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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

Scope, evidence

What's the scope of the case and what evidence, if any, would the committee like aggregated? NE Ent 22:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The case is fairly broad in scope; we're willing to review evidence regarding any aspect of the naming dispute in question. Having said that, I'm particularly interested the following:

1. Evidence of derogatory statements regarding transgender individuals made by participants in the dispute.
2. Evidence of accusations of transphobia, whether appropriate or otherwise, made by participants in the dispute.
3. Evidence that BLP concerns raised during the dispute were (or were not) appropriately addressed.

Kirill ^[talk] 23:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what Kirill has listed, personally, I'd also like to see evidence of possible misuses of admin tools, if any. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Kirill, please can you clarify point #1?

By "derogatory statements regarding transgender individuals", do you mean statements regarding identifiable individuals, or those referring to transgender people in general? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Both. Kirill ^[talk] 05:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Timing

The next move discussion for Bradley -> Chelsea is currently scheduled to start on Sep 30. There have been Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request#Propose_move_for_October_3.2C_2013 suggestions made to wait until October 3 until this arbcom case closes, since the findings will likely influence the discussion and there may be sanctions applied to user behavior during the discussion - however those hoping for Chelsea have opposed this as a delaying tactic, and it may be hard to resist starting the move on Sep 30. That said, would it be possible for Arbcom to rule by Sep 29 instead of October 3? The time pressure is extreme right now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note that October 3 is merely the date by which the proposed decision is due to be posted; after that, there's really no telling how long it'll take to actually vote on it and close the case... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: As Salvio points out, the October 3 date is for the posting of the decision rather than the closing of the case. Having said that, my intent is to have a proposed decision ready for voting no later than the end of the workshop phase on September 26; this will allow editors to, at a minimum, evaluate the potential remedies in the case before making a decision on whether to proceed with a discussion on September 30. Kirill ^[talk] 17:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok; I'm not familiar with how arbcom works. Would you mind sharing your general views on whether the next move request should wait until the finalization of the arbcom ruling, no matter what that is or when it happens, before doing another (possibly contentious) move discussion? The discussion is here Wikipedia:VPPR#Delaying_another_.22Manning.22_rename_request_to_later_than_September_30.3F. Thanks, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Obi-Wan, I'm not an Arb, and I'm not really sure how useful it is to be conducting a move discussion a month ahead of time, but I sort of doubt that the decision will have anything that would really tip a move request one way or the other. Some editors may be sanctioned, and some administrators may get admonished, but ArbCom doesn't make policy, and I think even trying to "clarify" policy in this case will seem very much like creating it out of whole cloth. The 'pedia wouldn't be in this mess if the interaction between COMMONNAME, MOS:IDENTITY, and BLP was clear. I'm sure the committee will step in if the move discussion gets rowdy, but otherwise, I think it'd probably be for the best if the community continues making the effort to rectify our confusing policies with respect to trans individuals. Archaeo (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Again, I don't follow arbcom, there's enough drama on the regular boards, so I don't really know what they do/don't rule on, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Word limit for evidence presented by non-parties

I think I've exceeded it again. Sorry about that. =/

Is there some way I can check to see how many words I've used before or after posting? If I did in fact exceed the limit, I'll look for ways to condense it so as to keep things running smoothly for ArbCom. Otherwise, I'll check to see if I can be granted another exception. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Question re. my evidence

Is it perhaps best if I remove it entirely and abstain from further additions to this page? It seems there is a silent consensus that my interpretation of the events was misrepresented and poorly researched. Yes, I made a few mistakes in my submissions, and I've corrected them. I tried to present the conflict as best I can, but I could have done a better job. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Too late, I think. But if you want, the most helpful thing I can think of would be a simple log of all of the moves and admin actions on the article, whatever their rationale, from start to finish. Copy the logs verbatim and without commentary, and don't skip any (even if they are irrelevant to the proceedings, keep'em for completeness' sake). I doubt anyone would have reason to criticize you for such a list. Analyze after, if you need to - or, if you really want to back away, leave that to others. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 05:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That's more or less what I had attempted, but I expanded on them. Maybe my representation of the evidence is not as big of a deal as I'd thought it was; I only missed a few minor details here and there. For the most part, I was correct in my interpretation of the events. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is NorthBySouthBaranof providing evidence of?

Regarding "Evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof", I've read through this a few times but fail to see why I (a non-party to this case, fyi) have my own subsection, or really, what this entry is for at all. This editor alleges "personal dislike, contempt or ignorance of transgenderism" in others; the 3rd term is a blatant insult that should be struck IMO, but the other 2 are...what? People who have opinions on a social/cultural matter that do not jibe with his own?

I'm sure there's many editors in many topic areas who have a "personal dislike or contempt" for something within. I do not recognize Israel's claim to Jerusalem as an undivided capital, an opinion I've expressed no doubt several times in discussions over the years here. But unless I were to act on that to the detriment of the project (attack editors with opposing pov, misrepresent sources to get my opinion advanced, edit-warred, etc...), then simply holding an opinion...even an unpopular or minority one...should not be an actionable offense in this project.

That, in essence, is the aim of NorthBySouthBaranof's submission. Withing the filing there are some bad apples, e.g. I find this remark to be appalling and afoul of WP:DISRUPT, but you can't slap that alongside statements like The subject is still male in every meaningful sense. That's textbook guilt-by-association. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The best interpretation I can think of for the assertion that Manning "is still male in every meaningful sense" is a profound ignorance of transgenderism. If the editor making that comment understood how offensive a statement like that is to transgendered people amongst others then s/he was being disruptive and uncivil. You, Tarc, have deliberately used male pronouns during the discussions at Manning's talk page and implied that Manning does not deserve the protection of BLP as a "convicted spy" (if I recall the phrase you used correctly). Frankly, my view is that you have been provocative and offensive and have earned being mentioned as one of those whose behaviour has been below acceptable standards. Others are much more deserving of sanctions, I readily admit, and I doubt you will get any sanction... but I do think you should re-evaluate yourself and recognise that continuing to use masculine pronouns for Manning in talk space is offensive to some of your fellow editors. EdChem (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil edits harm the reputation of Wikipedia and in turn make it harder to get financial support from objective donors. IMO,comments should be tempered.Patroit22 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not "deliberately" used any word or words to provoke, I have used the pronoun I am most comfortable with to refer to a person who is IMO male, I'm sorry if you disagree with that. I do not believe I have ever said any person does not "deserve" BLP protection, so if you can point out what words of mine you are referring to I can see what you're talking about. As for the rest, it is just an echo of what I said in the initial post here; voicing an alternative opinion about transgender people is not in any way, shape, or form "provocative and offensive". Tarc (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Deliberate means done with intention, and you have clearly intentionally chosen to use masculine pronouns, as your own post here confirms. You have commented repeatedly on the talk page and can't possibly be unaware that using masculine pronouns is seen as offensivce within the transgender community, so I fail to see how your actions don't fit the term "provocative". As for the BLP comment, I called you on it at the time and you complained about my pinging you; apparently it "wasn't worth [your time"]. I pointed out BLP applies to all living people, you declined to recognise that your post had implied otherwise, simply stating you hadn't said otherwise; unfortunately, I do not see a credible alternative explanation for your comment in a thread on recognising gender transitions of transgender people that "Lost in the last week are facts of being a convicted criminal, about to serve 35 years at a very harsh military prison for violating the Espionage Act. This person's actions endangered the lives of American servicemen and women as well as our allies and their soldiers, second only to Snowden's alleged (we have to be technical since he hasn't been tried and convicted) transgressions. Bradley Manning is a spy, folks; convicted spies aren't a routine media event." As I read it, the only reason for talking about Manning's conviction and raising endangering American service personnel is to imply that her gender transition is not worth recognising or respecting - because BLP applies to those convicted of offenses under both civil and military justice systems, and so your obesrvations are utterly irrelevant to handling gender transitions. I previously noted that refusing to recognise Chelsea as a trans woman is a BLP issue, and while I agree that alternative opinions is fine and not necessarily provocative or offensive, looking at other comments from you I think the terms fit your comments well. EdChem (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the thing Tarc - your expression of your opinion is a denial of the lived experience of trans people. Sure, you have a right to express your opinion, but your expression of that opinion impinges on the ability of trans people to participate in the project. If someone said that regardless of what he had to say Muhammad Ali was still really Cassius Clay, that he Christian and couldn't really be Muslim, that the whole "slave name" concept had no validity...it would be provocative and offensive.

Trans people experience regular denial of their identity. That denial manifests in rejection from their family and peers. It manifests in discrimination and violence. And it manifests in a remarkably high suicide rate. So yeah, tolerating these "expressions of opinion" turn Wikipedia into a hostile work environment for productive contributors (and potential contributors). Freedom of expression by Wikipedia editors is a good thing, but it has always been something secondary, something that's fine as long as it does not interfere with our goal of building an encyclopaedia. Guettarda (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's an incomplete comparison. The way I see it is as follows:

In Islam, to convert all you have to do is say a short statement called the shahada in the presence of two witnesses. If Muhammad Ali had declared that he was Muslim, but it was somehow known that he had never made that statement, one would be an odd position. One might argue that it's sufficient that he calls himself a Muslim. However, one might instead argue that it's not sufficient that he calls a Muslim, as he'd have to take his shahada first. While I'd be inclined to side with the former position, I'd hardly say the latter position would be considered offensive, provocative, or discrimination, as it's based on common understandings of what it takes for an identity to be manifest. Now, you may argue that those understandings are actually misunderstandings, but that strikes me as just repeating the obvious -- that you disagree with someone else's position. -- tariqabjotu 23:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, you will note above that an arbitrator specifically asked for evidence of derogatory statements made about transgender individuals. Whether you want to believe it or not, in my opinion (which is shared by many others), calling a trans-woman "still male in any meaningful sense" is incredibly insensitive and derogatory. It denies the reality of her identity while belittling her struggle. So there it is. You don't get to unilaterally declare that what you said isn't derogatory because you say so. The arbitrators will decide what is what. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Expressing one's opinion of how the Wikipedia should cover (remember, this isn't actually about personal opinions) a transgender person who simply declares "I am" is not derogatory. That is the heart of the matter here. Just because you are personally offended by it doesn't really count for much of anything. So again, what we have here is an evidence filing that lumps the truly defamatory (as I liked to initially) in with the simple expression of one side of a debate. Speech cannot be criminalized. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, Tarc, you are declaring that you have the unilateral right to decide for everyone else what is or is not "derogatory." You have no such right.

Your opinion of my evidence is noted. If you wish to enter evidence in rebuttal, I'm sure you are free to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No I have not declared that I have any such right; what is derogatory to you is neither mine nor anyone else's business. The question is whether your offense is important enough to the Wikipedia project. A great many people are offended by a great many things in life, large and small. There's a line between where your offense ends and my right to argue a point concerning an editing matter begins, and as of this moment WP:BEINGOFFENDED is not a blue link that points to policy. That's all your evidence is; "I am offended". IMO the entire thing should be pared down to the truly vulgar statements made by a handful of editors, with the rest excised as non-actionable opinion. Tarc (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

@Tarc: Your opinion has been duly noted. NorthBySouthBaranof is presenting evidence in response to my request for such; whether this evidence evinces an actionable violation of policy is something that will be considered as the case progresses. Kirill ^[talk] 21:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

My intent with this evidence is to establish that the debate over the article name was clouded by a poisonous atmosphere of personal, social and political hostility toward transgender people and Manning in particular, and that that atmosphere prevented the community from having a dispassionate consideration of the article name based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whether or not any particular editor is sanctioned is not of interest to me. The broader debate is what matters.

Tarc, you got a subheading first because you were the first editor for whom I compiled a list of multiple such comments. It's likely that when I have finished compiling evidence, you will not be the only editor with a subheading. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• If NBSB hadn't compiled the list, I would have. My statement in the case proposal was that it is necessary for WP to recognize that hateful and bigoted remarks fall under our policy barring hostile personal attacks even if the remarks are not directed at specific editors, and it would be hard to deny that the sort of remarks NBSB has presented here have created a supremely hostile editing environment for trans editors. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• I think the whole idea is crazy, where do we stop? Are we going to go after editors who say things that advocate eating animals next? As for the remarks what some editors may see as offensive could be perfectly in context with the discussion, this is a bad idea weeding out editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks dealt with please

I urge the committee to take a stand on the ad hominem attacks which are often made in debates or cases like this one. I recommend that any editor who alleges homophobia, transgenderphobia, or any other kind of hate or prejudice against another editor without backing that claim up with clear evidence, as in an actual diff that says something like "I think transgender people are scum", should be banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. We have to make sure that editors are not given a pass on this kind of dishonest nonsense. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Good way to get rid of people from one side if they make even the slightest exaggeration in the heat of the moment. Let's not give one side a "get your enemies permanently banned" tool, shall we?

Disproportionate, and seeks to redefine terms to remove any subtleties or interpretation. Terrible idea. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, the approach advocated here by Cla68 was also evident at ANI.

As the evidence page shows, the discussions included many blatantly transphobic statements. Yet some editors are stiil seeking sanctions on those who denounced the prejudice, rather than on those uttering it.

Whatever Cla68's intentions, the effect of any such proposal would be to create a bully's charter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Word. And our society normalizes cissexism/transphobia, so that people don't always notice it, or recognize it, or recognize when they're spreading it, unless they or their loved ones are hurt by it. Someone has to point cissexism/transphobia out, but anyone who points this out would risk a permanent ban, especially if they point out the more subtle or more socially-accepted forms of cissexism/transphobia. Ananiujitha (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If someone was to say that African-Americans are "mud people," they would rightfully be criticized as racist - that statement denies the humanity of African-Americans, treating them as something less than human. It is inherently hostile and derogatory. Claiming that a male-to-female transgendered person "is really a man in every meaningful way" is equally hostile - it denies the experience and the reality of that transgendered person, treating them as something less than human. It is inherently hostile and derogatory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Er, speaking as a person of mixed-raced parentage, your analogy is utterly asinine. Negroes --> "mud people" is a leap from a human to a...I don't even know what you're trying to say by "mud people", really...savage? Tar baby ? Transgender is just male to female, still quite human in both cases. It is not "less than human" to decline to buy into the whole gender-flipping thing. Your frantic hyperbole is quite frankly becoming a net negative to this entire affair. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, apples and oranges here North. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why am I not in the least surprised that you disagree with my analogy, Tarc? I'll take being called "a net negative" by you as a badge of honor. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, nobody is asking you "buy into the whole gender-flipping thing", anymore than people are asking you to buy into the god-thing or the heterosexual-thing or the politics thing. What many of us are asking, though, is that editors should set aside their own personal judgements and show some respect to other human beings by avoiding the sort of sneering terminology you have used here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not used sneering terminology, I have explained the matter in very simple and straightforward terms. If you can point to a time orplace in this where I have violated WP:NPA then by all means do so. I've already adequately shown why Baranof's evidence filing is a load of bunk, as it contains no such accusation or evidence thereof. My opposition in all of this has always been based on personal morals and in Wikipedia policy, as I have explained many times. Respect ends where the integrity of encyclopedia-building begins, just as we had to draw the line against the Muhammadians who demanded the removal of images from the Wikipedia. You are the one creating a toxic atmosphere here, where the slightest questioning of the article move was met with screaming charges of prejudice. Tarc (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Asinine" is a good start. Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I attacked the argument, not the arguer; that's kinda the proper way to go, y'know, and it isn't your place to question my word choice. I and many others who questioned the article move to "Chelsea Manning" have been subject to all sorts of ad hominem attacks over the last few weeks. I have not and will not respond in kind. Tarc (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Considering you've gone down another rung on the ladder before by attacking arguments as "retarded", I'm not too keen on hearing your definition of a personal attack. Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, thanks for clarifying things. A little more clarification would help.

You say that your position has been based on "personal morals and in Wikipedia policy". Please remind me which part of Wikipedia's policies allows you to use editorial discussions as a vehicle for promoting your "personal morals"?

And while you're at it, please explain how this differs from the "advocacy" which you have alleged motivates those you disagree with? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this works as a two way street, editors can just as easily blame others for attacking them for doing things that they are innocent for. That being said I think this should be closed as they cancel one another out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Prior related case

All participants in this case, including parties, should be aware that the Arbitration Committee decided a case involving BLP, transgender and human sexuality earlier this year: Sexology. Risker (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking over that case but not really seeing the relevance, as that involved a long-running, disruptive feud between two editors and much off-wiki advocacy. What we have here is a large disagreement, yes, but with a twist of one side (Team Chelsea) denying that Team Bradley (and Team Citing-Policy, Team Chelsea-Someday-But-Not-So-Hasty, and others) even have the right to exist, as said existence is inherently human-rights-violating. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

See, here's the crux of why your claims here are totally wrong, Tarc.

• "Chelsea Manning is not yet the name in most common use among reliable sources, therefore we should follow WP:COMMONNAME" is not offensive, derogatory or hostile toward the article subject. I disagree with it, but it is a valid argument that cites policy. You will notice that nowhere in my evidence do I list any such statement.
• "Chelsea Manning isn't really a woman unless she gets sex change surgery" is not necessarily intentionally offensive, but it does indicate a failure to understand or accept modern medical and psychological thinking about gender identity disorder, because transgender people must live as their gender before undergoing surgery. Nor does it actually cite any policy.
• "Bradley Manning is not a woman in any meaningful way and he will never be one" is unquestionably offensive, derogatory and hostile. Nor does it actually cite any policy.

Arguments based on the first principle cite a well-founded, policy-driven reason why we maybe shouldn't move the article. Arguments based on the second and third principles cite nothing more than misunderstandings, ignorance or personal hostility toward transgender people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I've heard your argument enough times to know it by heart now, we really don't need to open up a 3rd front. I was commenting on Risker's linking to a prior case, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

David Gerard's revert of my protection

I see that User:David Gerard's revert of my full protection of (what was then) Chelsea Manning here has come up a couple times so far. Yes, it would have been nice of him to ping me first, but he quickly apologized (which is somewhat rare for an admin to do) and the matter was "water under the bridge" as far as I was concerned. So, as far as my opinion here matters, I don't consider that to be a very serious issue and don't think it should play much of a role in the case. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)