Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Chelsea Manning		31 August 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Chelsea Manning

Initiated by v/r - TP at 19:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Josh Gorand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Gerard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LudicrousTripe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Morwen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Jimbo
• ANI
• Josh Gorand's talk page

Statement by TParis

Arbcom authority

Per the Arbcom policy scope item #1, "To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve," I believe this case is suitable for Arbcom because these threads have failed to be closed by outside administrators. Either administrators are apathetic, involved, scared, or disagree with the general items it seems.

Disclaimer

I have chosen based on my own morals to refer to the person and article both by Chelsea Manning with female gender pronouns. This is not a statement on the close by the three uninvolved administrators who closed the move request.

Statement of dispute

As many know, on August 22, 2013, Chelsea Manning announced that she was transgender and would like to be called Chelsea. The article, formerly and now again titled Bradley Manning, was moved and move-protected at the title Chelsea Manning and a move request ensued. The discussion had a wide range of comments, most were professional and appropriate. However, there was some anti-transgender language as well as a backlash of accusations from transgender supporters. The Arbcom case as I am filing is focused on the behaviors of the discussion and not the admin actions preceding nor the close of the uninvolved admins afterward; however, I do not pretend to limit the scope and others may chose to address either, I suspect.

Comments which can appear to be Anti-transgender

These were comments compiled by Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) as transphobic:

Extended content

Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia", not a site designed to protect people's "feelings". This sort of activist stupidity is bringing WP into disrepute. WP:NOTSOAPBOX. WP:COMMONNAME. How it has gone this far the wrong direction is a little shocking. If there is transgender surgery and a legal name change, then the article should change Bradley Manning still dresses as a man (wears the male military dress uniform,) and is still legally known (in name and otherwise) to the U.S. Army as Bradley - a male. Changing the name to Chelsea should not occur before hormone therapy has even begun (it it ever even will occur) or before a legal name change. I also support reverting all of the pronouns to "he." He is clearly mentally unstable and his latest remarks and desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit until the words are matched by some serious and tangible action. So far Manning has not underwent sex reassignment surgery, as such his personal preferences do not hold reasonable encyclopedic or common sense weight. No matter how many sources will refer to him as "she", biologically he's still a man. Accordingly, "she" should be reverted to "he" in the article for the time being. Support Strongly as there is no biological or legal rationale to refer to Manning as anything but male. If that ever changes, then change the page accordingly. per Rannpháirtí anaithnid, common sense, and general opposition to the use of Wikipedia as a platform for radical political advocacy (which advocacy is the sole reason Manning's article keeps being mangled to describe him as Anything-But-Male. I am aware of MOS:IDENTITY, and it is wrong. The standard a polite person might adopt for brief conversation is not the standard to use for encyclopedic coverage One does not become female just by saying one wants to be. If he (not she) said he wanted to be black now, would you describe him as African-American?? Wikipedia should follow the lead of external sources and wait until the majority of the media decides he has changed his gender. This move was incredibly premature, and seems to be done only to please the social justice warriors. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source, not a forum to push your gender politics. The subject is still male in every meaningful sense As a political statement against wikipedia's identity policy and the idea that a person can demand which pronoun another person uses. I think a fair statement in society is that we'll tolerate you doing what you want in terms of body modification and unusual sexual practices, and in exchange you can tolerate our freedom to use language as we please, and not try to enforce political correctness and thought crime. No matter what he says, he is still himself. While I think there's nothing wrong with being transgender, the level of activism here that has nothing to do with Manning makes me want to vomit. Please take your struggle for recognition elsewhere not only under NPOV, but further I think the politicization and ridiculous PC attitude on this website do a disservice to people hoping to get factual information. The fact is, this is a guy, legally and biologically, who has a male name legally. He is a woman only in his own head, and the collective imagination of the radical left. If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog, or a cat, would they change it to reflect such a non-sense? Biologically he is a man and will die a man (check his chromosomes XY), and legally he is a man (he even asks to be called by his male name in official stuff). It is stupid to change the wikipedia article... this deserves, at most, a brief section. Wikipedia is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda. Wikipedia is not a soap-box for trans people to play with, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should value quality over political correctness ten times out of ten. Coming into the page and seeing "her" and "she" all over the place while the picture is of a young soldier is laughable, and unthinkable in a Wikipedia just a short year ago. "I am a girl, call me Chelsea" is the worst move rational I've heard in a while. This page is currently laughable and embarrassing. I think some people need to settle down. He's still a man, and he's still named Bradley legally speaking. Just because (s)he has shouted to be known by some other name does not actually mean that (s)he is actually a transgender. Had (s)he been more vocal at an opportune time, (s)he might have saved the world of some idiotic espionage in recent history. Why are we wasting time and making a mockery of this article by trying to 'comfort' Bradley Manning or 'make this transition easier on him?' Where he's going, the last worry he'll have is the pronouns they use to address him. And this is just beside all of the basic logic and reasoning that says he is a male, has always been a male, and likely always will continue to be a male and the WP has just bought into one of the lamest PR stunts in recent memory. Has everybody opposed to this moved forgotten that he is a criminal??? this individual is morphologically, chromosomally, and most important legally still male. He's still got the chromosomes, package and legal name of a guy and no ammount of critical queer/feminist/gender analysis will get around those three simple truths. "Chelsea" should barely be a footnote. "Chelsea Mannning" does not exist.

Josh Gorand

Josh Gorand appears to be to be the most prolific exhibitor of battleground behavior and has propagated the most personal attacks; though he was very careful not to name specific people in his attacks.

Baseball Bugs

Baseball bugs comments have been inflammatory and battlegroundish. At times he's spent days repeating the same insistence that the two original admins that moved the page are to blame for the whole mess. Here are some of his remarks:

• "Everyone who supports moving the page to "Chelsea" is abusing wikipedia."
• "The advocates, the zealots don't care. They're using it as an excuse to justify pushing their point of view
• "Manning is a convicted criminal, and I couldn't care less about him/her/it"
• "There is no BLP issue. You're abusing Wikipedia." (Changed in the next edit to "The promoters of this nonsense are abusing...")

LudicrousTripe

Another user who used broad statements and accusations repeatedly.

• "thanks to a majority vote packed with people so ignorant they had no concept of the term identity, or so antediluvian and morally corrupt they may as well not have."
• "Absolute and uncontaminated stupidity on the part of the people who moved it back" (immediately redacted)
• "The comments in support of moving the article on the individual who self-identifies as Chelsea Manning to her former name in the above survey are riddled with transphobic hate commentary (e.g. "If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog"), that have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, such as MOS:IDENTITY, and that should be completely discarded. As someone said, the move was a straightforward application of Wikipedia policy such as MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP, WP:RS and other relevant policies, and there is really nothing to discuss. There is no way this article is going to be moved anywhere. Filling this talk page with hate commntary and transphobia also violates WP:BLP, which also applies on talk pages."

Morwen

Morwen (talk · contribs) made the initial moves to Chelsea manning in good faith. However, she then went on to publish a blog, then give media interviews, and eventually get named in a Wikipedia article for her efforts. There has been a content-dispute over whether to include it as I write this case, so I cannot confirm at this moment whether she is in the article or not. I wish for Arbcom to clarify if WP:COI addresses using Wikipedia to gain fame or notoriety.

Others

• Scott Martin (talk · contribs) "...the reasoning on display in the comments above is incredibly short-sighted, rules-bound, sympathy-deficient, and, frankly, ignorant."
• Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) "it is my sincere and unequivocal belief that any instance of referring to a transgender person by their birth name or the gender assigned at birth is hate speech."
• Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) "The closer made the decision to embrace hate speech as policy. He had a choice. He chose hate speech. And he should be ashamed."

WP:BLP as a trump card

This dispute seems to have spawned because of a belief that WP:BLP is a trump card. While I can understand how the original move was motivated based on WP:BLP, some editors have made comments that the close of the RFC did not matter because WP:BLP trumped the "local consensus." My impression is that WP:CONSENSUS is used to determine the implementation of WP:BLP. If the opposite were true than any single editors interpretation of WP:BLP could overrule community consensus. Such an interpretation essentially destabilizes Wikipedia so I ask that the Arbitrators clarify exactly how the two policies interact.

Expected outcome

A change in Wikipedia's culture to raise the bar of argument. We can look to User:David Gerard for a great example of how to approach others when you're uncomfortable with their comments.

Conclusion

While there is clear evidence of some hate speech in the discussion, any discussion of a controversial issue is bound to invite bigoted remarks. They should be dealt with individually. According to the closer, there were 314 participants and 169 were in support of the change. The scale of the remarks against the supporters is disproportionate to the number of those actually making the remarks. The broad statements that were made against "supports" who wished to return back to Bradley Manning were beyond reasonable. The accusations of misconduct - which took little regard for good faith, ignorance, or actual hatred - devestate the ability of the encyclopedia to communicate, discuss, and reach WP:CONSENSUS. Jimbo said it best:

I think that in general better decisions are made in a spirit of open and thoughtful dialogue rather than top-down decree. I think it worthwhile to separate two issues - the issue of a community decision by consensus (which requires discussion and poll-taking) and hate speech that may emerge as a part of that process. We wouldn't actually improve things if we shut down open discussion, just to stop a few people from being obnoxious. Better to simply stop the few people from being obnoxious by banning them from the discussion, refactoring their comments, or other such measures as appropriate.

— Jimmy Wlaes

I could continue laying out this dispute, name more names, and what have you. But the result would become too long and so I'll leave it to the storm of comments that shall ensue to fill in the holes I've left.

Thanks.
--v/r - TP

@ Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs): Sure

• Address conduct issues.
• Draw a bright line between legitimate dialogue and hate speech.
• Address applicability of WP:CONSENSUS on WP:BLPs. Can 1 or a minority's opinions of BLP overrule a consensus-achieving majority?
• Address whether WP:COI pertains to editors who use Wikipedia to gain fame and whether Morwen has done that in this case.

Thanks.--v/r - TP 14:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Philip Sandifer

I am unclear as to what, if anything, I am being accused of in this case.

In the interest of disclosure, I am in the midst of a blog post about the events regarding this article and how the decision making got made, because I believe it to be in the public interest to explain how the seventh largest website in the world came to make a decision of this magnitude. I intend to continue covering this topic until it is resolved, and will cover any arbitration proceedings as well.

In light of this, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to participate in the arbitration case. Should my conduct come under active review, I will accept whatever decision the committee makes and will not appeal any sanctions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by LudicrousTripe

Do I post here? If I have messed it up, apologies! I don't know what Arbitration is about, I've not done one of these before. If it is to get me to bow out from the Chelsea Manning article, then I accept. I do not object to the characterisation of at least one of my comments quoted above as overly combative, probably offensive. I can only try to learn to be more civil in future. It is simply so frustrating—I'm tempted to say revealing—to see people who are obviously transphobic being allowed to run amok in the way that someone who is antisemitic would never be permitted to on an article pertaining to Judaism, Jews, or Israel. How such ignorance is allowed to count when judging the balance of support/object in the context of move requests for the article is likewise... frustrating. That is all. I am happy to stay away from the article or whatever is required as a result of this arbitration business. LudicrousTripe (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

One quick thing:

Morwen made the initial moves to Chelsea manning in good faith. However, she then went on to publish a blog, then give media interviews, and eventually get named in a Wikipedia article for her efforts. There has been a content-dispute over whether to include it as I write this case, so I cannot confirm at this moment whether she is in the article or not.

Morwen made the initial moves to Chelsea manning in good faith. However, …" However what? What is the issue here? She's not allowed to write a blog about her Wikipedia editing? Where is the WP for that? Talk to the media? Ditto. Named in a Wikipedia article for her efforts! Efforts for what? With the absence of WPs in which to bag her other "offences", this named-in-the-article business, in all honesty, makes her inclusion here in Arbitration seem nothing more than a case of jealousy over her five mins of fame. Apologies if I've misread or am missing something. LudicrousTripe (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Praise the Lord I am not involved to any real extent in what would be another chronophagous exercise should ArbCom decide to accept this case. I disagree with the premise that local consensus can override WP:BLP, no more than "local consensus" can override WP:NPOV. The policies are "not negotiable." Where there is a dispute about the policy, the policy requires the most conservative editing of the article - which should be clear here is the conservative course is to follow what the major newspapers use in their current articles about the person (not the articles about the name change, as it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that articles about the name change will, indeed, mention the name change). Anyone disputing how WP:BLP requirements should be interpreted should initiate a general RfC with notice on the BLP noticeboard as well. For ArbCom to try to decide such an issue will devolve to the long term detriment of the committee. In short - this is an issue of policy (WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and an issue of content, and is not an issue of editor behavior in the slightest. As an aside, Bugs is on his best behavior here -- if the committee tries him on such mild posts as are cited above, the committee might as well try several hundred active editors who have made substantially worse posts in many venues. Thus - decline. Collect (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Anythingyouwant

I would like to suggest that ArbCom has authority to delegate some of its role to a jury-like entity. Invite a set of randomly-selected editors to make some decisions, or at least do fact-finding, instead of doing it all yourselves. Each arbitrator cannot possibly have sufficient time to thoroughly investigate each and every case on his or her own. Each member of a jury-like entity would have time. Moreover, ArbCom purports to not decide content disputes, but it is easy enough for you to affect content by more severely dealing with behavioral issues of persons who favor certain content; this is way too much power for you distinguished folks to exercise on your own, whether or not you succumb to such temptations. If you accept this case, please give this a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that I have been involved in requesting a page move for this article, I would also like to briefly say something else. Normally, in real life, arbitration is where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"). So, I wish to make it clear that I do not consent for any conduct of mine to be referred here. Since such consent does not matter, you really ought to change the name of your committee (I can suggest some names if you like). Of course, no one has mentioned me yet here, but I understand that complaints can be added at any time, and evidence added long after the "technicality" of evidence limits has been bypassed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Themfromspace

On paper this has everything that ArbCom is interested in: wheel warring, BLP issues, incivility, and casting aspersions. So if you wanted to make a case out of this there is plenty of material to be found for sanctions and desysopps on both sides of the fence. But if you are interested in running the encyclopedia smoothly and not ripping the community apart, you should reject a full case here as the specific issue has been resolved by the levelheaded close of the move request and the general issue is being discussed in several fora. All that ArbCom could do at this point is punish for the sake of punishing. Better to let the issue settle down a bit, or perhaps issue a general admonishment via motion to several of the parties. ThemFromSpace 00:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Josh Gorand

I think any reasonable person examining my comments that User:TParis cites above will find that almost all of those comments are misrepresented and cited out of context, and that they are reasonable responses to, inter alia, an array of comments on Talk:Chelsea Manning comparing transgendered people to dogs, calling the subject of a BLP psychotic, ridiculing and mocking transgendered people, and otherwise being completely unnacceptable. And there were not just a few of these comments, as multiple editors have pointed out on Talk:Chelsea Manning and elsewhere. They were also not not dealt with, hardly any of them removed (despite violating BLP) and none of those making them sanctioned to my knowledge.

I have not made any personal attacks at all. Using the word transphobia is relation to clearly transphobic commentary (even without discussing specific users), in the exact same way as dozens of other editors, or explaining what is generally regarded as transphobic according to the accepted definition, is not a personal attack. Typical of how TParis misrepresents me is the very first quote cited by him, which omits the first words of the sentence that make make it clear that I'm talking about the general idea, not any Wikipedia users, when I explained another editor's usage of the term transphobia. I already pointed this out to him in the last debate (see below), but then he finds another forum to repeat the exact same misleading accusation. The idea that the comment "I said no" is "hostile", when it was a response to repeated requests that I rehash a debate that I had already explained was addressed in other sections and indicated I was not interested in rehashing (as it was a very large and complicated debate that many users had participated in), is laughable. These are just examples, and I don't intend to waste any more time on these matters that are already discussed ad nauseum in other appropriate venues.

I also note that this, viz., the claims regarding my comments, is a clear case of Wikipedia:Forum shopping by User:TParis, as he is merely repeating the exact same misleading claims made by himself that were just rejected on the WP:ANI Manning page where no administrator saw any need to sanction them. The attempt to rehash a debate that we just had on WP:ANI is disruptive and indicative of battleground behaviour. I would also like to point out the onesidedness of the original request above. I, for example, have said nothing that a fairly large number of editors, many of whom administrators, have not also said in that debate, that is reasonable, policy-compliant and a widely held perception among editors and in the outside world. In addition to all those editors making comments that degraded the subject of the BLP in question and transgendered people in general, editors on the opposing side have been engaging in actual incivility, such as calling me "sick, sick" or "hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite," (per the ANI Manning page) or using terms like "arrogance", "disgusting", "manipulation" and "collusion" in regard to other editors on the Chelsea Manning talk page.[6][7]

I think the way we allowed the talk page of a BLP to be filled with commentary that many editors have called hate speech, without doing anything about that situation, needs to be addressed. I do not think there have been unreasonable comments made by editors calling this out and despairing seeing such blatant BLP violations. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by CaseyPenk

In the interest of disclosure, I note that I proposed the move from Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning on policy grounds.

I am greatly concerned with what I view as overly contentious and overly personal comments made on both sides. Many editors made such arguments in the heat of the moment, but the editors listed above tended to exemplify such approaches. They also tended to persist in such behavior - behavior which I find disruptive - over the course of several days. Most of the editors did not appear to exhibit a willingness to "cool off," "step away," or "breathe" before jumping into the fray again. I would best describe their actions as overzealous.

Such an approach to debate makes Wikipedia less inviting to new editors and frustrates existing ones (including myself; there were times during the discussion when I asked myself why I edit Wikipedia when community members treat one another in such a way). Debates such as the one that has taken place set a very unfortunate standard for other debates about contentious topics, including coverage of transgender individuals. I find such conduct flatly unacceptable.

Such comments also get in the way of a policy-based discussion. By injecting highly contentious social topics into the debate, editors are no longer able to clearly see the policy-based rationale behind different perspectives. The discussion becomes mired in repetitive personal attacks and accusations of personal attacks, and involved editors stop looking at Wikipedia policy. Such an approach is highly inappropriate for a talk page and for Wikipedia in general. Some editors do not seem to acknowledge (or at least demonstrate through their actions) that talk pages are not to be used for discussing the article topic in general, but rather for improving the encyclopedia.

I would very much like to discourage a situation such as this from happening again. That would require disciplining the involved editors, so as to make clear that we do not tolerate such behavior. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

In light of David Gerard's comment below, a case may be useful. Wikipedia is not for activism. Saying "it has to be my way or else you are a bigot" is not the best way to approach an editorial dispute.

David, you may be right, but you need to leave room for people to disagree in good faith.

People are citing policies, some of which are disputed, or wrong. The discussion needs to focus on the way things should be done, not how the policies were written. It is not clear that a person who becomes notorious for committing a crime can just declare a new name and expect that Wikipedia will instantly comply. There's a potential for mischief if we handle things that way in general. Wikipedia is not news. We move more slowly and wait to see how things settle. Our articles and terminology are based on the preponderance of reliable sources.

I think that David Gerard and Morwen rushed to do what might ultimately prove to be the correct action, but it would have been far better for them to have been patient. If the article were left for a few days or perhaps a week, editors would have seen that media worldwide were using Chelsea Manning, and a consensus might have developed in favor of a move. The hasty action has actually delayed things and caused a lot of unnecessary trouble. On the other side, editors who've engaged in hate speech need to be (1) given a chance to strike inappropriate remarks, and (2) sanctioned if their errors have been serious or persistent.

BLP is a good policy, but we need to make clear that it is not a trump card to be played to win an editing dispute. Chelsea Manning is widely identified as Bradley Manning. Calling her Bradley is not a BLP violation. Moreover, she has said that she doesn't mind the old name. David Gerard makes the mistake of assuming that all transgender people feel the same way about their birth names. I think that different people might have different feelings.

Statement by Formerip

I don't think the pagemove activity can be subject to sanction. The actions of Morwen and David Gerard were defensible within policy. Tariqabjotu's response was contrary to policy but it was a single edit and I don't see what purpose a sanction would serve. If Arbcom takes the case, then it might be observed as a finding of fact that Tariqabjotu breached policy and David Gerard was high-handed in his comments during subsequent discussions.

If Arbcom is minded to take the case, the focus should be on low-level bigotry during the RM and associated discussions. The community should not be expected to tolerate working in the atmosphere of a primary school. It is a difficulty that this problem cannot be addressed in forums which operate according to community consensus, because there is a large enough constituency of the community that is either supportive of or indifferent to bone-headed and deliberately provocative contributions so as to prevent consensus against them. A particular problem in this case, because the form of bigotry in question is relatively popular within the community. There's a legitimate role for Arbcom in outlining what standard of decorum is expected of editors in contentious and sensitive discussions.

Equally, the accusation of "transphobia", though merited in some instances (WP has no rule that you can't call a spade a spade), has been bandied about all over the shop. It may be useful for Arbcom to underline that there is a fine line between calling people out and hurling indiscriminate abuse. Formerip (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment/Statement by Sceptre

Please note that I'm currently under a topic ban on this subject; please also treat this as a request for clarification on whether editors under editing restrictions can discuss the topic at arbitration (and, really, I don't see why not).

I don't have much to say that I haven't already mentioned at User talk:Jimbo Wales (permalink). In short, there are massive issues with editor conduct and violations of Foundation policies (BLP and NDP) that the community has proven unwilling to deal with; for that reason, it's imperative that ArbCom take this case. Additionally, given that administrator misconduct is part of this case, only ArbCom can completely resolve the issue. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Tarc: I can't speak for anyone else, but my invocation of the NDP is solely related to user conduct. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Archaeo

I urge the committee to accept this case. A casual glance at the wide-ranging ANI subpage or the talk page and move request archives will show a number of disputes, ranging from several editors accusing Morwen and DG of a variety of missteps (see RA's list) to those accusing Tariqabjotu of violating rules regarding page protection under BLP (see this subthread). Furthermore, the user conduct issues that have been brought up that involve over-strident advocacy or outright hate speech need to be addressed. None of these disputes seem to be attracting the attentions of anyone uninvolved at all, and the idea of initiating individual dispute resolution threads for each of the issues sounds kind of absurd and unhelpful, not to mention a great way to spread this nonsense all over the encyclopedia. And frankly, in many years of being a dedicated follower of the Wikipedia community, I have never seen such a foul debate. I think the committee should initiate a broad case that examines all of these issues.

At the very least, some motions regarding the administrative actions here would be helpful, if only to establish that their administrative actions were correct, as well as a call to the community to discuss clarifying how WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY interact and guide us regarding transgender article subjects. However, I don't find NW's argument very convincing; if the committee isn't equipped to handle disputes like this, why do we bother having a committee at all? Kirill's reasoning should guide the committee here; you can either accept this case or put it off, but the issues being raised here are unlikely to resolve themselves on their own. Archaeo (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Request by Beyond My Ken

Although I read the entirety of it, I confess that I do not understand what, exactly, TParis is asking for here, so I'd like to request that he post an "executive summary", perhaps in bullet points, of precisely what the issues are he thinks should be the subject of an arbitration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement and request by David Gerard

Morwen wrote up a detailed explanation of our original rationale for the move to "Chelsea Manning", which I checked over and co-signed. It's too long to include here directly, but I ask you to read it. (The only thing it lacks is something on BLP and immediacy, which I noted below it.) Our original action was a BLP action concerning a high-profile article; there was no path of action that would not have been controversial, but that's what the BLP rule is for. I also maintain that everything therein is still a relevant consideration.

Controversy, or potential controversy, should not overrule BLP. Many editors have demanded sanctions against us both on the basis that BLP actions should not be taken if there might be controversy or if consensus would eventually come to a different result (as if an appeals court reversal would automatically lead to a disciplinary hearing for the lower-court judge); if this were accepted, BLP would be dead, as no admin would dare enter into a controversial situation.

Morwen and I explained our actions on the article talk page at the time of the move. There have been repeated claims we did not; these are false. Many editors claim we did not answer, when what they mean is they did not agree. I ask that any claims to this effect be checked closely against our edit histories over the past week.

I urge the Committee not to punt on the naming of the article. While the admins who took on the job of the RM should be commended for taking on a difficult task that lots of people would be unhappy with either result of, I feel that their result was disastrously wrong. Given no clear consensus, they eventually decided that counting votes overcame BLP considerations. We now have a biography of a living person whose title is a deliberate and procedurally calculated misnaming and misgendering of its subject, directly against the undisputed wishes of its subject, in a situation where readers would have no problem finding it under the subject's chosen name, because of the votes of editors who literally don't see there's a problem, don't think there's a reason for guidelines on the topic that have stood and been applied for years, and are offended when someone points out they may not know all there is to know on the topic. And it'll stay there, marking Wikipedia to the world as a trans-hostile venue, for at least the next thirty days.

There is also the wider issue of what this says about Wikipedia to trans and trans-friendly readers and editors: we will tell you what your name is. I despair of explaining to skeptics how profoundly offensive this is - not just to Manning, but to all trans and trans-friendly readers and editors, as offensive as egregious racism or homophobia in Wikipedia policy would be, and in the same way - and of finding a source sufficient to convince editors who literally question the existence of trans issues as something to be taken seriously of the towering importance of this issue; editors opposed to "Chelsea Manning" have so far refused to accept the almost-complete move of the British press within hours, the substantial move of the US press over the past week, the AP style guide and the GLAAD Media Reference Guide.

People will, and should, talk about this in blogs and to the press when asked, because we are a top 10 website of profound social importance run by a charity funded by public donations, this is an issue that reaches far beyond a single article subject, and as such we do actually owe the world explanations, and they will be demanding them. This is a huge issue, but that's why it's at your door.

- David Gerard (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: despite (again) repeated claims by many editors, it is important to note that Morwen has taken no admin actions whatsoever on this article at any time; her actions were those of any ordinary editor with move powers, seeing a BLP concern - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment and questions by BrownHairedGirl

This bitterly divisive case has involved a lot of misconduct. However, much of the misbehaviour results from editors working with unresolved policy on a multiply-contentious topic of enormous notability. The community was unable to stem the misconduct, and there may be scope for Arbcom to review some more minor issues, such as the soapboxing on both sides about whether Manning is a whistleblower/criminal/hero/traitor/whatever. Much drama could have been avoided if the community had curtailed that misconduct, and it failed to do so. However, any such case would involve many more parties than are listed so far; and addressing only that part of the drama seems to trivialise the rest of it.

The major issues are of policy. In this case, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY pointed to different outcomes, and differences over their priority caused much of the antagonism. Trans people are very rare, so policy had not been resolved in a way which carries broad support. That stems from a lack of clarity about whether the Wikimedia Foundation's Non discrimination policy (NDP) applies to a) content, and b) editor conduct, as well as the policy's brevity. As noted by EvergreenFir at WT:MOS "Scholarship regarding this has been clear for years, as have journalistic and law ethics. Respect the gender identity of the individual, regardless of their current sex", but the terse NDP does not spell this out.

MOS:IDENTITY seeks to apply NDP to content, but a significant chunk of the community contests the guideline. It is being reviewed by a community survey, but is it appropriate that a Foundation-level policy is apparently subject to community discretion?

Much of the heat in the dispute was generated by editors taking a stance on trans issues which conflicted with NDP principles, and expressing themselves in ways which also conflicted with the principles of NDP. Denigration or erasure of trans identities is a core part of discrimination in this field, yet this conduct was rampant in the discussions. It creates a hostile editing environment for trans people, just as expressions of racism, sexism, or religious prejudice deter editors. Again, policy was unclear: are editorial discussions bound by foundation policy, or are they constrained by following reliable sources where such prejudices may be rampant? That led to repeated transphobic comments going unsanctioned, whilst the community discussed sanctions on editors who identified transphobia A, B. Those conduct issues cannot be assessed in a policy vacuum.

So I don't know whether Arbcom could or should take this case. The scope and shape of any case depends largely on the underlying policy questions. Are those within Arbcom's remit? If so, can it address them before a case opens? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on NDP question: does the right to edit free from hostility and personal attack extend to freedom from denigration of a group of people? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by EdChem

There is a lot of good that ArbCom can do in this case, but please only consider taking this case if you are willing to actually say what needs saying. What I believe would be an appropriate outcome for this case would include:

• an unambiguous statement that BLP applies to living people, both article subjects and editors, in all spaces and at all times.
• a consequent finding (also drawing on the Foundation's NDP) that BLP mandates that discrimination against transgendered individuals is unacceptable
• a related consequent finding, also citing reliable sources in the area, that using of inappropriately gendered pronouns and names is inappropriate in all spaces and continuing to do so once this has been pointed out to an individual editor is potentially sanctionable as disruption and / or violations of the civility policy
• a finding that admin policy requires that actions such as reverting a move of a move protected page where the move was done citing BLP is absolutely prohibited without a proper investigation of the claimed BLP issue and (likely) discussion
• some follow on sanction on Tariqabjotu
• a restatement of principles that interpretation of policy are not based on arguments about wordings but based on principles and spirit (as outlined in the five pillars and elsewhere)
• a finding that the panel of closing administrators acted in good faith but failed to adequately consider / discuss the spirit of principles like BLP (the claim that MOS:IDENTITY is irrelevant as it discusses pronouns but not names is a hyper-technical response that misses the issues completely, for example)
• a finding that the move discussion and elsewhere have included examples of hate speech and transphobia that have remained unstruck and unsanctioned. By no means do I believe that all editors advocating use of Chelsea's old name as the article title have acted poorly, but some have and the administrator corps has failed to deal with these actions adequately.
• some sort of broad reminder about uncivil behaviour and its management; use of some words may be controversial as regards civility but hate speech and deliberate discrimination are unambiguously uncivil. Hate speech about the transgendered subject of a BLP is also brutal towards our transgendered editors, and likely distressing to many LGBTQI editors more broadly. It is unacceptable.
• ArbCom cannot dictate content but it can note that particular policy interpretation in this area are supported by reliable sources and Foundation policy. It can advise a new discussion of the specific issues bearing these policies in mind. It can suggest development of policy that explicitly guides handling of transgendered individuals.
• Wheel warring / edit warring are not the ways to handle disputes, and dispute handling in this case has been poor, I am sure that ArbCom can find relevant principles and findings to base comment on this issue. Findings on the sequence of events can affirm that explanations were offered by DG and Morwen, even if others didn't agree with them.
• examining the ridiculous topic ban on Sceptre might be a good idea too, as it was imposed to prevent her posting that Chelsea Manning is transgendered, something that is no longer disputed and is now in the BLP. It might have been justified at the time, I haven't checked, but it is not justified now. Sceptre was also blocked for noting blatant transphobia to Jimbo, an act that was arguably justified under admin policy but screamed for an IAR response given she was 100% correct on the substance of the issue.
• this broader situation has also had Risker blocking admins in a way that was controversial - her broader motivation was sound, IMO, but the actions themselves may be worth a look.
• this list is not exhaustive, but I think all of the above are within the auspices of ArbCom and there is more than enough here for a case.

EdChem (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

While I would certainly not object to the Committee looking at the accusations of transphobia by certain users (and the associated counter-accusations), I'm unsure in practical terms what terms can be achieved.

I think that the Committee could usefully take a look at the sequence of actions regarding the moving and protecting of the article by Morwen, Cls14, David Gerard and user:Tariqabjotu. The relevant actions are:

• 1218 - Morwen's original move to Chelsea [move 1]
• 1222 - Cls14 moves the page back to Bradley [move 2/revert 1]
• 1243 - Morwen moves again to C [move 3/revert 2]
  • 1244 - Cls14 accepts Morwen's move [admits move 2 was a mistake, negating the relevance of moves 2 and 3/reverts 1 and 2]
• 1331 - DG semi-protects and move locks the page at the "Chelsea" title, citing MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP [The "Chelsea" title is now explicitly protected by BLP until consensus says otherwise]
• 1432 - Tariq moves to Bradley, citing request [move 4/revert 3; later admits to not having educated himself about the reasons cited]
• 1434 - DG moves page back to C, citing BLP [move 5/revert 4; justified by the BLP policy as restoring the BLP position]

To summarise the various discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Manning:

• Nobody is accusing Cls14 of any wrongdoing.
• Morwen has been repeatedly accused of abusing admin tools and similar but she did not perform any actions that any autoconfirmed user could not also have done. Additionally, I and many other editors (including most of those opposing the sanctions proposed here) believe she did nothing wrong.
• There is a significant difference of opinion about the moves by David and Tariq
  • I along with several other uses explicitly believe that when an action is carried out in the name of BLP that it cannot be undone or materially changed by any editor, including an administrator, without an explicit consensus to do so, and that this applies regardless of whether you personally thing the action was right or wrong, explained or unexplained. I explain why I believe that is best for the encyclopaedia here
  • We also believe that in this specific instance David's reversion to reinstate the BLP action was correct according to the BLP policy.
  • Some users, notably Tariq and Rannpháirtí anaithnid (RA), contend that BLP is irrelevant to the BRD cycle and that David's actions constitute wheel warring.

In an examination of Tariq's actions [8] I note that the one action alone constitutes three examples of misuse of admin tools:

• Tariqabjotu reverted the move, through protection, against and explicit mention of BLP while claiming it was uncontroversial.
  1. Once you revert a page move it is no longer uncontroversial.
  2. Page moves through protection must only be done with explicit prior consensus. The only exception to this is for BLP reasons. [it was later pointed out that there are two exceptions, WP:OFFICE being the other]
  3. No reversions to actions taken in the name of BLP may be done without explicit prior consensus, no exceptions [again OFFICE applies here too].

I think if these were isolated incidents the first point would not require sanction beyond a reminder, the second might or might not result in loss of the admin bit, and the third would make it impossible for me trust the user with the admin tools. Combined, and consideration of a ban should be part of the discussion.

Tariq later states that he saw the BLP notice but decided it didn't apply because he says David didn't explain why BLP applied, and so moved through the move protection. See any number of David's edits to the various pages where he explains again and again and again why he believed BLP applies.

I note [9] that this makes it actually far worse an action as he knew it was controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Black Kite:. David's actions in citing BLP should be read as "I have a good faith belief that taking this action is required to make the page compliant with the BLP policy." Part of the point of the BLP policy is to then protect the page (or the relevant part of it) in that state until consensus is reached to change it, so move protecting the page until there was consensus, and then reverting to that version was not just correct per his interpretation of the BLP, it was correct full stop. At the time it was disputed whether "Bradley" was a BLP violation, it was not disputed that "Chelsea" was not (it was only disputed about whether it was the correct title), so BLP required the article be at "Chelsea" until the dispute was resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

For once I'm only tangentially involved in a contentious topic; many comments here and there, yes, but unlike the last time, no hand in the nasty stuff. Speaking of the Muhammad case, when some invoked the Non discrimination policy, I was reminded of the attempt to shoehorn in the Controversial content resolution into dictating en.wikipedia content. The NDP has no direct applicability to article content at all, it was created to protect users and WMF employees form discrimination. It's no different from a million businesses who have NDPs posted on their break room walls.

Wikipedia policy on article names simply does not and should not accommodate every last wish of the transgender community, just as our policy on anti-censorship precluded acceding to the wishes of some of the Muslim community regarding depictions of their prophet. Transgender editors and supporters have a right to edit here free of hostility and attacks, but they do not have the right to slur and denigrate other editors who have a sincerely-held, opposing opinion on this matter. It is not "transphobic" to support "Bradley Manning" as a choice for the article title, given that that is the name by which he is notable for, that notability stemming from the passing of classified intel to unauthorized parties, and the subsequent trial & conviction.

Statement by Black Kite

@Thryduulf: You state: "1331 - DG semi-protects and move locks the page at the "Chelsea" title, citing MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP [The "Chelsea" title is now explicitly protected by BLP until consensus says otherwise]". No, that's clearly not the case. If the BLP issue had been consensus at that time (which it wasn't) then you'd be correct. But David move-locking the article per his interpretation of BLP does not in any way "protect" the article. As I said at the time, I'm not particularly criticising David or Tariq here because they did what they thought was correct at the time, even though they both technically wheel-warred. But David should not have move-locked the article. It was not an unambiguous violation of BLP. So David's move-lock was equivalent to saying "This is my interpretation of BLP, I'm correct, and I'm going to use my admin tools to stop you arguing with that". As for the rest, I don't think there's enough for a case here. Some users need a serious reminder that transphobic speech (and there was some, from a few editors in particular) isn't in any way acceptable, and others need an equal reminder that accusing others of transphobia because they don't agree with you (i.e. Phil Sandifer's claim that moving the article back to Bradley is "hate speech") is equally unacceptable. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf/Alanscottwalker: That's not the point, really. A few editors (and that's all it was at the time) claiming BLP issues in relation to an article title (and indeed, most of them were quoting MOS:IDENTITY, which says nothing about article titles at all) does not form any sort of consensus, especially when there are editors pointing out that keeping the article at Bradley, pointing out the name change, and switching the pronouns accomplishes the same thing whilst still complying with COMMONNAME. As I say, I don't think any of the admins should be sanctioned, but BLP is diminished by it being waved around in such a manner before a consensus has been formed. It would not have harmed anyone for the article to stay at Bradley whilst a consensus developed as to whether BLP was relevant. Incidentally, I don't hold any major opinion as to which title is "correct", because I don't think there is a correct answer here. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Alanscottwalker - don't take part of my sentence out of context, please; I was not saying that the article would automatically comply with BLP by staying there, but that editors were arguing that the approach of mentioning the name change and pronoun switching would comply with BLP, hence it not being an unambiguous BLP issue. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by GregJackP

I have not edited the article (nor do I wish to) although I have participated in the numerous discussions on it. I urge ArbCom to accept the case for the following reasons:

• The policies involved need to be clarified. Does WP:IDENTITY trump WP:COMMONNAME or vice versa?
• Does WP:IDENTITY require changes of all pronouns referring to the subject or just those after the announcement or realization that the subject is transgender, and does this create inconsistency in the article?
• Does WP:COMMONNAME require waiting until sufficient source use a new name to change the title of an article?
• Does WP:BLP apply when there are a multitude of reliable sources that report on the specific issue, even it is may be hurtful to the subject?
• Further, does the policy require that we self-censor material on that basis?
• The behavior of individuals on both sides of the issue need to be addressed.
• To clarify that off-wiki behavior that affects the project is or is not a sanctionable matter.

Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 15:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Well, Black Kite points to one reason why arbitration is needed. They cannot both be right, and BLP is not something to wander in darkness about. If an admin protects something for BLP, then it follows that either they have a good-faith, colorable claim, which must be discussed after protection - or they are so far off the reservation that consensus will quickly undo; (It would be one thing if they both reasonably argued that the other's title is non BLP compliant, but no one argued, or could argue, that Chelsea Manning was non-BLP compliant -- it had secondary and primary source(s)). And although no consensus was ultimately reached, that itself suggests that the BLP issues with "Bradley" were good-faith and colorable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, although the BLP issues with 'Bradley' were good-faith and colorable, as with anything there are appropriate ways for editors (and admins as editors) to discuss and even argue about that, and not appropriate ways. That may also need addressing by this arbitration. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite, How could that not be the issue? See WP:RAAA. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, your beginning of the debate conclusion: "It would not have harmed anyone for the article to stay at Bradley" is the very crux of the BLP debate that ensued, so it's not possible to have that overall conclusion at the start of the full and extended discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by KillerChihuahua

I'm wondering why User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid is not a named party, given this.

Statement by Haipa Doragon

I'll keep this brief, somewhat, since I'm really not well right now, physically or mentally, and I probably won't be hanging around for a whole month of arbitration or whatever it may be. There's been a severe lack of discipline and accountability surrounding this topic, along with an attitude that editors have some sort of right to just come along and weigh in on what they think about someone's gender or proclaim to everyone their political views. The list of quotes above, particularly those compiled by Phil Sandifer, show this amply, but the charade of a discussion at Topic Ban for Baseball Bugs? shows how willing administrators are to defer things to to a pointless discussion that goes on for days on end instead of taking immediate action, as they are meant to do, against an editor's belligerent and disruptive conduct in such a sensitive topic. This is, overall, an issue in which administrators have utterly failed to control the conduct of editors, and as such requires arbitration. Haipa Doragon (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Morwen

I don't even know what to say. I am very disappointed that it has come to this.

I stand by my original move. I stand by my invocation of WP:BLP, as my second or third edit on the talk page. I didn't see anything wrong with User:David Gerard's actions at the time. I don't see anything sanctionable in my blogging or (very limited) contact with the press.

I think the move debate went the wrong way, but let's remember, it was a "no consensus", not a positive choice to put it where it is now. And even if you were to agree that the page location is correct, the the idea that User:David Gerard should be sanctioned simply because the community ends up failing to agree with his BLP action is just bizarre. I'm sure many of us have revdelled and had oversighted stuff that we wouldn't be able to explain on talk pages for fear of repeating the libel. In this new environment, I don't think I'd dare do that any more. I think we need to have a clear statement from the ArbCom that what David did was OK. (I'd also like to see something done about the level of anti-trans sentiment on the talk pages. Some of this stuff was so bad that if it had been against any other group, any admin would have removed it on sight. I think this set the tenor of the debate, and if it had been moderated properly the RM might have gone the other way.)

(By the way, elsewhere I had been claiming that User:Cls14's agreement that I could revert their move came before I did that revert. Clearly, from the timeline presented by User:Thryduulf, I was in error: that message came the minute after. It's not how I remember it, but it's there in black and white - unless there has been some kind of glitch with the timestamps, which seems unlikely from my limited knowledge of MediaWiki?)

Morwen (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Tariqabjotu

I feel everyone else has already done an excellent job explaining why this case needs the attention of the Arbitration Committee. While I understand NW's desire not to prolong an fiery episode, I feel leaving this to the community's devices would just result in more acrimonious discussion that leads to no substantive outcome. With that in mind, I would like to kindly request that the clerks do something about some of the statements that are more presentation of evidence than statements about what should be considered in this dispute, in a forum where it is not (yet) appropriate to provide defense.

That being said, I want to clarify the behavior with David Gerard that I, at least, feel should be examined. I feel it is a misunderstanding to believe the primary issue with him is an accusation of wheel-warring. To some extent, that's tangential; as I said more than a week ago, while one of our interpretations of BLP would achieve consensus, there was no basis to argue that either of them was wrong. We both felt our decisions were right, given our interpretations, at the time. Despite suggestions to the contrary, there is no effort to punish David Gerard for failing to achieve consensus in his interpretation of BLP. There is no malice (except from a very small number of editors) toward him for having a position on that policy that some, including myself, disagree with. Instead, the issue I, at it seems several other editors have, is with David's unwillingness for days to explain why he felt the title "Bradley Manning" constituted a BLP violation. (I see David has repeated here the assertion that he did, in fact, explain that early on in the discussion, but it doesn't seem like the appropriate time for me to suggest why that doesn't appear to be the case.) This, often brash, unwillingness, combined with the suggestion that he didn't feel he needed to explain for others to understand and yield to his vague invocation, was what caused concern among editors, and, ultimately, cast aspersions on David's administrative actions.

Morwen seems more understanding about the missteps she may have taken early on, so I feel the concern with her actions is not as great. She never used her administrative tools and just made a bold, albeit hasty, decision. However, without getting too much into evidence, her off-wiki activities and quickness to make accusations of transphobia very early in the discussion suggest a conflict of interest that, at the very least, should be considered. There also exist concerns surrounding Morwen and David Gerard's interactions, especially off-wiki (in public view), but it remains to be seen whether those will be considered reprehensible or just eyebrow-raising.

I share much of the same concerns others have with the tenor of comments on the talk page, but I'm not sure what the Committee could do about that other than make a broad, and already generally understood, statement regarding civility and personal attacks. That being said, I think certain editors -- Baseball Bugs and Josh Gorand spring to mind immediately -- fanned the flames in various discussions surrounding this issue and probably warrant at least some personal admonishment. -- tariqabjotu 17:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Knowledgekid87

I feel that the admin involved did act with good faith, however there is a reason why policies are in place that have been built up by consensus over time. I feel that there was no reason the page move could have gone through a consensus first to change the name to Chelsea, this is something that is routine on wikipedia when it comes to moves. That being said as a result wikipedia was thrown into the media spotlight as being "ahead of sources" something that is not in the best interests if we are to remain a neutral encyclopedia.

As for transphobic comments, what one might take as an okay comment another person might see as transphobic so calling out people based upon it I feel only leads to chaos. For example someone could easily be acting in good faith and says what a reliable source is saying but is labeled as being transphobic as a result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement MONGO

A controversial page move to a new title should always be done with care and only performed after extensive discussion perhaps even an Rfc as has been done subsequently. In this case, an extremely high profile article had successive page moves and frankly I see advocacy all around here. That said, BLP policy dictates that we err on the side of the subject of the bio as to what name the article should be titled, if reliable references support this name change, irregardless of whether the name change has been done legally.--MONGO 18:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Roscelese

I have been only minimally involved in this issue, and while I obviously disagree with the page move, I will trust that the closing admins evaluated the discussion fairly and discounted invalid comments. What I think would be a useful outcome to this discussion, something of a concretization of TParis's "raise the bar" goal mentioned above, is an addition to policy to the effect that bigoted comments are not permitted even if they are not directed at an identified user or group of users (which is what WP:NPA allows for). In practice, we already do this - "I didn't refer to User:Example, I was just talking about Jews in general" isn't likely to be a helpful excuse if you repeatedly post anti-Semitic comments on a talk page - but the fact that it isn't laid out explicitly in policy means it gets enforced selectively. We saw in this case how general hateful remarks against trans people fell through the cracks, but we can avoid that happening again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Wikipedia should not adopt "hate speech" rules as some suggest, nor should Arbcom put itself in the position of determining what does and does not constitute "hate speech" in a discussion. Various policies exist to cover comments or actions that would be of serious concern, i.e. those involving outright hostility or tendentious editing. Open and free discussion of the issues is vital to maintaining Wikipedia's objectivity and "hate speech" rules would unavoidably put egregious limitations on such discussion. Although I think labeling other editors transphobic is inappropriate, especially in some of the instances it has been thrown around, it is a question of whether it is uniquely disrupting the discussion. I believe the only real issue here is that the community is not in agreement on the content and the applicable policy, but that is not a matter for ArbCom to resolve. My feeling is that this discussion should be given time as I suspect the naming issue will not be a problem after about a month, when it will be fairly clear that Chelsea Manning is the preferred name to use in reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Rannpháirtí anaithnid

I'm very disappointed that this has ended up here. I had hoped that the community would be able to work through these issues in consensus. I've no issue with being named as a party. I took an active role in the discussion. As an administrator, people look to me for leadership of sorts. And, I raised concerns with the conduct of others during and after the RM discussion.

Civility

Several comments made during the discussion were very offensive and deeply provocative. In this, I'm referring to anti-trans* comments. People both need to take more care when crafting comments on sensitive issues and avoid making overtly antagonistic comments.

Alongside this, people with strong views on issues need to be able to respect that others may not share those views. That doesn't make them wrong, or evil, or intolerant. And having a particular insight into the The Truth also doesn't make you right. From that perspective, accusations of "transphobia" throughout the discussion needs to be looked at.

Administrator conduct

In the case of David Gerard, I think there are very serious questions of admin conduct and accountability. I'll present these in more detail if the case is accepted. I believe they are substantial enough to warrant de-sysoping. I don't necessary advocate that but, having seen his conduct up close and personal, I do want to underline the seriousness of the case (in my view anyway) that can be presented against him and I believe it merits examining by the Committee, even if nothing comes of it.

BLP

The question of whether BLP can be used as a "power card" to push through an administrative action (or any other change) on tenuous rationale - or with no rationale - is deserving of community consideration. I think this is the most substantial issue to come our from from this incident and affects the community as a whole. This alone is deserving of an ArbCom ruling (although I would have preferred it to emerge from the community as a whole).

Activism

The incident has brought up questions of wiki-activism that needs to be examined. In this, I don't mean comments expressing their moral outrage for-or-against the title Chelsea Manning. All contributors are entitled to express their view on what ought to be Wikipedia policies or guidelines - or taking positions contrary to current policy or guidelines because of what they believe is right.

My concerns over activism relate to:

(a) actions by administrators that forced the issue to be discussed in terms it was, and

(b) the use of social media or other networks to canvass for support or present discussion as a call-to-arms.

A practical example that the latter occurred (but which came to nothing) can be seen in the swarming of this straw poll on the Manual of Style with streams of IP !votes. However, deeper questions of how activism affected the discussion should be examined by the community or in this ArbCom.

Off-site comment

I also believe consideration needs to be given to the use of social media and to the wisdom of press comments by administrator(s) that framed discussion in a particular manner.

Whilst I believe them to be in good faith (and I don't advocate the need to take any action beyond a trouting), we need to consider what affect comments like these have on on-going discussions. I believe the use of off-site comments, including those in those that framed the contribution of opponents negatively in press interviews, fed a battleground or "just cause" atmosphere, however innocently they were made.

Whether comments like these are covered by NPA policy also needs to be examined. Whilst they were not made on wiki, they were heard by the community and affect relationships.

--RA (✍) 19:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sue Gardner

This is my first contribution to an ArbCom case and so I may do it wrong: if so, please forgive me and/or fix my mistakes. I am commenting here as an ordinary editor, although of course my views have been influenced by my experiences and observations in my seven years as WMF ED.

I believe ArbCom should accept the Chelsea Manning case, and that its work should encompass the following:

• A clarification of the BLP policy: what does it apply to and what is its purpose. Some editors seem to believe BLP is intended as a narrow defence against claims of libel, and/or does not apply to all article elements. My understanding (based on many discussions with Jimmy and other Board members and experienced editors, and supported by this) is that BLP is broad and intended to hold editors to a higher standard than the legal minimum. I would like ArbCom to issue a clear statement on this issue.
• An evaluation of whether editors can be sanctioned for actions taken in good faith in support of BLP. I find David Gerard's "court of appeals reversal" analogy useful here.
• An evaluation of how Wikipedia handles trans issues, and policy guidance for how they should be handled. Particularly, perhaps:

• An evaluation of the role of subject-matter expertise in the Manning debates. Throughout the discussions, much editor commentary (for example, the suggestions that Manning might repeatedly and whimsically change her mind) revealed a lack of basic understanding of trans issues. And, editors who have demonstrated subject-matter expertise have been accused of bias. This is aberrant: normally, evidence that an editor has researched and thought about a topic results in their comments being understood as more credible rather than less.
• An evaluation of editor behaviour throughout this dispute. I agree with Courcelles that Morwen and DG should not be sanctioned: I believe they conducted themselves well. The same cannot be said of everyone involved. There has been a great deal of uninformed “gut feeling” type commentary from editors, some of it arguably transphobic, and none of it sanctioned or struck. It's hard to stop people from cluttering up discussions with ill-informed gut reactions, but it is not impossible to remove the most inflammatory, and doing that can have a calming effect and raise the overall quality of debate.
• Some guidance from ArbCom on how editors might choose to conduct themselves in disputes in which they have little expertise, and in which systemic bias risks skewing outcomes. In the Manning situation, for a variety of reasons that may have included systemic bias, !voting did not achieve a result consistent with BLP. Given that Wikipedia makes decisions by consensus, how can majority-culture (male, young, Western, heterosexual) editors best participate in discussions in ways that work towards good decision-making, rather than groupthink?

I do really believe that ArbCom should take this case. I don't believe tempers will settle over time: I think editors are stuck and not making progress. Sue Gardner (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse per my prior involvement in the dispute. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/0/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Request noted. Awaiting further statements, though please let's keep things focused, calm and succinct. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

  Please don't use this page to argue with each other or repeat debates from elsewhere or make excessively long statements. What is needed here are short statements either for acceptance of a case (and what scope it should have) or rejection of a case (e.g. if more attempts at dispute resolution are needed). Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment Frankly, I am disgusted with the comments with many of our editors and administrators on that page. But I also see little room for ArbCom to get involved. The Committee is simply not designed for dealing with a situation like this. We would take a month at best to come up with a ruling, and the existence of the case in the meantime would not help calm matters down. Now, if we made myself or someone else an unreviewable dictator on this, that would probably take care of the matter. But I doubt that would make many people happy. Anyway, I am leaning towards declining this case for that reason. But a couple of subpoints:

• @TParis: No I don't think that Morwen has a conflict of interest here, any more than User:Dominic does when he works on Smithsonian-related articles (e.g. slight, not enough to prohibit editing either the article or the talk page [though there may be some COI with respect to that one sentence).
• @TParis:: I agree with your interpretation of BLP/consensus here. Every editor who reasonably is taking BLP into account (e.g. the people who are not calling trans folks "it") deserves to have their opinion heard.
• Generally, but at Josh Gorand especially: The use of transphobic to describe some editors' behaviors was perfectly apt. Not everyone who wishes that Chelsea Manning's page should be located at Bradley Manning instead of Chelsea Manning is transphobic though. By no means. Yes, some people were and are. But it is reasonable to think that Manning's long-term historical notability is going to come from the period in life where she was known to the general public as a man, and that Wikipedia should wait to change this until we start getting feedback from the published scholarly community in a few years' time. So my advice is to tone it down. Yes some people are being transphobic, but you won't win anyone over by calling them out on it. And not everyone is.

• My two cents. As I said, I'm leaning towards declining but I wouldn't mind seeing more statements. NW (Talk) 01:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Accept to examine both the allegations of hate speech (and, conversely, the allegations of improper labeling of statements as hate speech) and the allegations that editors have acted in contravention of the BLP policy, particularly vis-à-vis the precedents described in the Badlydrawnjeff case; both are potentially actionable violations, and deserve a full investigation.

  With regard to NuclearWarfare's comment just above, while he is correct that the case will likely be lengthy, I do not think that our accepting it will prevent a natural calming of matters; rather, given the acrimony that has already been shown in these debate and the recent media coverage of this very dispute—which I expect will only increase given these latest events—I think it is unrealistic to expect the dispute to calm down on its own at all. I suspect the only choice we have is whether to accept a case now or in a month when the inevitable next move request takes place, and I see nothing to be gained by waiting. Kirill ^[talk] 01:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Accept to examine everyone's conduct, including that of the administrators who moved the page in the first place. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think the three initial admins involved conducted themselves in any way poorly enough we need an arbitration case over their actions alone. I don't see anything that would incline me to vote to sanction any of the three of Morwen, Tariqabjotu, or David Gerard. Accept a more general case, in order to refine and give clarification to the five-plus year old Footnoted quotes and Badlydrawnjeff cases. There also strikes me to be other conduct issues to examine outside of the three initial admins, but that can be handled in the later portions of the case. Courcelles 16:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)