Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Proposed decision

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.

Temporary Discretionary Sanctions

The discussions both on the Manning-related talk pages and (I predict) here on the case pages include deliberate use of Manning's birth name and male pronouns. This usage is offensive to many transgendered (and other LGBTQI) individuals / editors and seen as a deliberate attack in that denying the identity of one transgendered person is an implicit comment on transgenderism. I realise ArbCom does not want to preemptively decide any issue and that this may be seen as a content issue rather than an issue of fact, but creating a hostile editing environment is also uncivil. Are sanctions based on violations of the civility policy and failure to maintain mutual respect (as noted in the five pillars) justified under these discretionary sanctions? Have specific instructions been issued to the clerks and will they be noted on the case pages to maintain decorum? I would hate to see the case pages devolve as the previous move discussion did, and I hope ArbCom will act to prevent case pages being an unhelpful battlefield. EdChem (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

While there are no plans to restrict use of Manning's birth name on the case pages—if only because it will be impractical to discuss the location of the article otherwise—we will have a very low tolerance for any inappropriate conduct. Any specific concerns should be communicated to the clerks or directly to myself or AGK. Kirill ^[talk] 23:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Kirill, I am glad to hear that a low tolerance is to apply, I hope that sanctions do not become necessary but I fear they will be required if proper decorum is to be maintained on the case pages. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on my first question - whether these sanctions will be applicable based on violations of the civility policy and failure to maintain mutual respect (as noted in the five pillars)? If so, would pointedly using male pronouns for Manning and her birth name in article talk space, and thereby offending some LGBTQI editors and likely being perceived as an attack on their gender by transgendered editors, be considered sanctionable? EdChem (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, that's probably something best left to the arbitrium bonorum virorum (the prudent assessment of the good people) at WP:AE. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the situation, but probably yes. Some people may not be properly informed; our job first is to inform them. If they persist, they can be sanctioned. If they don't agree or accept the validity of transgender identities, they they can still edit the page provided that they leave their personal feelings at Wikipedia's door, just as in any other controversial topic. NW (Talk) 13:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

My thought was "ask first". If someone uses the wrong pronoun, communicate to them why that's problematic. If they respond by escalating ("he's a dude" or something like that) then a warning (and potential escalation) would be in order. An important point isn't just to stop comments that are (or could be) transphobic, it's also to avert the bickering that's likely to follow a comment like that.

There are arguments, of course, that skirt the issue without being actionable. But if you understand policy well enough to dance around its edges, odds are you know policy well enough to avoid getting into fights on pages that are subject to an open arbcomm case. Guettarda (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"very low tolerance"... how I wish that were true in practice. From what I can recall, the only sanctions that have taken place since all this began have been topic bans of Sceptre and Josh Gorand, and the day-long blocks of three of the admins involved in moving the main Chelsea Manning article. Admins did practically nothing about most of the awful comments during the original move discussion (re: here). I hope this case actually changes how administrators act in the future, because they really did let this spiral out of control. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• oppose sanctions around use of Bradley or male pronouns in talk page discussion The point of the discussion will be the title of the article, and we still have a number of media sources that refer to Manning as Bradley, and Manning's legal briefs and all discussion of the case still occurs under the name Bradley. In addition, a media guide from the National gay/lesbian journalists association proposes to use the male pronoun for pre-transition, and Manning's lawyer noted that he expected the same - this conflicts with other guidelines issued by other groups. As such, the use of pronouns, in a discussion ABOUT the correct article title as people say X or Y, or even someone calling the subject Bradley, should not be subject to disciplinary sanctions - because the standards are unclear on this point. On the other hand, saying things like "Can I wake up and become a duck if I want to" or "He's just a sick trannie" can and should be sanctioned. But creating a repressive atmosphere where the use of "he" is considered verboten, given the tenor of the previous debate, will not help.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait, has anyone among this whole furore actually used the t-word yet? I'm amazed I haven't seen it used yet, given what else has been flying around. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions - A number of reliable sources are using both male and female pronouns. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Decision date?

Did it just move up by a week, or am I not paying attention? --DHeyward (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Yes, it did. Kirill ^[talk] 05:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect claim in proposed finding of facts

The error is in section #Rationale for change of article title by David Gerard:

"David Gerard did not provide a detailed explanation [...] at the time he changed the title, although he made a number of explanatory statements in response to direct inquiries from other editors [...]." (My italics.)

The first of these explanations occurred after David Gerard move protected the page and before he reverted Tariqabjotu's move. Also, David Gerard briefly explained his 14:34 move revert on the article talk page at 14:35. That's two explanations before or at "the time he changed the title", and one of them was not in response to a direct inquiry.

This needs to be corrected. As it is, the finding appears to describe the circumstances of David Gerard's first admin action on the page as applying to the second, more controversial one. (I have not verified that the description would be fair and accurate when applied to the move protection.) Hans Adler 07:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Tag-team finding

I have answered Salvio here; briefly, Cla68's conspiracy theory requires me literally to disprove a negative, the evidence doesn't even actually support his claimed conspiracy theory, and Torai (formerly RA)'s admitted tag team is still in effect on the Workshop page - David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

For context, David's claim relates to my statement here that a number of editors contacted me by email expressing dissatisfaction with the conduct of one or two administrators during the Manning incident. --RA (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Workshop - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've made it a subheader: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Evidence#Response_to_Salvio_and_Cla68 - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I have read your statement there, but I'll reply here, seeing as we are already voting on the PD. My point is that your actions (i.e. your tweets and the very existence of a joint statement) give a very strong appearance of impropriety. Of course, we can't be sure – in these cases, short of a confession, it's very difficult to obtain conclusive proof –, but, as far as I'm concerned, my impression is that there may have been off-wiki coordination going on. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of change of article title by David Gerard

The above analysis describes David Gerard's revert of Tariqabjotu. However, David Gerard's first administrative action citing BLP was to lock the page. I would like to see the same analysis applied to that action, in particular part one:

1. The word "Bradley" was present in the title before the change and was not present in the title after the change, and was therefore "removed".

The word "Bradley" was not in the title when David took his initial action citing BLP. Notice the words "(No difference)" in this diff where David cites BLP.

I don't mean this by way of an endorsement of this analysis. I think there are times when BLP can be cited to protect a page, so no difference needs to exist IMO. But, if the analysis is being put forward as being solid, I'd like to see it applied to the first of David's actions citing BLP. --RA (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP as a "trump card"

Relates to "Removal of material about living persons" and "Analysis of change of article title by closing administrators"

I'm eager, as I think many are, to see a resolution with regard to use of BLP as a "trump card". If anything is the most pressing community question to come out of this dispute that is.

To lay it out simply, BLP policy at present would seem to suggest that content can be removed if someone in good faith believes it to be a BLP violation and thereafter the content cannot be restored without consensus. The community concern is that a group of editors can cry BLP (in good faith) and so remove content when in fact no BLP concern exists. Thereafter, they could refuse to give consensus to the content being restored and so BLP can be used as a "trump card" to keep content out of the encyclopaedia unduly.

The result of the RM discussion in the Manning case was contrary to that. In the case, a group of editors removed content (the title "Bradley Manning") citing BLP concerns. A community discussion took place. The title "Bradley Manning" was found NOT to be a BLP violation. However, there was no consensus to restore it (the BLP-citing editors refused to give their consent). Yet, apparently in the face of the letter of BLP policy, the closing troika of administrators concluded that since the title "Bradley Manning" did not violate BLP policy it should be because there was no consensus to remove it in the first place.

I think that decision was right from a WP:COMMON sense point of view. I proposed a principle here that would affirm that approach by reference to the Five Pillars. And I am eager that the committee here make a ruling on that. --RA (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu's move

I'm extremely disappointed to see no finding of fact and no associated remedy about the inappropriateness of Tariqabjotu's move. As it currently stands, the proposed decision means that it is acceptable for an admin to knowingly and deliberately ignore move protection if they don't like the title and/or can't be bothered to find out why protection was placed. This is contrary to every standard of admin behaviour and every version of the protection policy that I have been aware of since I became an admin in 2005. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. To certify Tariqabjotu's actions without giving an explanation as to how that has been arrived at would create considerable uncertainty as to the applicability of BLP policy. Is it because the protection was not adequately explained? Because Arbcom accepts that Tariqabjotu was unaware of a BLP issue? Because BLP policy applies differently to article titles? Or what? Formerip (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There is still not even a mention that Tariqabotu's move was done through protection explicitly applied for BLP reasons and was reinstating a title that at least two administrators (David and Morwen) objected to (see WP:WHEEL). Yet Salvio giuliano is proposing David be desysopped for doing as his (and subsequently many others') good faith reading of the BLP policy instructed him to do (and which would not have been necessary if Tariq had not deliberately ignored the protection). I am struggling to see how this is compatible with the "balance" Salvio explicitly states he is striving for. I also concur with FormerIP above that the absence of a finding leaves a gaping hole in the BLP policy. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu's actions, unlike David's, did not explicitly violate any policy. David hadn't provided any explanation as to why using Bradley as title would be a BLP violation and, since the original move was controversial, Tariq was allowed to move the article back to its original title. Ok, following best practices, he should have asked David why he used his admin tools, but that's not a requirement, especially (let me emphasise this again) when an action is not explained (and saying "per BLP" is not an explanation and neither is it enough to confer special protection to the action in question), but nobody followed best practices in this mess, so no. I'm not going to single Tariqabjotu out, when everyone else's (in most cases much more serious) misbehaviour is being actively justified and ignored. *That* wouldn't be fair. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the reasoning, I think it is important that Arbcom includes it in its findings. Whether the action was acceptable or not has been one of the key questions of the case and I don't think we can have a resolution that says reversing/editing through BLP admin actions is OK in some circumstances without specifying what the circumstances are. Formerip (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Tariqabjotu's actions, unlike David's, did not explicitly violate any policy" What!? David's move protection was explicitly cited BLP. That makes it subject to the WP:BLP policy - that Tariq did not think David's explanation was sufficient does not mean it was not explained. Tariq's move was made through move protection, WP:Protection policy states "Changes to a fully protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and carried out by an administrator if they are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them." Move protection fully protects the article title and Tariq explicitly knew that title was controversial. The Wheel-warring policy says "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." and "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." Tariq's move repeated actions that he knew at least two administrators (Morwen and David) opposed, that he knew would be controversial, and he stated that he did this deliberately. Without a finding that this is unacceptable behaviour then any administrator can wheel war over the tile of any article move-protected for BLP reasons with impunity. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, merely mentioning BLP is not enough to obtain special protection for the action in question; this has been discussed ad nauseam.

Secondly, you're quoting from the wrong portion of the protection policy (which, by the way, in cases of edit warring, also allows admins to restore the stable version of the article, when it can be identified); anyway, David imposed move protection, not full protection. And WP:MOVP merely states that [w]hen 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 this case, no RM had been initiated, since the article had been moved boldly. In these cases, WP:RMT applies, which states [t]he Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle applies to uncontroversial moves [...] and reverts of undiscussed moves; the page also adds that [i]f any of the following apply to the desired move, treat it as potentially controversial: [...] [s]omeone could reasonably disagree with the move, concluding [i]f 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. Tariqabjotu, therefore, did not violate policy (arguably, however, Morwen did).

Finally, regarding WP:WHEEL you're wrong again. Modifying or reversing another admin's action is not wheel warring; repeating it after another sysop has modified or reversed it is. Again, per policy, Tariqabjotu did not do anything wrong (David, on the other hand, did). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

All this needs to be in the decision then, because it contradicts the good faith understanding of various policies by a good number of users. Particularly, if "merely mentioning BLP is not enough to obtain special protection for the action in question" then you really need to objectively define in the decision what is enough because as it reads at present, an explanation that you don't like, don't understand or don't think sufficient means you can ignore move protection and BLP actions with impunity, even if the person initiating the action (and any others commenting) believe that the explanation given has enacted the special protection. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Josh Gorand

@ @Kirill: - I'm disappointed you haven't distinguished Josh's very personal remarks about people with other's remarks about evidence. I hope before this closes that you give the evidence another look. See specifically where he uses the word "people" in several diffs and in those same diffs references all of the supporters and he lacks evidence. That's the definition of a personal attack. We do not allow those kinds of remarks in any other context (racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-semitic) without evidence. "excessive zeal" is not justified in any context, see WP:BATTLEGROUND "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind." This is an English Wikipedia policy and your comments directly contradict it.--v/r - TP 13:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kirill: Is "just blowing off steam" an acceptable reason to attack a group? That's precisely what Gorand did. While there were some terrible comments made, they were in the vast minority of the "Bradley" supporters. Josh conflated the remarks of the few towards the group as a whole, and this wasn't a one off, he did this repeatedly. Coupled with a "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude -- continuing even today, he is the #1 troublemaker in this issue. Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kirill: I agree with the above, accusing others of transphobia with baseless claims is just as bad as those who made the offensive comments. Blowing off steam once or twice I can see but Josh took it to several comments to different users. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

We saw his proposals largely rebuked by the few committee members that commented in the Workshop phase, so I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see his proposals and "fact"-finding entries wind up in the 1-11, 2-10 range. Tarc (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Its just disappointing is all as said above, Im not gung ho for topic bans here but feel that the right thing should be done, attacks against a group are still attacks anger driven or not. To compare do we here on Wikipedia give IPs breaks after doing something wrong more than three times in a day because the IP user was in a bad mood? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: There is a specific sentence in WP:BATTLE that directly contradicts Kirill's comments. See my comments to Kirilll above.--v/r - TP 21:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Sexology case held that " Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive."--v/r - TP 22:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wording on Salvio vs. Phil

Salvio, your proposed findings against Phil use the phrase feeling that all who oppose his position are transphobic, but as has been discussed ad nauseum in the workshop that word has been used by different camps to mean different things: in common usage it strongly implies malice, but Phil appears to use it to include good faith actions that are received as conveying an anti-trans sentiment. This is a much broader class. I suggest carefully wording the finding to avoid "transphobic" but rather spell out the intended meaning. Chris Smowton (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big sanctions person and would not advocate sanctions for Phil. However, I would not allow a definition of transphobic be watered down by a single editor (or a minority of editors) views of it. It would be like saying a person is racist but it's excusable, "until enlightened by me because they didn't know until I told them." I dismiss it as condescending and lacking support or merit. Either it's a common understanding evident by the majority of editors or it's not. Rather than excuse the accusation using a minority view definition, it's preferred that the minority view ameliorate their language. Assuming that Phil didn't mean the malicious common view meaning, choosing different language would be the preferred behavior. -- --DHeyward (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

To make the indefensible claim that all those who disagree with you are engaging in some form of hatespeech is basic histrionics. Perhaps the proposed finding should be something like, "During the course of this debate Phil Sandifer engaged in speech which could be interpreted as histrionics. The Committee is not inclined to sanction Phil, but recognizes that the use of histrionics in a debate reflect more poorly on the speaker than on his/her targets. We recommend that Phil and all others stick to trying to use logically sound arguments in a debate instead of logical fallacies like ad hominem or appeal to emotion. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer

Kirill, please see my proposed finding regarding Sandifer on the Workshop page. He was involved in the dispute, apparently because he saw Morwen and Gerard's comments on Twitter, and engaged in a lot of vitriolic commentary on the issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall Phil yeilding a broadsword during the RM, perhaps because others displayed more noticable belligerence, but if the AC pages are considered part of the dispute, then I echo Devil's point on vitriol. Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There were also comments on ANI and on his user page that were definitely part of the dispute.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of change of article title by closing administrators

This really does only tell half the tale.

How about:

On August 31, three administrators — BD2412 (talk · contribs), Kww (talk · contribs), and BOZ (talk · contribs) — evaluated the requested move discussion and determined that it had not reached a consensus ([1]) as to the name, but that It is not a BLP violation to maintain the title at "Bradley Manning". Furthermore, they found that BLP is not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, "Chelsea Manning".

As BD2412, Kww, and BOZ are all veteran administrators with significant experience in evaluating discussions, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of their determination.

How about that version, Salvio and Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs?—Kww(talk) 19:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

On what basis did you find that there was consensus that "Bradley Manning" was not a BLP violation? That summary does not state that there was consensus on that issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Both strength of argument and numbers. Bear in mind that saying "Titling the article Bradley Manning is not a BLP violation" is an incredibly different statement from saying "Bradley Manning is the better place for the article". The numeric majority was in favor of Bradley, and a large subset of those arguing for "Chelsea" acknowledged that "Bradley" was an acceptable title, just not the one they found preferable. Note that the close explicltly states "WP:BLP is applicable to article titles and the desire to avoid harming the subject presents a reasonable basis for supporting "Chelsea Manning" as the title; however, BLP does not require having "Chelsea Manning" as the title. It is not a BLP violation to maintain the title at "Bradley Manning" so long as the prior use of this name by the subject is public knowledge and can be found in reliable sources. Furthermore, the application of BLP to avoid harming the subject is mitigated by the subject's own acknowledgment that "Bradley Manning" will continue to be used in various fora, and by the fact that the name, "Bradley Manning", will inevitably appear prominently in the article lede. Therefore, BLP is not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, "Chelsea Manning"." You are correct that we didn't explicitly state the individual subpoints as items of consensus, but I believe subpoint 3 represents a consensus.—Kww(talk) 20:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If there was consensus then the administrators would or should have said so. In the absence of such a finding, it is only reasonable to read that as no such determination was made by all three closers. A slim majority does not make a consensus, and while "strength of argument" may be your prerogative, that just means that you three found that more convincing; others were not so convinced, obviously. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Finding consensus isn't just vote-counting. -- tariqabjotu 20:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I just said that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you said that a close based on "strength of argument" isn't really a consensus based close. Note that all three of us were in agreement that moving it back to "Bradley Manning" wasn't a BLP violation, and that BLP did not require moving it.—Kww(talk) 21:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No. I said that there was no finding that says there was consensus, which you agreed to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain I could get BOZ and BD2412 to tweak the wording of point 3 if it irritates you.—Kww(talk) 21:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That's an odd and inappropriate comment. What does irritating me have to do with anything? As for whether you revise your past decision, one would only expect that those admins involved would carefully and fairly layout their analysis and reasons for doing so, based on the discussion they are reclosing. But, you should probabely discuss it with Arbcom before you do so, as they are, at the moment, actively reviewing it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I kept a careful tally of opinions expressed not just on the ultimate issue of whether there was a consensus for the title to have been moved to "Chealsea Manning", but of all issues raised as a basis for supporting or opposing such a move. Of the approximately 335 editors who expressed an opinion of some sort (and of the 150 editors who supported "Chelsea Manning" as the page title) 37 specifically identified WP:BLP as a basis for that title. By comparison, a far larger number (about a hundred) cited MOS:IDENTITY. A number of editors who supported reverting to "Bradley Manning" also made specific and well-reasoned arguments as to why they believed BLP did not apply. Obviously a title that included unreferenced private information or accusations would be a BLP violation, but the fact that a titles like Michael Peterson (murder suspect), Josh Phillips (murderer), and Charles Bowden (criminal) exist pretty starkly demonstrates that it is not a BLP violation to have a factually supported title that would harm or disturb the article subject. BLP is clearly a relevant argument, but there is nothing in that policy which compels the exclusion of reliably sourced and publically available content. I note also that no move review was sought with respect to the closure of this matter. This arbitration request, as originally filed, was about the conduct of disputants during the discussion, and not about the close. An arbitration request as to the close itself would be premature so long as a move review is available. bd2412 T 22:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. As I understand the argument made was that MOS:Identity was specifically related by the discussants to BLP, as it is a guideline covering how to address living subjects, and the BLP argument was what best accorded with human dignity of the subject in this instance of how the Pedia addresses them. So, there was substantive disagreement.

As for compelling a result, its doubtful that anything beyond an office action can compel, and whether compelled or not is a different issue than whether there was consensus on the matter. If the closers view is that BLP was not sufficiently discussed (only mentioned by 37) that would suggest no consensus. (Don't know if BLP was ever discussed on those other articles you mention, if they are relevant in otherstuffexists manner, or whether the same values of human dignity are brought forward by them).

As for whether the closing decision is in issue in this arbitration, that's beyond my pay grade but it would seem surprising that it were not, given what this case has discussed from its beginning.

--Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC) (As an aside, for your tally, my !vote also referenced common name -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

If 37 editors assert that BLP requires a certain title, and 170+ editors assert that the proposed title is not required, then there is a fairly clear consensus against the proposition that BLP requires the title in question. The fact that over a hundred and ten editors only raise other arguments in favor of that certain title does nothing to upset that consensus. I would add that a number of editors who cited BLP (e.g. Tryptofish, Paul Erik, Scray) basically acknowledged that the letter of the policy does not require its application to this situation, but appealed to an unwritten "spirit" of BLP. bd2412 T 01:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What 170 editors? You said that almost all of the 170 did not even discuss BLP. Either you have 150 supporting the BLP argument and 170 not supporting it, or you limit it to those who you say "made other arguments" while ignoring the link that was made between Identity and BLP. But to treat the two sides in such a grossly dissimilar manner as you suggest is unaccountable. I think one of the arbitrators called it a "supervote." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your analysis misses the actual question at issue - not whether BLP applies to article titles (it does), or whether the "spirit" of BLP was a good reason for making such a move (it probably does, although that requires clarification), but whether BLP mandated such a title move in this case. 37 editors participating in this discussion suggested that BLP at least favored a move, but of those, very few actually asserted that the move was mandated by BLP. Roughly 300 editors participating in this discussion did not join in any assessment of the role of BLP. That is a consensus against a finding that BLP mandates a particular outcome. Furthermore The fact that some editors made a link between MOS and BLP does not transform MOS arguments into BLP arguments, and the fact that editors cited BLP as a reason to support such a move does not transform those arguments into statements that BLP mandates such a move. A supervote, in this case, would have been to ignore the vast majority of editors who did not contend that BLP mandated the move in question. Please note that the closing administrators had no preference whatsoever as to the title of this article. We merely determined the preference of the community.

As for the role of ArbCom with respect to this matter, if anyone in the community disagreed with the close, their appropriate remedy was to file a move review. It speaks volumes that no one did so. bd2412 T 03:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Roughly 300 editors participating in this discussion did not join in any assessment of the role of BLP. That is a consensus against a finding that BLP mandates a particular outcome." No it isn't. That doesn't follow. That they didn't discuss blp does not imply that they thought blp did not affect this. Now, you may have other reasons to believe that the vast majority believed that blp did not mandate this, but what they didn't say doesn't justify that claim. Ananiujitha (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who thought it did was free to say so, or to file a move review. bd2412 T 03:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Roughly 300 editors participating in this discussion did not join in any assessment of the role of BLP. That is a consensus against a finding that BLP mandates a particular outcome." Not only is that illogical, if they did not assess the role of BLP then they have no opinion on it, but moreover, the closers did not state in the close, consensus is that, which can only mean that there was no consensus per BLP. After the fact justification of why the closers did not make the required finding is partly why this case is here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a great tendency to conflate what BLP mandates with what the "spirit" of BLP would seem to favor. Not a single editor said, "I think BLP requires this title, but I think we should have the other one anyway". The community clearly acknowledged that the earlier name was public knowledge, verifiable in numerous reliable sources, and could not be removed from the lede or from otherwise appearing prominently throughout the article. As I have noted before, if there was doubt about the close, the correct course of action to take would have been for any objecting party to file a move review. That is a precursor to bringing the issue to ArbCom, just as going through a court of appeals is a precursor to getting one's case heard by the Supreme Court. If you check the edit history of the ArbCom proceeding, you will see that the entire reason why this case is here is objections to the conduct of participants prior to and during the discussion, not the close of it. Barring an error on the part of ArbCom, a new discussion will be initiated soon, which should resolve this matter with finality. bd2412 T 11:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

•  FoF pilfered. Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, a bit confused here. What was the basis of the decision that the blp arguments did not apply? Was it that the arguments seemed weak? Was it that the arguments on the other side seemed stronger? Was it that most editors didn't cite blp? In the last case, some may not have cited blp because they didn't think it applied, others because they didn't go into specific policies, others because they thought other people argued the point better... there would be no basis to assume that those who didn't mention blp thought it didn't apply. Ananiujitha (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As I noted above, the question is not merely "does BLP apply to titles", or "does BLP favor a particular title", but "does BLP mandate a particular title". bd2412 T 03:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Still confused here, and trying to figure out how your reply relates to my questions. Ananiujitha (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Consider the case of Snoop Dogg. He has indicated that he has changed his name to Snoop Lion, in accordance with his religious conversion. There has been some argument that the article title should be changed accordingly, including some reference to BLP. However, BLP is not a single monolithic policy, it is actually a group of policies brought together under one heading. Some of these things are mandatory, for example that we must not publish harmful information about people unless it is reliably sourced. Some of these things are merely aspirational, for example, avoiding using self-published materials written by the subject as a source about the subject. In this case, BLP would prohibit putting an article title at a name that a person had never used, and which had never been reported in the news. However, if the title is verifiable and well-known, the question shifts to the aspirational - we are not required to do this, but should we do it anyway, to be nice to this person? Maybe we should. However, the community clearly felt, by a substantial majority, that we were not required to do this, and most felt that we shouldn't do it just to be nice, either. bd2412 T 04:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"In this case, BLP would prohibit putting an article title at a name that a person had never used, and which had never been reported in the news." You make two assertions here that are inaccurate. The name was reported, on the most watched national morning show of that day, the report was that the subject signed a letter with this name. If she had never "used" the name, we would never have heard of it from the secondary source that reported it. People keep referring to this as some kind of "self-reporting". Self-reporting would be if she sent a message to Wikipedia directly or only published it on a personal blog. __Elaqueate (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And even if it was a self-published blog instead of being journalistically vetted by the TODAY show, it would still be an allowable source under BLP. I don't understand 1. Why you think this is self-published and 2. Why you assert here that self-published information by the subject is disallowed under BLP. This makes it appear that your decision wasn't based on the policy as written. __Elaqueate (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I was referring to the Snoop Dogg/Snoop Lion case. Second, I wasn't saying that there were self-published materials at issue (in that case or in any particular case), but that BLP is cautionary rather than prohibitive as to such materials. The point is that BLP mandates some things (e.g. reliable sources for controversial claims) and suggests others. bd2412 T 13:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As that is your intent, I would suggest using alternate language than "BLP would prohibit..." because it seems we agree that it doesn't. __Elaqueate (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

But I still don't understand the basis for the closing. Is it fair to say you determined that that a majority of editors saw a concern to be fair to the subject as less compelling than another goal of the project? __Elaqueate (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not how they would have phrased it, but yes. I don't think most editors even perceived it as a question of "fairness". I think it would be more accurate to say that more editors favored following independent sources than favored following Manning's preference, and a subset of those that favored following Manning's preference acknowledged that following sources was not wrong, just not how they would like to see it go. The core problem here is that BLP doesn't force as many actions as many people would like. BLP considerations are a factor that everyone needs to weigh, but that isn't a guarantee that they will always outweigh all others. My feeling, then and now, was that the effort to move it was simply premature: if it had been attempted just a week later, the sourcing concerns would have been allevated and a majority would have favored "Chelsea".—Kww(talk) 17:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see any evidence that the majority of people commenting in that discussion did weigh BLP concerns. I think it is fair to say that if there was consensus that titling the article "Bradley Manning" is not a BLP violation, then there was consensus that that title was not wrong (although no consensus about whether it was best); however I see no consensus among the minority who did weigh BLP concerns so the first part of that sequence fails and the second part is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. BLP was raised early on as a reason to change the title (in fact, it was the reason cited by David Gerard). 170+ editors clearly rejected the need for the title to have been changed pursuant to BLP. As I noted above, no one said "BLP mandates result X, but I support result Y anyway". It is impossible for an editor to have supported moving the page back without rejecting the notion that the page could not be moved back. By the way, our finding of "no consensus" was generous. This was not a case where, for example, 60% wanted to keep the new title and 40% wanted to return to the old one, and this was read as falling just a little bit short of establishing "consensus" - on the issue of the better title (BLP aside) the discussion was closer to establishing a consensus going the other way. Another editor reviewing this discussion might well have called it that, and would probably have been upheld on review in so doing. bd2412 T 18:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Strike counterbalance

@Newyorkbrad: please change "counter balanced" to "and" in your proposed principle 12. Understanding, sensitivity, and human dignity can be encyclopedic values and are on this project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the wording recognizes that—at least, it intended to—when it says that understanding, sensitivity and dignity need sometimes to be counterbalanced with any other applicable encyclopedic considerations. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be clearer with "and." Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Including the letters "WP:BLP" in an edit summary does not confer carte blanche to do whatever one wants.

AGK included this as a vote in this edit. May I humbly suggest that it finally be made a principle? It's apparent that some people need it spelled out.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of Advocacy finding of fact

@NuclearWarfare and Kirill Lokshin: May I propose a manner in which this is relevant, even without indicting David Gerard or Morwen specifically?

Examples could easily be found and provided where people argued that GLAAD or another LGBT advocacy group (or transgender people) promoted something and, therefore, we should do the same thing. This strikes me as advocacy, as it makes no reference to whether reliable sources actually did that.

For clarity, let me propose an alternate scenario that's much clearer:

Say in a thread, someone says Muslims/Muslim groups say to refer to Muhammad as Prophet Muhammad (SAW), so we should. This would come across as advocacy, unless they can also say reliable sources actually tend to refer to Muhammad that way. They don't, of course, so that's not a valid position; it would then be advocacy to say, even though reliable sources don't actually do this, we should because certain groups want us to. -- tariqabjotu 20:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, first, editors have to advocate for the edit they want. Second, citing to a practice that's documented (and well known) can be considered in such a discussion, even if it is ultimately rejected based on other reasons. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. However, sources like these should be seen as informing NPOV, as opposed to being NPOV. --RA (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Forward outlook

I urge the committee to avoid sanctioning any parties in this dispute and instead allow a finding of Discretionary Sanctions to be implemented from here forward. Any editor or commentator regarding the article that fails to abide by BLP after being warned should incur a topic ban of 30 days, and after that, should the behavior be repeated, indefinitely. Since the bulk of the proposals regarding topic bans are for commentary made a month or more ago and little is being posed for the more recent commentary on both sides, it seems best to just move forward from here.--MONGO 20:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

@MONGO: Discretionary sanctions is not a method of resolving a dispute, which is supposed to be done by the arbitration process. Discretionary sanctions are instead designed as a method of preventing further misconduct after a case has closed. If we close this case after merely authorising discretionary sanctions, we would be passing this very complicated dispute onto the arbitration enforcement team – thereby overburdening it. Although I understand why you argue it would be best just to move on with no remedies about individual users, I cannot agree that doing nothing except authorising DSs would be very effective at all. Regards, AGK [•] 10:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

For my part, MONGO, as an admin who helps at AE, I would find it rather frustrating if the arbs passed a festering dispute, as this seems to be, onto us without at least trying to de-fester it some. For whatever that's worth. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, both of you have valid arguments for issuing sanctions now. There are only a few persons that engaged in anything more than a couple ostensibly sanctionable comments...but we also have the issue of advocacy and several other editing behaviors that are just as detrimental to the potential for article improvement in this case that are not likely to pass. One editor likely to be sanctioned hasn't even edited in almost a month. I'm just strongly opposed to punitive sanctions.--MONGO 11:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Remarks on bigoted comments section

I think both versions have their problems and advantages. Kirill's has the advantage of stating that remarks like the ones that people made during the move discussion are violations of standing policies - NPA, etc. I've been saying for a little while that a positive outcome of this case would be to affirm that bigoted remarks are personal attacks that create a hostile editing environment and as such are not permitted, even if they are not directed at a particular editor (which is all the wording of the policy currently allows for, even if an admin generally wouldn't hesitate to block a user who behaved in a comparable manner on a talk page for groups other than transgender). Newyorkbrad's version has the advantage of framing the requirement that editors eschew bigoted language (which, as a phrase, is preferable to "discriminatory language") as part of WP's commitment to a safe and welcoming environment for editors and readers, but even with the final sentence allowing for sanctions against editors who make bigoted comments, I would still prefer it if they were "prohibited" rather than just "unwelcome." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly open to changing "unwelcome" to "prohibited" if the other arbitrators who have supported the proposal do not object. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Some notes on BLP

I think something that could be made explicit is that, as with NPOV, it sometimes takes discussion and consensus to decide how a policy, even a very important one, is to be applied. The eventual decision here was not a decision that COMMONNAME trumped BLP - it was that BLP did not require the use of the subject's most recent, and preferred, name. I would also be delighted with any wording that reduced BLP flag-waving to excuse patently irrelevant and policy-noncompliant edits (I've been in disputes where people have cited BLP to remove the religious identification of people who wrote entire books about why they identified with that religion), but ultimately I'm not sure that could be a direct outcome of this case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I suppose the problem here is that the noxious tone of discussion prevented the disputants from having a proper discussion about balancing BLP with encyclopedic concerns. If everybody had refrained from discriminatory or battleground behaviour, the BLP debate could have resolved itself amicably and legitimately. AGK [•] 10:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

off-wiki canvassing

I don't quite understand the citing of tweets by me and David on September 2nd as being "during the discussion". What discussion? If it's the RM discussion then that was over at that point. Morwen (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Trans Media Watch example is from after the period of the RM discussion. It appears to be directing people towards this arbitration.

In fairness, too, whatever about Morwen's use of social media and the press during the RM discussion, in the Trans Media Watch example she appears to be doing what she can to discourage meat puppets arriving here. (David Gerard, on the other hand, appears to be not only directing meat puppets here but giving them advice on how to circumvent semi-protection too.) --RA (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean advising them that they must become established, account-holding members of our community before participating? I think that's the one and only way of "circumventing" semi-protection that we should all be enthusiastically supporting, in this case and in every other case where outsiders express an interest in getting involved in project administration. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my intent was to communicate "no, actually you have to be a Wikipedian" without appearing to be dismissive of their concerns, in 140 characters - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Psychonaut, I mean that David Gerard linked to this arbitration case, described it as "the request for reversal" [of the outcome of the move discussion], and advised that "you need to have had an account a few days to post". Morwen, wisely, discouraged meat puppets arriving here and directed them to the article talk page. Trans Media Watch said they had been advised otherwise by another admin to come here. David then advised that the talk page "would be something anyone can edit".

In any event, canvassing for meat puppets, either here or on the talk page, is not appreciated. --RA (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's neither what I said nor what I meant. At this point, you're deliberately posting statements you know to be false - slinging mud because you haven't evidence - David Gerard (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The links are on the page. Everyone can see them. --RA (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I want to say that pointing to the new move discussion, as David Gerard (talk · contribs) did here, should be, at the very least, discouraged. Yes, the notice was posted with a neutral wording, but given David's previous tweets and involvement (and the audience who'd likely see that message), that's not really appropriate (coming across as votestacking). It's not like that discussion was going to have a dearth of participants. -- tariqabjotu 20:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Baseline

While I will offer no specific suggestions, I would implore the arbitrators, in relation to discussion about instances of insensitivity / hate speech / discrimination / whatever you'd like to call it, that they not treat the very worst offenders as a baseline on which to compare the others. Calling out the very worst editors and justifying no actual consequences for others on the basis of, "Well, they weren't as bad as this editor here" allows people to game the system simply by keeping their discriminatory speech proportional to the loudest voices. This does not make their behavior any less problematic, and it certainly does not excuse or legitimize their questionable conduct during the move discussion. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I understand your concerns, but I cannot agree that we are at all judging the conduct of editors relative to the conduct of their colleagues – the findings against pro-Bradley editors clearly target all detectable instances of hate speech. AGK [•] 10:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the appropriate editors have been brought in as parties inre: their conduct during the move discussion. I also do not accuse any particular arbitrator of using this kind of justification explicitly in their decision, but I believe it is unintentionally used, particularly when I see comments like this one from Newyorkbrad: "If we are going to identify editors who behaved very poorly during the discussion, I agree he would be a fine place to start", which suggests that editors like IFreedom1212 are consequently setting the bar for misconduct. Policy should set the bar, not editors. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The place to start is not necessarily the place to finish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP Question

How much weight is WP:BLP going to carry? Right now it seems that anyone can change the title of an article and cite BLP as a concern based on their personal point of view along with maybe a few sources that use that name, this is a concern I want to raise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the relevant phrase in the policy is If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Therefore the defence against a person moving Bill Clinton -> Jim Steve Buttface citing BLP would be the ease of finding consensus that Bill is probably considerably happier with the old title. Chris Smowton (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If the change is completely unsupported by reliable sources and effectively vandalous, as in Chris Smowton's example, then common sense suggests that such a move itself is what really violates WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But this would mean, in spite of multiple previous discussions and consensus findings in the past, I could simply move Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam, lock the page, and claim "BLP", and then force a consensus to rename it back. all I have to do is find Yusuf saying somewhere that he prefers the name Yusuf. Do we really want this kind of wiki? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. If you in good faith believe that calling the article "Cat Stevens" is a BLP violation, then you should move it citing BLP and there would need to be consensus to move it back. However, you would need to explain why the previous consensuses were wrong, and (especially if they are recent) what has changed since then. If nothing has changed between the last discussion and now though, then the previous consensus would still hold. If you knew about the previous consensus that "Cat Stevens" was not a BLP violation and you still made the move, then I'm not sure everyone would agree you were acting in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so just so we're clear - when you have a consensus, long-time article title, and something happens (such as, person X announces their new name is Y), you can - and should - move the page immediately, cite BLP, move lock the page, and then force a consensus (not a no-consensus finding, but a new consensus) to bring the page back to the old name. I could do that on Lisa Bonet's --> Lilakoi Moon article right now, Snoop Dogg -->Snoop Lion, David Berkowitz->Son of Hope, Terry Holdbrooks->Mustafa Abdullah and you'd have to rally enough people to bring a consensus to move it back. You *really* believe this is a good idea? BLP is a set of principles, so the idea that X is a violation and Y is not is really a matter for debate, it's fuzzy, and different people will interpret it differently. BLP is not a law, and we don't have a judge who can say we violated a law. The broader question is, what does BLP suggest about a title, and how does that interact with other policies, and how to we balance. Your absolutism is absolutely not backed up by anything I've ever seen anywhere on the wiki.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrators for closing.

Please note that in the ongoing discussion in preparation for the next move request, User:Keilana (recruited because she previously closed the Muhammad Images RFC and the Jerusalem RFC) has expressed willingness to serve on the closing panel. As these preparations have been underway for some time, I would ask that Arbcom follow the discussions relating to them. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Canvasing to support your own cause would violate rules you know.... --Lesbiangirl (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My only cause is to see that this process goes smoothly, and without disruption. I am merely informing ArbCom of steps that have already been taken towards this end. bd2412 T 03:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What cause do you think he's promoting? -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

To recruit an admin I thought, but now I read it it was uncalled for. I honestly thought he was recruiting an admin to support his cause, but now that I read it I'm sorry. But also, I don't think Hitmonchan's actions aren't ban worthy. Of course, I later reversed editing the page because I wasn't supposed to, but I feel the page should stay the same as his legal name for as long he as male organs. We can't just rename it because what he says, and I'd like to edit it, but it will go into an edit war immediately if I edit it in anyway, which is why I've refrained editing it. We should never call him a she until we have some reliable sources, and it really isn't acceptable of the articles current state. We can't reverse gender that quickly. My reasons I never really edit pages until they go into the page is because I know they will be reverted quickly, and I know that most people won't accept my comments. Since I'm to scared to edit it, because I will get involved and I get to pointy at times, I really go to the talk pages first. I would go into an edit war and I refrain from to protect Wikipedia's integrity. My past actions on IP addresses are few and far between, since my ISP ATMC gives me new IP addresses often. I can't really go back because of that. Obviously, sexual related pages are protected quite a few, and this is a controversial page. I created an account to edit articles, but so far I'm scared to because of what I said earlier. My point stands, however: Do not change any "he" to "she" until we find out he is really that, because as of right now no sources are available, and I would like to edit it, but I don't want to get involved... --Lesbiangirl (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Gerard explanation

The current finding of fact regarding Gerard and explaining BLP rationales claims he made several "explanatory statements", but the diffs do not indicate this at all. In this diff there is nothing saying how it was mandated by BLP to change the title or how it would be a violation to move it back to the original title. Nothing he says goes beyond the obvious of "I think using a title other than Chelsea Manning is a BLP violation." Another diff is not explaining the claim of a BLP requirement, only a statement about what it would justify. The last diff is again not explaining how there is a BLP violation. Saying BLP demands "immediacy" does not amount to an explanation of why having the title at "Bradley Manning" was inappropriate and needed immediate change. Everything cited as an "explanation" or "explanatory statement" is nothing more than reciting the very basic facts about what BLP policy allows him to do, which is not an explanation of how a specific bit of content is a violation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment, but I get the gist of what they're trying to say by differentiating between the "detailed explanation" and just "explanatory statements". I'm not sure if there's a better way to convey that though. -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple other points

• @Kirill Lokshin: A separate point I'd like to make is that I think there's a bit of ambiguity in the wording of the proposal. I suggest it be rewritten so that "At the time he changed the title" is at the beginning of the sentence. In other words, it should instead say:

At the time he changed the title, David Gerard did not provide a detailed explanation of why the title "Bradley Manning" was non-compliant with the biographies of living persons policy, although he made a number of explanatory statements in response to direct inquiries from other editors

As it's currently written, it could be interpreted as saying that he never [then or now] provided an explanation as to why he felt there was non-compliance when he performed his move (suggesting, for example, he explained why he felt the name became non-compliant later on). -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• @AGK: In response to your point about whether David was asked for an explanation, he was: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Tariqabjotu. AGK [•] 10:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's distressing to watch arbitrators voting for a finding of fact that is clearly wrong

And doing so after I pointed out the problem on this page. See #Incorrect claim in proposed finding of facts. Hans Adler 08:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, and I am sorry nobody had responded to them so far. I have now voted on the finding, in a way that I hope will resolve your concerns. AGK [•] 10:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reading this talk page and reacting. NuclearWarfare's edit fixed the problem. Hans Adler 22:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

On postponing the RM scheduled for September 30th

I echo bd2412's comment above, and also ask the Committee to note that there is every reason to believe that (absent outside intervention) the new Request to Move [[Bradley Manning]] to [[Chelsea Manning]] will begin on the 30 September date which bd2412 et al set as the earliest date on which a new Move Request could begin. A proposal to begin the RM earlier found little support and much opposition, and a proposal (made here) to postpone the RM until after the conclusion of the Arbcom case also found little support and much opposition. If Arbitration Committee members intend to require that the RM be postponed until the case concludes, it would be most helpful if they formalized that requirement before the 30th, so as not to end up shutting down an RM midway through it. -sche (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And as I mentioned on the Workshop page, if the move request does begin and end before the conclusion of this Arbitration case, the finding of fact which begins "The underlying dispute in this case concerns the choice of title for the article which is currently titled 'Bradley Manning'" may turn out to be incorrect. It would be better to change "is currently" to something like "was, at the time this case was filed,"; this way the statement will be correct whether or not the article gets moved in the meantime. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The extension is almost passed by the committee, as I write this but we can see what happens in the next few hours. Probably, the prudent thing to do, at this stage, is to at least hold off until the committee vote fails. Perhaps in a few hours such a discussion should be opened, at the article talk page to postpone the vote by a few days, given this new development. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to voice my concern over this as well. I don't think the ArbCom has the authority over what can and can't be discussed, and I have indeed contemplated starting the requested move discussion tomorrow in defiance of the motion. I have decided against it, as it would disrupt Wikipedia, and it would be too close to the line of WP:POINT to be reasonable. Has ArbCom thought about what they think will or should happen should someone start discussion about the move in deviance of their mandate not to discuss it? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on the article talk page: [9] Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think it is a mistake for Arbcom to involve themselves in this matter. The community has come to a clear middle ground consensus, of accepting the 30 day delay (which ends in about 24 hours). The community, especially those closely involved like myself in developing the new move request and collecting evidence, are also close to consensus on selection of a new panel of closing admins. For arbcom to override these extant and evolving community-driven approaches oversteps their remit into an area where assistance was not requested. in other words - we've got this guys. I suggest the arbcom carefully consider dropping both the move request postponement and the finding that arbcom will appoint the closing admins. as NYB stated, discretionary sanctions can be applied, and we've already developed a sort of "code of conduct/guidelines" for the discussion. Given that commonname is shifting, I think the tenor of the discussion will be quite different, and you may find many opposed to the move now supporting it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• This whole thing, so far, has been a ...pile of structural cissexism. It's going to take some time to resolve the structural issues, but that's no excuse for keeping others from addressing the misnaming in the meantime. Ananiujitha (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• If the injunction requires 4 net support votes to pass, hasn't it already failed with 5/12 active arbs opposing it? Monty₈₄₅ 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: the move request has started.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

AGK comment per DHeyward

@AGK: - AGK made a comment in his support that I believe infers WAY more than what was stated and takes a partial quote completely out of context.

My quote in support of the article being retained "Bradley Manning" that was used in evidence is: [10]:

*Support - he is Bradley Manning and will be until his sentence is served. He will be housed with male inmates and will not be given any gender reassigmnent. He can call himself anything he likes, but legally his name is Bradley Manning, He is widely known as Bradley Manning and the Army will only refer to him as Bradley Manning. "Chelsea" should barely be a footnote. "Chelsea Mannning" does not exist. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 7:33 pm, 26 August 2013, Monday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC−7)

AGK partially quotes me out of context and states that he finds "He can call himself anything he likes", leaving off the context of the name (which is the discussion of titling) as worse than what I have (and others) have stated is the hurtful part: "Chelsea Manning doesn't exist." In the context of other editors comparing Chelsea to less than a person, I would like clarification as to why AGK took the name portion off of the quote and leaving off the context that we are discussing the Title. I am concerned that the partial quote and his inference from it displays a complete lack of understanding of the nature of titling, discriminatory speech and the discussion surrounding the titling of the article.

For insight to why I wrote that, please see Manning's pardon request sent in a week after my statement or send mail to Chelsea directly:

Chelsea can be reached by Titling the envelope (per her lawyer and the support network):

• PVT Bradley E Manning
• 89289
• 1300 N Warehouse Rd
• Ft Leavenworth KS 66027-2304
• USA

If anyone chooses to write her, I would hope the envelope title isn't considered problematic or some kind of evidence of discriminatory speech by the author of the letter, but rather an acknowledgment that regardless of the name Chelsea chose for herself, "Bradley Manning" will remain in nearly all official and notable publications as either title or introduction in both media and official documents. --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I reached that conclusion because saying "he can call himself anything he likes, but his legal name is Bradley" is fundamentally dismissive of the subject's gender identity. This is in much the same way as saying "'Chelsea Manning' does not exist" is fundamentally dismissive; my point was that your entire comment is problematic, rather than the part quoted in the finding of fact (the same part you have said here and elsewhere that you regret). I understand why you made the comment you did, and I appreciate that you had the decency to apologise for it later, but it amounted to you saying we should mirror the Army's discriminatory practices in our own article. Replicated discrimination is still discrimination. Regards, AGK [•] 11:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What? That's a rather blunt and unsupported statement about the Army and about civil rights afforded convicted felons. The Army has a procedure for soldiers to change names. She is also the equivalent of a felon which may have additional restrictions on name changes within the Army and within the state she resides. If you are saying that incarcerated felons don't enjoy the rights and privileges of those that are not incarcerated felons is discrimination, you should add it to the discrimination principle. (technically she is assigned to the confinement barracks and will be dishonorably discharged after her 35 years of service) Even after she is released, she may be denied travel outside the U.S., denied the right to vote, denied VA benefits, denied jobs, and a multitude of other things. "Felons" (a dishonorable discharge is usually the equivalent of a felony) can be discriminated against. WMF can refuse to hire those who have been convicted of a felony and list that as the sole and only reason if they desired. For Manning to change her name, she would have to apply to a State of Kansas court, have them approve it, send it to the Army and have the Army approve it. Denying her the name change has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her legal status of being convicted, sentenced, incarcerated and dishonorably discharged. That is not discrimination. "Previous criminal record" is not a protected class and it's not in any of the principles. --DHeyward (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You are using her status as a political prisoner to deny her her identity? This is disgusting. Ananiujitha (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(I'm not quite sure what standard you'd apply here, but almost any standard which enables this kind of harassment of political prisoners, or any prisoners, would encourage edit wars and/or import the biases of different countries' governments into Wikipedia.) Ananiujitha (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not doing anything of the sort and your label is offensive. It's simply fact to acknowledge her various names and their context. If I state that Manning was convicted, sentenced to 35 years of detention, her legal name is "PVT Bradley E. Manning", her common name to the public is "Bradley Manning," she prefers "Chelsea Manning", she is female, she is housed in the confinement barracks for male soldiers at Ft. Leavenworth, KS, per U.S. Army policy she will not receive gender reassignment medical treatment beyond counseling in the military (the normal course of action for GID is separation from the service - note that civilian prisons do treat it, but as a legal strategy and personal safety strategy, that may be disadvantageous), and she may not be allowed to change her name due to her status as a felon are all facts. Your POV that she is a political prisoner and it's "disgusting" is a content question as is the name for her article title. You may add that to her biography that she is a political prisoner and not a felon and is not subject to the laws of the state and country she lives if you wish to do so and that claim would subject to sourcing, undue weight and NPOV. None of what I said denies her gender identity as they are facts that are unrelated to gender. What is and what is not considered discrimination depends on the laws in play and 'convicted felon' is certainly considered. Denying a felon a name change, if that's what the law says in that particular state, is not discriminatory and is not recognized as discrimination in any state. Felons are denied certain civil rights all the time. You can argue that she is not a "felon" but that would be against the massive amount of sources that state she was convicted and is to be dishonorably discharged. Denying her medical treatment for gender dysphoria may be against the law, too, and that remains to be played out. Noting that the vast majority of people recognize "Bradley Manning" as the name of the person who leaked material to wikileaks and was convicted is another fact (i.e. COMMONNAME). This is relatively apparent because nearly every article written about her has to to say "formerly known as Bradley Manning" because otherwise people won't know who they are talking about. That is not me being discriminatory just as the editors that make the MOS at AP, NY TImes, and GLAAD recognize that an introductory sentence is necessary. Notice that people that are widely known by their new name do not need such introduction (i.e. Julia Serano) is rarely ever introduced as "formerly Tom Serano" (not even in our article) because it is not necessary as her common name is widely known and her birth name is not. None of the things I have stated are discriminatory just as it's not discriminatory or "disgusting" to write "PVT Bradley E. Manning" on envelopes to her. Changing her legal name to "Chelsea Manning" and having the Army also change it as well as the court, would most likely change the public's common name perception as well. Chad Ochocinco and Meta World Peace are examples where their common name identity was greatly enhanced by their legal name change. Labeling an observation of fact, though, as disgusting is rather disgusting itself. If you notice, Chelsea Manning's lawyer did not offer to accept mail on her behalf, nor did he file any motions that the court is "disgusting" for not allowing her to be called "Chelsea". He, like I, am observing the law as it is written as well as the observation of COMMONNAME. There are legitimate arguments to ignore commonname as well as legalname that have been made. Labeling the observation as "disgusting" or "discriminatory" or "transphobic" or any other label designed to squelch the observation is not helpful or appreciated. --DHeyward (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

AGK, the Army is not discriminating here, there is simply no such thing in play. When Manning joined the Army, he came under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which does not recognize transgender "rights" in any form whatsoever. If people travel to other nations, said travelers go under the expectation that they will abide by that nation's laws, which may not always be in line with the laws of their nation of origin. It's quite similar here; Manning sacrificed certain rights and liberties upon enlistment, they all know that when they sign the papers. No one has a "right" to serve in the uniformed services of the United States military while being openly transgendered, nor to be recognized as such. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What?

5) In order for David Gerard's change to the title of the article to meet the threshold for special protection set forth in the biography of living persons policy, it is necessary to establish that David removed material about a living person on the basis of a good-faith assertion of non-compliance, and that David was prepared to explain his rationale for doing so. With regard to David Gerard's action:

By this reasoning, any change other than adding text without modifying anything else is eligible for special protections if claimed to be BLP.

Common sense says that a clause which applies to "removal" applies to removing material without adding anything to replace it. Claiming that a change is a "removal" because the change could be described as removing some material to replace it with other material is rules-lawyering. If it was meant to apply to changes, it would have said "removed or changed". Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, the change in procedure from BRD to BDR necessarily limits the discussion to just whether removal is justified, otherwise BRD might as well be dissolved if consensus on both the deletion and addition (i.e. "change") must be reached before reverting a "change" under BLP. If "Bradley Manning" would be restored after a straight up BLP AFD disussion, the change to "Chelsea Manning" is simply a content dispute subject to BRD, not BLP. If the title was instantly a BLP violation, a proposed speedy delete, copy to private space and edit would have been the proper BLP procedure. Since a "speedy" most likely would have failed (because consensus wouldn't support such a move), the change to Chelsea Manning is a straight up editorial discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A technical note here: since you can't leave an article totally untitled, if you don't wish to delete the article you must replace it with something. Whilst the purest reading of the rules would support Bradley Manning -> Manning via BLP, one could conceive of the move as composed of two steps:

• Bradley Manning -> Manning (BLP removal)
• Manning -> Chelsea Manning (normal move)

If the Manning -> Chelsea Manning bit generated controversy then presumably it would immediately move back to Manning pending an RM, since the addition is not protected but the removal is. Thus you would have the interesting situation that you must find consensus to restore Bradley, but you also must find consensus to approve any other, more descriptive name!

I guess the corresponding situation in article space would be "Bob is a triple murderer" -> "Bob is a painter and decorator working in the Woking area" -- as I read it your removal of the allegation would be subject to special protection, but your addition of professional information would not. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be correct except you skipped an important step. There would first be a discussion to see if Bradley Manning -> Manning was necessary to correct a BLP violation. It would only be about BLP. If the decision that "Bradley Manning" was not a BLP violation (which is the conclusion the three admins had), Manning would be reverted to Bradley Manning without further discussion. There could then be a normal BRD discussion (more likely just a discussion) about whether Bradley Manning -> Chelsea Manning was desired. No consensus at that point would leave it at BM. To illustrate, replace the middle step with neutral name that we would never use as a "Better Than" or "more compliant" comparsion and is used only as a spot to hold the artcle while discussed.

1. Bradley Manning -> A. Living Person (BLP removal while discussion, discussion is only about whether BM was a BLP violation within the WP:Article title policy, not whether the new article name is "better" whence use A. Living Person)
2. A. Living Person -> Bradley Manning (move back if consensus is that that "Bradley Manning" is not a BLP violation within the WP:Article title policy)
3. Bradley Manning -> Chelsea Manning - (move if consensus is "Chelsea")

The BLP first step that is separate is simply determining whether "Bradley Manning" is BLP compliant or not. There is no "more compliant" category. It's a straight up decision with !votes about "is BM a BLP violation?" No consensus on that means that it is a BLP violation and BM is not an acceptable title, ever. By jumping straight to step 3 and calling it "BLP", without first evaluating whether there is a BLP problem in the first place and forcing the consensus burden to move back, circumvents BRD for what would really be a content discussion. Starting with step 3 and getting "no consensus" doesn't establish where the burden for movement lies. Starting at step 1 and asking only about the BLP aspects of the original title will clearly establish the burden for a step 3 move. The admins that moved back to BM made the decision that BM was not a BLP violation in and of itself, therefore the step 3 burden was on the mover, not the move back. --DHeyward (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we're saying the same thing I think -- the only difference is whether the BLP-move and the regular-move are discussed separately or together. Doing the steps independently is much tidier and clearer, but of course that didn't happen :) As I see it the remaining piece of the puzzle is that we never really had a discussion about whether BM is a violation; the three admins called it for not-a-violation, but most people involved in the RM weren't arguing that point, they were arguing as if for a normal RM. It's a bit blurred as a result -- see also Kww and Kirill's exchange on the main page. Chris Smowton (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• the removal argument per blp is incredibly weak, since Bradley was not removed from anywhere else in the article. Are we really to believe that Bradly in 24 point font harms the subject but Bradley in 12 point font 1 inch lower doesnt?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've argued this with OWK ad nauseum, but for passers-by: the difference is context. What does usage as title imply to a casual uninformed reader vs. what does "formerly XXX" or "born XXX" imply. Chris Smowton (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think, and have argued that it's not a BLP violation and that's why the Article title space is the best place to address it. We have various standards for redirects and titles that have all the requirements to strictly meet the BLP requirements but the choice is one of decorum. I think it makes it more civil rather than removing a violation. Similar to the envelope title for a letter to Chelsea. I'm sure there are people that won't use the "Pvt. Bradley E. Manning" when titling their envelope but it doesn't make it discriminatory to do so. For that reason, it appears the invocation of BLP was used to win a content dispute, just like it was in May 2012 when BLP was invoked to move the article to "Breanna." The argument in 2012 BLP/N noticeboard not to make that move were that Manning's lawyer used "he" in court and "Bradley E. Manning" in letters to the government. Which is the same as today so those arguments were, in hindsight, specious. That BLP/N move discussion outlined the process for moving "Bradley Manning." The official press release about Manning's gender and name are notable to support the move, but not that the current title is a BLP violation. That type of finding leaves no room for common name for only a single class of individuals regardless of how well sourced the common name is. BM to CM is a legitimate content request but I find it very difficult to claim that "misgendering" is a compelling reason when we've been misgendering her purposely for over a year. No one, not even Chelsea, has claimed she is male since at least May 2012 and I've found no trans advocates that state her gender was anything but female. Sceptre's two page moves in May 2012 and the noticeboard discussion bear this out and becoming familiar with that history and the request for consensus should have been followed before the page move in August 2013. --DHeyward (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

Baseball Bugs is a regular on the reference desks, a complication with a topic ban is then that the reference desk contributions would also be subject to the proposed topic ban. While there may have been some problems there too, these can be dealt with by demanding that he (and for that matter anyone else) sticks to what reliable sources say on the topic. Obviously on the ref desk, the standards for what is an acceptable comment is by default a lot higher compared to Wikipedia talk pages. Count Iblis (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Object to broad topic ban Oppose as disproportionately punitive. The user is broadly constructive within the community, an indefinite ban is appropriate for a troll, which this contributor is not. The user would be forbidden from editting Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani because the latter appeared in drag at a charity event. If anything, a narrowly focused and limited ban might be justifiable. μηδείς (talk) 3:29 pm, Today (UTC−4)

• It's ironic that the community already rejected a topic ban for Baseball Bugs, and in fact supported one for Josh Gorand, and now it seems like Josh will get off Scott free but BB will be punished by the arbs. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  That is interesting.--MONGO 01:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• The remedy proposes:

  Baseball Bugs is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.

  The reference desk is not a "[page] relating to any transgender topic or individual", so he would be allowed to edit it (although if he edited a thread on the reference desk about a transgender topic or individual, he would be sanctioned). I am therefore not sure I see how the remedy could interfere with Baseball Bugs' unrelated, upstanding work on the reference desks. AGK [•] 11:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is still a problem because a thread on the Humanties desk may well involve some individual like Manning, Assange or Snowden. But I think that BBB can be safely exempt from the topic ban as far as the Ref Desk is concerned, because making problematic comments is never tolerated there anyway. If BBB would misbehave there, he would not only be dealt with by the regulars he would also be brought to AE because of the discretionary sanctions. I think that's better than BBB being hauled to AE and being judged on whether or not some answer he gave was in violation of the topic ban if there was nothing wrong with that answer itself. In fact, you could argue that BBB would benefit from answering such questions on the Ref Desk due to the much tighter rules there. Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• My core complaint in late August was that advocates were abusing Wikipedia to promote a personal agenda, despite a lack of valid sourcing. Once CNN (supposedly) began referring to the subject as "Chelsea", my complaint became moot and I no longer opposed the rename and basically dropped the topic. I see just today that the article was renamed back to Bradley. I don't know when that was done, as I stopped following it in late August or early September. If mainstream media are now saying "Chelsea", then the move back to "Bradley" was incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think that Bugs' efforts to uphold WP:V and WP:NPOV are properly characterized as "antics" by Arbitrators. Yes, he once mentioned "he/she/it" instead of the much more acceptable "he/she", but that was not an article edit, and in fact Bugs was at that time supporting "he" in the article instead of "she" or "it". Instead of recognizing Bugs' legitimate good-faith defense of core Wikipedia policies, ArbCom spins a fanciful tale that Bugs attributed "malice" to other editors. That tale is simply false, and no better than a personal attack by ArbCom; saying other editors are wrong, or that they are committing malfeasance, is not anywhere near the same thing as attributing malice to them. Perhaps if ArbCom wants everyone to be sweet and loving and tranquil, they could start with changing aggressive-sounding user names ("Nuclear Warfare" for example).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Perfection is not required

@AGK:@Carcharoth:@Courcelles:@David Fuchs:@Kirill Lokshin:@Newyorkbrad:@NuclearWarfare:@Risker:@Roger Davies:@Salvio giuliano:@Timotheus Canens:@Worm That Turned:

Whenever an admin makes a mistake (or at least is perceived as such) and calls for their desysopping inevitably emerge, it is often pointed out that perfection is not required for admins. I find this argument persuasive: a single or even occasional mistake is not a valid basis for desysopping. That is to say, to err is human and everyone makes mistakes.

What applies to admins should also apply to editors (perhaps even more so since admins are expected to be well-versed on Wikipedia policies/guidelines and go through a vetting process).

Unfortunately, there are a shocking number of proposals which are backed by only one or two diffs (many of which are weak or borderline). Perfection is not a reasonable standard to require anyone to live up to. If there is a pattern of misconduct, that's one thing. But one or two isolated diffs is not a pattern and is not actionable.

Rather than a 'topic ban everyone who made a mistake' decision, I suggest that ArbCom only sanction editors who exhibited a pattern of misconduct. Off the top of my head, there are only two or three editors who would qualify. (There could be more, that's just off the top of my head.) For everyone else, I recommend assuming good faith and simply issue a reminder/warning that this is a sensitive topic and that everyone is expected to be on their best behavior.

If any editor violates Wikipedia's standards of conduct, WP:AE is more than capable of handling it.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Housekeeping note: I see you pinged every member(!) of the committee in this post, but I received no notification. I guess the Echo system puts a cap on the number of notifications that can be sent out by one user in one edit, that when exceeded means no notifications at all will be sent. AGK [•] 20:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Meh..I have gotten a couple pings lately regarding someone mentioning MONGO at a noticeboard but when I see what the fuss is about, there isn't anything at all about MONGO....so the system isn't perfect. I concur with AQFK...why is arbcom going after mere editors for trash talking and not touching admins? Arbcom needs to put the individual sanctions idea aside...one editor that may get topic banned hasn't edited in almost a month!--MONGO 01:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This dispute has been characterised by comments of a transphobic (on the pro-Bradley side) or hypersensitive (on the pro-Chelsea side) nature. The basic thinking that underpins the draft decision is that even a handful of comments of this nature are detrimental to constructive discussion, and therefore require appropriate sanctioning if the dispute is to be resolved. Sometimes comments are so disruptive that they do not even need to be part of a systemic pattern in order to rise to the level where a finding is required. Perfection is certainly not required, but hate speech and battleground behaviour is not acceptable. AGK [•] 10:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Which BLP violation?

I'm not sure it's involved in this case, but suppose A has a good-faith belief that the specified content is a BLP violation, and B has a good-faith belief that the specified content cannot possibly be a BLP violation. (Not doubting A's good faith, but his competence.) What to do?

For that matter, (and this is related to this case), I don't think either title presents a possible BLP violation, but a rational argument that the title CM is a BLP violation has also been presented. Given that, which moves are in violation of BLP? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

We go with A until consensus forms in B's favor. The real tension forms when C believes that A's version itself presents as a BLP violation. But I don't think that such a thing is likely. Additionally, I have seen no rational argument that 'Chelsea Manning' as a title is a BLP violation; can you please explain? NW (Talk) 22:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether Bradley Manning is a BLP violation. That determines whether consensus is required to move from Bradley to Chelsea. If Bradley is a BLP violation, no amount of consensus can bring it back. If it's not a BLP violation, consensus would be required to move it to Chelsea. The nonsense that there needs to be consensus to move from Chelsea to Bradley though, is circular logic baloney. --DHeyward (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The text of WP:BLP is that it prohibits unsourced controversial statements about living persons. In my opinion, neither Bradley nor Chelsea could conceivably be considered "unsourced" or "controversial", but it could be argued that there were no sources stating that Manning was called Chelsea other than by herself, and that calling her "Chelsea" is controversial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen a rational argument that "Bradley" could be a BLP violation, although I've seen "good-faith" arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In an extended sense, the title "Chelsea" violates WP:SELFPUB, as points one (arguably) and five are met. (The entire new title is sourced only to the subject's own statements.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Under the common-law scheme valid in 46 of 50 U.S. states, one may change their own name simply by declaring it to be so, and holding oneself out publicly so named. A valid, reliable source (NBC News' Today Show) was cited as the source for Chelsea's making that declaration. That is not "self-published." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Mind to cite the common law in regards to names please? thanks.TMCk (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This UCLA Law Review article is a great place to start. American jurisprudence widely recognizes a common-law right to change one's name. For example, from the California Supreme Court, In re Ross, 8 Cal.2d 608, (1937) The common law recognizes the right to change one's personal name without the necessity of legal proceedings, and the purpose of the statutory procedure is simply to have, wherever possible, a record of the change. (cites omitted) Hence Mr. Ross may, regardless of the present petition, use the name of Keith if he desires. Only three states (Hawaii, Maine and Oklahoma) have explicitly abrogated this common-law right by statute or judicial ruling (and Louisiana, with its French-derived civil law, never recognized such a right), none of which are relevant to Chelsea Manning's name change. I find it an incredibly interesting subset of common law and a reminder of how much America still derives from its British heritage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, re Ross: After using the name for 15 years and going to court to have it officially changed so he can use it as his official name. There is much more to this law than what you're cherry-quoting.TMCk (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's really not. There exists a slew of case-law on this matter. You should really read that UCLA Law Review article and not just cherry-pick what you want to believe and not believe. In re Ross explicitly ruled that the subject wasn't even required to go to court to have it changed, but that in any event, the lower court should not have rejected his name-change request. To quote the court again, Petitioner may now, without the aid of any court, deal with persons and secure credit under the name of Keith, if he chooses to assume that name.

Also see Degerberg v. McCormick from the Delaware Court of Chancery, 1962: At common law, of course, a person could adopt any name which he chose so long as the change of name was not for an improper purpose. In most states, as in Delaware, there now exist statutes which authorize a proceeding to judicially effect a change of name. Such statutes are universally held not to affect the common law right. They are regarded as merely providing a procedure to establish a court record of the change.

Now, it may be true that to change one's government-issued driver's license, passport, etc., that a court order may be required. But there is no legal requirement that any person carry or use a government-issued driver's license, passport or any other form of identification, nor does the name on a person's government-issued identification necessarily define that person's chosen legal name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

We (Wikipedia) generally follow WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:LEGALNAME. I agree that the common-law right to change one's name seems to make the use of the subject's chosen name to not be a WP:BLP violation; but, if current reliable sources use the subject's former chosen name, then using that former name cannot possibly be a WP:BLP violation, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that follows. There are any number of things which are published in reliable sources but that might be violations of WP:BLP. At any rate, this doesn't need to be rehashed here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter, if the majority of sources use the title we as an encyclopedia have to follow suit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Factually untrue. "Generally prefer the common name, if without problems" is not "Must use most common name in all cases." __Elaqueate (talk) 07:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The argument being conflated with violation is a principle of "Do no harm". "Chelsea" as an alternative title is less harmful than "Bradley" meaning we lose very little encyclopedic value for a less harmful titling. We've made lots of BLP content decisions based on harm but they are almost always consensus based change to the least harm over other encyclopedic priorities such as common name, notability, etc. That's still a consensus proposition of encyclopedic value rather than a BLP violation hammer though. I've seen that process take longer but in the end, the least harmful choice is chosen by the community. I think it would be received better proposed that way than as a BLP violation because setting that precedent on this case makes BLP the argument for any proposed hagiographic change (regardless of whether it's warranted). I'd rather evaluate between two choices with harm vs. encyclopedic than a battle over BLP policy. It's usually a clearer choice for people to make and this process would have ended three weeks ago if harm vs. value was put to consensus rather than the BLP hammer. Currently there's a rather pedantic argument over whether wording "encyclopedic value" trumps "harm" but it doesn't matter really because it's a consensus based from status quo to new. People will form their own opinion as to what weight each has and the order in the principle won't matter (meaning, I'd urge those opposing based on word order to consider the process rather than the order of wording - use this case as an example - would the order of priority change someone's view in taking part in the discussion?). For selfpub, we usually allow people and groups to self-identify. That's a pretty long standing view. --DHeyward (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree...we aim to be as harmless as possible...and rarely are as harmless as possible.--MONGO 01:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Mostly Harmless. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the "'Chelsea' as an alternative title is less harmful than 'Bradley'" argument. Private Manning's support network uses "Bradley Manning" (for the appeal process and for sending mail to Private Manning). Therefore, in so far as it confuses potential supporters, "Chelsea Manning" is obviously a more harmful title. -- 101.119.14.220 (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a misleading about the support network's usage. The support network uses Chelsea overwhelmingly at this point. It's the primary reference all over their home page and they have stated they are actively changing references. The petition wording was set before the announcement. The army sets conditions on mail and appeals, not the support network. __Elaqueate (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Who sets the conditions isn't important. One of the functions of the article is to inform potential supporters that Private Manning's official name is "Bradley Manning." Failure to do that will mean that potential letters of support will not reach their destination, which obviously harms Private Manning. -- 101.119.14.104 (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The support network seems to balance informing people that her name is Chelsea with the information about the postal requirements. Confusion is eliminated by educating, not by hiding new information. Are you suggesting Wikipedia use "Bradley" to avoid harming the subject by not confusing supporters who want to send her mail? __Elaqueate (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't want to hide new information, but we don't want to hide old information either. Since the article uses "Chelsea" almost entirely throughout, if we also change the article title to "Chelsea," we will certainly confuse potential supporters -- which seems to me to constitute harm. -- 101.119.15.3 (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

So we should seek to minimize harm, when there are multiple options that are both accurate and sourced? __Elaqueate (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the suggestion that's been made (my understanding is that WP:BLP does not currently require this). Of course, such a policy does require a degree of crystal-ball gazing. -- 101.119.14.67 (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, bd2412 argues "that it is not a BLP violation to have a factually supported title that would harm or disturb the article subject." Indeed, all articles containing negative information about their subjects (such as past criminal convictions) potentially harm or disturb their subjects. Does that breach WP:BLP? -- 101.119.14.220 (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Common Law name changes by NorthBySouthBaranof, just a note (not legal advice) that those persons currently in prison or convicted of certain felonies are often restricted from making any form of common-law name changes. In some cases it may even be a crime to adopt a new name without court permission. Federal rules of criminal and civil procedure do not recognize common law name changes. Whether she will be allowed to petition a court for a name change while being confined to the detention barracks as a member of the U.S. military or whether she can simply use a new name after her dishonorable discharge is probably not as simple as it is for those not in that circumstance. It doesn't change her self-identity, but it's misleading to claim she has a recognized common law right to adopt a name without exploring the civil rights status of her discharge and laws of the state she will live in after her discharge. --DHeyward (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What "federal rules of criminal and civil procedure" dictate is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The federal government does not get to decide what Chelsea Manning's name is.

In the state of Kansas, there are no such statutory restrictions on common-law name changes. Per In re Morehead, 10 Kan App. 2d 625 (1985) [11], Furthermore, the common law regarding name changes was that so long as no fraud was intended, any person, including a minor, had the right to change his name without legal formality by simply using the new name (cites omitted). Since there is nothing in the Kansas statute which abrogates this rule, it would seem that petitioner could have accomplished her name change without any sanction by the court. However, it has also been held that statutory provisions setting up a legal procedure for name changes are intended as aids and affirmations of the common-law rule and not as an abrogation or substitution for the informal procedure. It is said that the in-court procedures have been adopted simply to pro­vide a record of name changes.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, US law restricts the ability of people to change their name if they have been previously convicted of a felony. Since Private Manning's name-change announcement came several days after the conviction, it's not clear that it constituted a valid common-law name change. Of course, Wikipedia's "common name" need not be the legal name of a person, and (for example) for performing artists it often is not the legal name. -- 101.119.14.104 (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There exists no such general "US law" regarding name changes. Name changes are not a federal issue - they are a state matter. Some states may have enacted such restrictions, others may not have. Evidence for your claim would be helpful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In Colorado law, it's C.R.S. 13-15-101(2)(b): "The court shall not grant a petition for a name change if the court finds the petitioner was previously convicted of a felony ... in this state or any other state or under federal law." My understanding was that most US states had similar rules. Some states (e.g. Illinois and Indiana) put a 10-year limit on this restriction. -- 101.119.14.67 (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As per C.R.S. 13-15-101: "Statutes setting forth procedures to be followed in changing a name merely provide an additional method beyond the common law for making the change." and "At common law a person could adopt another name at will." Just because the Colorado court wouldn't positively affirm the name change, doesn't preclude it from being fact in common law. But this is all besides the point. People bringing up "Legal name" objections are not being all that helpful. __Elaqueate (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal name is a useless argument, for either side, and I have no idea why y'all are carrying on about it here and quoting case law. We have tens of thousands of articles that are not at the subject's legal name - Wikipedia literally doesn't care what the subject's legal name is - and if Manning NEVER changes their legal name, or changes it tomorrow, it would not change the discussion per WP:AT.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I only pointed out that the argument that it was both legal per NBSB is not correct for felons is not as clear as he has been asserting. Further, the Army is not discriminating against her by using her legal name as felons (and soldiers to some extent) have restrictions on civil rights. The Army will recognize name changes acknowledged by a state court (i.e. marriage, divorce, etc) for serving soldiers but not sure about those under sentence facing a dishonorable discharge. Chelsea's first step would be to petition a Kansas court for a name change if she wanted to legally change it. How the legal status of her name affects common name is a social construct of what people recognize. It's the same with self-identified name. When she self-identified as Breanna, we ignored it in favor of common name but the argument also included "legal name". If you recall, the argument against using her statement identifying as female and "Breanna" that was presented in court in May 2012, hinged on her attorney's use of "Bradley Manning" and "he" in court and from a letter written to the U.S. Government. Those were in compliance with legal name and rules of the court, rather than a denial that she was female or Breanna. That was spelled out in her announcement in August 2013 as to when she is required to use "Bradley.". Self-identity vs. commonname is the issue here and to the extent legal name influences society's view is the relevant part. --DHeyward (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-discrimination

Is that a real thing? It's all very well to say "Comments that demean any person—whether a fellow editor, an article subject, or any other person—on the basis of such personal characteristics are unwelcome", but is that ever enforced? For example, I once came across an editor calling Michael Behe a "religious nut job". Has there ever been any recourse for something like that? Has there ever been anything that anyone could do about it? What precisely has been done to stop those sorts of comments? If the ArbCom wants to be serious about stamping this out, it needs to be done across the board. Otherwise it's merely cherry picking and hypocrisy. StAnselm (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Personally I think this is a broad principle that will cause some challenges. For instance, User:Xiner/Userboxes/Non-spiritual positive atheist is transcluded on dozens of pages; surely this is discriminatory under Kirill's proposed definition. I think that NYB's less broad proposal makes more sense (and I think, would permit most of the findings anyway as in most cases the comments were patently demeaning and offensive). Christopher Parham (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Civility should always be at the forefront. But there is a difference between comments on who you are (as in Chelsea being a woman) and what you believe (ie. G-d is a trinity versus Nontrinitarianism) - one discriminates on the existence of the person & the other argues against a choice in belief. And just because it hasn't been dealt with before doesn't mean its 'merely cherry picking and hypocrisy' - it just means it hasn't been dealt with before (& there's always a first). AnonNep (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Should add: as 'personal characteristics' could be vague it may benefit from re-phrasing. AnonNep (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The stated policy includes "what you believe" (i.e. religion) as one of the relevant personal characteristics. The Oxford English dictionary defines "nut job" as "a crazy or foolish person," so calling someone a "religious nut job" quite clearly demeans someone by suggesting that they are "a crazy or foolish person" because of their religious beliefs. And I agree with StAnselm: if the policy is applied, it should be applied to all slurs based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, etc. -- 101.119.15.241 (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree on civility (and I'd place attack on choice of opinion into that). But I don't believe this is a choice of opinion issue, and, as I said, perhaps the phrasing could be improved. AnonNep (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The phrasing is, I believe, based on the WMF NDP: "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." -- 101.119.15.241 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting religious page X should not exist. Having your opinion disagreed with isn't discriminatory. Having your existence denied is discriminatory. AnonNep (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, let me ask you, then, AnonNep: What sanctions, if any should be applied to an editor who calls Michael Behe a "religious nut job"? Are they any different to the sanctions that should be applied, say, to an editor who says Chelsea Manning "is a woman only in his own head"? StAnselm (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of demeaning language about any of the legally protected characteristics is discriminatory. Applied to editors, such language is clearly in breach of the current WMF NDP. If the NDP is extended to include (or interpreted as including) article subjects, it would likewise have to cover demeaning language about any of the legally protected characteristics. -- 101.119.14.30 (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think calling anyone 'crazy' (in any form) insults anyone with a mental health issue. But in your Behe example its calling someone 'crazy' for their opinion but in your Manning example its calling her 'crazy' for who she is. Both are uncivil, both are discriminatory to those with mental health issues, and the latter is discriminatory to Chelsea and those who identify as transgender. It isn't discriminatory to Behe (unless he has mental health issues) but a very uncivil way of disagreeing with an opinion (which is discriminatory to others). AnonNep (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Under US law, as I understand it, discrimination includes language that "demeans or shows hostility, or aversion, toward an individual because of his/her race, color, religion, gender, national origin, etc." Discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, and national origin is prohibited in the US by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Terminology such as "religious nut job" would certainly fall within the scope of that. It's not just "uncivil," but illegal, at least in workplace contexts. It seems to me that your definition of "discrimination" is out of step with legal definitions in the US (or other Western countries). -- 101.119.15.231 (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not buying into a narrow nationalist argument under any means. What the US classes as a religion is its business, it certainly doesn't apply around the rest of the western speaking world let alone - English Wikipedia - or anywhere else. AnonNep (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I mention the US because that's where the WMF is located. Under the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, the protected characteristics are "age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation." -- 101.119.14.104 (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I could mention examples but I see no point in this decision being sidetracked by a religious debate. If there is a debate on that particular issue then it should be be brought and argued on its merits. But I disagree with idea (as above) that because X wasn't acted on then Y shouldn't be now. AnonNep (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that was the argument. I think the argument was that if X becomes prohibited with regard to protected characteristic Y in the future, then X must also become prohibited with regard to every other protected characteristic Z. In other words, if we are going to sanction epithets like "transgender nut job," we must also sanction "religious nut job," as well as similar slurs based on race, ethnic origin, etc. Personally, I would very much welcome the resulting changes to Wikipedia. -- 101.119.14.104 (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree (still). I see this as about discriminatory statements in the case of Chelsea Manning. The only issue should be those statements in that context. Religious side-issues & Wiki-laywering shouldn't change that. This case can't solve the problems of the world, or of Wikipedia, nor should it be expected to. AnonNep (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This case was triggered by a specific dispute, but all the proposed principles under 3.1 are general principles, which apply to the whole of the encyclopaedia. Of these, the proposed broadening of NDP is the most significant, and I would strongly support it, as long as it's applied consistently. It will result in a much friendlier and more welcoming Wikipedia. -- 101.119.15.3 (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"I would strongly support it, as long as it's applied consistently" - Arguments on how it's interpreted will flow from this decision, just as this decision flows from contested interpretations of other policies and guidelines. What isn't going to change is that discrimination against a person and against that person's expressed beliefs are two different things. The religious will still be religious and attacking someone for that will still, rightfully, be wrong, but an expression of disagreement with religion (made with civility) won't be. Huzzah! We agree! AnonNep (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What about the redirect?

Given proposed principle #11, The BLP policy applies to all references to living persons -- logically that would mean that if using "Bradley Manning" as a title is a violation of .. something, than the redirect that existed while the article was Chelsea Manning and the 23 references on the proposed decision page itself and this post itself is also a violation, and should be expunged from the encyclopedia? This is a Reductio ad absurdum principle that would lead to the conclusion an end user searching WP for "Bradley Manning" should find no references to that name. NE Ent 02:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

... Only, I would think, if "logically" means "with no regard for weight/proportionality." p.s. it appears that the policy hardly mentions due and undue weight; however, I think something can be undue weight when used as a title, but due weight when discussed in the article or used as a redirect. Ananiujitha (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly consistent to argue that the article title is easily and painlessly fixed, BLP-wise, by renaming it, while also accepting that redirects from the former name are appropriate to aid readers in making the connection to her current name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The WP:Article titles handle this very case. But it necessarily presumes that the name itself is not a BLP violation. It is entirely inconsistent to try to retrofit what is not a BLP violation (the article living at "Bradley Manning") in ex-post-facto attempt to justify certain actions. The name cannot be a BLP violation either as a name or redirect and be present. BLP applies to all content. It doesn't apply "more" to titles. We don't call titles a BLP violation but suddenly recognize that a redirect isn't affected by BLP. Rather, it's obvious that neither are BLP violation, (neither is "Breanna Manning" or "Pvt. Manning"). In reality, it's a titling dispute between two BLP acceptable names that should be a consensus move from status quo to new. Status quo was "Bradley Manning". The argument that Bradley Manning was a BLP violation but somehow we would allow any BLP violation to return in any form is a specious claim. If it's a BLP violation, it's a BLP violation everywhere. The BLP justification has been twisted ex-post facto to fit the actions and its definition and application bent to support a particular finding. If "Bradley Manning" were a BLP violation it is not allowed as a redirect any more than it is allowed as a title or as a reference anywhere, anytime or anyplace. If it's not a BLP violation, the article should never have been changed to Chelsea as a BLP edit. --DHeyward (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have to ask, what do you think blp is for? Because I'm not an expert, but I'd gotten the impression that it's for addressing unfairly hostile pages as well as libellous claims, and that something could be against blp due to undue weight, and that putting something in the title emphasizes it more, and thus is more likely to be undue weight, than having something in a redirect. "If it's okay in the text, it's okay in the title" seems like a bad idea. Ananiujitha (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Article titles addresses it better. The short answer for titles is that "if it's okay in the text, it's okay as a title" in terms of a BLP policy statement. It doesn't mean that we don't have better titles that are a better fit or more encyclopedic or less harmful - and we should move to those as content decisions. To not qualify as the best title doesn't necessarily mean that it's a BLP violation. We have a number of redirects that aren't the title but aren't BLP violations either. If they were, we would remove them as BLP applies everywhere. We wouldn't tolerate a false-light redirect any more than a false-light statement or article title. We have content disputes about undue weight, NPOV, etc, etc, on practically every article and that is relegated to our content discussions, not a BLP issues. Unsourced, negative material about a living person should be removed if that's the reason for the undue weight (i.e. "libellous claims"). There are lots of possible article titles and we have policies and guidelines to choose them. No article should have a BLP issue by mentioning the text of the title or a redirect in the article itself. If titling this particular article "Bradley Manning" is undue weight, that would be a content issue settled through the normal content cycle. --DHeyward (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Soup Kitchen International and The Soup Nazi is an interesting example. Given the highly negative connotations of the name, I think it would likely be a BLP violation to have a redirect of Soup Nazi to Soup Kitchen International. However, when mentioned in context and giving the person's reaction against this moniker, it is appropriate. So there are things that can be in the text, but not in a redirect or a title. But I'm not convinced Bradley is one of them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Except in the case of unsourced negative information about a living person (which must always be removed immediately), the BLP policy ultimately requires balancing the value of retaining information to provide encyclopedic coverage, with the value of deleting it to protect interests such as an article subject's privacy or dignity. (The BLP policy itself does not define the proper decision in any but the simplest cases; compare Wikipedia:BLP examples for discussion.) It is quite plausible that in some situations, the outcome of the balancing would differ as between the main article and a redirect title toward that article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFD has precedent on redirects from offensive/incorrect/negative. Basically, if the redirect is a likely search term and the article explicitly or implicitly notes that the term is offensive or incorrect then it is generally kept on the grounds that the encyclopaedia is best served by educating people that the term is not correct (it seems to be generally taken that noting that $term is used but is offensive is not a BLP violation, although our using it would be). If it isn't a likely search term and isn't mentioned in the article then its almost always deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if Manning is not happy with the name "Bradley Manning", I think it's all but inarguable that that's a reasonable redirect, and a name worth keeping in the article, 'cos it's the name she came to fame under - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

NYB is obviously correct about unsourced, negative information. I would argue that Thyrduulf example for an incorrect and negative redirect to a living person would be extremely poor practice if not outright prohibited. It should be stubbed with the proper statement of denial if it's notable enough. For example Ivan the Terrible (Treblinka guard) should never be a redirect to John Demjanjuk (it's big enough now that it's unnecessary). At one time, though, it was thought they were the same person, but later proved not to be. If the only information about Ivan the Terrible is about how he is not Demjanuk, it should be stubbed as a separate article clearly delinking them and then in the stub, clearly distinguishing them. Likewise, prior to having a biography, we would not link John Siegenthaler to the "List of Possible Kennedy Assassins" and then have a section that says he isn't one of them. Imagine we create the "Thyrduulf" biography as a link to "List of Wife Beaters" and then in that article list Thyrduulf in the section "Persons that have never been convicted of beating their wives" claiming that the link is needed to exonerate him. False light redirects should be forbidden regardless of whether the redirect points them to an article that clears them. Stubs are better than redirects for both search engines and equivalence. Search engines now take our redirects and reinforce the connection (a search of google for "Bradley Manning" lists "Chelsea Manning" to the side. We would be doing a grave disservice to the subject if searches for "Ivan the Terrible" gave a short bio introduction to John Demjanjuk because our redirect made them equivalent. I would, also argue though, that invoking BLP in an effort to change the name from the article title to a reasonable redirect is not in the spirit of protection afforded BLP actions that are clearly aimed at negative and unsourced material. Balance is generally under the content umbrella of WP:BRD, not the hammer of BLP. If the argument is between a reasonable COMMONNAME title that is not negative/unsourced and a less harmful version of a name of that person, we can have that discussion without a BLP invocation using the normal consensus process. Since that is what will happen to "Chelsea" vs. "Bradley", I think it's a lesson that it is often less painful both for hte encyclopedia and the subject to simply clarify that. The war over what the BLP policy means has been more painful than a simple RM justification. Rationalizing the BLP invocation has also not been helpful as it the point-of-view that it is a BLP violation has also polarized the community. If "Bradley Manning" was a BLP violation of the sort needed to protect her from such disparagement it, it should be stubbed out as "Bradley Manning is a disparaging term used previously to describe to Chelsea Manning." But I don't think anyone would argue it rises to the level of disparagement that we would not link them. The community will start eroding the BLP power/protection if it becomes a weapon to get an uneven advantage over content. Guarding when we use it protects it from being eroded in the future. --DHeyward (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

3.3.15 Discretionary sanctions applicable

I don't know enough about the previous sexology case to know if this ia a broadening of that sanctions list. I'd point out that "Bradley Manning" was moved to "Breanna Manning" twice in May 2012 and there was a discussion at BLP/N. The outcome of the move war is obvious, however the arguments about gender identity, that Manning is female, were correct. I doubt any trans aware group disputes that Manning self-declared her gender identity when that testimony was given in court. At the time, the arguments that we shouldn't identify her as female centered on her lawyers use of "he" during court and a letter to the government that was signed "Bradley E. Manning" used as evidence against her own statements. As those conditions are the same today (in court and in letters to the government, "he" and "Bradley Manning" are used), there is really no change in Manning's gender identity as expressed in May 2012, though her name did. In effect, we've been misgendering her the entire time and applied sanctions to those that correcty gendered her female in 2012. The broadness of the sanctions seems to imply that an admin could arbitrarily decide when sanctions can be applied based on an interpretation of when an article becomes a "transgender" article without much guidance. Since there was a dispute in May 2012 about this very thing, it's not clear that discretionary sanctions would not have been given out in May 2012 or that they would be more justified now than they were then. Is there more guidance necessary for that broad of sanction category? --DHeyward (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I personally referred to her as Breanna on my blogs, and when people were talking about her case. But I don't think Wikipedia should have referred to her as Breanna, for two reasons. First, it's hard to tell if someone is trans when they haven't declared that they are trans. Second, it's often inconsistent with self-determination. If she was unable to come out at the time, then yes, it's fair for individuals to try to go by the best clues to her self-identification, but it's also fair for Wikipedia as a whole to have policies/practices that prioritize clearly-stated self-identification, avoid spreading rumors, etc. Ananiujitha (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's my question. Manning has never used the term "transgender" as far as I know (and she was actually criticized by some transgender advocacy groups for not doing so). We are left to infer it from her statements, which depending on an individuals viewpoint, we knew she was transgender in May 2012 (like your assessment in your blog) or we knew she was transgender in August 2013 but both of those are inferred from her statements at the time. Your personal statement belies the problem as to when an article becomes a transgender article that is instantly sanctionable by admins and who makes those determinations? Would the Bradley Manning article be a transgender article subject to sanctions since May 2012? Or August 2013? And how do we know? Broadly construed shouldn't be the same as ambiguously or arbitrarily construed. --DHeyward (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In terms of article titling and pronouns, etc, we should obviously wait for a verifiable statement (in a primary or other source) that a subject has unambiguously declared their gender before we change our article. There are many reasons why someone who is transgender does not/cannot publicly come out as such - regardless of what those reasons are it is never our job to out someone. If reliable sources are discussing someone's sexuality or gender then it may be encyclopaedic to report such discussion in the article, but even if those sources out the subject we must do no more than report that outing - a person is male until they say otherwise (and vice versa).
As for when discretionary sanctions apply, I don't think it is necessarily a binary. If there are discussions on the talk page about whether someone is transgender or not then those discussions are subject to the DS without the whole article being. If there is a section in the article relating to discussion of a subject's transgender status then I would say that the DS applies to the article but particularly to that section. Some of the comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Request for clarification (September 2013) are also useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

David Gerard's use of tools

@Kirill Lokshin: David Gerard never mentioned the Footnoted quotes case, but in any event that case surely doesn't excuse his not providing an explanation for citing BLP and being incivil to those who asked for one? Neither does it explain is reversal of edit protection by Mark Arsten.

All of those actions are beyond anything the ArbCom may have instructed during the Footnoted quotes case and still demonstrate WP:ADMINACCT, WP:WHEEL and WP:INVOLVED. --RA (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed decisions

So, looking at the preliminary decisions, it seems like the only discriminatory, hate-filled comments that are being sanctioned is if the Editor mentions male genitalia ("testicles" and "dick"). So, let that be a lesson, you can vent, be belligerent, obnoxious and antagonistic towards other Editors, that's free speech....as long as you don't talk about men's junk.
If anyone wanted to know where the line is that shouldn't cross, it's pretty clear now where that is.
To be fair, ARBCOM would probably also disagree with the angry use of words for female genitals. But know that you can get in trouble if you bring genitals into the discussion. Otherwise, it's all "heat of the moment" stuff. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And that's why we use uninvolved editors to solve disputes.--v/r - TP 16:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There are several things I could say here, but one thing I think should be reexamined is the discussion that all of the comments excerpted in the decision (most of the quotations are from postings that were longer and provide context) were "hate-filled." Many of them were insensitive, sometimes highly so, but I do not think a majority of them were intentionally "hate-filled," assuming that "hate" reflects an element of intentionality or emotionality. I believe that many of the editors mentioned in the decision used bad judgment in how they expressed their opinions, but I do not believe that most of them were filled with hatred when they did so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Would "contempt" be a better word? For the targets of it, it's a distinction that doesn't really make a difference. Work from the targets' perspective on these issues and see what answer that seems to give - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hence why an impartial jury is never filled by victims of a crime. Hence why we use uninvolved administrators to close discussions. Hence why we don't allow any 'side' of any issue to be the final arbitrator. The targets perspective obviously favors the targets. Arbitrators are to work from a disconnected and logical perspective.--v/r - TP 20:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I agree with that only up to a point. It is a mistake to think that in this instance, only editors who identify as trans are "victims" of the inappropriate comments. Offensive comments about trans people are harmful to the entire encyclopedia and its community, just as would be offensive comments about blacks or Jews or hetrosexuals or women or any other group defined by its members' personal characteristics. So I would not use the analogy to "victims of a crime" in this context. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I identify as an entirely cissexual male by most parameters I can think of, but I'm concerned for trans loved ones. And I think my only unique knowledge is from actually knowing trans people. So, yeah.

For anything that is posited as discriminatory against trans people, imagine something analogous said against black people, or gay people, or women. See how it plays then, and whether Wikipedia should put up with it, from malice or from mere ignorance - David Gerard (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Straight white men can't have something bad said about them? I'll drop that early since I'm not up for a white or male privilege argument right now. Back to the main point, the fact is, David, that folks who feel personally transgressed (not a pun) against are not good judges of fairness and neutrality. Very little fairness comes out of such a situation. You've had very little regard for those users that are ignorant and others have thrown names at them. One user in particular on Sue Gardner's talk page said that it doesn't matter how we treat 'the oppressors'. If that's your POV, then you're not being objective. Disputes need to be solved objectively. I've been you be objective, I've defended yours and Phil's capability to be objective, but saying that we should use the perspective of the victim and that the distinction doesn't matter is not dispute resolution, it's revenge. Let's seek resolution which should include admonishing and educating others.--v/r - TP 20:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate that. I'm suggesting it as a mental exercise in considering the issue - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ohh, well in that case it's perfectly legitimate. I thought you meant that the Arbs should decide the issue from the targets' perspective. I always think it's a good idea to try to see issues from each perspective.--v/r - TP 21:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether the speakers were hateful or just had contempt for others (or Manning) in their comments, Newyorkbrad, doesn't change the fact that the only statements that the ARBCOM felt were offensive enough to sanction invoke male genitalia. I find that telling (and slightly comical) that out of the hundreds of comments that were made, (and that I'm sure you read carefully over) those were the remarks that "crossed the line" of insensitivity. It's good to know where the line is with this ARBCOM group. Ixnay on the testicleay talkay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Where are you getting this from? The Arbcom process is not over yet, and even if it was why does it matter so much? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

+1 to Liz here: the ultimate question is, when you read a comment like Hitmonchan's obviously unacceptable contribution (currently voted 9-0 in favour), what is the really unacceptable bit? Is it that he rejects trans identities, or is it that he is sweary and confrontational whilst doing it? Looking at FoFs 10 and 11 (speech by Cjarbo2 and ColonelHenry), I would guess that the arbs are split on that question. For example, AGK says "Cjarbo2 seems to deny that Manning is correct to decide that her true gender is female. That is discrimination." whereas Salvio says "Insensitive? Yes. Discriminatory speech? Definitely not.". Chris Smowton (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Someone care to take a look at Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request ? There's a bit of a dust-up over some extremely petty (IMO) wording, who is actually filing the RM, an so on. After the last month of hostility, this is the last thing we need...perhaps I should have voted to support the RM moratorium after all... Tarc (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Gawd ... let's just start the RM - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It already has been started. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Both sides of the edit war have been blocked for three hours, and the block has been logged as a discretionary sanction in the Sexology case. I trust that my dealing out equal time to both participants (whom themselves have shown themselves to be on opposites sides of the Chelsea/Bradley question) will assuage any doubts of my impartiality.—Kww(talk) 21:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed it's only 3 hours but what I'm more disappointed about is that a discussion that Obi wan has worked for weeks as a bi-partisan effort with others across the board to develop consensus on an NPOV RM but was hijacked by Josh Gorand trying to gain an upper hand early. It's a continual disruptive behavior that has tainted another RM from the start.--v/r - TP 21:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You continue making false claims and displaying disruptive ownership behaviour, for the 5th consecutive week now. 1) I have been one of the major contributors to and organizers of the evidence collection in preparation of the RM from day 1, and 2) Everyone was aware that someone would file an RM on this specific, agreed on date, 3) the RM is filed in accordance with procedure, by one of the editors involved in preparation of it, and with due credit given to all contributors to the effort to collect sources, 4) it does indeed seem odd that someone who was a strong opponent of the move the last time would claim ownership to a requested move from Bradley to Chelsea and 5) an RM proposal is, per the related instructions, a signed comment by an editor proposing/advocating a change, it is not supposed or required to be neutral or co-written by opponents of the change. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There was a bit of a kerfuffle, but it's settled. Granted, Josh acted a bit own-y and disregarded the work put in by others, but I wouldn't say there's any "taint" on this discussion because of it. Those who are now !voting will have no idea that any feathers had flown. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

which work did I disregard by legitimately filing an RM under the instructions on creating RMs, that I had been involved in the preparation of for a month, late in the day on the day agreed on for a month, and with due credit given to all editors involved in the previous collection of sources? Was the editor who filed the last RM met with such accusations? Josh Gorand (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If anyone can point at an obvious consensus for some particular version, I can't see any objection to restoring it. I'm not going to do it for fear of involvement problems.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kww Is it possible to close the discussion down and start over? What bothers me is that Josh is already up for a topic ban, he made his status even worse by doing what he did. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing to be gained by that. Let's be realistic here, editors are not !voting based on the wording of the header. The discussion itself is going smoothly, and anything objectionable in the header can be ironed out as it goes. bd2412 T 21:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed the changes, and I prefer Obiwankenobi's version. I don't see that there's a clear enough consensus for it for me to just restore it after having issued related blocks, though.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I just feel bad for Obi is all after all the hard work he put into it per above. Personaly I do not feel it is right but will go with consensus and the flow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TP & KK87 and would add that Obi did an honorable job at forming the RM text and should be commended. Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Obi has been unblocked on the condition that he not personally edit that section of text again.—Kww(talk) 21:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just as an observation, as I said on that page, because of the way the page is structured, it seems that most editors who are going there just to participate in the "Survey" will probably never even notice the header anyway. (Which is now just Josh's version because Obi-Wan asked that his own version be removed, and it was.) Neutron (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Commending the move admins

I suggest again the arbcom commend the moving admins for taking on the horrible task, whether they agree with the result or not. This does not preclude examining the result - but bureaucracy-induced timidity would be a terrible fate for Wikipedia, and we need people who are willing to step up. I disagree with their result, I thought it was disastrously wrong - but I still think they need to be commended for taking on a poisoned chalice like that at all, and particularly considering the stick they've got for it already - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Echo'd.--v/r - TP 21:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. They took on a horrible task and conducted themselves commendably. bd2412 in particular deserves the highest of praise. --RA (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple of Arbs take the position that they shouldn't be seen to endorse the close, which I think is correct. However, it might be appropriate to simply thank the closers. Formerip (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Precisely - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I case it wasn't clear, "thank" not "commend". Formerip (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, also with FormerIP's comment. DPRoberts534 (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I do think that there are major issues with the closure, that make it one of the worst decisions on Wikipedia in a while - If we use the U.S. law principle of strict scrutiny to guide us, any action that could cause harm to a disadvantaged group, such as trans people, should have compelling encyclopedic reasons, avoid overbroad solutions, and use the least damaging means to achieve the encyclopedic ends. Whilst there is a compelling encyclopedic interest in connecting Chelsea with her male name of Bradley, moving the page back to Bradley, as opposed to, say, just making the connection in the first sentence and through redirects, is both overbroad, and, since making her official name on Wikipedia surely must be considered potentially discriminatory, can hardly be considered the least damaging means to reach that encyclopedic end.

But then, I like looking into law, and have a lot of lawyer friends. I'm not surprised they made the decision they did, given the voting, nor do I think it deserves any censure; it was non-malicious, in complete good faith, and, unfortunately, also the wrong choice. So, yes, I think they should be thanked for taking on an impossible task, and their decision, not them, criticised. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible Josh Gorand topic ban

If User:Josh Gorand is topic banned, what happens to the move request that has been made in his name? Is it closed and restarted? StAnselm (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would it be? We don't retroactively remove contributions from banned editors just because they are banned. Monty₈₄₅ 21:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No, anything he did before a topic ban would be legitimate. The move discussion would continue unhindered and his vote could/would even be counted.--v/r - TP 21:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. We do, of course, delete pages created by banned editors, if they are the only substantial contributor (WP:BLOCKBANDIFF). StAnselm (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Only if created in defiance of the ban. We do not go back and delete pages created prior to the ban, unless there is another valid reason for deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 22:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Josh Gorand and context

I just wanted to point out, for the arbitrators considering Josh's being blocked for edit warring, that the blocking admin, Kww, was a party to this case who has weighed in on the Workshop page in support of findings that declare the label "transphobic" unacceptable, which is to say, findings that provide the underlying case for sanctions against Josh. I've not looked at the underlying edit war (I'm not quite sure what it was over), and have no idea whether it was an appropriate block or not, but I admit to feeling like Kww would have been wiser to seek a less involved administrator.

More broadly, regarding Josh's behavior, I would point out again the degree to which misnaming a trans person is offensive. Within the LGBT community, which I note Josh's userpage identifies himself as editing primarily in, misnaming a trans person is offensive in the same way that a racial slur is offensive. Note also the numerous findings of discriminatory speech. Given this, I would ask that the committee think at least a bit about what is reasonable to ask of an editor in the face of that. I feel as though the committee is under-estimating the degree to which this discussion has caused people genuine pain.

I'm not exaggerating in the least when I say that, for anyone involved in the trans community at all, this discussion has been as toxic as one in which the n-word were repeatedly used would be for someone of African descent, or one in which "f****t" and "d**e" were used repeatedly would be for someone who was gay or a lesbian. I would ask that the committee be careful when telling people how upset they're allowed to be at discriminatory slurs against them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Phil, I suggest you read, carefully, the 4 diffs provided in evidence for Josh. Then think about "how upset people are allowed to be" when an editor says the *only* reason someone might support "Bradley" is "transphobic hatred". In those diffs, Josh wasn't talking about dogs, or pigs, or aliens, or "make him cut it off first"-type comments - he was saying that ANYONE who wants the title "Bradley" has a single motive - hatred of transgendered people, and anyone !voting that way was guilty of libel and sexual harassment. Do I get to feel offended by the gross mischaracterization of my motives? All sorts of people say all sorts of nasty things here, but it doesn't mean we get a pass to be nasty back to them - read WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(e.c.) Have a look at KoshVorlon's !vote in the RM and the related comments at Fluffernutter's talk page about the redacting of it (as an ArbCom authorised DS action, which was undone without discussion by MZMcBride). Comments that are highly offensive to the LGBT community are being edit warred to keep. Some of those who favour Chelsea as the title may have gone over the top in attributing what they perceive as transphobic arising from transphobia, but the overwhelmingly most offensive comments have not only favoured the Bradley title but also denigrated transgendered individuals and the LGBT community. Obi-Wan Kenobi, I can't know how many transphobic editors WP has, and per AGF won't assume that without good evidence, but I do know that many comments that are transphobic in effect have been made. Given how many of the editors making those comments will go unsanctioned, the view that Josh should be excused with a reminder is at least arguable. EdChem (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, remember that for the trans community misnaming is itself a slur. Even before you add dogs and crass comments about genitals. More broadly, this isn't about offense - it's about triggering recognized medical conditions such as gender dysphoria. There are a wealth of reasons why something that attacks your basic identity and something that harshly criticizes you for the consequences of something you said and did are different, and I think any attempt to equate the pain (not offense, but pain) suffered by the targets of slurs with the hurt feelings of being told you've said or done something bigoted are spectacularly insensitive and out of line.

None of which is to say that I think Josh handled himself well in the discussion. But I think that, broadly speaking, the committee and project should focus on getting to where it can carry out a discussion on transgender topics without people comparing trans people to dogs and talking about ripping their genitals off before they concern themselves with policing how upset people can be in the face of such a discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that Josh made four reverts in the course of ten minutes ([12] [13] [14] [15]). Kww's involvement here is largely being forced by the fact he was one of the uninvolved administrators who closed the RM. It should be noted that said move was itself declared "transphobic" by some editors so him objecting to that characterization being thrown around is not unusual. The fact is, Josh pretty blatantly violated 3RR and was blocked accordingly along with the other party. His well-deserved block was very brief, so this is much crying over spilled milk.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Even straightforward 3RR blocks are meant to be carried out by uninvolved administrators, though. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom is quite aware that I briefly blocked both parties to the edit-war. It was logged as discretionary sanction as well. In general, when an admin blocks both sides, problems of alleged bias evaporate.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think involvement is more the issue, Kww. EdChem (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the involvement guidance is to avoid the appearance that the blocking admin has used his bit to favor one side of a dispute. You can't favor one side by blocking both. on the overarching issue of bias, note that Josh, Obiwan, and I have all three voted in favor of moving the article to "Chelsea", albeit using different reasoning.—Kww(talk) 16:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Kww, you helped to write the closure that misses entirely the points in the pillars about intent and principle being more important than wording. You found no consensus despite the change in !vote pattern as the debate went on. You !vote counted to a no consensus close but now are trying to argue that there was a consensus (which the close doesn't state) on BLP. Now you want to argue that an WP:INVOLVED admin can act so long as s/he acts against both sides, despite your contributions to the case making your views abundantly clear. ArbCom has desysopped admins for blocking a party to a case when they are also a party, and I doubt they will agree with you that involvement can be brushed aside, especially as getting an uninvolved admin to look would have been easy. In short, your grasp of policy seems to me to be inadequate.  :( EdChem (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

First, the !vote to which I refer is the one in the current discussion, not the one I closed. Second, reread WP:INVOLVED, especially that part where it says "the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." An edit war consisting of four revert cycles in ten minutes certainly results in an "obvious action" being taken.—Kww(talk) 17:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think you made the wrong call on the merits. (I don't actually know what the edit war was over) I just feel like there's an unfortunate pattern of action against Josh right now - between the block, striking his support !vote on the frankly rules-lawyerish grounds that he was the one to officially file what was, in practice, a collaborative RM, and the proposed findings against him, it frankly just looks a bit bullying. I'm sure that's not the intent, and I recognize that there are lots of people involved in that kind of unfortunate tangle of events. More to the point, I don't disagree with the block, and I'm certainly not suggesting any sort of sanction or admonishment to you for making it. I just wanted the committee to pause and consider the larger context with Josh. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Josh has been lawyering rules on the very same issue from the start of the new RM. Phil, you've been deeply involved in this Arbcom case, you've commented on Josh specifically several times, yet you've refused to actually read what Josh has written or comment. Why? You make comments which, on principal, are good but are demonstrably off the mark where concerning Josh. Why won't you read the evidence? You're a reasonable guy, I know you'd see the difference between what your doing and what he's doing.--v/r - TP 20:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(e.c.) First, I know, and it's irrelevant. Second, you are (again) using the precise wording to defeat the spirit and principle of the policy. Third, in changing text within another editors post, there was an argument that the reverts were handling alleged vandalism (badly, I admit) - so actually an admin who believed in solving problems through discussion and not through blunt approaches like blocking might well have taken a more nuanced approach. Someone like Brad (were he not precluded from acting as an Arbitrator who understands the wisdom of not compromising his objectivity, and one who realises the importance of not acting when involved) would, I suggest, have understood that charging in and handing out blocks was potentially counter-productive and certainly unwise. Fourth, the quote to which you refer does not say "when a party to an ArbCom case and advocating sanctions against another party, acting against that other party despite involvement is fine so long as the same action would have been taken by other admins". You are not only involved, Kww, you are a party to a case, your own judgment is under review; choosing this as the time to thumb your nose at involved and block another party (even if balanced by blocking the other editor involved in the conflict) was foolish. EdChem (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've never said all editors supporting the title Bradley are transphobic, that's ridiculous, and I've clarified repeatedly that I meant no such thing. Yesterday, I created an RM by closely following the instructions on creating RMs, (late in the day) on a date agreed for a month. The irregularity consisted in an editor (who had opposed the same move in the last RM), completely against procedure, deleting and rewording my signed comment/proposal repeatedly (after the block, it was reinstated in its original state by SlimVirgin if I remember correctly). That is considered unacceptable in an RM. The only editor who should have been blocked in that case was the editor starting an edit war by inappropriately altering another editor's signed RM proposal that was filed strictly in accordance with the RM procedure. Reverts to deletions of legitimate comments and such are not edit warring and excempt from policies on reversal. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Eh. Not really. The 3RR is intended to be blind to all concerns of being right. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Reverting obvious vandalism" is excempt from 3RR as stated by the relevant policy. Deleting or altering a signed comment (as in a legitimately filed RM proposal) on a talk page is considered such. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

But as the user whose comment was being removed, you weren't really the best person to make that judgment. (And I say this thinking that removing your comment was rather petulant and rules-lawyerish, and shouldn't have been done.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTVAND seems relevant.--v/r - TP 20:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"I've never said all editors supporting the title Bradley are transphobic" may be true, but you sure as hell implied it. By persisting with this you are only going to convince more Arbs that you need to be kept away from this area and maybe even convince them that you need to be shown the door altogether.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I clarified weeks ago that I meant no such thing and that I didn't consider most editors voting for Bradley to be transphobic, but rather unfamiliar with trans issues and BLP. The comments that compared trans people to dogs and so on however were transphobic. Some editors seem to object to the very existence of the word transphobia, but it's a recognised and perfectly legitimate term employed in media and scholarly contexts. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Should the admins have blocked discussion for 30 days?

This, second only moving the article on a finding of no consensus, is probably the biggest issue with the admin closure. I don't know if a finding is possible, but it'd be good to discuss whether a no consensus finding was sufficient to block all further discussion for that long. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The context of the discussion is important. First, this was not the kind of "lack of consensus" that arises where there's a 60/40 lean in favor of something, and it has fallen just short of succeeding. The lean was fairly strongly in the other direction, close to a consensus against the proposition now being discussed. Second, the limitation was not an invention of the closing administrators. It was specifically contemplated by participants in the discussion, several of whom proposed that the question should be revisited in "a few months", "in 1-6 months", or "in 12 or 24 months". The thirty day period was much shorter than most such comments contemplated. Third, it is almost unheard of to have a new discussion on requested move this short a time after the failure of that request. The thirty day limitation not only set a floor for the time for bringing this new move request, it also set a ceiling for calling it "too soon". Without this provision, a new move request brought a few weeks later, or even a few months later, may well have been opposed solely for being too soon after the last one. Finally, like every other aspect of the close, this determination was subject to a move review, or to an appeal to the community to over-ride it. I said as much when directly asked about my authority to impose such a limitation on my talk page, the day after the close. For all of the grumbling to come of this outcome, I find it very telling that no move review was filed in this case. All that being said, I have no objection to the committee addressing the question of a discussion closer imposing a limited moratorium on the initiation of a next discussion on the point decided. bd2412 T 00:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Adam...30 days is a pretty short revisit on a requested move...I believe that in most cases, it is longer.--MONGO 00:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The 30 day thing was wrong simply because RM closers don't have authority do decide on anything other than the move. I think it was really a bit of an ego-trip. I actually considered filing a review, but I decided not to because I expected there would be a new RM within a few days, with the result we now see, delayed for no good reason. I just didn't count on the community being so gormlessly servile. Formerip (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You think the result you now see is unconnected with the thirty days the community had to gather the strong body of evidence that has developed over that time? bd2412 T 00:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Look back properly at the first RM and you will see that votes were heavily in favour of "Chelsea" towards the end of voting. This was a major flaw with the close - that it gave full weight to COMMONAME votes cast before the media had had a chance to respond to Manning's announcement, and which had been overtaken by events by the end of the discussion period. Formerip (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Has there been any significant change in the evidence gathered in the last twenty-five days? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Quite clearly, there have been a significant number of sources, who really in an authoritative fashion, moved deep into September. It also gave us time to see how "chelsea" is now sometimes used when talking about the subject, but "Bradley" is used in short/side references to the subject, which weakens the commonname = Chelsea argument a bit, but not enough yet. So, yes, the month was very useful in putting together a comprehensive view of how sources were treating the issue, with at least a few news cycles to come and go, so we saw how they treated the subject in different ways in different articles. This is probably one of the most closely studied COMMONNAME arguments of all time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there's been more opportunity for the community to absorb the evidence and feel confident that it represents a stable situation. I think that if efforts to forcibly push it to Chelsea had continued, the article would have wound up more firmly entrenched at "Bradley". The RM looks like it will close as a slam-dunk for Chelsea, and lingering resistance and resentment will be minimal. The reason it wasn't there three weeks ago was because Gerard jumped the gun and got a lot of people upset.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@Formerip, I examined the trend in editor opinions very closely. A total of 40 new !votes occurred after the NYT announcement on the fourth day of the discussion - a mere 14% of the total participants over the duration of the discussion - and of those, 24 opposed the reversion and 16 supported the reversion, a shift to 60% opposing the reversion, which is itself usually short of consensus. However, a number of editors who had already indicated support for the reversion reiterated this support toward the end of the discussion. bd2412 T 01:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Y'all need to relax the hell down. The move is going fine, life will go on. You should also look up the definition of CONSENSUS - as BD2412 clearly stated, their ability to impose a 30-day waiting period was entirely dependent upon the community's willingness to support such a time period. As it turns out, they hit it just right - it was long enough that those wanting to wait longer were satisfied, and it was short enough that the end was close and those wanting to move earlier were willing to wait. There were discussions to push it out by 3 days or 2 weeks or 24 hours, or to move it up by 1 day or 1 week --- guess what? ALL FAILED. If there had been a consensus to do the move after 1 week, the move would have happened after one week, but there wasn't. I really don't think we need an arbcom ruling on whether a closing admin can suggest something that the community is free to ignore - which we were - but we didn't. Sometimes, ordering sheep around is a good idea.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I find it very telling that (as Obi-Wan mentions) there were proposals to begin the second, current move request sooner than thirty days from the date the first move request was closed, and those proposals failed. Proposals to begin the move request later also failed. BD2412 noted at least once that "the authority of an administrator on such a matter extends precisely as far as the community is willing to recognize the authority of an administrator on such a matter"; in this case, enough of the community accepted the moratorium that it was observed. And as has been noted by several users, the suggestion "do not begin a move before 30 September" was also a suggestion that "whereas new move requests are usually not initiated until long after old move requests, a 30-day turnaround is OK in this case".
  Considering how deeply the first move request descended into a pit of quarrelling and ugliness while admins did nothing, I think the imposition of a 30-day cooling-off period was one of the most helpful administrative actions that was taken in relation to the first move request. The observance of that cooling-off period, the evidence-gathering which occurred during it, and the more active role which at least one admin is taking in keeping the current RM on track — all those things seem responsible for the fact that the current RM does not (yet) involve as much quarrelling and ugliness. -sche (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

For the reasons summarized in this thread, planning ahead for a renewed move discussion to occur a few weeks later was a sensible thing to do. The observation that the 30-day period helped preempt "it's too soon" objections to reopening the discussion is especially sound. It's open to debate whether the moratorium should have been for 20 days or 30 days or 45 days, but I'd say that's within the realm of reasonable administrator discretion, particularly given the "troika" closing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Alexis Reich

I didn't notice there had been a move discussion here, but it seems clearly related to the Chelsea Manning case, being WP:POINT as David Gerard noted, and thus should be included in any considerations on the broader issue here. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It was not WP:POINT; it was a reasoned move request that didn't achieve consensus. Please, again, stop turning move requests on transgender topics into a battleground, as you did in another thread. Alexis Reich hasn't been moved. So far, it looks like Bradley Manning will be moved to Chelsea Manning. You're already getting the titles you prefer, so how about you settle down? -- tariqabjotu 00:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the article will be moved, albeit at great cost for those who have been arguing that we treat transgendered people with the respect we treat other living subjects of biographies (in the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY) and requiring an enormous effort on our part resulting in much victimisation that has, as Sue Gardner noted, created an environment scaring liberal-minded people away from the project[16]. I would indeed be happy to settle down when the article got moved and the hate speech was curtailed, but as it happens, I'm not the one who has started this review of the things that have been going on lately (or called for sanctions or desyopping of those moving the article initially, pointing out anti-trans hate speech and so on), so it's sensible to mention here this obviously related discussion started in the midst of this case to make sure it is included in the wider context, when we are having this discussion in the first place. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Was Sue Gardner talking about liberal-minded people being scared away? I must have misunderstood - I thought she was including conservatives as well. StAnselm (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Let us try to act as if every thing said by User:Josh Gorand was The Truth. This would give: John Mark Karr *is* a transgender person. Therefore, John Mark Karr *has ever* been a woman, at least from early childhood, and therefore deserves feminine pronouns for *all of her life*. And so we should have:

In 1984, she, aged 20, encountered a 13-year-old girl and convinced her to lie about her age, in order to skirt the law and get married in 1984. The next year, the girl sought an annulment of what the records called a "ceremonial marriage", after being "abused every way there was", according to her mother saying she had feared for her life when she agreed to marry. Five years later, she had purposely set out a 16-year-old girl to get pregnant, using that pregnancy to skirt the law and get married with her. Thereafter, Karr mothered three other childs with her wife (1990,1992,1993). They divorced in 2001...

• One must argue that comparing the releaser of the 'Collateral Murder' video with the offender John Mark Karr is an insane non-sense that can only hurt the feelings of Pfc Manning, and can also put Manning at risk of actual harm.
• One must argue that such a Gorandification of what happened repetitively with John Mark Karr can only hurt the feelings of the survivors. Thirty years after, the then 13-year-old girl has the right to be recognized as a victim, instead of seeing their feelings challenged. May be Sue Gardner can say some words of compassion for that 13-year-old girl? May be also for the next victim?

When a conclusion turns that wrong, one needs to conclude that hypotheses were not that sound.

Pldx1 (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what's your point. 1) I have never edited or been involved in discussion related to the person you are mentioning, and 2) I have never said anything along the lines of said person "*has ever* been a woman" (I'm not familiar with who that person is at all), and 3) I have never stated that my opinion is that transgendered people have to be described in such a way in articles. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

After this case closes, a RM will probably be started for this article. Almost every source out there uses Karr.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support the move, the problem is Obi's timing I do not think there could have been a worse time for the last RM, right in the middle of the heated debates going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to start a general RFC on how we should handle gender identity name changes. If we can come to a consensus on what standards to use, it would make any subsequent move requests much easier and less controversial. Monty₈₄₅ 22:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

To Arbs

Considering what's going on with the move discussion and at AN/I, would none of you like to reconsider your votes concerning a moratorium while this case was proceeding? It seems to me that you rather dropped the ball there. 02:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

Perhaps I am missing something, but based on what is currently passing or not, I don't see how the ongoing discussion would have been much different if it had been delayed a week or so until the case was finalized, instead of taking place now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the edit-warring between Gorand and Obi over the RM would have certainly been averted if Gorand were not able to make edits regarding this issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Per harm to persons

This was in the news today. It's relevant to the topic though not quit sure it's relevant to the specific case. --DHeyward (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a sex change gone wrong, and a person committed suicide because of it. Nothing at all to do with the Arbcom case or the subject of the case. A little less sensationalism would do us all a world of good. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, although euthanasia is not suicide. Euthanasia comes with the offically recognised judgement by some ethical committee that the person in question was suffering to such a a degree that the lack of treatment for that would make ending the life of the person to be justifiable. Count Iblis (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This thread isn't relevant to this case at all. Let's drop this topic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork

I note that, in the initial votes to accept the case, SilkTork abstained due to lack of time. I also note that he is the lone arbitrator not to be active on the page. I'm sure this is a silly question and that someone has checked, but are we certain he did not intend his vote to be a recusal, and thus that the threshold for votes is not, in fact, six? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)