Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence

Scope, evidence
What's the scope of the case and what evidence, if any, would the committee like aggregated? NE Ent 22:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The case is fairly broad in scope; we're willing to review evidence regarding any aspect of the naming dispute in question. Having said that, I'm particularly interested the following:
 * Evidence of derogatory statements regarding transgender individuals made by participants in the dispute.
 * Evidence of accusations of transphobia, whether appropriate or otherwise, made by participants in the dispute.
 * Evidence that BLP concerns raised during the dispute were (or were not) appropriately addressed.
 * Kirill [talk] 23:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Kirill has listed, personally, I'd also like to see evidence of possible misuses of admin tools, if any. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Kirill, please can you clarify point #1?
 * By "derogatory statements regarding transgender individuals", do you mean statements regarding identifiable individuals, or those referring to transgender people in general? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Both. Kirill [talk] 05:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Timing
The next move discussion for Bradley -> Chelsea is currently scheduled to start on Sep 30. There have been Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request suggestions made to wait until October 3 until this arbcom case closes, since the findings will likely influence the discussion and there may be sanctions applied to user behavior during the discussion - however those hoping for Chelsea have opposed this as a delaying tactic, and it may be hard to resist starting the move on Sep 30. That said, would it be possible for Arbcom to rule by Sep 29 instead of October 3? The time pressure is extreme right now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that October 3 is merely the date by which the proposed decision is due to be posted; after that, there's really no telling how long it'll take to actually vote on it and close the case... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As Salvio points out, the October 3 date is for the posting of the decision rather than the closing of the case. Having said that, my intent is to have a proposed decision ready for voting no later than the end of the workshop phase on September 26; this will allow editors to, at a minimum, evaluate the potential remedies in the case before making a decision on whether to proceed with a discussion on September 30. Kirill [talk] 17:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok; I'm not familiar with how arbcom works. Would you mind sharing your general views on whether the next move request should wait until the finalization of the arbcom ruling, no matter what that is or when it happens, before doing another (possibly contentious) move discussion? The discussion is here VPPR. Thanks, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Obi-Wan, I'm not an Arb, and I'm not really sure how useful it is to be conducting a move discussion a month ahead of time, but I sort of doubt that the decision will have anything that would really tip a move request one way or the other. Some editors may be sanctioned, and some administrators may get admonished, but ArbCom doesn't make policy, and I think even trying to "clarify" policy in this case will seem very much like creating it out of whole cloth. The 'pedia wouldn't be in this mess if the interaction between COMMONNAME, MOS:IDENTITY, and BLP was clear. I'm sure the committee will step in if the move discussion gets rowdy, but otherwise, I think it'd probably be for the best if the community continues making the effort to rectify our confusing policies with respect to trans individuals. Archaeo (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Again, I don't follow arbcom, there's enough drama on the regular boards, so I don't really know what they do/don't rule on, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tivanir2 here (sorry for not logging in this computer is public and I try not to use those with my account.) Honestly this case would have no bearing on the rename as this is looking primarily at behavior and inappropriate moves. The 30 Sep RM could be started and complete as long as concensus is achieved (highly likely since everyone has switched in RS and those are what we follow.) As long as there are no major issues that arrive (like the plethora of PA and BATTLEGROUND behavior it should be a non issue. 132.3.37.79 (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought this discussion had pre-empted that one? Ananiujitha (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This Discussion is targeted at individual behavior and if the BLP guideline applies to titles and is a trump card in relation to all other policies. Neither is required to discuss if the name as reported by reliable sources has become common usage and thus meets common name criteria. 132.3.37.84 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Word limit for evidence presented by non-parties
I think I've exceeded it again. Sorry about that. =/

Is there some way I can check to see how many words I've used before or after posting? If I did in fact exceed the limit, I'll look for ways to condense it so as to keep things running smoothly for ArbCom. Otherwise, I'll check to see if I can be granted another exception. Kurtis (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Check with a clerk if you need to. (That would be me or Seddon). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 07:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, would you be able to help me? Kurtis (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. What exactly do you need? - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 02:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know if my evidence has exceeded the limit, and if so, whether or not I could be granted an exemption. Kurtis (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * From my experience if arbs or clerks have a problem with the length of any submission on any page, they will tell you. So just enter it (it may be the key to the case after all) -- it can always be moved, removed, shortened, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, then. Just making sure. :-) Kurtis (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is more or less correct (although exceptions are always possible). For a case like this, it may be important to get all the key points out and not tied up by the word/diff limits. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 01:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Question re. my evidence
Is it perhaps best if I remove it entirely and abstain from further additions to this page? It seems there is a silent consensus that my interpretation of the events was misrepresented and poorly researched. Yes, I made a few mistakes in my submissions, and I've corrected them. I tried to present the conflict as best I can, but I could have done a better job. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. Kurtis (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Too late, I think. But if you want, the most helpful thing I can think of would be a simple log of all of the moves and admin actions on the article, whatever their rationale, from start to finish. Copy the logs verbatim and without commentary, and don't skip any (even if they are irrelevant to the proceedings, keep'em for completeness' sake). I doubt anyone would have reason to criticize you for such a list. Analyze after, if you need to - or, if you really want to back away, leave that to others. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 05:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's more or less what I had attempted, but I expanded on them. Maybe my representation of the evidence is not as big of a deal as I'd thought it was; I only missed a few minor details here and there. Nobody really took much issue with it, and I was probably mistaken in my interpretation of a "silent consensus" above. For the most part, I was correct in my interpretation of the events. Kurtis (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is NorthBySouthBaranof providing evidence of?
Regarding "Evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof", I've read through this a few times but fail to see why I (a non-party to this case, fyi) have my own subsection, or really, what this entry is for at all. This editor alleges "personal dislike, contempt or ignorance of transgenderism" in others; the 3rd term is a blatant insult that should be struck IMO, but the other 2 are...what? People who have opinions on a social/cultural matter that do not jibe with his own?

I'm sure there's many editors in many topic areas who have a "personal dislike or contempt" for something within. I do not recognize Israel's claim to Jerusalem as an undivided capital, an opinion I've expressed no doubt several times in discussions over the years here. But unless I were to act on that to the detriment of the project (attack editors with opposing pov, misrepresent sources to get my opinion advanced, edit-warred, etc...), then simply holding an opinion...even an unpopular or minority one...should not be an actionable offense in this project.

That, in essence, is the aim of NorthBySouthBaranof's submission. Withing the filing there are some bad apples, e.g. I find this remark to be appalling and afoul of WP:DISRUPT, but you can't slap that alongside statements like The subject is still male in every meaningful sense. That's textbook guilt-by-association. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The best interpretation I can think of for the assertion that Manning "is still male in every meaningful sense" is a profound ignorance of transgenderism. If the editor making that comment understood how offensive a statement like that is to transgendered people amongst others then s/he was being disruptive and uncivil.  You, Tarc, have deliberately used male pronouns during the discussions at Manning's talk page and implied that Manning does not deserve the protection of BLP as a "convicted spy" (if I recall the phrase you used correctly).  Frankly, my view is that you have been provocative and offensive and have earned being mentioned as one of those whose behaviour has been below acceptable standards.  Others are much more deserving of sanctions, I readily admit, and I doubt you will get any sanction... but I do think you should re-evaluate yourself and recognise that continuing to use masculine pronouns for Manning in talk space is offensive to some of your fellow editors.  EdChem (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Uncivil edits harm the reputation of Wikipedia and in turn make it harder to get financial support from objective donors. IMO,comments should be tempered.Patroit22 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not "deliberately" used any word or words to provoke, I have used the pronoun I am most comfortable with to refer to a person who is IMO male, I'm sorry if you disagree with that. I do not believe I have ever said any person does not "deserve" BLP protection, so if you can point out what words of mine you are referring to I can see what you're talking about.  As for the rest, it is just an echo of what I said in the initial post here; voicing an alternative opinion about transgender people is not in any way, shape, or form "provocative and offensive". Tarc (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Deliberate means done with intention, and you have clearly intentionally chosen to use masculine pronouns, as your own post here confirms. You have commented repeatedly on the talk page and can't possibly be unaware that using masculine pronouns is seen as offensivce within the transgender community, so I fail to see how your actions don't fit the term "provocative".  As for the BLP comment, I called you on it at the time and you complained about my pinging you; apparently it "wasn't worth [your time"].  I pointed out BLP applies to all living people, you declined to recognise that your post had implied otherwise, simply stating you hadn't said otherwise; unfortunately, I do not see a credible alternative explanation for your comment in a thread on recognising gender transitions of transgender people that "Lost in the last week are facts of being a convicted criminal, about to serve 35 years at a very harsh military prison for violating the Espionage Act.  This person's actions endangered the lives of American servicemen and women as well as our allies and their soldiers, second only to Snowden's alleged (we have to be technical since he hasn't been tried and convicted) transgressions.  Bradley Manning is a spy, folks; convicted spies aren't a routine media event."  As I read it, the only reason for talking about Manning's conviction and raising endangering American service personnel is to imply that her gender transition is not worth recognising or respecting - because BLP applies to those convicted of offenses under both civil and military justice systems, and so your obesrvations are utterly irrelevant to handling gender transitions.  I previously noted that refusing to recognise Chelsea as a trans woman is a BLP issue, and while I agree that alternative opinions is fine and not necessarily provocative or offensive, looking at other comments from you I think the terms fit your comments well.  EdChem (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the thing Tarc - your expression of your opinion is a denial of the lived experience of trans people. Sure, you have a right to express your opinion, but your expression of that opinion impinges on the ability of trans people to participate in the project. If someone said that regardless of what he had to say Muhammad Ali was still really Cassius Clay, that he Christian and couldn't really be Muslim, that the whole "slave name" concept had no validity...it would be provocative and offensive. Trans people experience regular denial of their identity. That denial manifests in rejection from their family and peers. It manifests in discrimination and violence. And it manifests in a remarkably high suicide rate. So yeah, tolerating these "expressions of opinion" turn Wikipedia into a hostile work environment for productive contributors (and potential contributors). Freedom of expression by Wikipedia editors is a good thing, but it has always been something secondary, something that's fine as long as it does not interfere with our goal of building an encyclopaedia. Guettarda (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's an incomplete comparison. The way I see it is as follows:


 * In Islam, to convert all you have to do is say a short statement called the shahada in the presence of two witnesses. If Muhammad Ali had declared that he was Muslim, but it was somehow known that he had never made that statement, one would be an odd position. One might argue that it's sufficient that he calls himself a Muslim. However, one might instead argue that it's not sufficient that he calls a Muslim, as he'd have to take his shahada first. While I'd be inclined to side with the former position, I'd hardly say the latter position would be considered offensive, provocative, or discrimination, as it's based on common understandings of what it takes for an identity to be manifest. Now, you may argue that those understandings are actually misunderstandings, but that strikes me as just repeating the obvious -- that you disagree with someone else's position. --  tariq abjotu  23:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Tarc, you will note above that an arbitrator specifically asked for evidence of derogatory statements made about transgender individuals. Whether you want to believe it or not, in my opinion (which is shared by many others), calling a trans-woman "still male in any meaningful sense" is incredibly insensitive and derogatory. It denies the reality of her identity while belittling her struggle. So there it is. You don't get to unilaterally declare that what you said isn't derogatory because you say so. The arbitrators will decide what is what. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Expressing one's opinion of how the Wikipedia should cover (remember, this isn't actually about personal opinions) a transgender person who simply declares "I am" is not derogatory. That is the heart of the matter here.  Just because you are personally offended by it doesn't really count for much of anything.  So again, what we have here is an evidence filing that lumps the truly defamatory (as I liked to initially) in with the simple expression of one side of a debate.  Speech cannot be criminalized. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, Tarc, you are declaring that you have the unilateral right to decide for everyone else what is or is not "derogatory." You have no such right.
 * Your opinion of my evidence is noted. If you wish to enter evidence in rebuttal, I'm sure you are free to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And you're not declaring the same thing? Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. I specifically stated that the statements are derogatory in my opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No I have not declared that I have any such right; what is derogatory to you is neither mine nor anyone else's business. The question is whether your offense is important enough to the Wikipedia project.  A great many people are offended by a great many things in life, large and small.  There's a line between where your offense ends and my right to argue a point concerning an editing matter begins, and as of this moment WP:BEINGOFFENDED is not a blue link that points to policy.  That's all your evidence is; "I am offended".  IMO the entire thing should be pared down to the truly vulgar statements made by a handful of editors, with the rest excised as non-actionable opinion. Tarc (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your opinion has been duly noted. NorthBySouthBaranof is presenting evidence in response to my request for such; whether this evidence evinces an actionable violation of policy is something that will be considered as the case progresses. Kirill [talk] 21:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Works for me, thanks. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My intent with this evidence is to establish that the debate over the article name was clouded by a poisonous atmosphere of personal, social and political hostility toward transgender people and Manning in particular, and that that atmosphere prevented the community from having a dispassionate consideration of the article name based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whether or not any particular editor is sanctioned is not of interest to me. The broader debate is what matters.
 * Tarc, you got a subheading first because you were the first editor for whom I compiled a list of multiple such comments. It's likely that when I have finished compiling evidence, you will not be the only editor with a subheading. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If NBSB hadn't compiled the list, I would have. My statement in the case proposal was that it is necessary for WP to recognize that hateful and bigoted remarks fall under our policy barring hostile personal attacks even if the remarks are not directed at specific editors, and it would be hard to deny that the sort of remarks NBSB has presented here have created a supremely hostile editing environment for trans editors. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the whole idea is crazy, where do we stop? Are we going to go after editors who say things that advocate eating animals next? As for the remarks what some editors may see as offensive could be perfectly in context with the discussion, this is a bad idea weeding out editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks dealt with please
I urge the committee to take a stand on the ad hominem attacks which are often made in debates or cases like this one. I recommend that any editor who alleges homophobia, transgenderphobia, or any other kind of hate or prejudice against another editor without backing that claim up with clear evidence, as in an actual diff that says something like "I think transgender people are scum", should be banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. We have to make sure that editors are not given a pass on this kind of dishonest nonsense. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good way to get rid of people from one side if they make even the slightest exaggeration in the heat of the moment. Let's not give one side a "get your enemies permanently banned" tool, shall we?
 * Disproportionate, and seeks to redefine terms to remove any subtleties or interpretation. Terrible idea. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the approach advocated here by Cla68 was also evident at ANI.
 * As the evidence page shows, the discussions included many blatantly transphobic statements. Yet some editors are stiil seeking sanctions on those who denounced the prejudice, rather than on those uttering it.
 * Whatever Cla68's intentions, the effect of any such proposal would be to create a bully's charter. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Word. And our society normalizes cissexism/transphobia, so that people don't always notice it, or recognize it, or recognize when they're spreading it, unless they or their loved ones are hurt by it. Someone has to point cissexism/transphobia out, but anyone who points this out would risk a permanent ban, especially if they point out the more subtle or more socially-accepted forms of cissexism/transphobia. Ananiujitha (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Jargon, jargon, jargon. Note that the first edit for User:Ananiujitha was on September 1, 2013; this case blew up on Aug. 22, 2013. Care to identify your previous account name??? Carrite (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. No, and I think your request is cissexist. Clarification 1. I don't think I have any obligation to tell you these things. 2. as I mentioned earlier, I was an occasional ip editor. 3. I know I don't have any obligation to tell you if I am trans; an older username could out a trans editor and/or out their given name, so demanding anyone's older usernames threatens to out trans editors. That's what I think is cissexist in your request. Ananiujitha (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh, Carrite, take your ridiculous sockpuppeting allegations elsewhere. You have a problem with Ananiujitha's behaviour, contact an admin. Don't harass the editor with that awful, presumptive attitude. Haipa Doragon (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Three words: 1. Quack. 2. Quack. 3. Quack. Carrite (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is also possible that Ananiujitha saw the publicity surrounding this article (perhaps after the article was moved back to Bradley Manning) and decided to sign up for Wikipedia and participate in the discussions surrounding this issue. And there would be nothing wrong with that if that's what happened. --  tariq abjotu  03:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ...And they immediately rushed to ArbCom to add to evidence to a case page with extensive "diffs," since that is the typical behavior of a new user in their first week of activity. My bad, obviously. Carrite (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2013i (UTC)
 * Except I didn't. For one thing, the talk page directed everyone here. For another thing, Tarc questioned my evidence for not including diffs. For another thing, this is not the typical situation, this is one where the cissexism has been giving me nightmares of being bashed again, and one I feel I have an obligation to participate in to try to minimize harm. Ananiujitha (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If someone was to say that African-Americans are "mud people," they would rightfully be criticized as racist - that statement denies the humanity of African-Americans, treating them as something less than human. It is inherently hostile and derogatory. Claiming that a male-to-female transgendered person "is really a man in every meaningful way" is equally hostile - it denies the experience and the reality of that transgendered person, treating them as something less than human. It is inherently hostile and derogatory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Er, speaking as a person of mixed-raced parentage, your analogy is utterly asinine. Negroes --> "mud people" is  a leap from a human to a...I don't even know what you're trying to say by "mud people", really...savage? Tar baby ?  Transgender is just male to female, still quite human in both cases.  It is not "less than human" to decline to buy into the whole gender-flipping thing.  Your frantic hyperbole is quite frankly becoming a net negative to this entire affair. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, apples and oranges here North. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why am I not in the least surprised that you disagree with my analogy, Tarc? I'll take being called "a net negative" by you as a badge of honor. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tarc, nobody is asking you "buy into the whole gender-flipping thing", anymore than people are asking you to buy into the god-thing or the heterosexual-thing or the politics thing. What many of us are asking, though, is that editors should set aside their own personal judgements and show some respect to other human beings by avoiding the sort of sneering terminology you have used here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not used sneering terminology, I have explained the matter in very simple and straightforward terms. If you can point to a time orplace in this where I have violated WP:NPA then by all means do so.  I've already adequately shown why Baranof's evidence filing is a load of bunk, as it contains no such accusation or evidence thereof.  My opposition in all of this has always been based on personal morals and in Wikipedia policy, as I have explained many times.  Respect ends where the integrity of encyclopedia-building begins, just as we had to draw the line against the Muhammadians who demanded the removal of images from the Wikipedia.  You are the one creating a toxic atmosphere here, where the slightest questioning of the article move was met with screaming charges of prejudice. Tarc (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Asinine" is a good start. Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I attacked the argument, not the arguer; that's kinda the proper way to go, y'know, and it isn't your place to question my word choice. I and many others who questioned the article move to "Chelsea Manning" have been subject to all sorts of ad hominem attacks over the last few weeks.  I have not and will not respond in kind. Tarc (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Considering you've gone down another rung on the ladder before by attacking arguments as "retarded", I'm not too keen on hearing your definition of a personal attack. Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tarc, thanks for clarifying things. A little more clarification would help.
 * You say that your position has been based on "personal morals and in Wikipedia policy". Please remind me which part of Wikipedia's policies allows you to use editorial discussions as a vehicle for promoting your "personal morals"?
 * And while you're at it, please explain how this differs from the "advocacy" which you have alleged motivates those you disagree with? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this works as a two way street, editors can just as easily blame others for attacking them for doing things that they are innocent for. That being said I think this should be closed as they cancel one another out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Prior related case
All participants in this case, including parties, should be aware that the Arbitration Committee decided a case involving BLP, transgender and human sexuality earlier this year: Sexology. Risker (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking over that case but not really seeing the relevance, as that involved a long-running, disruptive feud between two editors and much off-wiki advocacy. What we have here is a large disagreement, yes, but with a twist of one side (Team Chelsea) denying that Team Bradley (and Team Citing-Policy, Team Chelsea-Someday-But-Not-So-Hasty, and others) even have the right to exist, as said existence is inherently human-rights-violating. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See, here's the crux of why your claims here are totally wrong, Tarc.
 * "Chelsea Manning is not yet the name in most common use among reliable sources, therefore we should follow WP:COMMONNAME" is not offensive, derogatory or hostile toward the article subject. I disagree with it, but it is a valid argument that cites policy. You will notice that nowhere in my evidence do I list any such statement.
 * "Chelsea Manning isn't really a woman unless she gets sex change surgery" is not necessarily intentionally offensive, but it does indicate a failure to understand or accept modern medical and psychological thinking about gender identity disorder, because transgender people must live as their gender before undergoing surgery. Nor does it actually cite any policy.
 * "Bradley Manning is not a woman in any meaningful way and he will never be one" is unquestionably offensive, derogatory and hostile. Nor does it actually cite any policy.
 * Arguments based on the first principle cite a well-founded, policy-driven reason why we maybe shouldn't move the article. Arguments based on the second and third principles cite nothing more than misunderstandings, ignorance or personal hostility toward transgender people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I've heard your argument enough times to know it by heart now, we really don't need to open up a 3rd front. I was commenting on Risker's linking to a prior case, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is relevant if only because Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology states "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia)", and I would now count these articles as "dealing with transgender issues". —me_and 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

David Gerard's revert of my protection
I see that User:David Gerard's revert of my full protection of (what was then) Chelsea Manning here has come up a couple times so far. Yes, it would have been nice of him to ping me first, but he quickly apologized (which is somewhat rare for an admin to do) and the matter was "water under the bridge" as far as I was concerned. So, as far as my opinion here matters, I don't consider that to be a very serious issue and don't think it should play much of a role in the case. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a biggie by itself. If it was an isolated thing then it wouldn't be worth mentioning (and may even have been a good thing to do).
 * But, amid an overall scene containing an inexplicable move lock followed by two admin reverts on a controversial issue that he was involved in, it paints a picture of someone who should have stayed away from the buttons on that particular page on that particular day. --RA ( &#x270D; ) 16:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What is Pldx1 presenting evidence of?
Pldx1's evidence, so far, seems to consist of an extended essay about how they don't care about this case... along the way, dismissing Chelsea's human dignity as "drama" and "another wiki-war" comparable with others which don't people's biographies, with a passing attack on three editors. I don't quite understand the latter. Ananiujitha (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In particular, I don't the whole mixed metaphor. righteous soldiers? holy church? peasants? Ananiujitha (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You're exactly right, Ananiujitha. Pldx1's evidence compares a very legitimate BLP concern to some of the most trivial disputes in the history of this site and claims that, in essence, they are the same thing. So a complicated debate over the renaming of a high profile person who recently came out as transsexual is somehow comparable to what was basically a giant shitstorm over the use of small horizontal lines? And his second argument is just silly; that there would be more sources covering "Bradley Manning" ought to be common sense, considering the fact that she's been a major public figure for years now and has only just recently requested that people start referring to her as "Chelsea Manning". Oh, and I think his metaphors were in reference to the Inquisition, or perhaps Charlemagne &mdash; something like that. I don't know. I have no idea what he's talking about either. Kurtis (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet another example of "Holy Smoke", provided this time by User:Kurtis. I would not be sarcastic, but the opinion of User:Kurtis about how should be named the human being Chelsea Manning is totally irrelevant, for the simple reason that User:Kurtis is not the human being Chelsea Manning. In the same vein, the opinion of User:Kurtis about how should be named the human being Peyton Manning would be equally irrelevant, for the simple reason that User:Kurtis is not the human being Peyton Manning. And now, let us talk about the point actually discussed here, at en:Wikipedia. The question is how to name the article Bradley Manning, knowing that the article is mainly centered about the major public figure that released the "Collateral Murder" videotape... and a lot of other classified documents. About this point, the opinion of User:Kurtis counts for no more, no less than one over the 19,673,202 registered users. Don't try to derail the discussion by an "Holy Church" attitude... and don't misuse your administrative tools, if you have any. Pldx1 (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your evidence doesn't make any sense. Neither does your comment here.--MONGO 14:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well first of all, I'm not an administrator. Even if I was, why would I use the tools here? What purpose would that serve anyone, other than making a bad situation worse?
 * Secondly, I'm not "derailing" anything. Ananiujitha was confused by your evidence, as was I &mdash; my response here was intended to offer up my own interpretation of what you had presented. Nobody can make sense of it, and it sounds like an opinion piece, which is not the purpose of an evidence page for an ArbCom case.
 * You're right, my opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else's. I personally believe the article should be renamed to Chelsea Manning because that's how she identifies herself. Read up on transsexualism to get a better sense of what gender identity is, and how it isn't always reflected by a person's sexual organs. You can take your disagreement to the bank with you, and you have every right to believe whatever you want. I also happen to think that David Gerard misused the sysop tools by moving it back after Tariqabjotu reversed Morwen's decision &mdash; and further, that David has a history of poor judgment dating back many years. But I can at least understand where he's coming from, and he has demonstrated through his actions a genuine concern for someone who has a Wikipedia article that does not reflect their true identity. That is the very spirit of BLP.
 * There were multiple people involved in this situation who acted too quickly. I have no idea if you're living in 2013 or 1182, nor do I really care. A valid disagreement about a very contentious topic is much more complicated than you make it out to be. If you're interested in fighting against oppression on Wikipedia, this might be a better starting point. Kurtis (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ananiujitha
This section contains no diffs, no examples of anything a specific editor has said or done. It is a post regarding this user's opinions on transphobia, citing (with no external links) what I assume are academic sources in support. This seems to be out-of-scope regarding what Evidence pages are for. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Several other editors raised these issues before the arbitrators took the case, so I've assumed they are part of the case. It seems odd if we can discuss the actions of particular editors, but we can't discuss broader systemic issues, or how these broader systemic issues including the hostile environment can affect the judgement of particular editors. If the arbitration procedure isn't supposed to solve these problems, what is it supposed to do? Ananiujitha (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions regarding evidence
As I'm going through the evidence, I'm going to use this section to ask questions or beg clarification on a few points. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of this section? I'm not sure what conclusion you are trying to illustrate.
 * See the remedy I proposed in the workshop and the comment I made regarding it.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope, II
Does the committee consider "An evaluation of the role of subject-matter expertise," as requested by Sue Gardner, within the scope of the case? NE Ent 13:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you wish to present some evidence regarding this issue, you are free to do so; in the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary, however, I do not anticipate that we will be addressing it in any great detail. Kirill [talk] 16:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

extending the period for the submission of evidence
According to emails I received at about 12:18 and 12:27 GMT, one of the clerks on this case (I forget whom) added a load of new users to the list of participants. None of them have yet submitted evidence, and they will either a) want to do so, or b) (especially in the case of Bd2412) will be obliged to do so by the circumstances of this case. There is just not enough time for all parties to submit sufficiant and meaningful evidence by the deadline date - we are now 15 September, and the deadline for evidence submission (the 19th September) is next Thursday. I would therefore humbly request that the Committee extend the period for submission of evidence to the end of September of sometime in the first week of October.

--The Historian (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the pressing circumstances of the case and the ongoing nature of the dispute, we are unfortunately unable to extend the submission deadline. Kirill [talk] 16:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Why have you added so many editors, myself included, at such a late date? The only immediate purpose I can see is that it allows for longer Evidence submissions, but is there is a reason beyond that?  I don't even recvognize half the names on the list, e.g. "Wasmachien", who made a single entry, which while perhaps a bit uncouth is certain;y not worthy of sanction for a single occurrence. Tarc (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The majority of the parties added are individuals who have been named in currently submitted evidence; they were added to ensure that they were aware of the proceedings and the possibility that findings may be proposed regarding their conduct. Kirill [talk] 18:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it help if I anonymized my evidence? The point wasn't really to call people out; it was simply to demonstrate that a problematic behaviour happened. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there's no reason to anonymize it, particularly as others have submitted very similar evidence anyways. Kirill [talk] 18:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So ArbCom is going to turn cases into an ebay model ... save your dirt until the very last minute and post at the very last second? Not a well thought out plan. NE Ent 01:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It is better to get it right, by allowing anyone who is a party to the case time to respond, than to operate on a fixed time limit because the matter is "pressing." The parties to the case have an inherent right to be heard.   GregJackP   Boomer!   02:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A deadline is a deadline. We will accept all admissible evidence that is submitted before the end of the evidence phase, irrespective of how close to the deadline it is. Likewise, the best time to decide who is a party to the dispute is during the evidence phase. I am therefore entirely willing for editors (e.g. Tarc) to be added as parties at this time – though I certainly sympathise if they are frustrated at having the burden of monitoring an arbitration case thrust upon them. AGK  [•] 16:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If a deadline is a deadline, does that mean any committee decision posted after 3 October won't be valid? It's a rhetorical question... . NE Ent 02:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why BD2412 wasn't listed as a party in the first place. He was the one who closed the RM discussion, wrote out the lengthy rationale behind his decision, and placed a 30-day moratorium on requesting another move. But I guess it doesn't really matter at this point. Kurtis (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite – but he is listed now, so let bygones be bygones. AGK  [•] 16:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

IP post removed?
Just out of curiosity, as someone who doesn't follow ArbCom proceedings closely enough to really know the rules inside and out, is there any reason that the IP post to the talkpage here was removed and the page semi-protected? The posting seemed on-point and reasonable (given that the main pages are, logically, semi-protected), and other editors had commented on the points made in it.

If there's a policy-based reason for this--be it that IPs are never permitted to participate in ArbCom proceedings, suspicions of socking, or anything else--I retract my question. Otherwise, though, it seems somewhat questionable to do so, given that the IP's points were not transferred over to the main Evidence page. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Editors are not allowed to contribute anonymously to arbitration cases. In this instance, it was probable that the anonymous individual's claim that they are merely an observer of Wikipedia disputes was misleading (if not an outright lie). Their submission was therefore removed, and they will be prohibited from submitting any further observations until they are more forthcoming with the committee about their true identity. It's a common problem, and is handled on a case-by-case basis – often depending on how telling the technical (checkuser) evidence is. AGK  [•] 16:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Disclosure, I was pointed to this by a surprised long standing user. Are we honestly saying that "anyone can edit without an account", anyone is trusted as an equal in the community with or without an account, and yet a user without an account is not permitted to stand equal to the newest account-holder and state their view and present evidence equally, if a conduct issue comes under scrutiny at senior level? That's got to be very wrong. I think AGK might really mean: "IP editors at RFAR may be genuine but quite often turn out to be better known users or SPAs, and genuine new users rarely arrive at RFAR without some prior case or editor involvement, so if an IP editor appears at RFAR who isn't known, or misuse of IP editing is a concern, we ask them to not contribute until they provide their more usually used account or discuss their involvement with us"


 * Perhaps there are IP ranges and users which are known or suspected to be a concern, and are worth a look to ensure no abuse of WP:SOCK or user COI is involved and they are most likely posted in good faith. Even so, there's a big difference between "This user's post is removed due to technical concerns", "We have a concern about this user's posting here and have removed it until we discuss with them" (reasonable and case specific), and what's stated above that "No IP users are generally allowed to participate in senior DR processes" and a suggestion that IP editors wishing to participate must generally provide identification (presumably account not real-world ID!).


 * Without referring to the specific user and specific case, or any CU conclusions or common experience about IP editors at RFAR, to me the Arbitrator response would be a concern, as it may be read by others differently from the way it was meant. Please reconsider the general statement above and whether it is really our best position, in line with the spirit of this community, to state flatly that all users who don't use an account are by default summarily barred ( "Editors are not allowed to contribute anonymously to arbitration cases" ) from senior DR collaboration and contribution.


 * AGK - if it was just hasty wording, any chance of a quick refactor to ensure there's no doubt what was meant and it doesn't become precedent for something you didn't really mean. FT2 (Talk 23:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My views on this case jibe with what this IP user posted, but have no problem with it being discounted and possibly serve as a precedent for future cases. IP users are either one of two things; a legitimately new person to the project, or an old one evading scrutiny.  Arbitration cases are for solving intractable inter-wiki issues, there is neither call nor reason at all for an outside party to weigh in on these case pages, so that rules out the former.  The latter has been booted from the project, and thus is denied a voice in these proceedings.  IP editors are already prohibited from voting in Requests for Arbitration, from filing an AfD, and a few other areas.  This is not unprecedented to wall the garden off a little bit. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the IP in question has a long editing history and even commented on the talk page of an article related to this case. IP users aren't necessarily new to the project or a registered user evading scrutiny. They can also be experienced users who simply have not bothered to create an account for whatever reason.
 * I think that the IP user's comments should be posted, even if the ArbCom ultimately decides to give it little or no weight. Would it be possible for a registered user (such as myself) to post this user's evidence on his or her behalf? Edge3 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no rule that says that IP editors are allowed to contribute to Wikipedia.  Oh wait, yes, there is.  It's the 3rd pillar. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's also enshrined in WP:NPA and WP:AGF. The comments should be evaluated on the merits of their arguments, not on the identity of the individual. Edge3 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Contribute article content, sure. The cherished pillar there does not give the right to participate in the bureaucracy.  As I noted above, there are places where their input is barred outright. Tarc (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's also a major fact-check fail too. As A Quest For Knowledge points out, BITE, AGF and 5P apply to all users, and to consideration of all users . IP editors who we encourage with the words "You don't need an account to edit Wikipedia" are users every bit as much as you or I, might be long-term frequent or infrequent editors (perhaps with varying IP) as much as you or I, or may simply be readers engaged in an article who decide to try and help Wikipedia process when something like RFAR finally happens, and they get the same basic courtesy as any other user. Which means, we assume good faith until there is an actual basis and actual evidence of an issue. Equating "uses an IP" to "obviously new or evader" is a misguided and uncivil lapse into bad faith that should be apologized to any IP editor or reader watching this thread. (Even if correct, which seems extremely dubious, it would apply just as much to "new" or recent registered users so it's not IP editor specific). FT2 (Talk 01:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also check out this long-standing consensus which seems to agree. FT2 (Talk 01:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Im in favor of restoring the IP's comment as it appears to have been done to provide another viewpoint, agree with the above there is no central rule barring constructive IP edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

To answer the original question, I'm not aware of any blanket policy prohibiting anonymous contributions to arbitration proceedings, although there are certainly rules prohibiting the use of sockpuppets (including, in particular, the use of logged-out edits by an existing contributor). Having said that, the particular submission in question was inappropriate because it violated §2.5 of the arbitration policy (which states that evidence from external websites is admissible only with the prior consent of the Committee), regardless of the identity of the individual who posted it. Kirill [talk] 02:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay then I have no problem with leaving it as that then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The downside of the OP being an anon poster is the fact that while we can alert them as to why their submission was excluded, it might be a different editor at the console (The talk page of the IP identifies it as being assigned to FedEx). The fact that concerns me is that removal of all portions of the IP submission that links to external sites will cause some points that the IP was trying to make to fail to have anything supporting it, and since we can't contact the original poster, this puts us in a hard position. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 02:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a normal potential communication issue with any issue an IP editor contribues to, not just RFAR. We have to trust they watch the thread, or take measures themselves to keep abreast if they don't want to. As to remved material, we do remove and ignore material if it's unsuited as evidence. Allowing offsite material and links can provide evidence, but the downside is that we don't want to encourage this in the slightest as a generality, since it's got far more privacy-breaching downside, dubiousness, and issues, than benefit, in the vast majority of cases. Also unless the matter is very serious we want to solve Wikipedia issues, not offsite matters, so it's often just an unhelpful distraction. If offsite (or any other problematic) evidence might be relevant any user can email case input directly to Arbcom for advice or to take into account. If the IP user is watching and needs the information, their email address is on the wiki. But as Kirill says, offsite/privacy/copyright/policy breaching material as a rule has no place on the wiki at RFAR. FT2 (Talk 10:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That said, the evidence removed seems pretty damning if true. It seems rather silly to disqualify evidence because of pointless rules mongering. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually requested permission from the Committee to use off-wiki information as evidence several days ago, and I have yet to receive a response. While I understand the desire to not trawl through editors' off-wiki activities, some of the tweets referenced by the IP editor are pertinent and at least eyebrow-raising, and it's not like there's an esoteric link to Morwen's and David Gerard's real names, given they both willingly provide them. --  tariq abjotu  13:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it may have just been lost in the jumble of the mailing list. We'll try to get a response for you soon. NW ( Talk ) 16:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I went through and validated the IP's first 30 diffs and they all seemed accurate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * FT2, AQFK, Edge3, et al: I said "Editors are not allowed to contribute anonymously to arbitration cases", not "Anonymous editors are not allowed to contribute to arbitration cases." By this, I was saying community members with an account cannot anonymously contribute to the case unless they declare who they are. Long-standing policy at WP:ILLEGIT ¶3 prohibits the use of undeclared, unpublicised alternative accounts (including IP addresses) for contributing to a case. If the IP address in question genuinely was an anonymous editor who has no registered account, their contributions would be acceptable. That was improbable in this case, owing to the technical and behavioural evidence available. AGK  [•] 19:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's how I have always seen it. It's often overlooked that 'editors' also includes 'IP editors', and that we use "anonymous" in an unusual sense, to mean "less anonymous than otherwise"! and it gets used to mean any of 'known/established user' or 'unregistered user' or 'unidentified individual' or 'non-logged in registered user'. So a statement using these words one way, that can reasonably be understood a different way, is an issue. Maybe it's time to phase out "anonymous" unless we really mean "unknown real-world identity", and look for better synonyms of "anonymous" editor and contributing "anonymously"? FT2 (Talk 19:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think my evidence may be relevant
It was about the effects of hostile environments and stereotype threat. It should be relevant to the issues around civility, around finding consensus when one or both sides are flinging accusations, and around how this sort of stress can affect editors' and admins' judgment. It may be too general. Ananiujitha (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For the arbitrators to have findings related to that, though, you would need to supply diffs to illustrate the point (which you didn't do so in your section). Attempts to identify who ABF'd during the RM, however, would be muddled by the fact that you pointed out that there are multiple definitions to the term and people cannot (and probably will not) agree upon one. Obviously, this is my personal observation, but it'd be appreciated if diffs can be provided. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps
 * I don't know how everyone else here does diffs, or how anyone could point to a specific edit and say, here, here this one edit is stereotype threat at work. Ananiujitha (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now the arbs are probably already [all too] aware of how tense situations can blow up. Stereotype threat is just one factor that feeds into that, and one factor that I think could affect the interpretation of that. Ananiujitha (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case, pointing out people's usage of the accusations is doable by linking to the edit that introduced such words. (I'm assuming this is what you're asking). The second part of your answer requires judgment calls and would most likely be harder to find diffs that support that. (You'd need diffs of accusation AND that editor claiming that their usage of the accusation is stereotype threat). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Stereotype threat is an environment, not an action, that puts people under stress. If a given stereotype or stigma comes up, even implicitly, people facing that stereotype or stigma tend to face added stress, making tense situations that much tenser. Ananiujitha (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to provide evidence of actions that creates that environment. Seddon talk 06:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Stereotype threat is a phenomenon first described(?) and certainly most well popularized by noted psychologist Claude Steele. It's not something that can be linked to via diffs that well. If you would like to link to particular sections of the talk page and then write a short, cogent, concise argument making your points, that would be acceptable. NW ( Talk ) 16:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Length of evidence
With all respect, there's no point informing people their evidence is too long ont he day evidence closes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there was plenty of time earlier - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What are you counting words with? My evidence comes out to 1788 in LibreOffice - David Gerard (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My cut-down version measures 1062 words in LibreOffice, what's it measure now to your tool? - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by AlexTiefling, no diffs to support assertions
8k submitted, not a single supporting diff to back any of it up. I'd strenuously object to claims such as "'Tarc has become gradually more confrontational and unreasonable", as I have not personally attacked a person in this debate, nor have I used any strident rhetoric or made aggressive statements. I have laid out a position on Day #1 that has been vocalized no differently than Day #31, or however long this has been running, so you'd need to rule that I've either been confrontational all the time, or none at all. But again, there's no evidence presented to rebut here. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. I'm brand new to this area of wiki-bureaucracy, and take full responsibility for my mistakes. I'm on my mobile now; once back on a desktop I'll pare it down; if I can't find a 'killer diff' my reference to you goes on the cutting room floor. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, down to less than half the original length now. I've reduced my comments about you, Tarc, to an endorsement of an existing statement. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Alex. AGK  [•] 09:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

inappropriate protection
And the page is fully protected, why? The civility enforcement case -- which much more community participation -- evidence page was never protected and no bad things happened. NE Ent 09:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So what happens with the evidence that's too long? Does it get cut off at 1000 words and 100 diffs? - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I froze the evidence page because lately the committee has taken the approach that "late submissions may or may not be viewed". If anyone wishes to append or edit their submissions, they should direct their attention to a clerk or the committee itself.
 * Regarding evidence that's too long: Generally speaking, the clerk will request the editors to trim down on it (concise and precise evidence are easier to follow, after all), but it is not automatically removed. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 10:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The protection is standard procedure in cases that the committee is making a concerted effort to close on-schedule. While I appreciate that this may seem extreme or unnecessary, it is only done when especially necessary, and for now the protection will remain. Parties with important evidence, or a good reason for missing the deadline, can contact a drafter. However, the case has now generally moved on to the drafting/workshopping phase. In the case of excessively lengthy submissions, we may act in a number of ways: the submitting editor may be directed to reduce their word or diff count; a portion of the evidence may be removed; or the entire evidence may be deleted. In all cases, we will as a courtesy inform the editor of what has been done (and requests to submit extra evidence can always be made, though those are rarely granted). Hope this helps,  AGK  [•] 11:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How are we supposed to submit evidence with full protection?
I was about to present evidence of Morwen, David Gerard, and Snowspinner using Twitter to coordinate WP actions only to find the evidence page is fully protected. What's the deal? Cla68 (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You do realize the Evidence phase was scheduled to end on September 19, right? --  tariq abjotu  14:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, when new evidence comes to light, like this Twitter evidence, it doesn't exist? From what I remember during my seven years of WP editing, it takes Arbcom two-to-three months to come to a decision.  If more evidence arises during that time, it doesn't exist? Cla68 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, you ask ArbCom for an extension (and, while you're at it, also the permission to present off-wiki evidence). Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could I please add the diff of the evidence section that was presented by the IP and which was subsequently removed? I'm not sure if I can put the diff here, because within the diff are off-wiki links.  The evidence the IP presented appears to show agenda-driven editing and administrative actions (violation of the NPOV policy, among other things) by three admins who are parties to this case. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ping a clerk. I'd argue that evidence can be objected to or evaluated by Arbcom.  I think the hard dates are in place for time reasons, not to thwart evidence.  Arbcom I'm sure can figure out how much weight to apply to it.  Pedantic and arbitrary barriers are not the intent of the dates.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

To add to the responses above, you also may not present evidence containing material from Twitter, for two reasons: This is over and above the fact that the evidence phase has ended and further submissions may not be made unless (i) the drafters allow it and (ii) the evidence is of particular importance. Hope this helps, AGK  [•] 09:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You have been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&diff=556402621&oldid=556287391 indefinitely banned] from "[posting] external links to any internet site" except in certain limited, mainspace-related circumstances that do not apply here.
 * WP:ARBPOL specifies that "Evidence based on private communications (including, but not limited to, other websites, forums, chat rooms, IRC logs, email correspondence) is admissible only by prior consent of the Committee".
 * Just to clarify, Tweets are not considered "private" are they since they are publicly available? Cla68 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For this case, the committee considers material from Twitter "private communications". Regards, AGK  [•] 10:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * AGK, you can't call an apple an orange and expect to make a decent pie out of it, nor can you run Arbcom so completely out-of-step with the real world, where Twitterers have "no reasonable expectation of privacy". Tarc (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Twitter private? Far from it, I have heard that companies can follow what you do there, so if you want to make snide comments about your boss it ends up biting you in the ass. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not claiming or assuming that Twitter communications have an expectation of privacy. We are stating that, for the purpose of the arbitration policy, the definition of off-wiki communication includes a Tweet – or, more pithily, that off-wiki and private are synonymous. AGK  [•] 19:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll toss in some pithiness as well and request that, in the future, can official statements of Arbcom position not redefine words in ways unheard of in the English speaking world? Tarc (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a new notion that we've just pulled out our bag of tricks. Off-wiki statements have been inadmissible as evidence for a long time (basically because if it wasn't then wikistalking would be encouraged). AGK  [•] 19:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * AGK, if someone links to their personal blog from their WP userpage, that that make the blog admissible as evidence? Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No: the arbitration policy makes no exception for off-wiki material that is disseminated by the subject. AGK  [•] 21:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent Workshop edits introducing new evidence
There's been a pile of edits to the Workshop today which appear to be including new evidence after the evidence deadline, including off-wiki links. Is this usual? - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And Tariqabjotu just added a pile to his, and never mind word limits - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "+ off-wiki (Twitter) evidence, after receiving permission from ArbCom" In other words it looks like Tariq asked and got permission for it. I remember also that not every submission had to be under a word limit and there were exceptions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's fairly usual. We'll attend to the new Workshop submissions as soon as we can. Tariqabjotu's new, late submission was allowed by the committee. AGK  [•] 09:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That evidence was oversighted by Fluffernutter. Could we perhaps get an Arbcom statement as to exactly what's going on, re: this evidence? Tarc (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There was barely anything removed. As the note says, just the link was removed. Nothing really to see here. --  tariq abjotu  01:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, that is good to know. Carry on. :) Tarc (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to echo David's concerns. What is the point of having a separate evidence phase and Evidence page (with strictly enforced word length and diff count limits) when editors can add new evidence with impunity to the Workshop page?


 * Many of the proposed findings of fact there rely on evidence which was introduced along with the proposal (or which was never introduced at all, for that matter, and only referred to obliquely and/or provided much later in the ensuing discussion).


 * A quick check shows that the Workshop page currently contains external links to 89 distinct URLs which do not appear on the evidence page. Over a quarter of these links are to non-Wikipedia web pages.  In many of these cases the newly introduced links to other websites are being used to directly support a proposed finding of fact.  This appears to be in direct violation of Arbitration/Policy.  In some cases the violation appears to be willful, since the contributors were previously warned that submitting new evidence after the deadline and without prior consent is not allowed, and that submitting evidence from external websites is also not allowed.


 * This new and otherwise inadmissible evidence is piling up on the Workshop page at a rather alarming rate. Rather than leaving it there to accumulate and fester, wouldn't it be more sensible to strike or remove it as soon as possible after it's posted?  This would discourage these violations from continuing, and prevent a lot of ultimately useless discussion on proposals that are going to end up removed or disregarded on procedural grounds. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Is this normal of arbitration cases? People slap in a pile of additional evidence mixed into the workshop, which some of the arbitrators in the present case appear to be taking into account? - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, extensions may be granted and off-wiki evidence may be admissible; in this case, speaking personally, I'm interested in that evidence, because it sheds light on the motivations for on-wiki behaviour and shows that off-wiki canvassing may have taken place, all of which is entirely material to the case. Also, the people against whom said evidence is being presented do have the opportunity to rebut it, explain it and comment on it (or to present counterevidence, if needed). I also take into consideration the fact that when an editor publishes a tweet, he doesn't really have an expectation of privacy (especially if he links to his account from his userpage)... So, again, speaking personally, I think that evidence should be admissible, especially considering we are trying to reach a fair solution and it could assist us in achieving that goal. Other arbs may of course disagree, especially the drafters. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that evidence rule no longer applies in this case? - David Gerard (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that; I suggest you re-read my statement. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying it doesn't apply to at least some. Who does it apply to, and who does it not apply to? - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that our evidence rules are designed to be flexible. We are not a court of law, after all. The committee may, on occasion, authorise editors to post evidence which would usually be inadmissible, for instance. This is written in the policy. As far as I'm concerned, to make that decision, I apply a balancing test: is the evidence material to the case at hand?, does it give particularly useful insights that we wouldn't otherwise have?, does it assist in reaching the truth?, did the editor in question have any expectations of privacy? does it contain private material, which should not be disclosed? and others which I'm probably now forgetting. A tweet where, hypothetically, an editor insulted another in a moment of frustration would quite probably be deemed inadmissible; one where a user explained why he did something on-wiki, on the other hand, might be admissible, depending on the circumstances. As I said, the rules are designed to be flexible, so it's not that they are no longer being applied or applicable, just that (and I can't stress it enough that I'm speaking only for myself) I'd vote to consider admissible most of the evidence presented so far. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Salvio, I think you may be overlooking the major issue here. The policy is very clear that off-wiki evidence is admissible only "by prior consent".  And both you and AGK have stated previously on this page that the same basically applies to late evidence (whether or not it's off-wiki).  So if the Committee is, on this occasion, authorizing certain pieces of late and/or off-wiki evidence, then could it please explicitly indicate at its earliest convenience which bits have been authorized, and then remove or strike those which have not?  Some participants on the workshop page are already churning out what are practically novel-length rebuttals and discussion of this evidence, and it's going to turn out to be a huge waste of their time if they find out the evidence was inadmissible all along.  Conversely, there must be certain other editors (well, at least me) who are deliberately refraining from commenting on new evidence which both you and WP:ARBPOL have already said is inadmissible, in the entirely justified expectation that it will be removed or disregarded.  If that new evidence ends up being accepted at the last minute, or after the workshop phase is over, then these participants will have missed an opportunity to support, rebut, correct, clarify, or otherwise comment on it.  I'm not asking for the Arbitration Committee to adhere to the standards of a court of law; I'm just looking for it to apply common sense and common courtesy. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could infer from the fact that, since nothing has been removed in the several days since the matter was first raised here, that it is all admissible. Tarc (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That inference wouldn't follow from previous practice in this case concerning late and off-wiki evidence. In all previous cases of submissions of approved late evidence in this case, there was an explicit statement to the effect that the evidence was approved, by both the submitter and an arbitrator.  The presence of more recent evidence without such explicit approval was queried and the answer was that its admissibility hadn't yet been considered . —Psychonaut (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm getting actually quite creeped out by some of this - especially the trawling up of photos from a WikiMeet 6 years ago (!) that show I was in the same room as User:Thryduulf at one point. Like, what?  Morwen (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The comment to which Morwen refers is additionally the epitome of irrelevance. It alleges that my having met David Gerard and Morwen in person, before Ms Manning was even posted to Iraq, is the reason I proposed that Tariqabjotu should be desysopped. Whatever your views on that proposal, the arbs should make it clear that allegations such as that made by cla68 are not acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Response to Salvio and Cla68

 * I posted on the workshop, but I'll post this here too.


 * Cla68's theory is a conspiracy theory, which goes:
 * We can't philosophically prove a conspiracy didn't happen.
 * Therefore, we should assume the worst conspiracy we can think of could have happened.
 * Therefore, we should assume the worst conspiracy we can think of did happen. Prove it didn't!
 * This is a common mode of argument on the troll sites, where people concoct worst-possible explanations for things and then egg each other on to develop the claimed conspiracy further - as is happening on the workshop page. (Torai, formerly RA's, previously-admitted tag team.)


 * However, it would be a bad mode of argumentation for Wikipedia - "assume the worst possible faith, extrapolate freely from there" - and make a nonsense of the arbitration process.


 * The further problem is that step 2, the conspiracy theory imagined to account for the evidence ... doesn't fit the evidence. The timeline is completely backwards. All the Twitter evidence of a conspiracy is from after Morwen's original move and my BLP action.


 * Further, it is discussion of a matter of tremendous public interest and which is actually important in the wider world - after any action had been taken, and with no further action in progress.


 * Later expressing an opinion on a matter one has acted in does not retrospectively invalidate the action - or Kww's strong opinions on the move on this workshop page would invalidate his decision in the RM.


 * Neither of us took subsequent admin action, or even edited the article much - so claims that there is evidence from after the fact for a "conspiracy" doesn't show anything that's actually conspiratorial action.


 * You and Cla68 are literally demanding I prove a negative, in the face of speculation.


 * The evidence still fails to show that (a) Morwen's original move was in bad faith or unjustified by policy and precedent (b) that my BLP action was in bad faith, unexplained or too conflicted to have been made at all. - David Gerard (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ArbCom should adopt a "Russell's teapot principle" for the burden of proof. Count Iblis (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup edit needed
I am plodding through the error category Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting, and this page is listed. The page needs a trivial fix - there's a stray pair of tags near the top of the page, in the evidence presented by Kurtis. But given the stern warnings at the top of the page, and 's recent edit summary "further edits to this page should not be made for any reason", I'm posting here rather than making the edit myself. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done ;)  Roger Davies  talk 19:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)