This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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

Here's an idea;

I've been looking at the Tea Party case that this committee just closed - especially the final decision they issued therein. I think that half that stuff (especially to do with the definition of what Wikipedia is, decorum and the use of talk pages) could be just as applicable to this case. Think of that, when deliberating over final decisions and principles to be drawn up.

-- The Historian ( talk) 13:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Those opening principles are typically similar in all cased, FYI.  :) EdChem ( talk) 15:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

In this edit, arbitrator Salvio giuliano posed questions to Morwen and David Gerard and I am concerned that they both contain unstated assumptions which suggest Salvio might have prejudged this case. The question to Morwen asks about the initial move occurring "without following the appropriate process". Are editors no longer supposed to move articles to more appropriate names if someone might disagree? What happened to being bold? Doesn't BLP direct us to act quickly? The question aserts that a single approach to the move is appropriate, it is something that is certainly arguable and the assumptions need to be recognised. The question to David is even worse: apparently "invoking BLP is not enough to freeze the situation as is until a consensus develops to change it: unless the BLP concerns are immediately evident – and, in this case, they were not". They might not be immediately evident to you, Salvio, but they would have been to anyone with even a moderate understanding of transgender issues, or after a brief read of Wikipedia's own article on transgenderism where it states "when referring to a transgender person, it is respectful to always use that person's preferred name and pronoun regardless of their legal gender status." Your question appears directed towards excusing Tariqabjotu's move through protection without engaging in the BLP issue. Surely no admin should be moving a move protected page with an assertion of BLP without checking on it? Salvio, I am disturbed that you have appear to have a preformed view on this case, possibly one that you have not recognised. EdChem ( talk) 15:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I agree that maybe "without filing a move request" would be a better choice of words than "without following the appropriate process", although it's quite clear what was meant regardless. However, I don't see anything that comes across as prejudging; if anything, it sounds like you want Salvio giuliano to prejudge -- but prejudge me. No one has yet provided any evidence against me on the Evidence page, but you expect Salvio to ask me a question about my actions. That doesn't make sense.

Salvio's assertion that the BLP violation wasn't immediately evident is corroborated by the fact that 150+ RM participants, many long-time editors and respected members of the community, as well as the three closing admins did not see a BLP violation with the name "Bradley Manning". The violation is not immediately evident, full stop. Implying the BLP violation claim is an undeniable assertion (at least to those who, paraphrasing here, aren't clueless), even now at this juncture, is not helpful, and it's a shame a number of people continue to do that. In the context of the rest of the question, which seems to be about whether David provided an explanation of how he saw the BLP violation, that statement seems entirely relevant and appropriate. -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

EdChem, please note that, in my questions to David, I have not said that the BLP concerns he mentions are necessarily inexistent or that I don't believe him when he says he had a good-faith belief that his actions were supported by BLP, I am saying that those concerns are not immediately evident. And, as Tariq points out, that much can't be denied. Just look at the RM if you want corroboration.

Regarding the question for Morwen, I submit that both Wikipedia:Requested moves and WP:TITLECHANGES state Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Morwen, quite clearly, did not do this and I am asking her to clarify why she decided to act in that way. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Salvio, you don't seem to me to be looking for the right thing. WP:BLP uses language like "sensitively", "cautiously", "conservatively". IOW, the underlying principle is "it is better to be safe than sorry", rather than "you'd better make damn sure you have all your ducks in a row". The RM discussion did not uphold David Gerard's BLP concern. But this should not really be seen as an issue, and it should certainly not be used in order to draw the conclusion that no BLP issue was ever present. What is also clear from the RM discussion is that there was a fair amount of support for his position within the community. This can be taken as an indication that his position is vindicated, since it suggests that the concerns he based his action on were not bogus or trifling. That ought to be enough.

It seems likely to me that both David Gerard and Morwen knew that their actions would be controversial. However, it would undermine the whole purpose of BLP if this were enough to invalidate them. Formerip ( talk) 17:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Tariqabjotu, the RM and close do not corroborate that there is not a BLP issue. The 150+ participants included ignorance and blatant prejudice, but even leaving that aside, many recognised an issue they just viewed it as insufficiently serious. The close also recognised an arguable issue. Similarly, Salvio, that "those concerns are not immediately evident", which you claim "can't be denied", is simply wrong. A transgender woman had expressed a desire to be known by a new name, the move was to that name, and using birth names for transgendered individuals is considered highly offensive. Those are facts. I contend that the relevance of BLP policy to deciding the naming issue is not immediately evident only to those too ignorant or too prejudiced to be making a decision like this. That is not to say that reasonable people can't disagree about the appropriate article name, or evaluate competing policies in different ways; clearly, they can. Tariqabjotu should never have moved a move protected page where BLP had been claimed if the issue was unclear to Tariq without investigating. Any admin who did not agree with the invocation of BLP was welcome to challenge it, but to claim not to understand that there was any issue at all and then act on that belief is judgement way poorer than is acceptable in someone in a position to make decisions on BLP issues. Regarding the quotations from RM etc, we do not !vote on issues where policy says to act. The treatment of naming in the transgender community is clear that post-transition names are used and persisting with birth names is offensive, as the MoS recognises in discussing use of pronouns. Standard practice on wiki for years has been to respect name changes like these. This should not have been a controversial move, and that it was merely shows how far as a community we still have to go to promote tolerance, understanding and respect.

Tariqabjotu, I have formed a view on this case, and I do think you should be sanctioned, but this thread was about the wording of Salvio's questions including implicit assumptions that Morwen and David acted wrongly. There is no problem with my coming to this case with a view formed from the events as I do not have the role of an arbitrator. Salvio does have that role, and I was disturbed that the questions seemed to me to not be impartial. When I read them, my initial reaction was that they were leading and reflected an already formed view. I was concerned and decided to express my concern. Your response takes my comments about BLP concerns and an assertion of BLP and turns them into an allegation of a BLP violation. I recognise there is an arguable point here. The closing admins erred, in my view, in evaluating competing policy and in particular in using narrow interpretation of policy which should be read broadly, but I do not doubt they acted in good faith. I would like ArbCom to emphasise that it is spirit and principles of policy rather than exact wordings that matter, and that BLP in particular has broad applicability in all spaces. In short, I am not suggesting that my view is the only reasonable or arguable one, and I am not claiming that "the BLP violation claim is an undeniable assertion (at least to those who, paraphrasing here, aren't clueless)" (as you put it). I am stating that recognising there was and is an issue over naming where BLP is a relevant consideration should have been obvious to you (amongst others) and that acting without investigating a claim of a BLP issue and using tools through move protection was unjustified and reckless. EdChem ( talk) 17:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Tariqabjotu, the RM and close do not corroborate that there is not a BLP issue. The precise words you contested were that "unless the BLP concerns are immediately evident – and, in this case, they were not". That is what I am talking about. In context, here, it is obvious those "BLP concerns" were the idea that the name Bradley Manning constituted a BLP violation. If those BLP concerns were immediately evident, we wouldn't have had scores of established editors arguing that "Bradley Manning" didn't constitute a BLP violation. If those BLP concerns were immediately evident, the closing admins wouldn't have moved the page back to Bradley Manning. As I said, continuing to argue that the name "Bradley Manning" is undeniably a BLP violation is unhelpful and, further, disrespectful to those who have disagreed and whose opinion on that point seems to have prevailed at this point. -- tariqabjotu 17:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

If David Gerard argued that Bradley is "undeniably" a BLP violation then he was technically wrong. But that is not in itself sanctionable. Formerip ( talk) 17:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Tariqabjotu, the quote I contested uses the word "concern", and those concerns were evident. Whether those concerns are substantiated and a conclusion about a violation drawn and whether they are evident are not synonymous. A concern is not the same thing as a violation. You failed to recognise a concern and moved a page through protection without even checking with the admin claiming BLP, and you still don't recognise that as a problem... is it any wonder that some people feel you deserve sanction? EdChem ( talk) 18:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Again, I will respond appropriately when evidence is provided (and I am in the midst of gathering and writing up my own evidence... it'll take a bit of time though). However, you're not helping your case with this exchange. You want to argue that the phrase used (here) was "BLP concern" and that that, in this context, is not necessarily synonymous with "BLP violation". Ok. Then, I'm wondering if not for the idea that Bradley Manning constitutes a BLP violation, what "concern" you think it up for discussion. And, perhaps more importantly, as you don't believe we're talking about the Bradley Manning title being a BLP violation, which "concern" do you believe is relevant to my action of moving the article back to Bradley Manning? -- tariqabjotu 18:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Someone may want to look at the definition of a "BLP Violation". In many venues, when someone refers to a "BLP Violation" they are referring specifically to a WP:BLPSOURCES violation, and not to the rest of BLP Policy. WP:BLPSOURCES is the portion of the policy that most often comes up in terms of blocks, reverts, and edit warring. Its also the section of the policy where enforcement can be exempt from WP:3rr and WP:WHEEL. However in this dispute, and another recent one, "BLP Violation" has been used to describe anything that doesn't follow any portion of the policy. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

The arbcom has consistently treated BLP very widely, for many years. While arbcom is not bound by precedent, and could choose to interpret it narrowly, this would in fact be new behaviour - David Gerard ( talk) 07:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I suppose its a forlorn hope expecting that people would wait for the evidence to come in before making proposals for the final, but this has only been open a couple of days and we have a couple of sets of principles to discuss already. How about trying for some decorum and waiting at least a week before letting the rhetoric flow? Alternatively, wouldn't it be better for a clerk to lock the page until a case has been open for a decent time? If I weren't already in despair for this place, I would be now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Spartaz: I always wondered whether it might just be best to lock the Workshop until we're finished receiving evidence. Having the two phases overlap causes problems, as you say. AGK [•] 23:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Under: "Questions to the parties"

"As far as I was concerned, trans naming stuff was a settled issue, and I did not anticipate quite how controversial it would be among experienced users and editors."

Im sorry but I just have to say that the issue with Bradley Manning had been a hot debate here in the United States and around the world, there are many who believe that Manning was innocent and as a result I suspect that some of the emotions may have got mixed in as well. Anyways yes it was controversial, it was controversial worldwide with Manning's arrest and was controversial here on Wikipedia that went beyond just trans naming stuff. So my question is how can you go and say you had no idea that this would turn into a powder keg? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I'd turn that around - why would the subject's status as an accused criminal (believed to be innocent or otherwise), later a convicted criminal, a soldier, an American, a whistleblower, or whatever other label you've got handy, have any impact on their status as a transgendered individual or their desired (and publicly articulated) identity? In what way does their conviction change our obligations to the subject under BLP? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 02:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

My point is that when the name was abruptly changed there was already a tense feeling involving Manning's guilt or innocence. Those who feel that Manning was innocent seem more willing to support manning (Hence the private Manning Support Network). - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Conversely, those who feel that Manning was guilty seem less willing to support her. What's your point? Formerip ( talk) 02:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

My point is that Morwen should have used WP:COMMONSENSE here, feelings were still running tense from other things not just the trans issue at the time of the move. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

So, are you saying that if it is predictable that the community will be split on a BLP issue then BLP should be disregarded? I don't think that can be correct. Formerip ( talk) 03:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Im not saying that at all, im saying Mowen is to blame for not reading the signs that said this might be a bad idea if I do this, the move is partly what is up for debate in the Arbcom discussion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I'd say that a controversial subject is a reason for even more care in the direction of BLP considerations, not less as you seem to be saying (and you did above just directly raise Manning's notoriety as a reason not to take the name issue seriously in this case) - David Gerard ( talk) 07:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to respond to any questions that misgender Manning. Morwen ( talk) 14:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I would reconsider that position. Stonewalling as a tactic to gain concessions can be considered disruptive battleground behavior. 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 18:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

"a tactic to gain concessions"? what?

And can misgendering people be considered disruptive battleground behavior? Ananiujitha ( talk) 19:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

In this case, Mannings gender is at the heart of the dispute. The concession that Morwen seeks is a tacit acceptance from any questioner that his side of the dispute is correct. His refusal to respond without that acceptance is stonewalling.

To answer your second question, in order for that to be true you would require an accepted consensus of a gender. I point to this case itself as evidence that is not currently the case. 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 19:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I thought the same thing considering that sources use both genders but chose not to bother with it, my opinion though remains the same though. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

(ec)Misgendering other editors isn't exactly helpful in making your point, IP editor 204.101.237.139. Quite the opposite - I'm asking that you stop it right now. As for your point, such as it is - Manning's gender is not in dispute, she identifies as female. Just as my gender is not subject to consensus, nor is yours. The same applies to Manning's. What is in dispute is how - or if - Wikipedia addresses that gender identity. Pronouns, article titles, etc - that's what is under discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Assume good faith I do not think the IP knew that Morwen was female jeez... - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, I confess to not reviewing her user page before responding. It is not something I normally do. That said, I apologize and state unequivocally that it was not meant as an attack of any kind. I'm going to have to continue to disagree about Mannings gender being beyond dispute. To me a dispute clearly exists. Personally I believe that society itself has some catching up to do in order to resolve it, but I digress. 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 21:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I may have overreacted slightly - sorry. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Knowledgekid87, I've asked you this on your talk page but you ignored the message, so I'll ask again a little more publically: when discussing Manning here and elsewhere, would you please not use the male pronoun he/him/his? Given your extensive contributions to the RM and related discussions you're clearly aware of Manning's gender identity; whatever you think of her, this is a discussion about article titles, not about the validity of that identity, so please be respectful and address her appropriately. Chris Smowton ( talk) 00:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply

This has already been answered by several editors so I do not need to provide one here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply

As EdChem's posts above note, it is extremely offensive. Checking the other project pages, so far I've only seen two arguments for masculine pronouns. In my opinion, one was misguided, and the other was deliberately denying Chelsea Manning's identity. Ananiujitha ( talk) 02:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply

And yet we have reliable sources using the male pronouns, anyways I removed the one instance I used the wording "him" out of respect and sorry if I offended anyone. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm a little alarmed that you seem to think that is an excuse for you to be similarly cavalier in your personal speech. However, thank you for fixing your remarks above. The reason I (and apparently others) found your usage offensive is because it suggested you thought that you got to determine Manning's true gender, when in truth one can only determine that for oneself, and rejecting their determination is pretty presumptuous. Do we agree at least on that? Chris Smowton ( talk) 09:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I have asked a question on UltraExactZZ talkpage that other editors here may wish to answer. I wasn't sure where the best place to ask it other than "not here". 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 17:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Note that I've just blocked User:Haipa Doragon for his blatant attempts to out another Wikipedian on the workshop page. Please do not try to reveal anyone's personal information here. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I really don't understand the processes here, but:

• Does this discussion pre-empt other discussions of where the article should be, aside from flame-wars on her talk page? I haven't looked there in some time. Because that was my impression, that this was the discussion, but this is hardly ever addressing that. Are any other discussions addressing that?

• Is this discussion supposed to ask, among other things, what went wrong? and find some temporary solutions? Because I don't know anything about how admin stuff works, and there seems to be some dispute about what these policies mean and how they come together. Ananiujitha ( talk) 13:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Arbcom doesn't really determine content or policies. They handle disputes, particularly behavioral disputes and policy disputes. The RfC on the title will still be handled via RFC. We're just here to address what went wrong, what is continuing to go wrong, why policies didn't handle it, and set straight what needs to happen in the future.--v/r - T P 20:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Talk:Alexis_Reich#Requested_move_16_September_2013 - David Gerard ( talk) 08:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Can I request that the arbcom place this page under sanctions as well? I see a repeat of people accusing others of being transphobic and so on... - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Discretionary Sanctions on all Transgender Articles

The Arbitration Committee wishes to remind administrators and editors that standard discretionary sanctions were authorised for all articles dealing with transgender issues in the Sexology case. I would remind editors that it relates to any sustained and aggressive point-of-view editing, whatever ones viewpoint. Seddon ^talk 15:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Against my better judgment, and because I'm troubled that nobody has set them up as proposals, I've entered a few proposed findings and principles on the Workshop page. This presents a wrinkle I want to acknowledge, which is that I've separately on my blog been covering the issue of Wikipedia's handling of this issue, and that's gotten a reasonably high profile (it's had 9000 page views to date, and has been linked by several high profile trans activists). I am almost certain to write another post about the resolution of the arbitration case. My posts have been explicitly activist, and side firmly with the position that misgendering or misnaming Chelsea Manning constitutes hate speech.

I have been careful in my covering of the issue to caution against canvassing and to make it clear that I am actively opposed to marshalling my readers into any sort of direct action. I have acknowledged my involvement in the issue, and I will continue to do so in future articles. And I am not (and will not) attempt any sort of self-promotion of my blog on the wiki, and whatever criticism I have made on the blog of various people involved in this dispute, I am not involving myself in seeking any sort of sanction against any of them. Furthermore, while my writing on the subject has been harsh, it has consisted purely of analysis of the arguments made and of the larger social attitudes they represent, and I do not believe anything I have said constitutes an off-wiki personal attack.

I believe this satisfies the various policy concerns with such off-wiki behavior. Nevertheless, I want to publicly acknowledge that I am simultaneously involved in this issue not just as a Wikipedia editor but as a writer and blogger, and to open the door to any discussion the community may wish to have over the appropriateness of this. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 05:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I applaud your disclosure. Care to save me and anyone else a google search and share a link for the curious? Two kinds of pork ( talk) 06:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I'd rather not, simply because I want to be as impeccable as possible. If you want to Google, you won't have a hard time finding it. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 06:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply

You previously mentioned this and it was acknowledged. I don't believe this is a conflict of interest but your care is appreciated. I would prefer if you didn't polarize this issue with your blog but it's your perogative as long as you don't use it to libel or out other editors I don't see the conflict. As far as the link, another editor has already provided it.--v/r - T P 15:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply

As further care along these lines, I've symbolically posted (and then removed, as I don't actually want it here) the blog post to my userpage, so as to remove any possible issue of it being off-wiki conduct. Which is to say, if anybody does find anything I've said on the blog post to be objectionable, I am fine with it being submitted as evidence. [1] is the diff. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 20:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply

These don't really fit into the findings template, but I'd like to get your opinions, and feel free to add your own questions: Ananiujitha ( talk) 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply

What do you think went wrong here?

I can't really be sure. I think the move-back was the wrong move. I get the impression that problems, some of which arbcom can't resolve, included:

• A toxic environment in the discussion,
• A degree of unfamiliarity with the issues,
• Conflicting interpretations of the policies,
• Conflicting interpretations of the implications of choosing each name,
• And an either-or dynamic. Ananiujitha ( talk) 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Do you think that better behavior would have solved these issues?

I get the impression that the policy disputes would still be a problem, but perhaps easier to address. Ananiujitha ( talk) 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Do you have any other suggestions that might help solve these issues?

I can see that this kind of move dispute could happen again. I hope that preparing an faq aimed at similar disputes could at least help with unfamiliarity with trans issues, and could provide context for disagreements over the implications of choosing different names. Ananiujitha ( talk) 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I stopped paying attention to this page several days ago when literally all I saw were people a) suggesting proposals that would never in a thousand years be passed and b) bickering till the cows came home about those proposals. I might read it eventually if the rest of the Arbs convince me that there are worthwhile nuggets of information, but that seems unlikely at this point. NW ( Talk) 17:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Please do at least skim the proposals themselves. Some are not ridiculous - David Gerard ( talk) 18:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I agree...a few are well thought out or could be adapted for the final proposals.-- MONGO 18:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply

This is par for the course for an Arbcom case, surely? One of its various procedural flaws. Formerip ( talk) 20:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply

<whisper>arbitrators stopped closely reading workshop pages shortly after they were invented</whisper> - David Gerard ( talk) 21:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply

NuclearWarfare, if the Committee doesn't want to use the Workshop, then why did you set-it-up and invite us to participate on it? Don't say that it wasn't your idea as the reason. By accepting a position on the Committee, you are committing to following the current processes and procedures unless they are changed. Duty sometimes requires doing something tedious or unpleasant, but it's part of being an adult and fulfilling the responsibilities that one has committed to. Anyway, you wouldn't know if there are any good ideas on the page unless you read it. I believe Kirill Lokshin is about to present some ideas, but I guess you don't care. Cla68 ( talk) 22:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply

...For the same reason that government bureaucracies hold public hearings: they are traditional and they are required to do so. Then with the formalities nominally completed, they do what they want. Carrite ( talk) 06:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

To invoke a phrase used by NewYorkBrad, this case is starting to turn into self-parody. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I would say that my proposals, Cla68's proposals, TParis' proposals, and Kirill's proposals would be the most useful in formulating a final decision.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I would think at the very least that reading Sue Gardner's proposals would be a common sense good idea. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 00:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

From the sunshine and hugs for Moren & Gerard to the blanket amnesty for all the "you're transphobic!" slurs, Ms. Gardner's comments were the most ill-informed of the lot. Tarc ( talk) 01:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that when you've declared the Executive Director of the WMF to be "the most ill-informed" person in the discussion you've kind of got the wrong end of the stick. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 02:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

The outgoing Exec, yea, and good riddance; being this out-of-touch with the project that one purported to work for, we'll be much better off looking in a new direction. Tarc ( talk) 03:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, Phil, although I wouldn't be as direct as Tarc, I'll just say that I'd be very surprised if any of Sue's proposals were actually adopted by ArbCom... Also, her comments are not necessarily the most ill-informed: there are many others which are competing for that title... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I get the impression that most of the replies under this section aren't exactly restoring NuclearWarfare's faith in these proceedings. -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Everyone has their own narrative about what result they would like to see here. It doesn't mean all their/our suggestions suck, you just have to take the different perspectives and parse out the value-added ideas that relate to the core truths of the matter. Problem solving and logical reasoning, both deductive and inductive. Right? Cla68 ( talk) 10:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, just base the proposed decision on my posted principles, the case can then be closed tomorrow :) . Count Iblis ( talk) 20:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

The Proposed decision page starts by "After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here". Thus User:NuclearWarfare should retract, resign or be ousted for perjury. Pldx1 ( talk) 09:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I do not know if it is related but the article Alexis Reich was deleted. "G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: very serious problems regarding multiple persons and BLP1E issues re " - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I see this huge list Krill has going down a list of editors of what they said and how it relates, well what about the other side of the coin here? I feel that this is being more left out. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Knowledgekid87: I am by no means finished with my proposed findings, and more will be added over the course of the next several days. Kirill  ^[talk] 22:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Okay thank you for your reply, it just seems like one set of editors are being thrown into the spotlight is all. I have a question though who gets to decide what editors comments are offensive enough for action to be taken place? It kind of worries me that the mob rule mindset might be at play at some point. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm getting the impression that neither "side" will be too happy with the final decision in this case. In the long term, in my opinion, it doesn't really matter who gets desysopped, "admonished", topic-banned, or blocked. What matters is if it results in Wikipedia coming up with a better way to resolve these types of questions. As old as WP is now, there really is no excuse for it not to be able to simply and quickly resolve a situation like this one. Also, Wikipedia needs to come up with a better way to handle people who try to use this site for advocacy, whatever the cause. It would be better if advocacy gets shut down before it gathers momentum, rather than when it ends up in front of ArbCom. Cla68 ( talk) 01:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia already has a fine system for solving these contentious content issues: Bold-Revert-Discuss. Unfortunately, that system was subverted by a group of administrators trying to make a political point by enforcing their favored perspective through page protection power tools. The joke is ultimately on them: the resolution of the debate in their favor would have happened two weeks ago had they played by the rules; instead this rolls on and on and as the workshop section alone moves past 820,000 characters towards the 1,000,000 character mark. Did they learn something from their errors? Anything at all? That I doubt. Hopefully those who abused power tools in this case will have them removed by ArbCom. Carrite ( talk) 05:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

You may be right about that. The heavy-handed way that several Wikipedia insiders tried to force their way on this issue attracted more people to the discussion and that ended up swaying the decision away from what they wanted. I guess they figured that the ends justified the means, except the means didn't produce the end that they desired. Cla68 ( talk) 22:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

The Evidence page is approaching 700KB and is loads slow for me, there a way to collapse some of the chat? Even if the section is closed soon, it will improve the readability. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Would it be possible for a clerk to remove empty sections, such as Finding of Fact, Principles, and Remedy? This page is getting long. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply

And/or split the page into multiple pages, every entry on the workshop page should appear on a separate page. If I read the proposed principles of editor X, there is no need for the proposed principles of editor Y to also appear on that same page. Count Iblis ( talk) 13:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply

That's an idea, but it would still need to be done by a clerk, and seems to a new idea. (I could be wrong, but I've never seen it before.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Or remove or collapse those proposals which are based soley on inadmissible evidence. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence#Recent Workshop edits introducing new evidence. — Psychonaut ( talk) 14:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm worried that ARBCOM is trying to move quickly to beat the 30 day limit imposed on the next move discussion. I'm worried they will take actions that will make things worse rather than better. Not sure if those worries are justified, but let me spell what I think ARBCOM should not be doing...

The most important one is don't try to move BM back to CM (or prevent that move). Let the community deal with it. And don't try to put your hand on the scale. There are two reasons. First of all this is a content issue and ARBCOM should not touch it, not even for a BLP issue. Secondly, one only has to look at Roe v. Wade to get a sense how badly being activist can hurt the community in the long term. And frankly, in this case, I'm now fairly sure that the community will move this to CM. WP:COMMONNAME is now leaning that way and that was the only major argument otherwise. Plus I believe people have a better sense of trans issues. Let the community do this.

Now that said, if you want to expire the 30-day moratorium early, that's probably okay, though I'd suggest you just let it go (again, could be viewed as putting your hand on the scale).

I'd also suggest, for quite different reasons, that none of the main players here be blocked, desysoped or the like. I think they all were acting in good faith and in the heat of the moment. I'd hope this has been a learning experience for those involved and the community as a whole. Letting people know what they should have done would be helpful and various levels of WP:FISH are quite reasonable.

Finally, please do provide some kind of guidelines about how edits claiming BLP should be treated. My personal preference remains:

• Don't revert an action done under a claim of BLP unless
  • You believe that the action is itself a BLP violation

--OR--

• There is a discussion which results in there being no consensus for that action. (So we default to the version before the change per BRD.)

But if you go with something else, that's fine. I do think ARBCOM needs to make it clear how to handle this (though without such weight the community can't revise it if consensus to do so can be found). Thanks. Hobit ( talk) 13:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Iterating suggestion made at the TPm case that the "boilerplate" be worded simply. Also note that the TPm "decision" is likely the worst imaginable precedent for any decision here. Collect ( talk) 14:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Re BLP: WP:BLP is a strong policy requiring removal of possible violations of that policy, and unless there is a finding that a person deliberately sought to abuse that policy (that is, as long as the person can reasonably state that they were seeking to follow that policy), they ought not be sanctioned in any way), the onus is absolutely on those adding material to BLPs or articles falling under that policy to demonstrate that their addition does not violate the policy. Collect ( talk) 14:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply

There are some proposed findings on the Workshop page which accuse a number of editors of engaging in speech that is discriminatory towards transgender people. There also some proposed findings that accuse other editors of using discriminatory or hatemongering language to describe statements by others (i.e. "transphobic" or "hatespeech") that may not be in agreement the position taken by transgender activists, who have apparently been active in this topic debate. The thing the Committee needs to remember is that if they pass a finding that any editor here has engaged in discriminatory language or hatespeak, it may have real-world consequences on that person's career or social reputation. If someone Googles their name and find this case finding, and their account name is linked to their real name, as mine is, it could make them unemployable.

Those of you who remember your philosophy classes in college know that in order to make assertions on truth, a definition needs to be established on the concept that one is expounding. Kirill Lokshin has done this by stating a definition of what discrimination is. The natural follow-on to this would be to take each person's statement(s) and, word by word, debate whether their statements meet the definition of discrimination. Unless there is clear consensus that their statement meets the concept of discrimination as defined, then you have to let them go. The consequences for their personal lives are otherwise too serious to play around this stuff. This needs to be done with everyone who has been accused of saying something improper. Cla68 ( talk) 11:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply

The word "transsceptic" is better. A transsceptic is someone who is sceptical of all or parts of the consensus view about this topic in the field of sexuology. Count Iblis ( talk) 14:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Says you. As far as I can tell you invented this word yesterday. It doesn't seem to be used in that sense in any other publication. — Psychonaut ( talk) 14:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, but if there is a need to have a word for "someone who is sceptical of all or parts of the consensus view about this topic in the field of sexuology" then one can invent a new word for that if there already doesn't exist such a word. That's better than to use a commonly used word like "transphobic" if that commonly used word carries additional negative baggage (in this case that would be that peole are hateful toward transsexuals). Wikipedia did play a prominent role in the public dabate about Manning's name, the backlash about the name change to "Chelsea" happened on this site and here we have to follow proper procedures to resolve that conflict. So, it was quite natural that the problems with using the word "transphobic" would arise for the first time here on Wikipedia. Count Iblis ( talk) 16:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply

In case anyone working on the workshop is not aware, a proposed decision for the case has now been posted on the proposed decision page. The arbitrators are now discussing and voting on the decision.

The workshop page is still open, but realistically, I suspect that the arbitrators will now be focusing their attention on the proposed decision page. Only arbitrators can edit the proposed decision, but other editors are welcome to comment on the talkpage. Comments about the proposed decision are much more likely at this point to be seen if posted there, rather than on the very long workshop page. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I have read the entire (insert applicable adjective) page entitled "Workshop." It so heavily involves content issues and other issues outside the reasonable remit of the ArbCom that I shall not post there. Rather, I here make what I consider to be salient points.

1. Arbcom should never consider "content issues" nor decide "content issues." Such issues are entirely outside its purview.
2. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an arbiter of right and wrong, and use of titles intended to make the encyclopedia easy to use for readers is reasonable and proper.
3. Where a person achieves notability under a specific name, it is logical that readers will seek to find information regarding the notability under that name. ( The New York Times news archive does not link multiple names - it sticks with what it had in the first place, and for a person to find original articles, they must, perforce, search using that original name. This is true, AFAICT, of all media)
4. Redirects are used where additional terms are reasonably used by readers seeking information.
5. Titles and redirects are not a behavioural issue for ArbCom to decide.
6. For an official of the WMF to opine is fine, but such opinions are not to be weighed any more heavily than that of any other editor on Wikipedia, and in accordance with the historic opinions of ArbCom.
7. Sanctions are not to be made against any editor without specific and strong evidence that they have repeatedly violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding behavior, and that such a sanction will benefit Wikipedia as a project, and are not simply punitive.
8. Use of pejorative terms, or words reasonably considered to be pejorative, used about any specific editors or well-defined groups of editors, are behavioural issues properly considered by ArbCom.
9. WP:False consensus, including any canvassing of others in any venue for actions or votes on Wikipedia, may be properly considered by ArbCom in weighing any stated consensus.
10. WP:BLP requires that articles be written conservatively and with a neutral point of view, and not seeking to harm any person. This applies to the text of the article, but where a person achieves notability under a specific name, and it is difficult for readers to find information under an alternative name, the interest of the reader is paramount with regard to the title of the article. {Again -- NYT archive searches for "Chelsea Manning" will not turn up the actual contemporary news reports about her - if the NYT does not rename a person to help in searches, then we should not use a title which makes further research by users impracticable - this has nothing to do with any "harm" - the body of the article can use "she" and so on, but to elide the name under which notability occurred would be a disservice to readers of the encyclopedia seeking more information)
11. Categorization of any person (not limiting this to BLP) with respect to nationality, birth, gender, religion, or any other characteristics of the person without extremely strong sourcing, or making any pejorative claims about any person or group to which such a person belongs, are improper, but are content disputes to be considered by the community, and not adjudicated by ArbCom.

I expect this will receive the same consideration and discussion as most of the current Workshop page is due. The prmary goal of Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopedia which serves its readers. Collect ( talk) 11:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I have locked the workshop page now that the proposed decision has been posted and is well into voting. If there is a specific proposal that you feel is "missing" from the proposed decision, please initiate a discussion at the proposed decision talk page. I will also note that the absurd length of the workshop means that many editors on slower connections find it nearly impossible to open the page. Risker ( talk) 03:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply