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

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 Conflict of interest reports
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 or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This really does only tell half the tale.

How about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What 170 editors? You said that almost all of the 170 did not even discuss BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... Only, I would think, if "logically" means "with no regard for weight/proportionality." Ananiujitha (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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