Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/Arbitration report
Manning naming dispute case closed
The Committee closed the Manning naming dispute case with a strong and unanimous statement against disparaging references to transgendered people. Sanctions were enacted against six editors.
The workshop phase of the Ebionites 3 case has finished, although the formal closing date of the workshop phase has been extended to October 19, and the date for the proposed decision to October 20.
Closed case
A final decision has been posted in the Manning naming dispute case, which involves the move of the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning, after Manning’s attorney announced his client's wish to be known as Chelsea. The article was moved back to Bradley Manning, then to Chelsea Manning again, after reaching consensus in a discussion that included a comprehensive survey of sources.
The committee has unanimously endorsed a statement that:
| “ | While a majority of the participating editors expressed their views reasonably and appropriately during the community discussion on the "Bradley/Chelsea Manning" page title, a number did not. Poor commentary included disparaging references to transgendered persons' life choices or anatomical changes. These comments, along with excessively generalized or blanket statements concerning motivations for wishing the page title to be "Bradley Manning", significantly degraded good-faith attempts to establish a consensus on the issue. | ” |
The following findings of fact were passed regarding individuals:
- During the course of the dispute, Hitmonchan engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ("Only when his testicles are ripped out of his scrotum ... will I call Manning a 'she'").
- During the course of the dispute, IFreedom1212 engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ("He is clearly mentally unstable and his ... desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit", "I will continue to refer to him as a male as long as he has a dick").
- During the course of the dispute, Tarc intentionally engaged in inflammatory and offensive speech ("Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe", "Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so") in a self-admitted attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
- Josh Gorand has adopted a problematic battleground approach to the discussion
- Phil Sandifer has exhibited signs of having a battleground mentality, feeling that all who oppose his position are transphobic.
- During the course of the dispute, Baseball Bugs frequently accused other participants in the dispute of malice; engaged in discriminatory speech based on his personal view of the article subject's actions; and needlessly personalised the dispute.
- During the course of the dispute, David Gerard used his tools to protect the article from being moved back to "Bradley Manning", mentioning "MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP" and, after another administrator moved the article back to its original title, he reversed that administrator's action. Finally, after getting involved in the content dispute on the article's talk page, he reversed the full edit protection imposed by another administrator. After acting in his capacity as an administrator, at first, David Gerard failed to provide a detailed explanation of why he thought the title "Bradley Manning" would have violated the biographies of living persons policy and, when questioned, replied in an uncivil manner, accusing his interlocutors of disruptive behaviour. David's actions violated the administrator policy sections on accountability, wheel war and involved administrators.
The committee passed remedies against six individuals. Editors Hitmonchan, IFreedom1212, Tarc, Josh Gorand, and Baseball Bugs were banned from pages relating to transgender topics. David Gerard was admonished and restricted from using administrator tools on topics pertaining to transgender. The discretionary sanctions adopted in the Sexology case are now to apply to articles dealing with transgender issues.
Open cases
The Ebionites 3 case, initiated by Ignocrates involves a long-running dispute between two editors over a 2nd century religious document. The workshop phase of Ebionites 3 has finished, but the closing date has been extended, since the drafting arbitrator wants to post parts of the proposed decision on the workshop page for comment. Participants have been requested not to add large amounts of additional material to the workshop page at this point, as it may be missed by the arbitrators.
Other requests and committee action
- Clarification request:Infoboxes: A request was made by Anthonyhcole for clarification regarding the restriction on Gerda Arendt's restriction on adding infoboxes except on articles that they create; whether this applies to adding infoboxes to articles that are expanded significantly; or in cases where she is restricted from adding them, whether another editor, Neutralhomer might add them on her behalf.
- Clarification request:Ayn Rand: An amendment request was initiated by TParis regarding an administrator editing through protection on an article with Arbcom sanctions.
- Clarification request:Race and intelligence: A request made by Cla68 regarding the possible posting of personal non-public data in response to off-site provocation was closed with an indefinite site ban for Mathsci, which can be appealed after six months.
- Arbitration Committee Elections RFC: The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comments is now open.
- Morning277 sockpuppet investigation:There is a discussion on the Arbitration Committee talk page concerning the role of the committee in the Morning277 investigation (see previous Signpost coverage: "Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed") .
Discuss this story
Wikipedia truly is becoming more globalized, well, at least more European. We have a content-based speech discrimination now... I really don't see why Wikipedia just doesn't go the extra step and require real names in registration and mandatory reporting to national authorities of violations of freedom-of-speech-exception laws. I guess because that's not commonplace in Europe (yet). I see this as nothing but a bias against Asian speech
restrictionsnorms (e.g., China, Russia) in favour of West European ones. Two wrongs don't make a right. Int21h (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]I really hate Arbcom remedies that solve nothing. There is, apparently, no previous problematic behaviour by David Gerard related to transsexual articles; his actions were roughly in line with standard policy and practice of the time, and yet he now not only has a restriction, but an infinitely long restriction that can only be appealed once every six months. A disgracefully inappropriate and counterproductive remedy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]