User talk:Daira Hopwood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi, I noticed you stated an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Transition to Creative Commons licensing about the license change. However, that poll is not official, so you should officially vote on Special:SecurePoll. Just click vote on the line: "Wikimedia license update vote 2009 12:00, April 12, 2009 12:00, May 3, 2009 Vote | Translate | List | Dump | Tally"

Best of luck! --Falcorian (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I already voted in that poll as well. Thanks, though. --David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


Does this username imply that the account is being used by two people? DS (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Now there's a complicated question. I'm a bigender multiple (I'd give a WP link for the latter but the concept seems to have been suppressed here). But as far as the intent of WP:UPOLICY#Sharing_accounts is concerned, no. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Good enough; carry on. DS (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Healthy multiplicity[edit]

I have moved your request at WP:REFUND to the bottom of the page where new requests usually go: to save you looking there, I will repeat here that you need to enable email on your account. Under My preferences/User profile, enter the address and check "enable email from other users".

When you say "history", do you want more than just the text of the article?

Replying to your other comments there, if you can cite reliable sources for the view that multiplicity can be a healthy condition, there is nothing to stop you proposing that as an addition to the existing article - that would be better than trying to resuscitate this one, which would still be open to criticism as a WP:POV fork - see Uncle G's comments at the AfD.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning /facebook[edit]

Hello,on the discussion page of Bradley Manning you wrote "Manning's Facebook page indicates that..." . This is dated 17 September 2010 ; have you successfully have had access to Manning's Facebook page more recently ? (for my part I never could ).Trente7cinq (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the page is still accessible, although locked, and considerably more sparse than it was when I last looked at it. In September it looked similar to the image linked from this Gawker article (it was also locked then). It is at (Facebook login required). --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:David-Sarah Hopwood/Healthy multiplicity[edit]

User:David-Sarah Hopwood/Healthy multiplicity, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:David-Sarah Hopwood/Healthy multiplicity and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:David-Sarah Hopwood/Healthy multiplicity during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pangender[edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Genderqueer, has been proposed for a merge with the article Pangender. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --April Arcus (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Manning[edit]

I hope you'll consider that things are unlikely to get better if editors allow themselves to be driven away from the project.

At one point I thought things were getting better. I've contributed many times to trying to make it better. But it is an uphill battle, and extremely wearing and, at times, detrimental to my mental health. I can't do it any more if the outcome is going to be decisions like the one made on Chelsea Manning's biography page, which violates established MOS:IDENTITY policy. It seems like Wikipedia is going backwards on this issue. Trans women (and I'm sure trans men as well) are being driven away from Wikipedia by the hostility and erasure of our identities we encounter here. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I also hope you don't find it rude that your section on the talk page was hatnoted,

Yes, I certainly do find it rude. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

but there is a general (not unanimous) sentiment that it's best to hold off on re-discussing the article title (especially if one has no new arguments to bring to the table) until September 30th, when there will be a new request to move the article back to Chelsea Manning.

There should have been nothing to discuss, but there was because MOS:IDENTITY, and Chelsea Manning's identity, were violated. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Notably, the sentiment is shared not only by editors who think "Bradley" is the best title and are tired of seeing the issue re-discussed, but also by editors who think "Chelsea" is the best title and feel the case for moving the article back to Chelsea Manning will only be even stronger in a few weeks' time than it is now.

That's her name, now. What's going to change -- are we holding out for the media to get a teensy bit less transphobic? I'm not holding my breath. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Many editors are currently compiling evidence to be presented in the September 30th move discussion, such as lists of reliable sources that refer to Manning by her chosen name (showing that it is a WP:COMMONNAME) and resources that discuss how naming decisions affect trans people. You might consider participating in that effort: Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request. -sche (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I might. At the moment I'm too fucking furious. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, it is not OK for the acknowledgement of Chelsea's name to be dependent on news' agencies gatekeeping. Not OK at all. If that's the outcome, then my involvement with Wikipedia is over. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Then you may not be happy and involved in the future - Wikipedia's policy is to follow the reliable sources.
I have proposed that that be changed: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Conflict_with_MOS:IDENTITY.2C_and_proposed_change
There's a very strong argument for the article being Chelsea instead of Bradley, but if you're hostile and ignore WP:GREATWRONGS, you'll do more harm to the discussion than good. We're writing an encyclopedia, not righting an encyclopedia. We *are* in fact, depending on news' agencies gatekeeping. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
There is exactly one reliable source here: Chelsea Manning. It's her name, her identity, and her Wikipedia bibliography article.
Do you just not get how important an issue this is for the trans community? How the current situation is making it a completely unsafe and hostile space for us? I suggest reading this: --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
[crap from Two kinds of pork deleted]
@CoffeeCrumbs: Word to the wise, you may want to consider never again linking to "WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS" when speaking about historically marginalized populations. It's just not a particularly kind thing to do. NW (Talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
? It's the standard applicable Wikipedia policy. The previous editor argued that we shouldn't be beholden to primary sources. In fact, that's *exactly* who were are beholden to, as a matter of policy. We do not jump ahead of reliable sources simply because it may be the right thing to do. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Apparently my point wasn't well understood, so my apologies for phrasing it badly. I am going to take a wild shot in the dark and guess that you are not personally affected by this issue. If you were, you might be more attuned as to why referring, in this context, to a policy link that is often used almost in a mocking sense might not be the best ideas in the world. Think about how it would make you feel if your core beliefs were simply referred to as (a campaign to) "right great wrongs". NW (Talk) 02:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
i dont think that essay is mocking - it makes a serious point, that we wait for sources. I think many ppl believe that since anyone can edit wp it can be used to advance a progressive agenda. While this certainly happens, it shouldnt.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Framing opposition to using a non-preferred name as "advancing a progressive agenda" sounds like POV pushing to me. There are sources across ideologies that accept that trans* people exist, that their stated experience is not mythological, and that people should be taken as sources for their own experience of their gender identity. Ascribing this to the "progressive agenda" (here given as some great wrong in need of righting) is advocacy against actual people on ideological grounds; it's not a neutral stance. I say this without malice. __Elaqueate (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
that's a heck of a lot of words you just put in my mouth. I didn't say any of that, so please AGF. In this case, the agenda I'm talking about is the one that says 'as soon as person X who is trans announces a name change Wikipedia must immediately within the hour change it's title otherwise we are transphobic bigots." Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle to advance any causes, whether good or bad or right or left. If the cause needing to be advanced is 'switch how you refer to a trans* person immediately upon any public announcement' then the way to advance that is through getting ap and nytimes and CNN and others to adopt standards that are in line with that agenda. Suggesting that I somehow think the existence of trans people is a progressive agenda massively misrepresents and insults me and my intelligence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to insult your intelligence at all. I wouldn't respond to your claims if I didn't think you were intelligent. How was I supposed to know that by "progressive agenda" you meant "demanding an unreasonably immediate change or else all editors are bigots"? Maybe you can understand my confusion as asking people to accept that any person can be considered a reputable source for reporting their gender identity without newspaper sources (the actual claim) is not the same as asserting most editors who don't make immediate changes should all be considered bigots. I wouldn't have made that connection. __Elaqueate (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
if you've followed the case plenty of trans* advocates have been saying exactly that - even deriding sources for referring to her as Bradely in the very article which discussed the name change - allowing no time for it to sink in. News media on the whole tried to act in a more balanced fashion, weighing the needs of their readers against the preferences of the subject and dancing around language in complex ways - but they were still derided by trans* crusaders for taking too long. In any case, in such matters we should be late to the party, not early. The early articles which congratulated Wikipedia on moving horrified me and unfortunately served the purpose of perpetuating a myth about Wikipedia that it has a sort of liberal/progressive angle, then when it flipped back we were accused of hate speech and sexual harassment and other unpleasant things. While many of our eds, myself included, are sympathetic to progressive and liberal causes,, it is not supposed to be like that and ultimately I think we're better off trying to be as neutral as we can. See conservapedia for what happens when you choose a side.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
So the current arguments of this editor should be minimized by association with arguments from other people's arguments in the past? While at the same time you make repeated appeals that the people opposed to the title Chelsea Manning shouldn't be lumped together? I'm surprised to hear you talking about ideological considerations, instead of accuracy and verifiability. This means you are here giving weight to ideological views, whether they're yours or not. You aren't being neutral here, you're taking a side to redress something you see as a great wrong, that Wikipedia's reputation has been besmirched. And I don't think you have to, as I have said, acceptance that trans* people exist can be found in many camps, and there are decades of evidence from reputable medical, scientific, and other sources, that people are reliably relating their experience of being trans in a way that is broadly consistent over thousands and thousands of people. Uninformed superstition or ignorance about these issues are not more accurate or verifiable because they are widely held. If the article was "Bob Hope" we would, without drama, give more weight to a source reporting an interview with Bob Hope, then someone who had heard a rumor or to someone who admitted they had or would have no contact with any Bob Hopes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaqueate (talkcontribs) 19:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
you've lost me mate, I have no idea where you're going with the above, and I don't recall saying anything about the existence of trans people.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, short version: 1. This user didn't make all of the claims you're arguing against and it's not good to generalize your "opponents" (although we're all trying to make something good) while complaining specifically about "advocates" and "crusaders" generalizing, and 2. Editing based on not pleasing liberals too much, and not making conservatives too uncomfortable is not some ideological neutral position. It's still taking a side. __Elaqueate (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
daira, i'm sorry you dont feel welcome but i suggest you take account of the meaning and purpose of a title. It is not to state the 'true' or 'legal' or 'preferred' name of a person - rather it is to help ensure the reader that they have arrived at the right place. This is why commonname is so useful, as the goal is to serve the widest reader community. Trust me, you are not the first person nor are trans* the first community that has been offended by something in wikipedia, but I suggest rather rhan making categorical statements that indicate you are right and all others are wrong, you instead work to build consensus for changes to article titling policies that will take more account of preferences of the subject. Its a harder, slower path, but much more likely to get results than what you've been doing recently. You will also win more ppl to your side if you consider deeply article titling policy beyond trans ppl - otherwise it just seems like you're advocating in a non-neutral fashion for a special exception for a special group..--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Who are you to decide what the meaning and purpose of an article title is? A title of a biography article is a person's name, and there is no meaningful difference in terms of acceptable and respectful usage from personal names used in any other context. In particular, a trans* person will be as insulted (or maybe more just because it is more prominent) by an article title that misnames them, as by any other misnaming. Trust me on that. What you really don't seem to understand is just how often misnaming is deliberately used to humiliate trans* people. Also, everything I've said about people's names applies to all people, not just trans* people (indeed I've used Yusuf Islam and Jenna Coleman as examples). I have never argued for the policy to be trans*-specific. Furthermore, I see no problem in stating that people are wrong when they are wrong. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
no, the title of a biography is not a person's name. See Deadmau5 or Bill Clinton or oodles of other examples. It is possible a trans person may be insulted, but that doesnt mean we should change - if we changed something every time someone was insulted we'd be running around in circles. Anyway, i've given you some advice, you are free to do whatever you want and time will tell if your methods bear fruit.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken. "Deadmau5" and "Bill Clinton" are person's names, and they are names that the people concerned, as far as I know, do not object to. I don't know how to discuss this with you when you start from such an obviously wrong premise. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, are you perhaps assuming that "a person's name" means their "one true name"? No. Wrong. An article must be named with a name that they accept. That is a corollary of WP:Basic dignity. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
no, i'm not assuming that. The government of Ivory Coast has asked, since 1986, that people call them Côte d'Ivoire, but wikipedia decided last year to not title their article that way. We have many other examples of wikipedia consensus going against a subject's wishes. cookie/crumbles, etc. Again, you are making assertions that have no basis in fact, like your invented 'an article must be named...' Claim above. If it were that clear, we would not have had 7 days and hundreds of comments and 300 editors opining. It is not at all clear that Bradley in the title is somehow in violation of any policy. Again, I suggest that if you want results, rather than just storming around saying 'i'm right and you're wrong' your best bet is to participate in the ongoing discussion at AT but plz consider avoiding absolutes, appeals to authority (eg Y'all arent trans so your input isnt valid) or the impression that if you dont get your way you will take your toys and go home.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The Côte d'Ivoire is not a person. Your argument is a variation on a slippery slope fallacy, i.e. that if then we change the criteria for biography articles, then we have to change it for all article titles. No, we don't. (And that is independent of whether Ivory Coast or any other example should have been renamed.) Wikipedia has a whole bunch of WP:BLP policy already that does not apply to other articles. By the way, "you're not trans so you probably lack perspective on some of the issues" is a perfectly valid argument, and is not an "appeal to authority" anyway. (Go read appeal to authority: "Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert".) --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite curious about something here. What biographies of a single living person don't currently have one of that person's names as the title? Things like Côte d'Ivoire and Burma are fascinating subjects on their own, but I think the claim you made was that "the title of a biography is not a person's name". Conventionally, it is. What a strange thing to dispute, especially as it makes no practical or theoretical difference to this case anyway. And it's also not useful to tone police in a comment where you aren't extending complete courtesy and a belief in good faith, yourself. __Elaqueate (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The only example of where a title of a biography of a single person wouldn't be a name, here [WP:NCP], is the theoretical situation where a person has no name at all. So educational. Even if your point stood that a title of a BLP was not a name, everyone at this point agrees that Chelsea Manning is a name that describes this person, I'd hope. (Daira Hopwood ⚥ please feel free to delete my comments if you don't want this conversation bothering up your talk page.) __Elaqueate (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
what I meant was, the title - of any article - is making no claim to be the 'name' of the subject that their peers, friends, family, or themselves may use or even recognize. Rather, the title of the article is intended to be that which best fits the criteria laid out in WP:at around recognizeability, precision, common use, conciseness, etc. we have many names for historical people who never spoke a word of English and whose 'title' would be totally unrecognizeable to them and which they would never agree was their 'name'. We also have cases of criminals, esp murderers, where their articles sit at a nickname bestowed upon them by the media. We have disambiguators which are added that are (obviosuly) not part of that person's name. Finally we have many pseudonyms and stage names and others that are different than the subject's actual legal 'name'. We have historical figures who are known by mononyms, whereas when alive it's quite possible they went by a totally different name or set of names and the mononym was a creation of contemporary historians. In this case it is a moot point, Chelsea is just as much a name for her as Bradley is, but the general point still stands. 99 times out of 100, the title of a biography is indeed the person's name, but there are exceptions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Assumed attitudes of historical dead people to articles that are still using names, as you say, do not mean that article don't use names, why bring it up? You repeatedly told this editor they were wrong (that they made "assertions that have no basis in fact") on a point you here describe as being true 99 times out of 100 in your world. Do you see how this could be interpreted as uncivil? (And you haven't actually given any examples of a biography of a person that doesn't use a name, so you might want to claim 99,999 out of 100,000.) The "general point" is that biographies commonly, overwhelmingly, and by guidelines use names as titles and it was a strange point to repeatedly point out to this editor as a representative error. This would have been a good point to AGF and think that the incredibly rare and possibly non-existent exception to the claim did not invalidate the claim as "wrong" on an editor's talk page. __Elaqueate (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Biographies of living persons do have a name as the title, and if that's not policy, it should be. However I didn't restrict my proposal to BLP because almost precisely the same issues are involved for people who have died. So for example, new evidence were to come to light about what a person's name preference actually was (I can think of several cases where that might be relevant, such as Brandon Teena), that should result in a move. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry I'm a computer scientist and react poorly to absolutes - what you say is generally true but sometimes not. This may all stem from differing views on what constitutes a 'name' - we have article titles with nicknames, stage names, pseudonyms, mononyms, official titles, and many others besides - but in common English, if you were to walk up to someone on the street and say 'what is Lady Gaga's name' they would say 'Stefanie' - thus the word 'name' without modifiers is usually taken to mean the subject's 'real' name, however that might be defined.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Wikipedia:NCP describes nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens, etc. as names whatever they say on the street (where, honestly, if you actually asked people "What is Lady Gaga's name?" you would have an easy majority of people answer "Lady Gaga" before they attempted another name. __Elaqueate (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


Obi-Wan Kenobi - It's clear that you view your opinions that "in such matters we should be late to the party, not early", and that immediately changing articles constitutes a "liberal/progressive agenda", as neutral. They are very far from neutral. Honestly I see no point in us discussing this further, at least on this page. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

these are not opinions, they are based on reasonable and commonly held interpretations of our policies and dozens of RM discussions with broad community participation that reinforced these views, esp NPOV and RS and commonname. the official name of Big Ben is Elizabeth's tower or something, but we havent renamed the article because sufficient sources havent shifted. To take an extreme case, I assume that if no media sources followed Manning's wishes and continued to refer to her as Bradley, you would still argue to change the title here, correct? If so, then I believe you misunderstand the core pillars of Wikipedia, and esp the reasoning behind NPOV, RS, and commonname. We are working on modulating commonname, but it's touchy, and you storming in with a proposal that is extreme and won't pass muster is not helping things. In any case in Manning's case it's all a moot point, as it seems the majority of sources have shifted so per commonname Chelsea may win the day..Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
MOS:IDENTITY does not require any media sources to agree before changing a person's pronouns, and therefore (as I argued in the proposal) in practice also their name, in article content. There is actually nothing extreme about my proposal; it's just reinforcing an existing guideline -- one that to the trans community looks like simple common sense -- and making it a consistent policy that applies to both content and titles. And this will not be a moot point the next time we encounter a difficult case where the proposals would have differed in their effects, which will inevitably happen sooner or later. (For a start, I see no reason to be confident that the Western media will not lapse into more extreme transphobia. This is not an unrealistic possibility; it has happened in some countries, such as Russia.) --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, the proposal would have different effects for current articles, such as requiring the Cat Stevens article to be renamed to Yusuf Islam, so it's certainly not moot for those cases even if, as you put it, "Chelsea wins the day". (Weren't you accusing me of trying to make policy based on "special exceptions" before? No, my proposals are for consistent policy.) --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
correct - we can change pronouns right away - provided we are confident this is a serious statement reported in RS and not a whim, and there is currently discussion to allow use of the 'old' pronouns for the past - but article titles are fundamentally different beasts. I'm far from the only one who believes this, many other eds have made the same argument. I know you think countries and tribes and so on are quite different , but they're not - it's really about how do we balance the desire of a subject to define what the world calls them against the needs of a reader and our obligation to report neutrally on the world. I think there is no black and white here, and the changes we've proposed at AT are an attempt to nuance this further. As another example, the guy who committed the massacre in Norway said he wanted to be called Commander Breivik - but only fringe sources followed his desire. Your proposal would have us rename the article immediately, leading to confusion for the poor reader who just read a NY times article which never even mentions who Commander Breivik is.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not see why there should be any distinction whatsoever between the policy for names used in article content, and the policy for names used in article titles. Do you actually want them to be inconsistent? Why? I'm honestly perplexed. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
On the example of Breivik, he refers to himself on his blog as "Commander Anders Behring Breivik" with "Commander" evidently being a title. The policy change I described imposes no obligation to include titles, self-described or otherwise. Besides, the proposal is to make the policy on [biographical] article titles consistent with the policy on names in [biographical] content. If the content of Anders Behring Breivik isn't using "Commander Breivik", why would the title need to? If the content policy did require "Commander Breivik", then we would have a separate problem with that policy that has nothing to do with the title and content being consistent. But we don't have that problem, so you're attacking a straw man. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, may I say that criminals are certainly no less entitled to decide their own name than anyone else, and I consider your use of that example mischievous. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
it wasnt intended to be mischevious, it was intended to illustrate what we do when someone announces a name change and sources dont follow. We have oodles of other examples - for example, Son of Sam who prefers since 1987 Son of Hope but i doubt his article will be moved - similarly Mos Def changed his name but consensus was to keep, same for Big Baby Jesus who is still at his old moniker. And yes there are many reasons and many examples where the title doesnt match the text - deadmau5 is one, hillary clinton is another, just troll around artist pages and those titled under psuedonyms and you'll see this happens a lot. Anyway, ultimately it doesnt matter who is right or wrong nor does it matter what you or I believe, no matter how strongly. The only thing that matter is, how can consensus be shaped to allow a different result, and give more weight to preferred names. I encourage you to pursue your absolutist proposal, and when it (inevitably) fails I hope you'll support a more moderated version that takes account of sourcing + preferences.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why you are using David Berkowitz as an example; his moniker is quite correctly not used as the article title. My proposal would require Mos Def to be moved to Yasiin Bey, and that would cause absolutely no problem (or to Dante Terrell Smith, but that would be unlikely). As currently written it would also require moving Ol' Dirty Bastard to Big Baby Jesus, even though he has died; I don't see any problem with that either. In the case of Hillary Clinton, dropping or adding middle names does not fundamentally change which name is being used; you're nitpicking about something that can easily be fixed. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
And you still haven't explained why you think it is ever necessary for a name used in a title to be different from the primary name used in content. Pointing out cases where it isn't, but there would be absolutely no difficulty in changing that, is not very convincing of anything. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
why not move Berkowitz to 'Son of Hope' - he has been reborn and thats his new name per him. The reason is, thats not his commonname. Some new names stick, some dont. Its not our job to decide for the world. Also i never said it was necessary for the title to be diff than the content, just that it is reasonable and in certain cases better to write articles that way (eg deadmau5). Clinton is also an example of such an article, she is not referred to as Hillary Clinton before her marriage. You are the one who is proposing a major change and a new 'consistency' rule,(eg title must always match content) so *you* have to establish why it's better.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
If Berkowitz has changed his name to 'Son of Hope', change the article name. The sky is not going to fall in, and his old name will be in the lede. Why should we make exceptions just because someone is religious and/or a serial killer? --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
if the sky won't fall in on a rename, the sky wont fall in if we dont rename, - but i'm quite sure you would not get any support to rename Berkowitz' article. Since you work on standards let me put it a different way - suppose you want to change the format of a message so your system can pass a new value, but your change is not backwards compatible. When ppl critique your proposal and point out the potential negative implications, you say 'dont worry the sky wont fall in and those guys can just update their code accordingly." It doesnt work that way, and commonname has been around a long time and enjoys broad consensus. You are now proposing to chuck it - just for bios oddly enough - and for some reason believe that it will pass?? really?? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
By that argument, policy would never get changed. Here's a better analogy: a standard has a security vulnerability. Implementing the standard as written unavoidably exposes you to this vulnerability. Security is important; an overriding priority -- the analogy is to WP:DIGNITY for article subjects being an overriding priority. So you simply have to bite the bullet and change the standard. You can't change all implementations instantly, but every implementation that you do change, fixes something that would otherwise have been broken. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but that implies David Berkowitz and Mos Def are at the wrong spot, which I (and others) disagree with. Anyway, its up to you. Time will tell if your proposal passes. I know where I'm putting my $...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Inconvenience to you about your feelings about maintaining Mos Def's "traditional" name is not the only downside on the table here. I think this attitude comes directly from your interpretation of Wikipedia:BLP. I know you've made it clear elsewhere that you believe that Wikipedia is under no obligation to prevent any harm to the trans* community because you can't save everybody or something, but the perfect should not be made the enemy of the good; Wikipedia:BLP says harm should be considered, not that harm is impossible to completely avoid so no one should ever do anything to avoid it. If you gave some weight (not absolute weight) to the fact that actual people risk actual harm by these protracted discussions and titling decisions, I think you'd see that it's not a zero-sum policy debate. As it stands now, if people recognized that a trans* person renouncing a name was a legitimate example of that common name having problems, then no policy would need changing. Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is not eliminated, it just means that the most common name without problems, would be preferred. There's no insurmountable policy problem; it just plays out differently if you accord trans* people less status with Wikipedia than royalty, or any of the specific groups given protective naming conventions. __Elaqueate (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
We've been discussing changes to COMMONNAME that would fix this issue for trans* plus many others, but the changes I'm proposing are measured, as opposed to Daira's sweeping change - which will harden the opposition and make them even less willing to change COMMONNAME. As to the "harm" question, I don't think you'll get ANY buy-in whatsoever from most of the previous "Bradley" supporters that having the title at "Bradley" for some amount of time could in some way harm Manning. It's just too far fetched, given the broad public knowledge of Manning's name, the privacy issue is a non-starter. Anyway this is all theoretical in the case of Manning, as Chelsea will likely win on Commonname so no need for an exception...If you want a different result next time, don't chuck commonname out the window it would NEVER pass an RFC. Interesting idea in theory, but lousy idea in practice.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
All it needs is an explicit "Naming Conventions: Trans*" based on a highly-qualified-majority basis, with actual medical and community expertise. And in place two months ago. People were told the Royalty naming conventions were something they had to live with, regardless of mass-majority opinion; other minority experiences are less-dramatically protected from random-majority trampling. But if you keep discounting any possible harm while complaining of your temporary frustration, it is going to come off as callous to reasonable people. You should really review the language in your last comment. You have to show understanding and concern to receive understanding and concern and calling ANY woman "dude" on her home page doesn't make it look like you're thinking of any perspective but your own. And quit blaming everybody for "blanket accusations of transphobia" and dismissing concern for documented health and social risks that trans* people face as hyperbolic. I hope you can see the merits of what I'm saying. __Elaqueate (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Give it a shot, I don't think it will pass. Any naming convention that says "On the day the trans* person declares their new name and gender identity, all pronouns must be switched and the title moved without need for discussion or any media take-up" would not make it out of the starting gate, but that's exactly what the trans* advocates would propose. You need to establish why a trans* person changing their name is so special that is requires a special naming convention that would not apply to those undergoing name changes for other personal reasons, and it gets back to the harm-o-meter concept I discussed elsewhere - we simply can't get into the business of ranking some name changes inherently less harmful than others, and thus subject to different standards. I have no idea how the Royalty naming convention came about, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't to protect the feelings of the royals; it was rather to help the fanboys.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
First, MOS:IDENTITY already requires that pronouns be changed promptly. We're not rolling back on that and making the media gatekeepers of what pronouns should be used -- the current attempt to weaken MOS:IDENTITY will fail, I predict. The pronouns in the Chelsea Manning article were changed as soon as the public announcement of her transition was made (requiring WP:V+WP:RS for the fact of the announcement, as is perfectly appropriate, but not for anyone's approval of it). They have not been changed back. If that pissed some people off, well, tough -- that particular argument had already been won by the trans* community. (Actually I'd prefer that we use also use epicine pronouns [singular they] in cases where gender ispronouns are uncertain, as it wasthey were in the Manning case for a lengthy period after her transition was revealed by the defence in her trial, but I accept that is not a viable policy change at this point.)
It frustrates me, on the other hand, that MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline rather than a policy, which in practice gives any cissexist Tom, Dick, or Harry ammunition to whine "it's only a guideline, it doesn't really count" every time this comes up -- hence the first point of proposal 7, which promotes it to policy. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Second, I did not propose any "harm-o-meter" or any new special cases for trans* people. A new special case for trans* people is approximately what Elaqueate proposed (not trying to speak for them), but I disagree with that; I think we should adopt a policy that respects people's adopted names in general. (As it happens, this would also obviate the need for any special exception for royalty; thank you for pointing out that advantage ;-) --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I call everyone dude. Yes I'm frustrated, so I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings Daira. --Obi-Wan Kenobi [comment split by Daira so I can respond to that part]
You would have done if I hadn't happened to see the apology before the original comment. "Dude" is by no means gender-neutral, and I respectfully suggest that you might want to stop "duding" women who you don't know personally and know they will be okay with it. Apology accepted. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think concern for health and social risks is hyperbolic Elaqueate, stop making sh*t up. I meant the accusations here about how naming this article Bradley was "sexual harassment" and "libel" and "trans-hate" are hyperbolic. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This is verging on lack of civility [referring to the part you didn't strike out, in particular "making sh*t up"]. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, the way I see it, he was taking a big leap and making claims I had never made (like that health risks faced by trans* people were not a concern, I never said that and never would), and it's happened before and this instance was particularly egregious, so I called it like I saw it, WP:SPADE, etc. Anyway, I've struck the relevant line about hyperbolic so it was all a big misunderstanding anyway, but we should be careful about not interpreting X to be X+Y+Z+A+B+C. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
If I wasn't clear, maybe I can explain. You responded to "Therefore the policy must err on the side of giving the right answer where the wrong one could cause actual harm (to the subject, and/or to people belonging to the same oppressed group as the subject" directly with "but frankly you exaggerate". My responding comments might seem like a "leap" and "egregious" to you but it doesn't mean you should be uncivil. My original point referenced your earlier arguments that harm to trans* could not be considered with extra care because other people have demands too, on the talk page of WT:AT. I didn't say you never thought there was harm to trans* people, just that you had an argument that those concerns about harm couldn't be factored into a decision. I have said where I was concerned with your sources and approach to people on specific occasion, but I hope I was clear about what I was objecting to. (This wasn't even the only time I warned about dudeing people, even.) If you had concerns about any of my other contributions I was, and am, always willing to discuss and I've never ascribed bad faith to you. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
See, that's what I've been warning you against multiple times here. Nobody here has mentioned "sexual harassment" and "libel" or whatever here. You are dragging in some aggravation that have nothing to do with the discussion right here. You have spent a lot of time asking people not to generalize all opposition as transphobic when you assume that everyone in favor of recognizing Chelsea has the same argument you were arguing against two weeks ago? Look at what you're writing. How is this editor or I supposed to know you specifically mean comments from whenever, when all you say is "this hyperbolic blathering". I kept trying to tell you that you were arguing against positions not taken here. And you might say you don't think concern for health and social risks is hyperbolic but how is anyone going to infer that when you say they're exaggerated on the same page? It doesn't seem like a massive stretch to think you were still talking about them. You can't advise things like "you can't simply dismiss the impacts of your proposed changes by saying 'I see no problem with it'" when you also say, "Are there really no deeper problems in the world than the title of a wikipedia article?". Do you see how this might be taken as less than concerned about other people's frustrations and challenges? Look at what you wrote before you start complaining about being challenged on it. I didn't make up that you think there's little harm risked to trans* people by this thing. Did I? (Which to believe you have to ignore how public it is, and how it is causing every relevant policy about trans* people to be challenged to weaken or remove.) __Elaqueate (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I struck the bits about hyperbolic, those weren't contexualized appropriately. Mea culpa, sorry. Enough for today.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
How strongly do you disagree? As strongly as "Wikipedia is not a safe space for trans people as a result of the current policy"?
FWIW, I'm perfectly aware that not all articles that would be moved as a result of my proposal have an overriding need to be moved. However, you can't have a policy that says "just use your own judgement as to whether this is important or not" -- that couldn't possibly work, because people would have different ideas about what is important. Therefore the policy must err on the side of giving the right answer where the wrong one could cause actual harm (to the subject, and/or to people belonging to the same oppressed group as the subject). --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Daira, I'm sure that you honestly feel that, and I'm sure others do, but frankly you exaggerate. We're talking about a title here, that is likely to change to Chelsea. --Obi-Wan Kenobi [comment split by Daira]
No! Please, stop making this mistake. We are talking about a general problem of which the Chelsea Manning article is a particular case. Over-specificity makes bad policy. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
If those who did the move in the first place would have waited a few days for sources to shift, and not move-warred the title, and simply followed standard f*cking practice, the article would already be moved. --Obi-Wan Kenobi [comment split by Daira]
So what are we doing, trying to punish people (literally! see the proposed ARBCOM case) for making a correct move per MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP because ... I don't know, "reasons"? What happened to WP:BOLD? --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to rehash the arbcom mess here, which has descended into sniping and finger pointing IMHO. Nonetheless, I maintain that if the admins in question had been wiser, and had forestalled a move, and even forestalled a move *discussion* for one to two weeks, sort of taking the time to catalog sources carefully and put together a good argument, then proposed the move on September 1 or 7, it's possible it would have passed the first time by WP:CONSENSUS, which overrides BLP and MOS:IDENTITY and almost everything else - ultimately CONSENSUS is the driver of change in wikipedia, and if a CONSENSUS of editors wants to chuck BLP or weaken it substantially, it could. Then happy stories would have been written about how wikipedia carefully considered the issue, and moved to the "right" name. But they didn't, and the move + lock + wheel warring pissed a lot of people off, and many of those pissed people probably hardened their position *because* of that, and then you see the resultant mess at arbcom. Just imagine - what if things had been different? There wasn't a rush, and I again strongly contest that keeping the article at Bradley, even for a few weeks, is going to cause any lasting harm to the subject - but the discussion was much worse than it could have been b/c of the actions of those admins (amongst others).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Brittanica moved on September 5, a good 2 weeks after the announcement. The pronouns here were changed almost immediately as well as the first bolded name in the article, it states Manning is TG in the first two lines, and Manning is part of TG categories, so there's absolutely nothing about the article that denies who she is. The allegation that the title remaining as is for a bit while waiting for other sources to shift and consensus to form, or that WP:COMMONNAME in general makes wikipedia "not a safe space" just makes me want to throw my arms up and give up entirely. I mean, I think every other trans* person is titled with their current name, but in several cases it took a while before their articles were moved. Where the hell is your patience? As neutral editors, we should not be pushing a particular POV for a particular group - if there is a problem with article titles we should fix it more generally, but I don't see people doing that. Manning was a very special case, an edge case if you will, but c'est la vie! You can't always get what you want, you're going to have to compromise somewhere, and of all battles, this one seems like a really inane one to go after. Are there really no deeper problems in the world than the title of a wikipedia article? Sorry dude but the hyperbolic blathering about this whole case and blanket accusations of transphobia have left me I'm annoyed... (This is not to underplay the inappropriate comments that happened in the discussion, but rather to register that I cannot agree that our current policies as written create an environment hostile to trans* people) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yusuf Islam's article hasn't moved 35 years after his name change. There is absolutely no guarantee under current policy that any article will move after a name change (or when a preferred name becomes known), for a trans person or otherwise. (I don't just care about harm to trans people, you know.) The ability to retain articles at their previous title contrary to a name change is precisely what you and others are trying to defend. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Not true - the changes I've proposed would also allow a move to Yusuf Islam, as well as Chelsea, as well as many others - but Son of Sam would not be moved, and Alexis Reich would move back. The point is, balancing preference with usage in sources, but breaking the need for an absolute majority of sources and allowing a minority but still-used name to be used if a clear preference has been expressed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Genuine question: how is "Son of Hope" different from Metta World Peace? It seems to be that you're considering some names to be more valid than others based merely on personal bias. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the move discussion for Metta World Peace, those !voting considered that he had both changed his legal name, AND the usage in reliable sources was trending towards use of Metta, therefore per commonname it was moved. I would have no problem moving Berkowitz to "Son of Hope" if, when articles spoke about him, they introduced him as "Son of Hope". But they don't. He's still much more known as Berkowitz or Son of Sam (a name he rejects). So, for me it comes down to commonname. son of hope isn't there yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, no WP policy supports "legal" names having any standing or relevance at all. (I use scare quotes around "legal" because what the law actually says in common law countries, which includes the U.S., is that the only thing necessary to legally change a name is to start using the new one. So-called "legal name change" is about convincing certain authorities that you've changed your name, not changing it per se. I can go into further detail about the pitfalls of relying on "legal" names and how it systematically disadvantages certain groups if you want.) In any case, as far as I know, the idea of having any role for "legal" names in WP policy is a fringe idea that is not being seriously advocated by anyone. I know the trans community would have considerable objection to it.
Well, true, the title has no REASON to be at a legal name, but if someone is ARGUING for a given name, the fact that the subject has done the necessary to change their name LEGALLY improves the strength of the reasoning - it is widely reported in the press for example that his name change was legal, and the press - esp since it is rather odd name - didn't bite UNTIL he made it legal. Thus legalization is a sort of official notification that this is a serious shift in name, and some press sources will wait for that. It was COMMONNAME that made Metta World Peace move however - just google recent news sources - that's what they call him. they "bought" his name change. In the case of Chelsea, most didn't wait for a legal change, but all had different policies. If Manning had said "My new name is 'Silver pink unicorn princess of the seven seas'", I seriously doubt anyone would have respected that, unless Manning actually did a full legal name change. So it's all contextual - what frustrates me is the absolutism that I'm hearing esp from the trans* supporters (but from both sides, admittedly).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you realize how insulting it is to pick a silly implausible name that a trans person might have chosen, and use that as an argument against allowing them the right to use their actual name without gatekeeping? No, I guess you don't. :-( (Hint: trans people usually choose names that blend in to some extent, because they will suffer greater transphobia otherwise.) --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, if the policy were as you say, it is not being applied consistently, cf Yusuf Islam. (I keep coming back to that example but it's a good one for me, because I don't like his views and therefore am unlikely to have cognitive bias in his favour ;-)
I could give other specific examples of people whose WP bio articles are currently at the name they want to be used, whereas the policy as you've described it would put them at some different name, but I'm not going to for privacy reasons.
On the particular example of Son of Hope, just to state the obvious, he is a convicted serial killer and his adopted name sounds pretentious (well, it does to me, and presumably to lots of people). Two questions: a) do you think these factors have affected what the media call him? b) do you think they should be relevant to Wikipedia article titles?
a) Dunno. He seems earnest, and some more sensitive portrayals of him have mentioned this moniker. But the cynical media is unlikely to take it up, esp since he is not famous now, he was famous then. b) Yes, because I think that's an important aspect of neutrality - we have to have at least SOME takeup in sources. If sources outright reject a name change (like they did with Prince and his symbol, or as they've done with Puff daddy / P-diddy/Diddy/etc, we should trust them, not eschew them). That's why I'm opposed to your version, which is purely based on self-identification. I think we could use self-identification to tip the scales from a majority to a minority name, but not from a widely-known name to a name known barely at all. Remember, the title is ultimately FOR the user.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
also, I dont know how much work you've done on wikipedia policies but changing them is not for the faint of heart nor the impatient - and you can't simply dismiss the impacts of your proposed changes by saying 'I see no problem with it' - its not about you!!! It's about where consensus of other editors sits, and for now the current consensus is not with you as demonstrated by dozens or hundreds of articles. Thats why i'm proposing a more moderate approach based on sources but not requiring absolute majority.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, I am neither faint of heart nor impatient. (If you think getting Wikipedia policy changed is hard, you haven't been in the same standards groups I have.) --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is something you're interested in but ...Sue Gardner open request for stories. Either way, I want to thank you for your contributions. __Elaqueate (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That is something I'm interested in (even though I haven't decided to stop editing yet, obviously). Thankyou. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Obi-Wan just attempted to do something that made me feel ill. He attempted a move request of a deeply unpopular trans woman to her masculine name, under the rationale that her feminine name hadn't remained popular enough. I think he was trying to prove that titles shouldn't care about BLP. I am finding it very disturbing as I believed he wasn't trying to overtly sabotage, he was just being slow about decency. But all his pushes to "be patient" look gross when he argues that trans women should have their titles stripped if they're not popular enough. I'm sorry to bother you about this. I don't know what to do. [1] __Elaqueate (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh my fucking hell. Another raving transphobe trying to hide behind technical arguments. At least we caught him doing it. Well spotted, thankyou. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I called him out on the same thing here, and I draw the conclusion that he isn't hateful, though he does need to get a bit more of a clue about actions like this one. Unfortunately your "raving transphobe" remark above got picked up by people at the admin noticeboard, so you might want to defend yourself there. Chris Smowton (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I deleted "raving" because I realised that word has ableist connotations that I didn't intend. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for the Daria/Daira thing -- looks like I can't read :) Chris Smowton (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
No problem. You're not the first person to get that wrong! (I coincidentally happen to like Daria Morgendorffer anyway ;-) --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stick around[edit]

It looks like you haven't left yet, and I hope you don't. I stayed out of the Chelsea Manning arguments because I didn't feel welcome - what's the point of trying to change someones mind when you have to start from the level of convincing them that being trans is even a real thing? However, there are a ton of editors (I hope the majority, even if they aren't as loud a the bigots) that I've been noticing are really great people and as outraged by all this as we are. I find it ridiculous and insulting that they're sending this off to ArbCom, but I am confident that we'll see the article changed to her name by the end of the process. Katie R (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I wish to chime in and say: please don't leave. Wikipedia is wavering on whether or not people like us exist and are valid human beings. 7daysahead (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll chime in as well: don't let disagreeable people or decisions drive you away for good — but take wikibreaks if you need to, to take care of your own mental health, if people are getting to you. -sche (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You came up in the discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you remove or otherwise address the "raving transphobe" remark as some editors really have nothing better to do than try to pick apart their perceived opponents with warning notes and barrage of drama. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I have a presentation tomorrow (as I said on the ANI page). I'll come back to this in a few days, if I haven't been blocked. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Very well, Wikipedia should not be the place where you have to come with your armor on to do battle but that's what it feels like at times. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
You won't be blocked for this, no. I would strongly suggest you avoid referring to people as transphobes in the future though, or there is the chance that you will be blocked. If you encounter what you believe to be unacceptably bigoted actions from another contributor, the best thing to do is to open a discussion of their actions at WP:ANI. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have questions (sincere ones, not trying to grandstand or anything):

1. Why are people who made transphobic comments (I'm not referring to Obi-wan here, but there certainly were some, as well-documented in the Manning ArbCom case) not being similarly warned?

2. Is it intended to be impossible to make allegations of transphobia on Wikipedia as a matter of Wikipedia policy?

3. Is it intended that cisgender administrators should be arbiters of what is considered transphobic?

I apologize sincerely to Obi-wan for using the word "raving". It was not my intent.

--Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll chime in here, and and answer one of your questions with another question: How do you know which administrators are cisgender? I'd venture to suggest that most editors on Wikipedia don't identify their gender on-wiki (I know I don't). So you can't jump to conclusions about whether they are cisgender or not. But to answer your question properly, I think the decision about what is considered transphobic will be made by the community irrespective of who is transgender and who is cisgender. StAnselm (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know which administrators are cisgender, nor would I attempt to guess. My argument and question is not dependent on the gender identity of any particular administrator. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
wtf Daira. You apologize for 'raving' but maintain the assertion i'm a transphobe? I did nothing transphobic and I said nothing transphobic and I have helped draft a set of guidelines for the next discussion to avoid hurtful comments for trans* ppl, and I started the move page and helped build comprehensive sources so the next move will be more or less unbeatable, and I put together set of proposals at AT that may have a chance of passing that would make cases like Manning much more open/shut, but also give rights to other non-trans entities to self-define. But I make one move request for a complete edge case that is, frankly, at a shitty title for the reader because they've never heard of this new name, and I get the big T? If you disagree, then report my ass to Arbcom and see if others agree. Don't you realize how you can poison the atmosphere for people who want to be on your side, just not *all* the way on your side? There is a middle ground here.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
We disagree, and we're very unlikely to agree. I think the Alexis Reich move request speaks for itself. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
C'est la vie. For my part, I will forgive you for this, even though you refuse to strike it, as it comes with a broader context. I don't know what it's like to be trans*, nor do I know how it feels to read Manning move discussion as a trans*. I would however ask that you kindly consider that I'm not a raving asshole or a transphobe, I actually created an article on Kristen Beck and communicated with her to help develop the article and am personally very interested in trans* issues, as I think the breaking down of the gender binary will be an important step forward in recognition of complexity in humans and trans* ppl are at the heart of that. I personally don't like categorical/black/white thinking (even though I categorize here!) and am a strong believer in fuzzy categories, and the words "man" and "woman" are a great example of such - but we can see arguments from both sides strongly asserting: "This is a man" or "This is not a man". I think the answer is much more subtle, since "man" itself, like all concepts, is a complex socially mediated construction which evolves over time and differs widely across cultures. Ultimately we're just animals with complex biologies which manifest in innumerable ways, and inner identities which also manifest in innumerable ways, but in order for our society to function we need categories, we need tribes, we need words, to be able to put people in the box, and out of it. I think this is somehow fundamental to human consciousness - we are amazing pattern matchers, and I think the ability to recognize who was in or out was somehow an evolutionary advantage, but it bedevils us today since it hides complexity. Us and them thinking has led to most (or all) of the major violations of human rights throughout history. If trans* people had been 30% of the population, I think our societies and language would have evolved differently, but since they represent a smaller fraction, like all minorities, they've been (mostly) left out of the picture - simple example is the (overwrought) debates over bathrooms for example. I've always been curious about this, the fact that our institutions, our governments, our language, our databases even! - all of that is insufficient to describe or manage or deal with the complexity that is a single human, so we're sort of like a computer that can't (yet) understand or manage itself - our brains and our institutions are just not set up for it, so we have to chop people's lives into boxes and sectors and drop down menus and radio buttons. Aliens scientists with a more evolved consciousness studying our planet might come up with a totally different way to categorize us, and might place us on totally different continua - they might find it really bizarre for example that we group people together and exclude others based on the amount of melatonin in their skin. Our language and society isn't yet fully set up to recognize that there is more than biological male and female - in spite of copious science - and more than 2 genders - and as this discussion shows we are at the cusp where the meanings of these things are being renegotiated - even given many other societies and cultures have recognized this for a very long time - for some reason in the west trans* ppl are still viewed unfairly or as other rather than just part of natural human variation. I think you're also an IT person, and as a developer I remember the classic example of a binary field was "sex" on a form - but there are actually umpteen answers to the question of what sex or what gender a person is - but this stuff is embedded all the way to the structure of code (see Lessig- code is law), and changing it is going to be a monumental effort. I think its also threatening to the mainstream, because it challenges the very foundations of our society which is based on categorization and binaries when the x% at the edge say "There's more complexity than that!" - you see the same in the gay marriage debate, or immigration, or the "clash of civilizations", or any number of other issues - but if we believe in human rights, we have to change. As humans we are natural categorizers (I know this having participated in a lot of categorization debates here...), but categories, whether ethnic, gender, sexuality, etc are ultimately only simplifications of underlying continuum and the forcing of people into boxes - no matter what the label - always ends up screwing those who don't quite fit perfectly into said box. As a (minor) example, I made this nomination a ways back before this all came to light: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_17#Category:Transgender_in_non-western_cultures - which is a great example of "bad" boxes - Phil, who I didn't know at the time and who has been arguing vociferously for the rights of TG people here, himself created this category which falls into a classic orientalist bias - framing the non-western as "other". Perhaps useful as a quick way to throw a few articles together, but ultimately I think such categories are offensive and belie our own western-centered biases, which are still pervasive here. So we can all learn, I think. I apologize if my comments or actions have hurt you, I debate firmly and believe in my arguments but I'm also - hopefully, learning and listening, and I again recognize that we're coming from different life experiences and your own experiences have made you more sensitive to things I've not noticed before, and I recognize that sometimes I've been less than civil. I just hope you can appreciate that being called a transphobe is deeply offensive to me, as it suggests I hate, fear, detest, or discriminate against trans* people, which I honestly believe is not true. In any case, I wish you the best regards, and hope we can turn over a new leaf. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

None of the people who made transphobic comments will ever be sanctioned as far as I can see, ever. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I notice in passing that the Alexis Reich article has been deleted because it was libelous. (See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_149#Why_is_the_Arbitration_Committee_undeleting_libel_instead_of_oversighting_it.3F; note Obi-Wan Kenobi still libeling her in his 05:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC) comment. [Edit: Apparently this is one of the things I'm not allowed to say.]) Not Wikipedia's finest hour, methinks. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

WTF. Accusing me of libel is dangerously close to a legal threat for which you can be blocked. Drop the stick Daira and quit the scurrilous accusations.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hopwood, your behavior in this matter has been inexcusable. Your comments and attitude rank of with those who made truly transphobic comments. If you can't separate your emotion from working on the project, then go find a new hobby.

Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

In case you didn't know, there was a remedy at the Sexology arbitration case that resulted in discretionary sanctions being authorized. You are hereby notified that should you fail to abide by the standards normally expected of editors while making edits on any articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification, sanctions can be levied against you by any uninvolved administrator, including but not limited to blocks, topic bans, as well as any other device that is needed to ensure the project can run smoothly. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A category of "articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification" is a thing? Sheesh. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

So, I've read that page and I'm confused. This threatens to levy sanctions against me without giving me any opportunity to respond, and without me even being aware of the case before it was closed? (It appears to be separate from the ANI dispute with Obi-wan Kenobi.) Someone, preferably an admin, please clarify whether this is actually permitted, clearly citing any relevant Wikipedia policies and procedures. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I perceive to be at least part of the problem: the dispute that triggered the Sexology ArbCom case was a dispute about paraphilia articles. The idea that paraphilia has anything to do with being trans is WP:FRINGE. I don't remember having edited any Wikipedia articles about paraphilias recently (I do vaguely remember commenting on the Blanchard-Bailey controversy on the dim and distant past, but I can't even remember what I said then). So I'm being added retrospectively to a case that was overbroad in its application to "articles dealing with transgender issues" (and if I'd been a party to the case, I would have said so). --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked a pertinent question at Talk:Alexis_Reich#Discretionary_Sanctions. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I have replied. The core of that case does lie in paraphilia articles, but as the initiator of that case requested, "This dispute largely revolves around our articles on paraphilias, particularly those that relate to transgenderism."
  • As you are fully aware, the Manning RM resulted in massive accusations being slung on both sides of the argument. As those behaviors are being looked at in the active arbitration case, I didn't notify those that are currently parties to the case. Also, the arbitration case has an injunction that puts the 3 pages related to Manning on DS, so there is no need to put those under DS (again) under the Sexology remedy. I wanted to make sure that cooler heads prevail; under the assume good faith policy, it's possible that both sides of a discussion will have to agree to disagree because both side's arguments are supported by policy, as demonstrated at the Reich RM.
  • But back onto reasons why I chose not to notify certain editors: I chose not to notify Obi-wan Kenobi because O-W K is currently a named party to the Manning arbitration request. I didn't name Thryduulf because after reading over the comments Thryduulf has kept a cool head (and isn't replying to everyone's comment).
  • To answer your other question: No, you're not being retroactively added to that case. What this notification means is that ArbCom has considered TG* topics to be an area where tempers can easily flare up (e.g. Manning-related case, Reich...), so some tighter control is necessary at those pages. I provided a link to a currently active clarification request on this application of DS (specifically, Sceptre believes that my interpretation of that remedy is questionable), and you're very welcome to voice your concern that you raised in this section over on the clarification request. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

RFAR:Manning naming dispute[edit]

I have added your name to the list of parties in this RFAR as I'll be bringing evidence about your behavior.--v/r - TP 12:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  • @TParis:: You're not supposed to do that (Adding anyone as a party is restricted to ArbCom and clerks). I am going to revert that addition. If the evidence suggests there's a need, we will add it later. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 15:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Cmyk2.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Another one of your uploads, File:Cmyk.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)