at all nor "abused" any term, but rightly applied it to comments comparing trans people to dogs and other comments that any reasonable person would describe as such. Maybe it's time for you to drop your WP:STICK and stop your forum shopping? Josh Gorand (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, I think you should take seriously the fact that a strong majority of editors !voted for you to be topic banned. No-one stepped up to close that discussion, so I closed with no action since the sanction had become moot. But I'm not forum shopping anything, I haven't brought this up on multiple pages, and I only mentioned in in passing here, since the discussion in question is just a short scroll-up away. I understand your defensiveness, but I also urge you to consider what would cause 25 reasonable editors to call on you to be topic banned? Maybe you might have stepped too far? In the heat of the moment, we can often become so caught up that we ignore what others are saying or defend ourselves out of righteousness. I think the editors mentioned in this thread, and you (since you've joined up), could all do to consider their actions more carefully, and think about what they could have done better, as we ALL should. In that spirit, I'd welcome comments on what I could have done better (better bring to my talk page though, so as to not derail this particular discussion).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are indeed forum shopping by using this section to revive an unrelated debate, in which not one out of Wikipedia's vast number of administrators found any reason to topic ban me for anything I wrote on Talk:Chelsea Manning, thus it was determined that the accusations were baseless. Indeed it was demonstrated in that discussion that many of those attempting to silence an opponent in a debate themselves enganged in personal attacks much worse than using the term transphobia in a correct and reasonable way. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that you don't quite understand the consequences behind your actions and behaviour. Have you ever considered that if there are plenty of people making criticism of something you've done, it probably doesn't mean the world is out to get you, but you've been doing something slightly wrong instead? Wouldn't it be a good idea to take heed some advice? --benlisquareT•C•E 15:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think users who used words like "arrogance", "disgusting", "collusion", "manipulation", "sick, sick" and "hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite" about other editors need to lecture me about personal attacks. I'm not interested in continuing a discussion over the failed attempt to silence me in that move debate over accusations found to be baseless. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that you're ignoring genuine concerns brought towards you - you're accusing other people of "forum shopping" when I kind of think you're misunderstanding and misusing that term. Are you sure you're not just using "forum shopping" as an excuse to ignore the points being brought across? Obi-Wan Kenobi has been here for quite a long time, and I'm pretty sure he understands what he should and shouldn't be doing, and I trust that he's editing with utmost responsibly. This isn't the first time you've looked down upon other editors who have been here longer than you either. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have a strange way of interpreting things. I can see from discussion on your talk page that even some of your supporters asked you to tone it down a bit. Anyway, this is getting offtopic here, and you don't seem to be listening anyway.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since one rationale for moving to Chelsea Manning and move-protecting is that naming the article "Bradley" would be insulting and possibly harmful to the subject, the default name while that is discussed has to be the name that isn't considered to be insulting or harmful to the subject. Moving to Chelsea Manning and move-protecting Chelsea Manning while that question was discussed was the responsible thing to do, and in conformity with WP:BLP. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is no such person, legally, as "Chelsea Manning". As the Washington Post pointed out, this alleged "name change" was nothing more than a P.R. stunt by an attorney, as part of a strategy to keep Manning from being sent to Leavenworth. Mainstream media did not take this bait. Wikipedia did, and looks stupid as a result. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Please don't be disingenuous about Pvt. Manning's supposed motivations - those of us following the trial have known about her gender identity issues for years: [40] [41] [42] --April Arcus (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know anything about Manning's motivations, I only know what the lawyer said and what the Post said in response to it. Manning's alleged gender identity issues are irrelevant to the only thing Manning is notable for... and I say again, there is legally no such person as "Chelsea Manning" or "Breanna Manning" or whatever it is this week. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to not rehash the move here, and keep this focused on the behavior of the editors in question.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but those two factors are inseparable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know on what planet "media involvement" in WP's internal matters is considered a good thing, per Josh above, but his personal opinion on the renaming controversy was always clear and is obviously guiding his thinking in this manner. He was part of the "cabal" that was politically motivated to alter the page name and pronouns despite the harm it is doing to Wikipedia's encyclopedic reputation. Morwen's conduct in particular bears scrutiny - whatever "the rules" may be, there is a serious lack of judgement in immediately calling for allies in social media to reinforce the notion that a poorly thought out and politically-motivated article renaming could be ramrodded through. This is social media at its absolute worst - i.e. the mob mentality. Just because you can get 100,000 people to sign on to a group on Facebook, that doesn't mean your idea is somehow "right", it just means you got 100,000 bored cyber-loafers to click a button at work. There should be consequences for trying to subvert the sysytems in place in this manner.198.161.2.241 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm only motivated by Wikipedia policy and not political considerations. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It probably won't surprise you to learn that I haven't changed my position. We could play out the same old arguments we have done elsewhere (which is what User:Baseball Bugs is triyng to do, it seems), and I could call for various heads as well, but instead I'm going to skip straight to the pragmatics:
I'm not sure what the point of coming on WP:AN or WP:AN/I calling for my sysop bit is. I acted in good faith, under my understanding of WP:BLP. Perhaps you can find a consensus among a subgroup of editors that I was wrong - but then what? I have no idea who exactly the lurkers who support you in email are, but I'd tend to suspect most of them have an expressed opinion not just on my conduct but on the page location itself.
It would do WP:BLP enforcement in general a lot of harm if individual administrators were threatened with action for trying to honestly apply that policy. Chilling effects, and all that. I've got my problem solving head on now and I'm wondering if this points to a weakness in our process - maybe we need an emergency BLP disputes system?
As for the media coverage: Slate noticed of their own accord and I thought massively misrepresented the situation by making out there was very little controversy. Buzzfeed ran their story (and later contacted me for quotes - which they didn't use all of, by the way). Hern contacted me spontaneously on twitter asking for an interview for newstatesman.com, and I think was very fair minded in explaining that there was a great big dispute and my position within it. Morwen (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anyone calling for your sysop bit. But I do hope you like fish and chips :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen plenty calling for it, including on this page (and the people doing so did so before), despite having been asked repeatedly what the admin abuse on Morwen's part was (spoiler: she undertook no admin actions) - David Gerard (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David! You know full well we don't use spoiler tags on Wikipedia! You should be banned for a year for that! Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wikipedia has policies in place to guide editor and admin behavior precisely to avoid the kind of degradation in discourse we witnessed in this situation. There was always going to be some sort of mess left at the end, given the timing of Manning coming out as trans. However, David Gerard and Morwen acting outside the boundaries of established page move and discussion boundaries was akin to throwing gas on the fire. Had these admins not taken these actions, there would have been a much more reasonable RM conversation on the Bradley Manning talkpage, with editor anger at bungled or ignored procedure left out of the final RM equation. The relevance of BLP to the emergency page move rationale was questioned throughout the RM discussion, perhaps most cogently here [43]. David Gerard's on-wiki actions in the days that have followed (along with several other editors on both sides of the issue) especially flew in the face of our community WP:INVOLVED policy, with the addition of many comments and a special section devoted to their personal rationale/ feelings about Wikipedia's role in Manning's coming out. As admins, the need to step away from battlegrounds you feel strongly about, especially after your opinion has been made known, is key to retaining civility on Wikipedia. Being an admin doesn't mean your !vote is worth more or your voice is extra important to the situation, but it does mean that you can give your own opinion an undue amount of attention. RA has cited most of the relevant actions. The bottom line here is that we have rules which were established in an effort to stymie such disasters. When trusted admins/editors do not follow these rules, everything falls apart, as we have seen. Had David Gerard and Morwen reached out for consensus when they believed action was necessary, as opposed to acting unilaterally, their actions wouldn't be under question here. If we don't do some sort of enforcement to show editors/admins that they are expected to follow the rules, especially when they have strong feelings on the subject at hand, what happened in the Manning case will become standard behavior in contentious discussions. I think Obi-Wan Kenobi's suggestions on punishment are acceptable. NewAccount4Me (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How precisely, preferably showing your working and diffs, though a general overview will do for a start, did my actions violate WP:INVOLVED? - David Gerard (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. First off, just manually counting through your contribs [44], you've made more than 100 edits on Manning-related articles since you page protected the article. While we are all free to edit as much as we would like, that speaks directly to the volume of this conversation personally provided by you. Second, after engaging thoroughly in a content conversation on the Chelsea Manning talkpage, you decided to put your admin hat on and referee discussion about MOS:IDENTITY on the MOS talkpage diffs here [45], [46], and [47]. The comments themseleves aren't really a problem, but when your actions are so central to a continuing raging content debate, it's a bit much to go and involve yourself at the debate on a guideline being cited by one side (though the !vote in isolation I don't see any issue with). Third, in general talking down to other contributors, expressing that their disagreement is simply because they are uneducated [48], [49] or ignorant of trans issues (diff is the contentious sentence at the beginning about "obviousness") [50]. These value judgements on editors, rather than arguments based on content, suggest that you are no longer capable of keeping a NPOV about the subject. Fourth, the fact that you took it upon yourself to protect the article at Chelsea based on your personal interpretation of BLP. As seen by the extensive arguments about that move, there is no consensus that your interpretation is the accepted interpretation of BLP. Your comments I cited in my third point, along with your citation of a single Wikiproject's interpretation of MOS:IDENTITY [51] as a reasoning shows that you have a specific POV and are too involved. I can find more, but I've got an appointment coming up in a half hour. NewAccount4Me (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS:IDENTITY discussion that was a direct offshoot of [Talk:Chelsea Manning]]? I don't find your claim that I should have avoided it the least bit reasonable, nor that I should have said nothing when someone was selectively deleting substantial comment on it - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is completely reasonable for you to have recused yourself from editing duties, apart from !voting, in that MOS discussion. Had there been an issue with someone deleting information, you should have brought it up and had an outside party take care of it who wasn't as involved in the drama as you were. That's pretty much the bottom line about all of your actions. You should have realized your actions would have introduced a conflict of interest, yet you did/do not see that as an issue. NewAccount4Me (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is completely unreasonable, however, to demand such as a reasonable expectation. It was, essentially, the same discussion - David Gerard (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to AGF here. However, once you saw that your page protection and wheel warring the Manning article was controversial, and your interpretation of BLP didn't have consensus, you should have just walked away from the conversation. You should have gone to ANI, stated that you were walking away due to a conflict of interest, explained your actions and let everyone else do the legwork. That's what a NPOV admin would have done. The only reason I can think of for you to have remained in deep in the thick of this conflict is that you have a POV and it was important to you that the "right" outcome was discovered during consensus building. The thing is, once you're using admin tools, it's not really up to you to continue a content battle. Traveling over to a talkpage for a policy argument about the same issue makes your involvement even more over-the-top. NewAccount4Me (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And here one of the complaints was that I didn't explain my position enough and in fact culpably failed to do so, and that outraged people; where you're outraged I said too much. I think you're mostly showing it's impossible to please everyone - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: my suggestion is not a punishment. The trout is a reminder to Morwen to ease up on inflaming social media off-wiki when she is involved in an active dispute on-wiki. The proposed topic ban is because I think Gerard seriously doesn't understand how he misused his tools, and to prevent further damage in the name of righteousness by Gerard in the hopes that he will consider what he did and perhaps repent, or at least agree to not do so again. The urgent rename action seriously misrepresents wikipedia policy, which is followed in almost every other rename discussion, including cases where the current name may be considered to hurt the feelings of the subject.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David:

"As editors who are familiar with trans issues this seemed sufficiently obvious to us that we did not think it required extensive clarification; but some editors, who are unfamiliar with the topic (as many people in the wider world are), have challenged this." (diff)

This statement claims a greater familiarity with trans issues compared to other editors. In it, you justify your admin actions on the basis that you know you're right because you are familiar with the issues involved. Others simply don't know that you're right because they are not as familiar with the issues as you.
Any admin who cannot see how that sentiment undermines their sense of being WP:UNINVOLVED needs his/her clue bat (never mind a trout!) adjusted firmly to the side of their noggin.
From WP:INVOLVED: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community ..." --RA (✍) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. Knowing in general about a subject area does not constitue involvement with an article subject related to that area. And given the discussion started with people asking about Manning's hormone levels, or comparing transsexual people to golden retrievers, it's not outrageously remarkable to know significantly more than that - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining a controversial administrative action on the basis of self-professed 'greater knowledge' of a subject is a definite no, no and hints at you being too WP:INVOLVED. --RA (✍) 15:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greater knowledge than editors who compare transsexuals to dogs, murderers or people who think they're the king? I'd be ashamed not to claim greater knowledge than that. Even if it were special expertise, which it isn't particularly (or shouldn't be), expertise per se does not constitute a conflict of interest per WP:COI - it would have to be some particular involvement with Manning, which I don't have - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Healthy serving of trout. I honestly am not that disturbed by what Morwen did initially. A trout is sufficient, with maybe an admonishment to be bold, but not be too bold. What D. Gerard did was more problematic. If policy is not obvious and it's just a user's creative opinion of what the policy is supposed to mean, especially when reliable sources are still in flux, that is not a justification for use of emergency powers that are supposed to be used when something is unambiguously wrong. A simple RM would have been contentious but probably would have resolved the issue in a week without the massive drama, and I don't think anyone in the press would have thought less of us for having a nice cup of tea before we made a contentious change. Admins that let their personal opinions and the tools cross wires are a problem. To be honest, I'm looking for an apology and an understanding on DG's part; my opinion of DG's further comments since the event is that he's proud of the drama epidemic he created and doesn't regret a thing, that those of us who are concerned are bigots and idiots whose opinion isn't worth considering. That kind of mindset must be addressed by serious measures. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no reason for him to apologize for making sure an article complies with BLP. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically rejecting the BLP rationale: "Responsibly and cautiously" in the BLP policy suggests that we should not be polevaulting to action on every media announcement - there should be strong favor given to stable versions and major changes should follow meaningful evaluation. There is no question that the name of Bradley Manning is well sourced, and that is the threshold for the "...without discussion" clause - verifiability. Since there is no problem with the verifiability of the original name, there was no justification for the wheel warring, especially when Wikipedia was days ahead of most reliable sources in making the change. Reverting it back to Bradley would have been more in line with BLP, because that is the stronger sourcing and we write this encyclopedia based on sources, not on our own opinions. This justification is bunk. It may have been made in good faith and it may stand in the long run, but it was a poor decision at the time. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the issue as I see it is what appears to be agenda based page moves and wheel-wars being cloaked in policy. In reality, the page should have stayed in it's historical context until more information is fleshed out. WP is not a newspaper. Nothing Chelsea/Bradley Manning has done after sentencing has been noteable so there is no rush to update the material. Furthermore, what are we going to do when the first official appeal happens and Manning, through his attorneys, refers to him/herself as Bradley? Are we going to ignore his own legal documents? Secondly, it is well-sourced that Manning was seeing a counselor of some sort. No diagnoses has come out of that. Nor would any doctor make a diagnoses of transgender while he is under so much stress. It would be akin to a doctor assisting him with suicide because he made a suicidal statement at one point. The rush to change every pronoun, name and gender references does little to improve the encyclopedia or shed light on the topic. He is only relevant because of the leaks and the aftermath of the leaks and if people want to argue policy, there shouldn't be a BLP page on Manning at all. It should be merged into the leaks and trial. He is not notable in and of him/herself. Those involved in the move wars should be topic banned for LGBT issues. The article on Manning should be merged into the notable articles on the leaks and trial. Articles on Bradley/Chelsea Manning should be redirected to the leaks. --DHeyward (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sanction required The point that there is a name better than "Bradley Manning" (i.e. "Chelsea Manning") according to the BLP policy is merely an argument, one that, as the RM discussion at the article shows, is highly controversial (and one that I, personally, don't agree with).
However, in the case of absolving one of wheel-warring, it is not sufficient that BLP suggests that there is a better course of action; it needs to forbid the action itself. The idea that having the article at the name Bradley Manning (the name by which this individual has been exclusively known by the world for years, up until just a couple hours before) was a violation of the BLP policy that warranted immediate action, within two minutes, without any consultation with the admin who performed the allegedly offending action, is extremely spurious. That David Gerard was incapable of articulating that point for days, often rudely rebuffing those who queried him about the action and referring people to comments that didn't exist, show a profound reluctance to communicate and, further, suggests that BLP may not have been the motivating factor. His motivations are further called into question by the fact that the lengthy statement David transcribed above was, by his own admission, actually written by Morwen (and just signed off by David) as well as by the insistence, four days into the move request, that "The key point is that [the move to Chelsea Manning] was clearly right".
Unfortunately, confidence in one's action and Being Right™ are not valid defenses to wheel-warring. Prior to David Gerard's reversion of my move, he had already expressed on the talk page that MOS:IDENTITY and shifts in reliable sources supported the move, and, while he did bring up WP:BLP, it was not the first thing he brought up and it was only to say "BLP is clear on this". I know WP:BLP exists and even considered it as I attended to the RMT request. However, I saw no explanation of its applicability and I personally determined that there was no violation in the name Bradley Manning, which was publicly known and still being used, including by the very source that broke the story of Manning's new identity. His action, which essentially amounts to no, you're wrong, was, at best, rude. I find it very problematic that David doesn't see anything wrong with him supporting a move in a discussion, then move-protecting it at that move, then reverting an admin within two minutes to restore that move.
Morwen's actions are less on-wiki than off. While her move can be characterized as hasty, performing bold actions is not a crime on Wikipedia, and often encouraged. What does seem to be clear, though, is Morwen's agenda. She was the first to begin levying accusations of "transphobia", posted at a time when clearly nothing of that nature had been posted. She updated her blog with a post strongly suggesting her activism on transgender issues. Just minutes after her second move, Morwen had publicly posted to her Twitter account that "cluebats" should be on "standby". Morwen then proceeded to go on a media campaign, giving interviews (including to someone who did not reveal in his article their prior relationship, but I digress) suggesting that Wikipedia's policy is obvious on what to do in this situation, when clearly it was not. She even actively solicited media attention, asking if anyone wanted a couple hundred words on this topic. This campaign ultimately put us in an uncomfortable position, as several people mentioned during the move request; with the media spotlight, moving the article back may come across poorly, even though it was the actions of just two editors who got us into that very mess. (One of those people prominently making that suggestion, Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) [another admin], also knows David and Morwen personally.)
David Gerard and Morwen state that they didn't communicate about this issue off-wiki prior to their actions. But, regardless of whether that's true, it doesn't make a difference. David Gerard and Morwen obviously know each other personally, and David Gerard has long been a follower of Morwen's Twitter account. By 14:00 (UTC), before David had reverted my move back to Bradley Manning, the two were already high-fiving each other, with Morwen giving credit to David for performing the move, and David responding with similar laudatory remarks for Morwen's actions. Any responsible editor should have known that performing admin actions on an article (particularly by 14:30 (UTC), where dissent had been very clear) to enforce actions performed by a friend constituted a clear conflict of interest. And then they do little effort to hide their collaboration, saying what they think and what they did after days of David's obstinate refusal to say what he did. They remark how right they clearly are, and how denigrate those who disagree with them to people who are just unfamiliar with the topic. Whenever anyone dared suggest that Morwen's move was hasty or without proper consensus, David was quick to butt in and argue that that suggestion was "factually incorrect" and to request that people stop making that assertion. This is despite the fact that Morwen's move was so fast that another admin reverting it believing it was vandalism.
In the end, regardless of the outcome of the RM discussion, I feel Wikipedia has been manipulated by these two. David performed two admin actions despite already registering his opinion in a discussion, and despite the conflict of interest inherent in a friend performing preceding actions. He cited BLP as a defense against wheel-warring, but rudely rebuffed anyone who asked for elaboration. Morwen embarked on a media campaign that misrepresented Wikipedia's guidelines and practices, and prejudiced people toward the move. Morwen expressed an obvious advocacy position that seems to be motivating her actions. David defended Morwen whenever anyone pointed out that her move was with haste. Together, they showed an unacceptable arrogance that their actions were clearly right, and, thus barely warranted explanation. While point-of-view pushing is easy to deny and difficult to prove, circumstantial evidence suggests these two, and particularly David, abused their positions of trust to do just that, using the BLP policy as a smokescreen. -- tariqabjotu 16:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are inded both London Wikipedians and have known each other as such for years. In a city the size of London, this is not remarkable. If you'd like a list of every London Wikimedian I may know, Wikipedia:Meetup/London has archives going back the nine years you'll need. Are you seriously proposing that any two editors working on the same article who have met is an actionable collusion? I know Phil Sandifer via Wikipedia, only online, again for years. By the way, were you in RA's "consensus group"? - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying, David, is that it's quite silly for people to lay some collusion at the feet of "living in London in a similar way?" Now, where have I seen that before? Did you accept that transparent excuse from a certain statastician then? If not (as I would hope), why is it that you think it works as an excuse for you now?
Please, Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs). You're not getting the scale of the conspiracy right at all. Morwen was actually the largest backer on my recent Kickstarter, and I'm behind on her reward, so agreed to back her on a Wikipedia dispute as an apology for my tardiness.
Wait. Actually. It may just be that I happen to get on with both David and Morwen (despite never having met either in meatspace) because we share similar views on a number of things, this being one of them. I'm not sure. Whichever you think is more likely, I guess. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ok? Your second paragraph was what I was going for. -- tariqabjotu 19:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh. So, it's just that you both happen to live in London? That's it? You don't otherwise consider yourselves friends? Yeah, I don't believe that.
It seems silly for you to then follow up that assertion with an insinuation of collusion. Anyway... RA seemed to clarify what he meant when he talked about editors contacting him. Yes, I have been in contact with him, and only him, via email, and we discussed when the best time was to, as he said, formally raise this issue. But I had no forewarning that RA was going to post this statement today, or what the content of the statement was or where it was going to be posted (or that he was going to post a thread like this at all). Although he did mention that some other people seemed to have similar reservations about your actions (as expressed on Wikipedia), I have not been in contact with them (even on-wiki) and the thrust of the email exchange was that this matter was something to be addressed after the RM. My understanding, which I agree with, is that RA preferred to have discussions about whether to bring this to ArbCom or ANI or AN, and when, offline so as not to lead to another drama-filled thread about when to have a particular conversation (which thereby forces the conversation to be at that point). It also, presumably, prevented multiple parallel discussions started in different forums by people who all independently came to the conclusion that there was something wrong with your actions. There's nothing nefarious about that. -- tariqabjotu 19:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the very least, both David Gerard and Risker should be desysopped for misuse of the tools. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see what purpose blocks would serve at this point, but Morwen and Gerard obviously need to be desysoped to prevent this kind of abuse in the future. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What admin powers do you claim Morwen abused? - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The off-wiki grandstanding in an attempt to find support for policy-violating actions, for one. This also illustrates the adminship-for-life problem we have here. In 2003, anyone with several hundred edits could become an administrator simply by dropping a note on Tim Starling's page. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • And you're unlikely to find a clearer justification for desysopping than what happened here. I guess we'll know soon how deep the problem you describe lies. StuartH (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: David Gerard still has admin rights? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - if anyone have a problem with any administrator's action as administrator or their holding of administrator rights, then Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case is that way. Moaning about it here is a waste of Wikimedia Foundation's server space. -- KTC (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. Taking the action you suggested would be a much bigger waste of space and time in this environment of admin-infallibility. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clear that both admins acted in good faith and were attempting to do the right thing around a topic that they deeply care about. However, these strong feelings and opinions are precisely why DG should not have used admin powers to enforce his preference. There is no reasonable argument for this having been some kind of BLP emergency which demanded instant action to prevent terrible harm to the article's subject – the title of a Wikipedia article is by far the least of Manning's current problems. So DG should have asked a genuinely uninvolved admin to do it instead. If he acknowledges his mistake and agree not to act similarly in future, then I see no need for any further sanctions. – Smyth\talk 18:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not be satisfied with that. I gave him the benefit of the doubt at the beginning, but at every turn when he was given an opportunity to explain his action and to show that he least understands people disagreed with him, he failed. Even in this thread, I see a number of comments that suggest he just doesn't get it:
  • "Yes, this appears to be an attempt at a retrospective rule because they don't like the result."
  • "I probably did get terse, and my apologies - though that would be from answering the same questions from editors (including RA), or refutingthe same statements from editors that were factually wrong, over and over"
He's had his chance. I don't see any reason for him to be permitted to get off scot-free by releasing a canned statement that, by all other indications, he doesn't actually believe. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and maybe bring to WP:ARBCOM - The title should have been left Alone we wait for reliable sources to come in and have a consensus first before doing things. The evidence is there I feel to bring this to WP:ARBCOM if needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that both Morwen and David acted in a way that was appropriate given their interpretation of policy. (I furthermore note that Morwen did not, AFAICT, use any admin powers.) I think that the discussion here and on Talk:Chelsea Manning has shown that the interpretation of Wikipedia policy which each of them used is widely held and regarded as reasonable by other editors, including other administrators. Even though contrary interpretations of policies—interpretations according to which one, the other, or both acted inappropriately—are also widely-held, I think it would be inappropriate to reprimand either of them for taking logical actions to correct what they reasonably saw as a violation of a policy (WP:BLP) that unambiguously prescribes that violations of it be corrected immediately. -sche (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an old canard, oft repeated but still not true. What BLP says is that UNSOURCED information, no matter what type, must be removed immediately. It says, AFAIK, nothing about SOURCED, VALID, and widely-used names for a subject being used in the title, and does not say one must "Immediately change the title if you think the person might have their feelings hurt by said title" - if that were the case, we would have move-locked Cat Stevens years ago, as well as Myanmar and Ivory Coast and dozens of other examples. There was no rush, and no defense in BLP for a rush job here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm extremely uncomfortable with how a number of the admins acted in this case, the speed with which action was taken and the amount of discussion that occured up to that point is disturbing at best. The obvious bias which some admins have shown makes me worried about their impartiality. I have advocated for a rewording of WP:INVOLVED and will probably advocate for even further rewording. I am leaning toward supporting sanctions in this case, but I also expect that if enough editors say something along the lines of "Your actions were not OK with me" that the admins involved were recognise their mistakes. That said it does further disturb me is that, to my knowlage User:David Gerard continues to fail to recognise that there is chance he has made a mistake and he continues to try to defend his actions without accepting or recognising what he did made a large number of wikipedians uncomfortable.
Supreme court justices are capable of recusing themselves from cases, and their are far fewer of them and their actions are far more reaching and important than that of a wikipedia administrator, so it seems to me it would have been fairly easy for the admins involved to not use their admin powers, and instead advocate for one side. Instead they chose to both use thier admin powers and avocate for their side. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know their intentions may have been good but we have policies for a reason, it was not up to two people to make such a huge controversial choice with getting No consensus whatsoever from the Wikipedia community first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The immediately intellectually honest thing to do for both involved/criticized admins responsible for this riot is to submit themselves to review by the community, which review will also help ArbCom in assessing if the two should be desysopped for egregious behavior that materially damaged one Good Article, and, I fear, the entire Wikipedia's credibility as a due process-driven environment. --Mareklug talk 18:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have already pointed out here, I would like to bring up one sentence of Morwen's and David Gerard's "Supplementary !vote rationale" as evidence for (what I consider) a severe misconduct:
"As editors who are familiar with trans issues this seemed sufficiently obvious to us that we did not think it required extensive clarification; but some editors, who are unfamiliar with the topic (as many people in the wider world are), have challenged this."
The two editors do not seem to understand that the question if the article should be named Bradley or Chelsea Manning is a matter of debate, and there is not the one objectively correct solution. They occupy the (rather arrogant) standpoint that their view was the right one, thus discarding opposing opinions as either bad faithed or simply uninformed. This is bullying and POV pushing, because thus they divide the Wikipedia community in good editors who are (like them) "familiar with trans issues", and bad/silly ones who are not. This is not how administrators should behave. At the time the "supplementary !vote rationale" was posted (on 27 August), it was clear that the matter is indeed controversial, because the RM discussion was by then already in full swing for several days. Still, the two editors show not the slightest bit of acknowlegdement. I think some kind of santionizing action should be taken, but I can't comment on it any further because I am unfamiliar with the the work of the Admninistrators' noticeboard.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quick list of comments made during the discussion - and this is just in the actual !voting, not the larger discussion.
  • Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia", not a site designed to protect people's "feelings".
  • This sort of activist stupidity is bringing WP into disrepute. WP:NOTSOAPBOX. WP:COMMONNAME. How it has gone this far the wrong direction is a little shocking. If there is transgender surgery and a legal name change, then the article should change
  • Bradley Manning still dresses as a man (wears the male military dress uniform,) and is still legally known (in name and otherwise) to the U.S. Army as Bradley - a male. Changing the name to Chelsea should not occur before hormone therapy has even begun (it it ever even will occur) or before a legal name change. I also support reverting all of the pronouns to "he." He is clearly mentally unstable and his latest remarks and desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit until the words are matched by some serious and tangible action.
  • So far Manning has not underwent sex reassignment surgery, as such his personal preferences do not hold reasonable encyclopedic or common sense weight. No matter how many sources will refer to him as "she", biologically he's still a man. Accordingly, "she" should be reverted to "he" in the article for the time being.
  • Support Strongly as there is no biological or legal rationale to refer to Manning as anything but male. If that ever changes, then change the page accordingly.
  • per Rannpháirtí anaithnid, common sense, and general opposition to the use of Wikipedia as a platform for radical political advocacy (which advocacy is the sole reason Manning's article keeps being mangled to describe him as Anything-But-Male. I am aware of MOS:IDENTITY, and it is wrong. The standard a polite person might adopt for brief conversation is not the standard to use for encyclopedic coverage
  • One does not become female just by saying one wants to be. If he (not she) said he wanted to be black now, would you describe him as African-American?? Wikipedia should follow the lead of external sources and wait until the majority of the media decides he has changed his gender.
  • This move was incredibly premature, and seems to be done only to please the social justice warriors. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source, not a forum to push your gender politics.
  • The subject is still male in every meaningful sense
  • As a political statement against wikipedia's identity policy and the idea that a person can demand which pronoun another person uses. I think a fair statement in society is that we'll tolerate you doing what you want in terms of body modification and unusual sexual practices, and in exchange you can tolerate our freedom to use language as we please, and not try to enforce political correctness and thought crime.
  • No matter what he says, he is still himself.
  • While I think there's nothing wrong with being transgender, the level of activism here that has nothing to do with Manning makes me want to vomit. Please take your struggle for recognition elsewhere
  • not only under NPOV, but further I think the politicization and ridiculous PC attitude on this website do a disservice to people hoping to get factual information. The fact is, this is a guy, legally and biologically, who has a male name legally. He is a woman only in his own head, and the collective imagination of the radical left.
  • If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog, or a cat, would they change it to reflect such a non-sense? Biologically he is a man and will die a man (check his chromosomes XY), and legally he is a man (he even asks to be called by his male name in official stuff). It is stupid to change the wikipedia article... this deserves, at most, a brief section. Wikipedia is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda.
  • Wikipedia is not a soap-box for trans people to play with, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should value quality over political correctness ten times out of ten. Coming into the page and seeing "her" and "she" all over the place while the picture is of a young soldier is laughable, and unthinkable in a Wikipedia just a short year ago.
  • "I am a girl, call me Chelsea" is the worst move rational I've heard in a while. This page is currently laughable and embarrassing. I think some people need to settle down.
  • He's still a man, and he's still named Bradley legally speaking.
  • Just because (s)he has shouted to be known by some other name does not actually mean that (s)he is actually a transgender. Had (s)he been more vocal at an opportune time, (s)he might have saved the world of some idiotic espionage in recent history.
  • Why are we wasting time and making a mockery of this article by trying to 'comfort' Bradley Manning or 'make this transition easier on him?' Where he's going, the last worry he'll have is the pronouns they use to address him. And this is just beside all of the basic logic and reasoning that says he is a male, has always been a male, and likely always will continue to be a male and the WP has just bought into one of the lamest PR stunts in recent memory. Has everybody opposed to this moved forgotten that he is a criminal???
  • this individual is morphologically, chromosomally, and most important legally still male.
  • He's still got the chromosomes, package and legal name of a guy and no ammount of critical queer/feminist/gender analysis will get around those three simple truths.
  • "Chelsea" should barely be a footnote. "Chelsea Mannning" does not exist.
These comments range from presumably well-meaning ignorance to active transphobia and bigotry. Many are outright hate speech. All display a complete lack of any understanding of trans issues. Given that this was a large strain of what David and Morwen were responding to, I think the polite "we actually do know things about these topics and edited in a manner consistent with longstanding consensus of how to handle these topics" was wholly in order. The number of editors who are engaging in grotesque bigotry around this topic is appalling. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The statement doesn't say that some people said some offensive things; it clearly draws a line between those who obviously agree with them (who are familiar with transgender issues) and those who have challenged them (who aren't familiar with transgender issues). -- tariqabjotu 20:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted, the third class (those who disagree because they question the entire scientific, medical, legal and social consensus that transgender is actually a thing) are unlikely to be convinced in any case - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those folks should likewise not be editing the article, as their own biases are obvious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support short-term (30-90 days) sanctions against Gerard and Morwen* Whether or not the title of the article should be Bradley or Chelsea, the actions taken by these two admins were irresponsible. The proper process of discussion and consensus was short-circuited by the admins in question, from quickly changing the article of the title without any real discussion or consensus, locking the article at a point at which their preferred title was the one being used, writing long screeds about how dozens of people arguing in good faith just "don't understand," and in Morwen's case, actually using external social media to attempt to apply outside pressure and implying bigotry among the admins. Admins are supposed to untangle giant messes, not cause the creation of one.149.255.33.155 (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

  • Oppose sanction. The nature of BLP issues is that administrators often have to be bold, including with their administrative powers, to enforce policy. BLP, unlike other policy, does not lend itself to eventualism - the entire premise of BLP is that the articles can cause real and immediate harm to actual people. Regardless of what consensus forms over the location of the article, David's actions appear to be a good faith effort to comply with the policy. Barring a pattern of repeated use of administrator powers outside of community consensus, a single bold action to comply with a policy that demands swift action to alleviate immediate harm is not grounds for sanction. As for Morwen, a single page move that complies with numerous policies and is consistent with past precedent is not an administrator violation on any level. The suggestion that writing about Wikipedia issues off-site is unacceptable is similarly laughable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two cents Let's look at what happened ignoring the drama.
Morwen's first move was fine. It wasn't wise in that it should have been apparent that such a move wouldn't have consensus. But per WP:BRD it was a reasonable action that didn't involve the tools. Cls14's move back was also reasonable per WP:BRD. The second move by Morwen was much less acceptable. It wasn't a WP:WHEEL issue, but move warring isn't a good idea. Once reverted, the right action is to discuss. I missed the fact that Morwen did discuss and get permission from Cls14. That should have been obvious, but I missed it in the larger discussion and apologize. DG's locking of the page was also problematic. While not required, "once protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." is mighty fine advice. Tariqabjotu's move under protection is completely bogus "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus." and DG's move back is now a WP:WHEEL violation as I read it. Ignoring external things, I think Tariqabjotu and DG should be sanctioned. While I agree that WP:BLP indicates that article should be at CM not BM, there isn't clear consensus for this and there is no way that the part of BLP that allows for rapid changes and maybe even a WP:WHEEL violation (poor sourcing in a BLP) applies here. Tariqabjotu's move under protection was also highly problematic. Not sure the right move there. But once read the comments of these to admins and take into account that DG and Tariqabjotu were editing based upon strongly held beliefs rather than acting to enforce consensus, I think there is a strong case for desysoping both (though the case for DG is stronger).
What really bothers me about this whole thing is that the action of these two admins makes it more likely this article will be kept at BM for quite a while. That is, IMO, a serious BLP problem. And now that the major sources (NYT, AP, WashingtonPost) all seem to be using CM, the COMMONNAME argument is going to go away. But the nerves rubbed raw by these admin actions are going to make it a lot harder to get everyone to accept that... Hobit (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Once reverted, the right action is to discuss."
    • Please, look at the record. I did discuss. I left a polite notice on User:Cls14's talk page, a notice that I wasn't going to move it back until I had a reply on the article talk page, and then only when User:Cls14 said to me "Very sorry about that, hadn't even heard that Chelsea was potentially trans, let alone that she was now defining as a woman. Feel free to change back!" did I move it back. Are you seriously contending that me going ahead and moving it back after that is a move war? I've been having to defend myself against that allegation since day 1, and I'm getting a bit sick of it, frankly. Morwen (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck and apologized for. I'm sorry, but somehow I missed that. Hobit (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're going off the deep end. Reverting undiscussed, controversial moves is considered an uncontroversial action:
If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. If you are unable to revert, request it below.
And what strongly held beliefs do you think I have, if you feel so inclined to suggest that? -- tariqabjotu 19:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving under protection without consensus is not allowed period. You may feel the WP:WRONG version was locked (and in fact I'd agree with you in that I think it should have stayed at BM until we had consensus it should move to CM) but you shouldn't be using admin tools to edit (or move) through protection. Hobit (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a lot of your comments on the CM talk page make it clear that you have a strongly held beliefs. You don't see this as a trans issue and you've mad that pretty clear. "Unfortunately, because the subject has also changed his gender identity, this has turned into a transgender rights issue. No, I don't see it that way. Manning could have kept his name and changed his gender identity. Manning also could have changed his name without changing his gender identity. Manning has decided to both change his name and his gender identity, but that doesn't mean they aren't two separate issues." I'd say that's just as strong as DG's opinion (which I share) that this is a trans rights issue. Hobit (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to get that provision of WP:RMT removed, you are free to attempt that. There's no need for me to defend the fact that I formed an opinion afterward, because RMT is pretty straightforward about reversing controversial, undiscussed moves. That being said, it sounds like you misunderstood me when I said "has turned into a transgender rights issue"; perhaps it would have been clearer if I had said "transgender rights debate", or "an issue of whether transgender people exist/can announce an identity different from their biological one"? I presume you're not acceding to the move request being that kind of debate... -- tariqabjotu 20:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WP:RMT applies to protected pages. Per WP:PROTECT, an admin should not be making changes to protected pages that don't have consensus. There was no consensus here--just a huge mess. The WP:WRONG version got locked in and everyone needs to live with that (admins and others) until it gets fixed. Again, editing through protection without consensus is always problematic. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{ec} I don't really comment in these kinds of discussions usually, so sorry if this is out of place, but surely if there's a conflict between the super explicit policy about page protection ("Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus") and the instruction-with-ambiguous-status about reverting bold moves, then the policy should be followed? I don't really see how moving the page back under protection was a reasonable or constructive course of action even if you disagreed with the move and the protection. Is what you're saying that you were okay to break the prohibition on making controversial edits to protected pages just because you disagreed with the initial move before it was protected (because you thought the move was controversial) and could justify your plainly controversial edit to a protected page on a sort of "two wrongs make a right" basis? That seems to be getting it exactly backwards to me. It's almost like trying to right a great wikipedia-wrong. AgnosticAphid talk 20:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you are (or anyone else is) pursuing this avenue. Regardless, I will emphasize that while WP:RMT says nothing permitting such technical moves on protected pages, WP:PROTECT says nothing forbidding such technical moves on protected pages. There's no conflict, as far as I can see. In fact, WP:PROTECT says Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. It also says, speaking about move protection specifically, that [and I know this is not the situation here] When move protection is applied during a requested move discussion the page should be protected at the location it was at when the move request was started. In other words, reverting undiscussed moves seems acceptable under the protection policy. This really should be quite obvious; if London were moved to London, England, and then just protected there, it would obviously be reverted back, and a move discussion could then be launched. It doesn't make sense that such an action would be considered uncontroversial (per RMT) prior to protection and forbidden after protection. An uncontroversial action is an uncontroversial action. -- tariqabjotu 21:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll strongly disagree. Policy is plain that admins shouldn't edit under protection without consensus. You did and you changed to your preferred version. That's an issue. Is it worth a de-sysop? I'd have to say it was a really bad call and deserves censure of some sort--a slap on the wrist at the least and a clarification that editing under protection like that isn't acceptable. The mop should not be used in such a way. But at this point I think it's going to be up to ARBCOM... Hobit (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's the move, then there's the week of personal attacks that followed, including ones he was asked to remove and refused to. Exemplary admin behaviour - David Gerard (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see some examples of those mainstream sources routinely saying "Chelsea" instead of "Bradley". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not re-argue the move here. -- tariqabjotu 20:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit claims "Chelsea" is now in mainstream use. If so, that's a game-changer, and he needs to provide some evidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the AP and New York Times are somehow not mainstream now? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post something on the CM talk page. Bugs, I'll tag you there so you see it. Hobit (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sanctions and give Gerard and Morwen barnstars for their brave defence of BLP and IDENTITY. We have seen so many sickening BLP vios at Talk:Chelsea Manning which have gone unpunished but all wikipedia wants to do is go after the good guys. This whole discussion is very dispiriting. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors with a personal investment in the issue shouldn't be editing articles on the issue, as it clouds their reasoning. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify: are you proposing that editors who know trans people shouldn't be editing articles about trans stuff? Or what? Morwen (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do we have any evidence these editors have a personal investment in the issue? Certainly no COI, and when there is no COI I believe that experienced editors are capable for the most part of editing articles about which they have strong opinions, I do so all the time without abandoning either my reasoning or violating NPOV. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I shouldn't know what an editor's biases are. Their comments on the talk page were loud and clear as to their personal biases on the matter, and counters any claims of "good faith". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • What, specifically, is the "personal investment" you are asserting? Please be clear on what you meant - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • (ec) Please give some specific examples as I am not convinced based on what I have read of their comments on talk page (read some but not all of the comments on that page) that what you say is actually so as the only bias I saw was Gerard's wholehearted defence of BLP, and that is to be welcomed. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • His BLP arguments have been proven wrong. If you'd rather call it "incompetence" rather than "bias", that works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Proven wrong? It isnt a mathematical puzzle and I have seen no evidence that Gerard's BLP call is in any way wrong, what have I been missing?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Look through the archives, and you'll see that the BLP argument is proven to be bogus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No it is not "proven", it is argued to be bogus. It is also argued to be correct, including by those who have done a lot to shape BLP and those who have to deal with its consequences. No amount of pointing to one side of arguments is going to trump that. It seems only Arbcom could settle that one but it's quite clear some people are never going to put up or shut up and will instead just keep making the same statements ad infinitum. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • <Removed post due to personal attacks>
                          • There are a number of sitting arbitrators who think you're dead wrong that BLP doesn't apply to titles. BLP applies to everything. It applies to user names and edit summaries! It defies sense to think it doesn't apply to the biggest words right at the top of every article - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • @Knowledgekid87 {{Citation needed}}. Where does it explicitly state article titles are exempt from BLP? Either the words in the policy or a formal ruing; not some argument made in the RM please. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I find it extraordinary that anyone would even think let alone claim BLP doesn't apply to article titles. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release the trouts! There are enough in the pen for at least one for everyone who tried to make a point in the uproar, aren't there? Morwen's initial move was bold and deserves a cookie. C1s14's prompt revert was proper and deserves a cookie. Things went downhill from there; C1s14, not Morwen, should have reverted. A (small) trout for each, please. David Gerald's locking, then, was an attempt at goodness (have a cookie, DG) but on the "wrong title" which generated a bunch of confusion (another small trout, please.) The rest of the administrators who galloped off the cliff into this, a large trout each. The only one who seems to be without blame and deserves several entire cases of cookies is BD2412, who I hope will share with those admins helping make this decision. htom (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (strangely posted in wrong section) htom (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working off Hobit's modified timeline, I'd say that the only unambiguously problematic behaviour here is Tariq's. The logs of the page clearly show that David invoked BLP in his page protection. To use admin tools to move a move-protected page after BLP was invoked is the kind of thing that gets people de-adminned. Undoing such a move, as David did, is acceptable (you know, per BLP). Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most concerning to me is that David Gerard used his admin tools to enforce his own preferred version of the page, over the objections of other admins and without consensus. WP:WHEEL warns against precisely this behavior:

When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus. Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. Resolve admin disputes by discussion.

Administrative tools were used to move-protect the page, move it while it was protected, and then revert the move. Gerard's revert cited BLP. BLP is an exception to the prohibition against wheel warring:

Material deleted because it contravenes BLP may be re-deleted if reinstated, if it continues to be non-BLP-compliant.

Gerard explained his rationale as part of the RM, and I encourage everyone involved in this discussion to read it in its entirety.

Due regard for trans people's privacy usually includes not mentioning birth names. Birth names are considered highly sensitive information, not to be shared lightly, and we expect most trans people would be highly distressed to see their old name prominently in the article - deliberate use of an old name when a person has expressed a strong wish for the use of their new name being a common mode of personal attack upon transsexuals in the wider world, in the same manner as deliberate misgendering (as can be seen on the wiki itself, where a common tactic for anti-transgender vandals is "outing" someone with their old name and/or changing pronouns.
— User:David Gerard

However, privacy in this case is not possible.

In cases where the subject achieved fame or notoriety before a name change the transition is part of the narrative. For Chelsea Manning we accept it would be impossible to suppress her birth name entirely (and Manning's latest statement concedes that in practical terms, it is unlikely, despite Manning's sincerely expressed preferences). But inability to protect the subject's privacy completely does not mean we should not make our best effort: we should go to the closest thing that is possible, and give Chelsea Manning primacy.
— User:David Gerard

Not only is privacy impossible, suppressing such information about a public figure would contravene BLP.

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.
— WP:BLP

So the core of Gerard's argument is that presenting the subject as a woman named Chelsea is a matter of BLP compliance, even though she engaged in notable activities while identifying as a man named Bradley, and at a time when nearly all reliable sources referred to her as Bradley. That is a view shared by some in the RM discussion, but there is no consensus on this point. What I think is obvious is that it was not a BLP content emergency that required wheel warring to bring the article into what Gerard viewed as compliance. It also violated the spirit of the interaction between WHEEL and BLP (emphasis mine).

Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
— WP:BLP

There are clearly cases where sensitive personal information about of the subject of an article can require wheel-warring to suppress. There are cases where hurtful article titles must be suppressed. This was not one of those cases. The original title was relevant and well sourced, even if it became controversial and was no longer in keeping with the subject's preferences.
Finally, I do not believe it is in any editor's best interest to permit something like this. Under BLP policy, public figures can expect articles about them to be neutral and fair. They should not expect to be able to change the tone of an article to suit their wishes simply by issuing a press release. The addition of controversial material should be accompanied by careful discussion in good faith. Bold-revert-discuss is not a policy, but it protects your ability to contribute to the conversation. Bold-revert-revert-lock-discuss gives undue influence to the first-mover. DPRoberts534 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, I still think though that this should goto ARBCOM this has gone on long enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Action should be taken against those who tried to move the article back to Bradley. This is a BLP violation and those editors should have tried discussing first before edit warring. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully agree with what Sportfan says, we are pursuing the wrong ppl. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also fully agree with that. The BLP violations were the problem, not the good people acting in accordance with Wikipedia policy to prevent harm to the subject of a biography. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sanctions - Let's focus on things we can all agree one. We should all be able to agree that the move was controversial (as demonstrated by the ensuing debate). We should all be able to agree that David Gerard used adminly power to unilaterally make the move. Either you believe WP:BLP justified his actions or you don't. I personally have yet to see any convincing explination of why and how WP:BLP clearly justified Gerard's actions. NickCT (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the thing - you just need a reasonable case in order to invoke BLP. And, as the move discussion showed, many people saw this as a BLP issue. Since BLP actions are precautionary moves to prevent potential harm, the burden lies with the person seeking to undo the action. Guettarda (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all sanctions against Morwen and David Gerard. Taking into account all the factual information about what happened here and the salient points of the further discussion into account, it is clear to me that Morwen did nothing wrong at all; David Gerard did nothing wrong and should be commended for his actions; Tariqabjotu abused his admin tools in at least two ways and displayed very poor (at best) judgment in a third way. In detail
    • Morwen moved a page in accordance with what policies, guidelines and consensus at the time all said was the correct title. The second and third moves were a mistake and correction of that mistake (made because of a misunderstanding) with explicit permission and so are irrelevant for all subsequent purposes. None of these actions used any admin tools and so by definition could not be an abuse then even if there were anything wrong with the actions (which there was not).
    • It then became clear that, contrary to what people familiar with the facts of the case and with Wikipedia's long-standing policies and guidelines could reasonably predict, the page title was controversial, so David Gerard protected it citing BLP. This constituted nothing at all that could be construed as wrong by anyone.
    • Then Tariqabjotu reverted that move, through protection, against and explicit mention of BLP while claiming it was uncontroversial.
      • Firstly an admin should be aware that once you revert a page move it is no longer uncontroversial, not in itself actionable beyond a reminder if it is not part of a pattern.
      • Second, page moves through protection must only be done with explicit prior consensus for the move, which did not exist at the time of the move. The only exception to this is for BLP reasons. In an isolated incident this might not warrant removal of the admin bit, but it could go either way.
      • Thirdly and most seriously, no reversions to actions taken in the name of BLP may be done without explicit prior consensus, no exceptions. I can see no reason why an admin deliberately reverting against an explicitly labelled BLP without consensus would be considered to continue hold the trust of the community. Combined with with the other two factors and a ban is going to be part of the discussion.
    • Finally, David Gerard reverted the BLP-violating undiscussed move made by Tariqabjotu. In a perfect world another admin would have made this move, but as he was restoring an action made in compliance with the BLP policy there was nothing wrong with his actions.
    full disclosure: David and Morwen are both among the many Wikimedians I've met at the London Wikimeets, but I was in no way involved with any of their actions nor they in mine, and I know several trans* people in real life, none of whom have had any input into my words or actions beyond educating me about trans* people's perspectives of trans* issues. I do not consider that any of this constitutes a conflict of interest. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain, without using generalities, what you're talking about with Firstly an admin should be aware that once you revert a page move it is no longer uncontroversial, not in itself actionable beyond a reminder if it is not part of a pattern? It sounds like what you'd be saying is that once I revert a move, say, to Chelsea Manning, the move to Chelsea Manning is no longer uncontroversial. Or are you saying once I perform the reversion, the action itself is no longer uncontroversial? Either interpretation sounds a bit irrelevant here, so I can't imagine that either of those are right.
Regarding the rest... At the time of my move, Chelsea Manning was one of the most discussed pages on Wikipedia. There had already been ample discussion about the matter, at Talk:Chelsea Manning, at WP:BLPN, and at WP:ANI, among other places. Most of the discussion regarding the applicability of BLP surrounded the gender (esp. at WP:BLPN), not the name itself. In any event, the assertion already proved to be controversial and there seemed to be no explanation as to why the name Bradley Manning, the subject's legal name as well as the name most of the world had known him by just hours before, was not just inferior to Chelsea Manning according to an interpretation of WP:BLP, but forbidden based on WP:BLP. The most I saw was the indication that the article was a biography of a living person, which, of course, it is... but that doesn't say anything about where a violation comes in.
I can't recall whether I saw that BLP was used in the protection reason itself. Regardless, MOS:IDENTITY was used alongside the more important WP:BLP policy, with no clarity about what exactly the problem was; as the move requests show, those appear to be arguments for the move, not mandates requiring immediate moving. Now, of course, would it have better if I went up to David and explicitly asked him, "Hey, how is the title Bradley Manning, a name that is in the first sentence of the article, a BLP violation?" Of course, and in retrospect I probably should have done that. But that's a misjudgment not worth half the heat worth here. As I said, the matter had been discussed by a number of people already, so it's not like the claim had been made, there had been silence for an hour, and I just moved back; there were opportunities for him to explain, and he didn't. I was in the midst of making a comment on the talk page, noting my reversal of the move and explanation thereof, when I edit-conflicted with David's move. I immediately asked him for the explanation of how that name constituted a violation. He never responded. I initially defended David, even though I couldn't see his understanding of BLP, as I assumed he would explain his assertion, even though he hadn't done so until that moment. I understood that while we might not have seen eye-to-eye on whether the name Bradley Manning was a violation of the BLP policy, both positions were likely reasonable. Alas, as noted at the very start of this thread, David refused to explain his actions at all for days, rudely rebuffing those who asked for an explanation. And, in the his explanation cowritten with Morwen, when it finally came, he asserted that he thought his action was so obvious it didn't warrant explanation. Ok... I have little reason to believe that had I personally asked David before reverting his move about the applicability of BLP that I would have received a warmer reception. Had I asked him, how long should I have waited before acting? An hour? A day? Three days?
And yet you felt David "did nothing wrong" and that I "abused my admin tools". What your comment suggests is that an Admin A can claim BLP mandates an action, provide no explanation as to why a particular change or modification constituted a violation of that policy (potentially for days) when repeatedly pressed, and when an Admin B makes a determination that the BLP violation claim is unsubstantiated, that Admin B made the reprehensible action and the Admin A did nothing wrong. If that truly is the community's understanding of how we should operate in this arena, sure, I'm guilty as charged, and I'd cheerfully accept any punishment for this appalling instance of wrongdoing. -- tariqabjotu 00:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title of Bradley was not controversial though and had (ans still has) the sources to back it up, if the sources shifted over time in Chelsea's favor then okay the point though is that a discussion should have taken place which none did, the wrong answer made was change from one so called controversial title to another controversial title in Chelsea to gain media spotlight. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wasn't due to sources, but due to MOS:IDENTITY, as you know (though you disagree with said rationale). However, the sources adopted the name very fast indeed, and indeed ahead of Wikipedia, despite the erroneous claims of the Slate blog piece - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A few corrections: there wasn't consensus for Morwen to move the title. COMMONTITLE is one such policy that doesn't support her move. Tariq didn't claim it was uncontroversial. He correctly stated that the move was controversial and therefore should be discussed first. Page moves through protection don't need explicit consensus; consensus needs to be established before any controversial move in the first place. Reversions can be taken even when BLP is evoked. You say that he needs consensus to revert, as if consensus is on him, not the person who made the move and cited BLP. Finally, as shown, the vast majority of people don't regard the title as "BLP-violating". 2.102.186.231 (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Other policies & guidelines did support the moving of the title; to say nothing of the precedent of previous such cases where I can't spot any mega RMs on the matter. And BLP is a policy about individual protections against such majoritarianism. Hence the reason why it's there at all. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to explain what other policies and guidelines support moving the title. The BLP argument has been demolished and MoS:IDENTITY defers to COMMONTITLE in regard to article titles. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)The title had become controversial - in numerous areas using the name prior to a change carries baggage of its own with all the effect on both POV and the uptodateness & reliability of sources. And the precedents were to change upon the announcement. The page on controversial titles is aiming to cut down on back and forth moves between titles of longstanding controversy and reduce the number of RMs that play one off against another. That's a rather different situation from when a name changes and assessment has to be made anew and where specific policies and guidelines point towards a change. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sanctions Since declarations are being made, I live in London but have never knowingly encountered any of the editors involved. As others have stated in more depth there was no exercise of admin powers in Morwen's moves and her second move came after she had checked with the editor who had moved it back. The move was in line with precedents for other people with existing articles who announced their transition and also had the support of the relevant guideline. The BLP issue has been argued back and forth but I haven't seen anything concrete stating it does not apply to article titles and a determination that it doesn't should be made by a clear ruling or rewriting of the policy; not by this board handing out sanctions as a backdoor way to override it. The article was moved and protection in a good faith interpretation of the BLP policy; a policy which demands quick and firm action. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (preferably voluntary) Topic ban from BLP, or even possible other sanctions: looking at his arguments above and at his combative attitude, I am not sure that Gerrard would be exempt from avoiding similar incidents in the short future. Cavarrone 04:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe I have come to understand the circumstances of this case as well as anyone could. I think the real culprit here is the ambiguity in Wikipedia's policies with respect to matters such as these. I believe that the administrators involved in the initial set of page moves acted in good faith. Furthermore, I do not believe that it was unreasonable for the page to be maintained at "Chelsea Manning" for the duration of the move discussion. Rather than proposing sanctions, we should be clarifying our policies so that it is clearly understood that BLP allows for temporary page moves to be made for the duration of a move discussion, and perhaps to adjust the standards for such a title to be adopted where a public figure makes an unequivocal declaration of having changed their name. bd2412 T 01:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: I, at least, had no problem with this conclusion about a week ago. It was David's actions since (namely his repeated, and often rude, refusals to explain where he saw a BLP violation) that have caused concern, and, consequentially, cast aspersions on his protection and move. Had David simply explained why he thought "Bradley Manning" constituted a violation of the BLP policy, before, during, or within a reasonable time after his move, while I would have disagreed with his assessment, I would not have found any impropriety. -- tariqabjotu 02:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sanctions against Morwen and David Gerard This is my first time participating at AN/I: forgive me if I'm getting this wrong :-) I I believe Morwen and David Gerard were both acting in good faith attempting to support BLP. It's my understanding (and it's supported here) that BLP is not a policy narrowly aimed at protecting the encyclopedia against libel claims: its purpose is broader than that. As ArbCom wrote, we are required to consider the ethical implications of our actions, to respect the basic human dignity of article subjects, to not mock or disparage, and to do no harm. We are specifically requested, when in doubt, to remove potentially harmful material and *then* discuss it. It's also my understanding that BLP applies to everything in the encyclopedia: article titles are not exempted.
I think it might be useful for us to consider here the legal concept of duty of care, which in my layperson's understanding of it essentially argues that people in positions of special responsibility cannot be held liable for bad consequences resulting from decisions they made in good faith while attempting to properly execute their duties. Personally I believe David and Morwen's actions, although contentious, were completely correct. Importantly though, you can believe they were wrong and still conclude they don't deserve to be sanctioned, if you believe they were trying to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia, and in accordance with policy as they understand it. (I will also point out that David was one of the major early contributors to the BLP policy: here is his first edit to it, from 19 December 2005. In my view, it's perfectly reasonable for David to have taken bold action interpreting and upholding an important policy which he helped develop, even if he was wrong in his interpretation of it, given that the policy, as Timrollpickering says above, demands quick firm and action. Sue Gardner (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, any administrative action whatsoever is okay as long as one believes oneself to be acting with the angels? That is a novel interpretation of organizational law. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Good faith, relevant actions done in the name of BLP are acceptable. If the action was not correct then consensus will determine this and revert it, but it will still have been acceptible to do it in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support sanctions - Trout for Morwen, detooling for Gerard for wheelwaring and using tools to defend their own preferred content. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM or nothing[edit]

This is a waste of time. Sorry, RA, but I don't think you should have started this thread. It will be yet another thread where some people find the actions of David (or someone else) reprehensible, and others disagree. You already know how a lot of people feel about this; we had a very similar thread earlier (on this page, in fact). It's already clear that there are very few people left out there willing to touch this hot issue, and enact anything that might be described as consensus. Nothing's going to become of this other than another protracted, time-wasting thread that tangentially becomes another debate about the move itself. So, there's two options: ARBCOM or nothing. If you want to launch an RfArb, do it. If you don't, it's over. This thread is really not going to accomplish anything. -- tariqabjotu 21:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should go to ARBCOM, I think that this debate has gone on long enough and do see enough people in support of some kind of action here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found several posts by RA to be very convincing and I also encourage him to launch an RfArb. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Time to draft the RfArb. No consensus is emerging on this page to do anything except to continue the argument. Archaeo (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also people still throwing out personal attacks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editor conduct issues can be addressed separately, the big question for Arby 'n' the Chief is whether DG's invocation of emergency powers was appropriate or abusive. Morwen's off-wiki behavior could also use a final answer, though I don't think that's as big a deal. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed community sanctions (avoiding ArbCom)[edit]

I'd like to avoid ArbCom if possible. I don't think the community benefits to the fullest degree when issues go to ArbCom. The issues raised regarding admin conduct are serious and deserve resolving. However, I would like it if the community was able to resolve them without recourse to a higher power to arbitrate.

The RM has been closed with an unequivocal statement that, "BLP does not require having 'Chelsea Manning' as the title. It is not a BLP violation to maintain the title at 'Bradley Manning'... 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'". And, "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..."

Arguments to the contrary were a major component in arguments above not to sanction Morwen or David above. In absence of those arguments, there appears to be a hefty consensus to issue sanctions of some sort.

Administrators, of all editors, ought to be familiar with the BLP policy and be able to implement it correctly. It is particularly worrying if administrators perform administrator actions known by them to be controversial (evidenced by the exchange on Twitter) on the basis of tenuous and flawed interpretations of policy.

I propose the following sanctions be issued:

  1. Morwen to be slapped with a trout.
  2. David Gerard to be topic banned from performing administrative actions on BLP and LGBT-related topics.
    • This sanction to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions.
    • David may request that this sanction be removed by the community after a period of one month.
    • This sanction does not prohibit David from performing non-administrative actions in any topic.

I believe these follow the lead of those who propose more reasoned sanctions while satisfying those who want to see more serious sanctions being taken against, in particular, David. I believe they will also suffice to prevent incidents like this happening again.

It would be gracious if Morwen and David were to accept these sanctions voluntarily. I also believe it is in Morwen and David's favour to avoid ArbCom given the breadth of questionable actions this incident has raised.

I haven't proposed any sanctions against Tariqabjotu because I don't believe there is a case to anwser but if other's do I suggest they propose one in another section.

--RA (✍) 13:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I will not be. You made repeated claims I hadn't explained myself when I had, called me a liar (you inexplicably failed to notify me on that one, for some reason) consensus is not with you in this circular discussion and this is a serious BLP issue, not a vote-count matter, that you're trying and end-run around, just as you tried repeated end-runs around the WP:RM process [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. You are continuing to forum-shop, this time inside your previous forum-shopping - David Gerard (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David, it's a very reasonable offer. All Morwen receives is a trouting. All you have to do is keep your admin buttons in your pocket on BLPs and LGBT topics for a month. Then come back and either say you're sorry or that you're not sorry but won't be so self-certain/bull-headed in future. That's a very easy road to walk. Others are calling for ArbCom and I don't believe you will fare so well if it goes there. --RA (✍) 13:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ra, you should strike accusation of lying. It's unsupportable as it requires knowledge of the speaker's internal mental state. Prevaricate is a better term if you feel DG misstated the situation. NE Ent 14:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose RA's proposed sanctions. As I clearly detailed elsewhere on this page, neither Morwen nor David did anything wrong. Tariqabjotu grossly, and by his own admission deliberaely, abused his admin tools. Those are the facts, and no amount of repeating the same unfounded accusations against David or Morwen will change that. As of right now I'm trying to find a reason not to take this to Arbcom, and to be honest I'm struggling. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Because it is a long and time consuming process that, in the long run, most likely won't benefit Wikipedia. The fact that a three admin panel, rightly or wrongly, decided to move the article back to Bradley Manning is going to seriously undercut your argument. Maybe you'll get some general boilerplate exhortations about congeniality and the like, and maybe one or admins gets bloodied, but there's no doubt in my mind the folks here are doing what they think is best in a intractably difficult circumstance. NE Ent 14:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I live in the dream land where the benefit to us would be a more clear set of rules for dealing with what was effectively a WHEEL problem. What do you do when you are really really sure you are in the right and another admin is in the wrong? Discuss and don't use the bit. Are we likely to get that from ARBCOM? I honestly think so. But... Hobit (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sanction 1; Support sanction 2 - Morwen's action was WP:BOLD and didn't violate any policy. David Gerard violated WP:WHEEL. As the RM discussion concluded, the BLP policy was misinterpreted in this case. Edge3 (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per me #Oppose_all_wikibloodletting. NE Ent
  • Strong oppose, neither David nor Morwen did anything sanctionable. Agree with Thryduulf's synopsis that "Tariqabjotu grossly, and by his own admission deliberately, abused his admin tools." Tariqabjotu is the only individual for whom we should be discussing sanctions. KillerChihuahua 14:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, Morwen and David Gerard acted entirely in accordance with policy, sanction the only individual who engaged in unacceptable wheel warring and clearly violated BLP (as discussed thoroughly on this page, per Thryduulf and others), Tariqabjotu, instead. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though Prefer ArbCom as more serious sanctions seem to be needed (mainly because of David's behaviour following the move). Though if the subjects accept these sanctions then there's little point in dragging it out. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ArbCom is more likely to produce an outcome that will actually put some final closure on this issue. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as I have explained earlier. I think the proposed sanctions are sufficient. To those opposing because of the article naming controversy, please consider that the next time around another admin may not see things your way impose their preferred version based on shaky BLP grounds. Preserving BRD in the absence of a BLP content emergency is in your best interest. DPRoberts534 (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Firstly because this is one-sided and only addresses the warring by those who preferred Chelsea Manning. Secondly because I believe Morwen did nothing wrong at any point. Well within BRD (though an action I'd not have taken myself). I think it's ARBCOM or nothing... Hobit (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it is time to drop the WP:STICK and move on. If, in 30 days, enough sources have changed, the move can be re-addressed at that time, but there is no need to beat up on people after the decision has been made. Blocks and sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and there is nothing indicating that there would be future problems. GregJackP Boomer! 19:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing. David Gerard has made no indication that he thinks his actions may have been hasty. According to his opinion that he posted here, the release of new information about the subject created a BLP emergency that required wheel-warring to resolve. That opinion is not backed up by WP:BLP or by the RM closing admins' unanimous statement. A temporary topic ban is preventative, recognizes that shaky BLP arguments are not an excuse for wheel warring, and is minimally punitive. As I stated days ago on this page, an apology and explanation of policy from Gerard would have been a preferable outcome. DPRoberts534 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose. Take it to Arbcom. The idea that this subpage will create stable consensus for anything is entirely laughable, and this dispute has careened so wildly out of control that the community needs the structure Arbcom can provide. Archaeo (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang?[edit]

Am i the only person who feels this discussion should boomerang against User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid? I am appalled at the biased manner in which he posted his sanction proposal. Not only did he neglect to mention the other participant in the page moves. He has done so twice and has also forgotten to mention another editor who self-admitted to attempting a page move. In other words the two editors who disagreed with him - he confronts. The two editors who agreed with him, he ignores. I don't think Rannpháirtí should get away with such a woeful inability to be impartial. Pass a Method talk 23:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that is my feeling too. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went through every edit he'd made in this matter; the most problematic were all on this very page. Speaking as his target, I'd say in more errors than malice - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what I just wrote there. I mean that I think RA is grievously wrong about all manner of things to do with this case, but I am also of the opinion he is not proceeding in this manner from actual malice, and I went through his edits on this topic to decide what I thought - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree he does not seem to be proceeding from any kind of malice. I don't see that anyone has suggested that. KillerChihuahua 21:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on procedural grounds since an ArbCom case has been proposed. GregJackP Boomer! 15:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An ArbCom case request which does not include RA as a named party. I have wondered[57] about the omission. KillerChihuahua 15:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could write something up if you think there's something of substance, no need to wait on others or the original submitter - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You also don't have to be a named party to be sanctioned. If you come to their attention, whether through evidence presented or whatever, they have not hesitated to take action that they feel is appropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 15:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do have to be a named party to be sanctioned in a case. With that said, Arbitrators can and do add parties to case with or without their consent even after the case is accepted. If anyone would like to include RA as a named party, they are welcome to do so. NW (Talk) 16:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then with all due respect, how did I get sanctioned in the previous case? I wasn't a named party nor was I notified that I was being added as a named party. I'm not contesting the sanctions, all I'm saying is that ArbCom has not been hesitant to sanction those who were not named parties in cases in the past. GregJackP Boomer! 17:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which previous case? Would you please provide a link to either the case, or to the diff of the notification of sanctions on your talk page, so someone can answer this intelligently? Thanks! KillerChihuahua 21:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Climate Change? None of the parties were listed, apparently because it was decided there were so many involved editors that listing them all was too distracting. So it isn't so much a case of you not being a named party, as it was that none of the parties were named. So far as I know, that case is unique in that regard. KillerChihuahua 00:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all sanctions against admins, on either side. They've all acted in good faith, and this is a wholly unnecessary public pillory. (This goes for tariq, too.) AlexTiefling (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping request[edit]

I'm not gonna touch this one with a ten foot pole owing to the superheated political climate currently existing on the topic, but transgenderism appears to me to be an incorrect disambiguation page in that it does not actually disambiguate anything. The page Transgenderism (social movement) should lose the parentheses, I believe... Could some uninvolved administrator possibly take a look at that with a view to a fix? Carrite (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Tariqabjotu[edit]

I am concerned that Tariqabjotu is attempting to escape scrutiny by trying to steer this thread into a specific direction with this edit. The edit is obviously biased consider that he refuses to mention his own name while adding the names of others. Pass a Method talk 20:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His edits aren't seriously under scrutiny, that's why his name doesn't need to be mentioned in the first place. He's restored the names of others, as they are the ones under discussion and you shouldn't edit other people's comments except in very narrow circumstances (this isn't one of them). Again, if you believe that other events have come up which make Obi's comment out of date, mention that but don't change his original comment. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering he moved a move-protected page back after the mover had cited BLP, they certainly should be - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider St Anselm admitted to attempting to make a page move himself (see [58]), he should also be under scrutiny (if others are that it). Pass a Method talk 21:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether he should be under scrutiny or even if he's currently under scrutiny. Stop editing other people's comments and simply update the notice by commenting below it as I have repeatedly advised you. David has already updated it so the matter is moot anyway. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, just... wow. -- tariqabjotu 21:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. That notice was left by Obiwankenobi six hours ago. If you have something you would like to add as the discussion has evolved, go ahead and add your own comment. -- tariqabjotu 21:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if we are to discuss unacceptable moves, this certainly includes move actions performed by User:Tariqabjotu, not only those of David Gerard and Morwen. There is extensive evidence that David Gerard acted in accordance with BLP, whereas User:Tariqabjotu was move warring after it had been pointed out by David Gerard that this was a BLP matter, and without suffient evidence presented by User:Tariqabjotu to contradict that assertion. In such a case, moving the article back to the term asserted to violate BLP is unacceptable until it has been established that the term does not violate BLP (which is still not the case). Josh Gorand (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The responsibility is on Gerard to prove or even just explain why it is a BLP matter, not Tariq to disprove it. Gerard didn't do either and only explained why he thought that it violated BLP several days later. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the policy doesn't work that way, it's the other way round. As pointed out by Guettarda, "many people saw this as a BLP issue. Since BLP actions are precautionary moves to prevent potential harm, the burden lies with the person seeking to undo the action." After BLP had been invoked by Gerard, it was unnacceptable and a clear BLP violation that User:Tariqabjotu moved it back without discussion. This needs to be the main focus of this discussion, and the focus of any debate on potential sanctions for unacceptable page moves. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That people said it was a BLP violation later, doesn't change the fact that you cannot type "BLP" and expect people to cower away. Gerard failed to explain why it was a BLP violation and thus Tariq reverted him. BLP isn't some holy policy that can be invoked without explanation. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. If someone invokes BLP, whether with a reason or not, there absolutely must be a discussion about it before those actions are undone. That discussion can come to the conclusion that there is no BLP issue, but the discussion must happen first. The reason for this is that an action in the name of a BLP can be right or wrong and that action can then be either undone or not undone, meaning there are four possible scenarios:
  1. The edit was wrong and it was not undone. After discussion, it is agreed that the action was wrong and it is then undone, but nobody was harmed in the meanwhile. Wikipedia is not harmed, our policies have worked as intended.
  2. The edit was wrong and it was undone. Nobody was harmed, but only because of good luck that the person undoing it was right to undo. Wikipedia dodged a bullet there.
  3. The edit was right and it was not undone. Neither the living person nor Wikipedia were harmed, because our policies did what they were meant to do.
  4. The edit was right and it was undone. The living person suffers harm because of Wikipedia and Wikipedia suffers harm as a result. We got it wrong with Siegenthaller, but we promised we stop that happening again, but we broke our promise.
BLP requires swift action that errs very strongly on the side of caution. Anything else and there is no point in having the policy at all. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, if somebody invokes BLP and fails to explain why it is a violation, it can, should and as history shows, has been ignored. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect again. If someone invokes BLP and fails to explain why it must be determined what the explanation is before any other action is taken. When people have ignored this in the past they have been rightly blocked and/or banned for breaching the policy. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)t[reply]
No, it's not up to everybody else to guess at what the explanation could be before taking action. I'd like some examples of those blocks. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP requires swift action to remove UNSOURCED information. There is no obligation in BLP to rapidly remove SOURCED negative information. Otherwise, I could go to Manning's profile right now, delete everything about the trial, claim "BLP" because I believe information about the trial and her crimes hurts Manning's profile, lock the article, and then force everyone to talk to discuss for week. On Aug 22, one could have moved the article to back to "Bradley Manning", and claim per BLP, we should not title the article as Chelsea if we don't have reliable sources backing it up. BLP is not a trump card, and its invocation does not quash discussion nor eliminate the ability to revert, especially if the application of BLP is itself hotly debated - in which case, reversion to the longer-standing consensus version would be normal.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP does not quash discussion, indeed BLP requires discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no I didn't. Minutes later. Plus edits for most of the rest of the day. It was right there on the page, but people kept repeating "but you didn't explain!" just as if it wasn't. You're welcome. - David Gerard (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see that as an explanation at all. How does that explain why the BLP policy was being violated with the name "Bradley"? 2.102.186.231 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As explained over and over again, referring to a trans* person by their birth name (or indeed any living person by any name) against their express wishes has the potential to cause them serious harm. BLP requires us to follow the most precautionary path with respect to living people. The choice is "Chelsea" which definitely doesn't harm the subject, or "Bradley" which may harm the subject. BLP gives us no option but to go with "Chelsea" until it can be determined whether for certain whether "Bradley" does or does not cause harm. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the most mis-understood aspects of the BLP policy. It doesn't mean we cannot write things that distress the subject, it means we cannot write unsourced material that is harmful or material that is libellous. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but before we write material that is harmful or distressing we need to determine (1) that it is reliably sourced, (2) that it is relevant, (3) that it is not undue, and (4) that it is written in NPOV language that reports what others have said/written and is not being spoken by Wikipedia, and (5) that there is no other way to present the information that is at least equally encyclopaedic which is not harmful or distressing. Until consensus is reached that all that is true, then we must not include it. When someone says "this is a BLP violation" we treat it as such unless and until consensus agrees that it isn't. In this case it is claimed (based on reliable sources, policy and guidlines) that referring to Chelsea Manning as a male named Bradley is factually incorrect and therefore a BLP violation. BLP requires us to take the most cautious path and treat it as a BLP violation until shown to be otherwise. To date this has still not been shown. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting the "harmful or distressing" language standard (#5), Thry? I don't see it in WP:BLP. The essay WP:HARM addresses it and identifies avoiding harm as a standard that was explicitly rejected during creation of the policy, though it does encourage it as a best practice. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have misread that essay. It says "do no harm" has been found to be incompatible with our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view but avoiding harm remains an important consideration within our living persons policy. We do take account of any harm our actions may do to a BLP subject, when doing so doesn't interfere with our mission. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it's an essay. It's not binding - it's a strong recommendation, surely, and it makes sense, but it's not a justification for ignoring the consensus of the community. It's not a justification for emergency action. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether that is a valid understanding of BLP, the point is the link David provided does not say that. All it says is "It's also a WP:BLP"; we can't read his mind. -- tariqabjotu 01:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The protection log for the page clearly states BLP. Before you moved a protected page, the onus was on you to find out why the page was protected. When you click [Move] on a protected page, there's a pink bar that tells you that the page is move-protected, and includes the edit summary from the protection log which, when you moved the page said: Highly visible page: MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP). You chose to ignore the warning and ignore the edit summary. Perhaps David should have given a more detailed explanation, but you moved the page just a minute after he protected the page. You didn't wait for him to explain his rationale, you moved a protected page THAT CITED BLP, and called it "uncontroversial"...despite the fact that the person taking the action was a highly experienced editor and ex-arb. It's hard to figure out how to AGF your actions, and your explanations are only digging a deeper hole. Guettarda (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Guettarda: I moved the page an hour and one minute, not one minute, after David protected the page. -- tariqabjotu 05:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further, as I said above, I don't remember if I noticed that BLP was a reason for the protection. To clarify, what I meant was that I may not have noticed that that was a reason for the move protection. When an article is moved, the protection log doesn't go along with it. (That's why when you look at the protection log at Bradley Manning, you do not see David's protections or any of the protections made over the course of the last week to the Chelsea Manning article). Because of that, the only protection in the log was David's. I seem to recall that, because of that, I thought he had provided both the move protection and the edit protection (when in fact he had just applied the move protection). Now, of course, he made a comment on the talk page suggesting it was just a move protection he added. However, this was such a disconnected discussion on so many noticeboards, in multiple threads, that I may have skimmed past that. Regardless, even if I hadn't overlooked that comment, it seemed like most of the conversation in the various places citing BLP were in relationship to Manning's gender and not so much the name (and who knows what kind of insulting vandalism [BLP violations] people might have tried to put into the article). On BLPN, the assertion that there existed a BLP violation somewhere in the article's previous state was vigorously contested. Throughout, that assertion remained unexplained. Morwen's moving reasons also make no mention of BLP.
Despite all that, yes, I admit that with the letters "BLP" in the protection log, it would have been a good idea to talk to David first. However, given the misunderstanding about the protection reason, given the rapid discussion that was already occurring and in which no explanation existed, given that most of the BLP talk was in regards to pronouns, given I couldn't fathom how one's well-known legal name constituted a BLP violation, my action doesn't seem to warrant this level of condemnation. And, as I mentioned above, after the move, I initially gave David the benefit of the doubt, defending him against accusations of wheel-warring. I also asked him why he felt the Bradley name constituted a BLP violation. But he didn't respond for days. Even now, he still believes "This is a WP:BLP" constitutes an explanation of why a particular action is a BLP violation. (That's why I have rescinded my benefit of the doubt.) Feel free to give David a pass if you want, but it seems clear to me you're overstating my misstep here. -- tariqabjotu 06:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You saw the letters "BLP" in the protection log of a move-protected page and you still moved through the protection!? In what possible universe is that not an abuse of tools!? Your excuse that there was "rapid discussion [...] already occurring" which is even worse as it is blindingly obvious that it was controversial. So not only did you ignore a BLP protection, but you didn't educate yourself about the issues - "I couldn't fathom how one's well-known legal name constituted a BLP violation", if you don't understand the reason why something is a BLP violation you don't go around undoing things without discussion, you read the policies cited and discuss it with other people until you do understand or there is consensus that it does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my mistake. Your action was a serious abuse of the tools, not an egregious abuse of the tools.

You realise, of course, that even if you didn't notice the big pink bar across the page in your rush to right great wrongs, it has been pointed out to you since. And at that point, if not before, what you do is apologise (to the community and to David), promise you'll use the tools responsibly in the future, and drop this shit. Instead, this. In Trinidad we call it "wrong and strong". Guettarda (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who's to say that, all across the world, there aren't folks looking at Manning's article and snickering about "Chelsea"? Whether or not Bradley and/or Chelsea causes any harm and how much is a judgement call -- the truly neutral thing to do would have been to moved the article to "Manning (former intelligence specialist)" or equivalent. NE Ent 01:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What other people think of the name "Chelsea" is irrelevant, because that is the name the subject has explicitly asked to be known as, and per the long standing guidance at MOS:IDENTITY that is the correct name to use. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm deeply concerned about Tariqabjotu's actions. He is the only one who has done anything sanctionable in this. David Gerard was acting in good faith and cited BLP when he moved and protected the article; whether you agree with his rationale or not, no one disputes that. Then Tariqabjotu without a BLP argument moved a protected article after BLP had been cited. This is incredibly wrong. His only argument was that David Gerard's BLP rationale was incomplete, or inadequate, for the move to CM from BM. This is not a decision one admin can make; he should have taken this to the talk page, or to RM. BLP trumps everything. We can argue, in the correct venue, as to whether the correct BLP decision was made or not. But Tariqabjotu chose to violate BLP and move the article after BLP had been cited; he did not say that the subject was being wronged by David Gerard's action, which is the only BLP counter argument he could have made, and indeed, it is hard to see how anyone could be harmed by being referred to as the name they themself have stated they wish to be referred to as. No, Tariqabjotu's action was because he didn't agree with the move, which places his action squarely as Moving against a cited BLP rationale through a move protection because of personal view, and that's two wrongs right there. Why is anyone speaking of sanctioning David Gerard? He acted in good faith and cited BLP. Nothing to see there. Tariqabjotu, OTH, has erred twice, and then doubled down by saying there should be sanctions against the person who was enforcing BLP. This is absurd, so sorry. I would support sanctions against Tariqabjotu, and at the very least a strong caution to not undo BLP actions through protection. If I see acknowledgement that Tariqabjotu recognizes his error, and pledges to use more caution with BLPs in the future, I think we can safely move on. Otherwise, I have to agree that sanctions may be in order. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 12:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it isn't clear, I agree wholeheartedly with Thryduulf's comments here.KillerChihuahua
  • Absolutely wrong. "BLP" is not a magic word an editor can invoke to get their way. WMF office is the only "trump card" here. After than it's pillars and BLP is subject to consensus like everything else. I don't see anything wrong in DG's initial action -- we expect and appreciate our admins to take rapid action when necessary, using their best judgement. However, that judgement is subject to review by the community, including other admins, so I don't see anything wrong with Tariqabjotu's reversal either, nor with protecting it in the "wrong" state pending the requested move close and (for now) reversion to Bradley Manning. NE Ent 13:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • BLP is a magic word, though. It means no editor can undo the action without consensus to undo it. It is delibertely this way to avoid harming the subject while we work out whether something is harmful or not. One admin's dislike of the action does not equal consensus, doubly so when that admin has not educated themselves about the reason BLP was invoked. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean that at all. You're just making that up. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you just trolling here? Perhaps you'd better reconsider that accusation. KillerChihuahua 14:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reconsider it if he points to any place on Wikipedia where he got that from. Otherwise he just made it up. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my response below, with content from BLP as well as ArbCom. KillerChihuahua 15:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You see nothing wrong with Tariqabjotu abusing his tools, moving a BLP move protected article? I have no words. KillerChihuahua 14:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because the BLP reason is baseless? 2.102.186.231 (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually completely irrelevant. BLP was cited; the actions cannot be undone without consensus, full stop. KillerChihuahua 14:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just read WP:BLP again. I don't see that statement or its equivalent. NE Ent 14:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)I don't see tool abuse. Here's what the committee has stated: "Despite the core values underlying the BLP policy, disagreements frequently arise regarding how the policy applies in specific instances. Some such disagreements arise from clear violations of the policy that must be corrected immediately, but others arise from good-faith editorial disagreements concerning the reliability of sources, the desirability of addressing a particular topic and with what weight, ... . Disputes concerning alleged BLP violations are also subject to Wikipedia's established methods of dispute resolution, culminating in mediation and where other dispute-resolution methods are insufficient, arbitration before this Committee." NE Ent 14:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You see no abuse? then you can point us to where Tariq utilized "Wikipedia's established methods of dispute resolution" and obtained consensus before moving a BLP move protected article? Because my understanding is that no such discussion was initiated by him prior to his moving the article, and I think it is obvious no community consensus or agreement from the protecting admin was obtained in that hour. KillerChihuahua 14:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you need to point to where David utilised Wikipedia's established methods of dispute resolution. BRD applies to BLP and saying otherwise is baseless. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP bypasses DR. From the intro of the BLP policy: "contentious material... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." While not spelled out in agonizing detail, so as to spoon feed editors, it has always been understood that BLP actions can be taken without consensus ("without waiting for discussion") and reverting those actions, whatever they are (again, not every single freaking tiny example is spelled out) is not to be undertaken without discussion leading to consensus - some form of DR, IOW. See lower in the page, the Note for administrators, which links to WP:BLPBAN, which reads in part "1) Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance.". Note the "letter and spirit". David acted completely appropriately. KillerChihuahua 15:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I bring you back to David's consistent failure for several days to explain how it violates BLP. He used BLP at a magic card without explanation and was consequently reverted by Tariq. The onus is on those invoking BLP to explain it, not on others to guess or wait an inordinate amount of time for an answer. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material" supports Tariq. David protected the page at the recently move "Chelsea" (ie adding) and failed to provide any evidence on why it violated BLP. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that I did not offer an explanation is, of course, false, and has been noted as false on this very page already. I'm a bit sick of people lying about my actions, over and over, no matter how often responded to, so please don't perpetuate something you've heard someone else say. Check my edit history on the article talk page for the 24 hours after the move, see the explanations, see the claims "that isn't an explanation", see why Morwen eventually wrote a wall of text which I cosigned - David Gerard (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a diff then. When you previously responded here ([59]) with a diff of your explanation, I responded that it wasn't an explanation at all. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Thryydulf answered you in short words as to why it was. You're attempting to conflate "you didn't explain it at all" into "you didn't explain it in a way that convinced me personally of the rightness of your actions" - these are in fact different, and continuing to claim the second is the first is a confusion on your part which is not possible for someone else to remedy - David Gerard (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thryydulf explained why he though it violated BLP. From the diff you gave, how does "It's also a WP:BLP" explain why it was a BLP violation? 2.102.186.231 (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree ith KillerChihuahua. For the record, there was discussion some time after the wheel warring, in which User:tariqabjotu used words like "arrogance", "disgusting", "manipulation" and "collusion" in regard to David (eg. [60] and [61]). Josh Gorand (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have in the past defended Tariqabjotu when others were trying to out him. I'm afraid its not going to happen again if behavior such as the above continues. Pass a Method talk 16:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unaware of any outing attempts, and am sorry to hear there have been any. Outing is always wrong; while Tariqabjotu's actions here have been inappropriate, and he is failing to recognize that in any way, we should still oppose outing attempts. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 16:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stood with Tariq on other issues - most recently when he was defending an editor who was being victimised by several other admins. Tariq, I think you should reconsider carefully, with the benefit of hindsight and the advice of your peers, whether moving an article through protection when you knew the protecting admin had BLP concerns was a responsible way to behave. And you should reflect on the language you have used and claims you have made regarding users with whom you are in an editorial dispute. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My comment with respect to User:David Gerard is equally applicable here. I believe that all administrators involved acted in good faith, according to reasonable interpretations of ambiguous policies, and that rather than proposing sanctions, we should be clarifying our policies. bd2412 T 01:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with this. I believe Morwen, Cls, David Gerard and tariqabjotu all acted in good faith. I think that repeated calls for sanctions against any of them are uncalled-for, and some users are starting to violate BATTLEGROUND on that basis alone. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

Angle[edit]

I have been watching all the above threads for several days now and i see the majority of them as being unconstructive. Most fail to see the point which is that this disagreement largely stems from an inconsistency in our policies. Many editors have noted this but some have unfortunately overlooked it. nstead of arguing over which sources are ore academic or reliable, or which wikipedia policy trumps the other, it woud be much more constructive of we cvlarified existing policies and guidelines so descrepancies such as the one between MOS;IDENTITY and WP;COMMONNAME does not get repeated again. Therefore i propose that all new commenters on this thread focus their angle on this problem towards ongoing discussions in Wikipedia talk:Consensus and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. That way we can set a precedent instead of wasting time. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 19:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a lot of talk on the generic issue too. There is more heat than light at the moment, but getting these clarified will hopefully be one positive outcome of this whole mess. Hobit (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your point, but ultimately making rules entirely consistent is something that even real-world legal systems don't manage.
  • I've suggested that, if nothing else, this kerfuffle demonstrates the need for an emergency BLP disputes resolution procedure, so that individual admins don't get it in the neck for making good-faith judgement calls. Morwen (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a reasonable possibility. At the very least, editors with a personal agenda (such as yourself) should not be making such decisions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're specifically claiming a WP:COI, you'll need to substantiate the claim - David Gerard (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comments are all over the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's an evasion, not an answer. You've just claimed Morwen has a personal agenda. Please substantiate your claim. Are you specifically claiming a WP:COI, or what? - David Gerard (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • In archive 4 he issued a blanket "transphobia" label and talked about "what should have been a routine move", which demonstrates bias or incompetence or both. And your repeated insistence on claiming "BLP" and "MOS" violations, despite those arguments having been demolished by other editors, demonstrates either bias or incompetence, or both. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Morwen, "he"? That's a deliberate misgendering after you were called out on your previous one - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that hard to simply forget these things. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why bother bringing up specifics when you can just play "I know you are but what am I?" I'd also like to question where exactly the line between "advocacy" and "expertise" exists in your mind? IMHO, just because you are familiar with an issue and try to use that expertise to shed light on an angle that may not be represented (for, idk, WP:NPOV reasons?) doesn't make you an advocate. QuackCD (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (edited to add my sig, sign in you dork!)[reply]
  • Which of the two (or more) titles to use is one issue, and one I'm undecided on. There may well be inconsistencies in the policies on that front, but the issue currently being discussed is the wheel warring and reversions without consensus. That is pretty unambiguous - it was a clear violation of the wheel warring rule and ultimately hurt the credibility of the encyclopedia and may have hurt the chances of getting "Chelsea Manning" to stick, since the move has clearly failed to achieve any sort of consensus partly because of the lack of consultation over such a contentious change.StuartH (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaving your other claims for a moment, I'd love a citation on it ultimately hurting the credibility of the encyclopedia - what press I've seen on the subject has been pretty much entirely positive - David Gerard (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's my opinion, but I fear it may a more common opinion if/when the page gets moved back as the move request seems to lean towards. I also note that much of the praise was for beating the very sources we're supposed to rely on as an encyclopedia. If you continue to insist you did nothing wrong and sanctions aren't applied, I would find it harder to take proper sourcing and consensus-building seriously here. StuartH (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some sources have congratulated wikipedia on being out front of the news. That's probably what Gerard is talking about, and that's exactly why it shouldn't have been done. Wikipedia is not supposed to be making news. It's a gross violation of wikipedia rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • How are we supposed to know if our actions make the news or not? And what rule has been grossly violated. Remember WP:CRYSTAL, we cant predict what our actions here will result in in the wider world. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you go by valid sourcing, then those other issues don't come up. This name change was done against valid sourcing, and the admins who did that should have known better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, no, it wasn't. The move was per MOS:IDENTITY and declaration, but the UK sources had already moved - the Slate piece was actually wrong - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:IDHT at its finest. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • (ec) To the contrary, we had a whole stack of reliable sources stating that Bradley now wanted to be called Chelsea, if we hadnt then of course the move would not have happened but we did and still do have those sources from the 22nd. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Reporting that Manning "wants to be called Chelsea" is valid. Renaming the article "Chelsea" violates wikipedia rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No, according to IDENTITY it was the right thing to do, and calling the article Bradley a BLP vio was again an excellent call which accords with wikipedia rules, otherwise I for one wouldnt be defending the move. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • We are getting back onto the discussion of the move again, this is about what the two admin did and not about the title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • This is where I disagree. Renaming the article "Chelsea" isn't necessarily a violation of the rules, it's open to discussion and there are compelling arguments for both sides (I'm leaning towards Chelsea now if anything). The initial move appears to have been a bold and in good faith, if perhaps a little premature. When it was moved back due to consensus not yet being reached, the right move would have been to put the move to a vote. What was done was the wrong move for most of the reasons outlined above, significantly for abusing admin responsibilities to wheel war and lock the page to a contested title. None of the exemptions to wheel warring apply (not BLP because it's neither unsourced nor a re-deletion of an unsourced edit). StuartH (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • BLP covers every single thing on the site. Everything. The arbcom, although it doesn't operate on precedent, has been startlingly consistent on this point. It would be truly remarkable for it not to cover the biggest words at the top of every article page, and many hold this to be the case - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) It does cover everything, but BLP is primarily a sourcing standard rather than a respect standard. I think of it in much the same way I think of WP:MEDRS - it's a stricter approach given potential real world complications. While I think we should make reasonable efforts to protect the subjects of our biographies, I'm very concerned that BLP remain a real standard with definite limits, not a bludgeoning tool to excuse bad behavior. There is nothing in WP:BLP as it's written that specifically supports the move that was made. It's a reasonable construction and within the spirit of the policy, but emergency applications should be unambiguous and easily defended on challenge. Cheapening BLP by reducing it to an WP:IDONTLIKEIT or I'm going to wave the rules around to look intimidating eviscerates the value of the standard, and what was done damages the integrity of BLP as an inviolable standard into just another argument to kick around. BLP is an extension of WP:V and WP:NPOV, nothing less, nothing more. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • BLP like all WP policies of any sort anywhere require interpretation; even the minimal requires from the WMF are not self-interpreting. Interpretation requires knowledge of the context, awareness of relevant factors--including other policies, recognition of the applicable issues, understanding of the actual facts of the situation, the use of judgment, and freedom from bias and self-justification. Using a claim of BLP to advance one's opinion about what the world should be, or what WP should be, is dishonest. If this discussion has shown anything, it has shown that what is obvious to one person is not obvious to another, and nobody can reliably trust their own person judgement in this or in anything. Sometimes emergency action needs to be taken and one must in practice trust one's own judgment, but the easiest way of justifying arbitrary action and autocracy in the RW--and in WP--is to call things an emergency. The use of BLP as an absolute justification of editing to support a position is contrary to the spirit of a collective project. An issue does not become BLP because someone says it is, and the general statements of BLP do not justify all editing done under that name. When policies conflict, BLP (and even more so what one personally considers BLP) does not necessarily trump everything, though some parts of it may take precedence under some situations.
Similar limitations are true of the principles of full protection and wheel-warring. BLP considerations at least involve the outside world and have some reference to external standards. Protection and the limits on admin action are conventions within WP, not inviolable truths of ethical behavior. They are very crude tools, because each of them can lead to a very strong second-mover advantage, which a person sufficiently deft here can manipulate. For an article under full protection, one still has to determine when there is clear consensus for an edit, and there is no rule here for determining clear consensus on anything except when only one of the opponents is left standing. The draconic interpretation of the rules against wheel-warring is sometimes essential, at least for a short period, but can otherwise lead to unfair results from any perspective except that of pursuing personal grievances. There is similarly no sharp cut-off for what is a technical edit: there are some situations where the application of MOS to a date is of actual contention, but it will not usually be.
The extent to which one can engage in off-WP discussion about WP, or even to influence WP is also undetermined. There is no general agreement on what is right, and there is also no agreement on the separate issue of what will be enforced.
As applies to the situation here, a few things seem clear to me at this point, though it follows from everything I said above that it may be only me to which they appear clear: The results shows it was incorrect judgment to make the move immediately on such a visible article, but to defend it or reject either title on grounds of BLP seems to be totally inapplicable, and those saying so on either side are in my opinion blinded by their own views about what ought to be the result. What an article is titled may involve BLP issues, as if one applies a distinguishing qualifier; choice of which name to use for a person is in some sense an issue involving living persons, but deferring to their current opinion may or may not be the reasonable solution. We do not automatically follow a person's wishes in an article about them, any more than we automatically do what is asserted to be done elsewhere. I do not personally assume good faith in everyone who has commented above, but I know what I think best to do about the actual situation as far as all individuals here on WP is concerned, which is to have a general amnesty. If that means giving amnesty to some obvious bigots, the intrinsic nature of an amnesty always has such a result: it a means for peace, not necessarily justice. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

If there are any more policy and guideline threads which are undergoing discussion for amending please list them below. Thanks Pass a Method talk 20:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, i will also highly welcome the opning of new threads. The fact is that both sides of this debate have valid points. I respect editors on both side of this issue. Lets also ention what we have in common rather than what we differ in. We have in common that we joined wikipedia in order to amplify the amount of information at our fingertips. Our time could be spent in much better ways. There are several experienced editors here and if we work together we can set a precedent here by amending our policies. Pass a Method talk 22:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOSIDENTITY is currently in wide dispute that people should check out. I feel that the BLP policy is clear and doesn't need to be changed, rather a lot of people need to be corrected regarding the policy. The closing admins of the Manning move discussion will make clear why BLP was/wasn't violated with "Bradley" as will ARBCOM, if they're consulted. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
people are starting up discussions on almost every policy involved here on it's talk pages, this is just nuts we should just centralize the chat someplace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of discussions about this issue:

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April Arcus off-wiki canvassing[edit]

I just came across this tweet, which states "Hey, if you have a Wikipedia account and aren’t an asshole, OPPOSE moving Chelsea Manning back to her #SlaveName". This is a clear violation of canvassing policy - it is off-wiki, and most importantly, it is decidedly not neutral. I don't know what should be done here, except perhaps a trout, but would welcome others thoughts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the discussion's closed at this point, and I doubt random people summoned by a canvasser are going to introduce new and persuasive arguments. That said, if the arguments are actually persuasive, more power to 'em. It's not a vote and even if it were a vote, from what I've heard the polls have closed. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was made on 23 August though. Judging by the 5 re-tweets, I doubt it affected the vote count much. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I don't think it made a big influence on the discussion, my point was more, what should we do? I think such off-wiki canvassing, by anyone on any side of an issue, to be wrong, and we should strongly discourage it and trout editors who engage in it. If you find other examples of off-wiki canvassing please add them here as well. It's possible some of Morwen's fall under this, but I'm not sure if she ever said "Go to this thread and !vote this way". --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa; I clearly lost my temper there. --April Arcus (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier I compiled some statistics on the users posting to the RM survey and found that there was a segment of otherwise inactive editors on both sides of the argument. In the end this had little effect on the outcome. I believe that the recommended consequence for an isolated incident of inappropriate canvassing is a warning on either the user's talk page or on AN/I, both of which have been done. April, please don't do that again. You might also want to consider whether or not you are able to contribute to LGBT topics dispassionately. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background information[edit]

No discussion in this section, please, but feel free to edit the timeline or add information. I've included links to policies that have been mentioned in the debate, feel free to add links to policies but do not add interpretations of those policies. Inclusion criteria at this point are all moves and all page protects. Lines marked with an asterisk are actions of admins whose conduct has been questioned on this page.

August 22nd: ---WP:BRD


1222 - Cls14 moves the page back to B


1244 - Cls14 accepts Morwen's move


---WP:IDENTITY
---WP:BLP


---WP:RM


1441 - Mark Arsten full protects page


1513 - Mark changes page protection
1517 - Mark changes page protection
1731 - IFreedom1212 "moves" page to B by editing


1733 - JasonJack "moves" the page again
1734 - Timrollpickering reverts the "move"
1801 - Amatulic full protects page

August 25th:
1838 - Tim reapplies semi-protect

August 31st:
0347 - BD2412 moves to B

Feel free to add any other edits that appear important. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first bit is not BRD - Cls14's move was a self-admitted mistake (he wasn't aware of the new facts) and gave Morwen explicit permission to revert. So that's just "B". Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to build a full history of the case here, so if you have information to add, please add a diff so that readers can confirm what you're saying is true and does not lack important context. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because she was only given permission after she reverted him. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's an actual arbitration case now up, I'll be ignoring this section. I suggest it be regarded as just 71.231.186.92's personal working space for the arbitration - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to copy this or use it, go for it, I was just trying to make sure I understood. I won't be participating in the arbitration. I need to go do more wikipenance for letting myself get involved. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors changing things linking to Bradley Manning[edit]

After the main article's move back to Bradley Manning I have noticed that some editors are changing things that link to the article based on their prefrence. This not only is WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:POINT but also a sneaky way to skirt around the outcome of the move discussion. Pages involved:

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage article was never located at any other name since its creation, and moving it to a new title without consensus is WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:POINT. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is uniformity WP:DISRUPTIVE? A few years back, when People's Republic of China was moved to China (and it was a huge, controversial and heated discussion similar to this one), Republic of China was later moved to Taiwan as well, one of the many reasons being uniformity. Later, articles such as Environment of the People's Republic of China and Capital punishment in the People's Republic of China were moved to names such as Environment of China and Capital punishment in China. Would you consider these moves disruptive editing? Uniformity is a valid excuse; a messy Wikipedia puts many editors here into OCD overload. Please don't brush legitimate concerns off as "disruptive editing", as contributors we are encouraged to be assuming good faith. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not at all clear that the two articles should be at the same name, and the fact that the real world is messier than some people would like is not a valid reason to insist on consistency for consistency's sake.
Perhaps you should remind Knowledgekid87 to assume good faith also, given that he opened with the accusations of "disruptive editing." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to assume good faith given that after the page was moved back to Bradley the others linking to it did not follow suit as what is usually done, it is confusing for some one to click on a link for Chelsea manning and goto Bradley Manning's article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of the edits made in the last six hours to the two pages you link to, Template:WikiLeaks and Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage, the only ones that seem unhelpful were this edit re-instating a name rejected by pretty much all sides on Talk:Bradley Manning/Talk:Chelsea Manning, and possibly this edit originally instating it. If someone is actually changing articles which link to Bradley Manning so that they link to Chelsea Manning, which is what I assumed from reading your post until I checked the diffs, then yes, that would seem like a case of Failure or refusal to "get the point". -sche (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose close as case is now at arbcom[edit]

Per section title. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchiveManning&oldid=1151017903"