Wikipediocracy

The Devil's Advocate wrote:...and "Either Wikipedia allows transphobic bigotry or it doesn't. I hope it doesn't. So far as I can tell, you and several others hope it does."

DanMurphy wrote:On the other hand, Sandifer sounds like a paranoid little lefty git.

EricBarbour wrote:

DanMurphy wrote:On the other hand, Sandifer sounds like a paranoid little lefty git.

Phil is one of Wikipedia's worst people, in all its history.
The premium Wikipedian, complete with an obsession with Doctor Who.
PM me and I'll be happy to tell you more.

Do you realize that the Manning workshop page is now one of the longest arbitration pages in history? 1.1 megabytes.
I haven't checked but it might hold the all-time record. What an asinine case.

The Guardian wrote: A long-running argument over whether the Wikileaks source should be called ‘Bradley’ or ‘Chelsea’ Manning in Wikipedia has caused a split amongst some of its most senior editors.

The Arbitration Committee - in effect the site’s Supreme Court - has banned a number of editors from working on articles related to transgender topics or individuals. But while some of those editors were banned for making transphobic comments about Manning, others were given the same punishment for pointing out the bigotry in the first place.

As a result, the site been criticised by Trans Media Watch for implying that accusations of transphobia are as bad as actual incidents of transphobia.

The Committee’s statements were sparked by an heated argument between editors on the site over whether the article for Chelsea Manning, the Wikileaks source, should exist under her preferred name or under “Bradley Manning”, the name she was using before she came out as transgender in August 2013.

The Arbitration Committee, a group of senior editors elected by and from Wikipedia’s pool of volunteers which acts as the community’s court of last resort, was called in to make the final decision on which name should be at the top of Manning’s page. It also ruled on the behaviour of several editors who had taken part in the debate.

Two were indefinitely banned from editing “all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual” over discriminatory speech. One, Hitmonchan, had written that “only when his testicles are ripped out of his scrotum... will I call Manning a 'she'”, and the second, IFreedom1212, wrote, among other comments, that “he is clearly mentally unstable and his... desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit".

But other editors were also banned from editing trans-related articles for making accusations of transphobia. One of the banned editors, Josh Gorand, argued that Wikipedia’s requirement for consensus isn’t the only one on the site, and that the rules governing biographies of living persons, one of which is to use their preferred name, should also be taken into account. “Especially not a ‘consensus’ of virulently transphobic people who completely ignore Wikipedia policy. We don't move articles because some people hate transgendered people, it's that simple.”

That statement was one of four cited by the Committee to demonstrate that Gorand was exhibiting a “battleground approach to the discussion” and justify banning Gorand indefinitely from editing articles about any transgender topic or individual.

“We feel that Wikipedia's banning of certain editors for calling people transphobic reflects a wider cultural problem whereby identifying someone is prejudiced is seen as worse than being prejudiced,” said Trans Media Watch in response to the bans. “If the Arbitration Committee thinks that 'transphobe' is a slur, it might want to reflect on why that is.”
We feel that Wikipedia's banning of certain editors for calling people transphobic reflects a wider cultural problem whereby identifying someone is prejudiced is seen as worse than being prejudiced,” said Trans Media Watch in response to the bans. “If the Arbitration Committee thinks that 'transphobe' is a slur, it might want to reflect on why that is.”

“We would like to see Wikipedia demonstrate more self awareness in its approach to social issues and more consistency in its treatment of cases like this. There are hundreds of pages on Wikipedia about notable people known by names other than their first names, yet we don't see this kind of fuss made in relation to those about, say, George Osborne or Jodie Foster, or even other trans people like Chaz Bono, who was also well known to the public under a different name.”

Following Manning’s announcement, a heated argument broke out on the talk page of her article, where editors discuss potential changes. Wikipedia’s administrators, who are all elected from the general pool of editors on the site, decided that there wasn’t enough consensus for the page to be moved, and locked it under the name “Bradley Manning”, pending a decision from the Arbitration Committee.

But the editor who made initially moved the page to Chelsea Manning, Morwen, argues that Wikipedia needs editors to make quick unilateral changes if it is to effectively cover living people. “The ruling has weakened our Biographies of Living People policy,” she says. “It will make editors more reluctant to take definitive action to remove libel, for example. This can't be a good thing.”

"Personally, I don't think I'm going to be editing about trans stuff in the future.”

Author and Wikipedia editor Philip Sandifer, who was also involved in the argument, criticised the site’s rules for being “a techno-libertarian fantasy”.

“The arbitration committee… looked at both sides of this debate and made the unequivocal decision that, in a debate between people trying to think seriously about the ethical considerations involved in being one of the largest websites in the world and a bunch of techno-libertarians playing WikiRules, the real problem was all the uppity trans activists,” Sandifer argued in an angry blog post.

Wikipedia has long been criticised for having an overwhelmingly homogeneous group of editors. In 2011, co-founder Jimmy Wales described the typical Wikipedia editor as a 26-year-old geeky male with a PhD; the site’s own research found that 90% of editors are male. A survey from 2011 found that fewer than 1% of editors self-identified as trans. The survey did not, however, offer editors the abilty to describe themselves as “trans” and “male” or “female” at the same time, which may have skewed the results.

Randy from Boise wrote:

EricBarbour wrote: Do you realize that the Manning workshop page is now one of the longest arbitration pages in history? 1.1 megabytes.
I haven't checked but it might hold the all-time record. What an asinine case.

Remember, that's only one of 6 pages associated with the case. The total tops 1.5 million bytes (1 byte = 1 character of text).

everyking wrote:How does the ArbCom normally deal with people who post other people's personal information?

everyking wrote:How does the ArbCom normally deal with people who post other people's personal information?

1) Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance.

Administrators should counsel editors that fail to comply with BLP policy on specific steps that they can take to improve their editing in the area, and should ensure that such editors are warned of the consequences of failing to comply with this policy. Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary.

This does not preclude the use of emergency measures where necessary, and all administrators are explicitly authorized to take such measures at their own discretion.

Hex wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:

EricBarbour wrote: Do you realize that the Manning workshop page is now one of the longest arbitration pages in history? 1.1 megabytes.
I haven't checked but it might hold the all-time record. What an asinine case.

Remember, that's only one of 6 pages associated with the case. The total tops 1.5 million bytes (1 byte = 1 character of text).

Chickenfeed.

Main page: 110 KB
...talk: 403 KB
Evidence: 248 KB
...talk: 108 KB
Workshop: 891 KB
...talk: 250 KB
Proposed decision: 425 KB
...talk: 35 KB

Total: 2.41 MB

I never, ever, ever want to experience anything like that again.

Cla68 wrote:I tried to fix the link to the Guardian article in Mancunium's post, but I think I made a hash of it.

Mancunium wrote:

Cla68 wrote:I tried to fix the link to the Guardian article in Mancunium's post, but I think I made a hash of it.

Thanks for trying, Cla. Sorry if I bungled it.

Chelsea Manning name row: Wikipedia editors banned from trans pages
The Guardian, 24 October 2013: link

Mancunium wrote:Does Jimmy Wales really think that the typical Wikipedia editor is a PhD? Really?

Zoloft wrote:

Mancunium wrote:

Cla68 wrote:I tried to fix the link to the Guardian article in Mancunium's post, but I think I made a hash of it.

Thanks for trying, Cla. Sorry if I bungled it.

Chelsea Manning name row: Wikipedia editors banned from trans pages
The Guardian, 24 October 2013: link

Fixed in original post now.

should have been removed; the story is in the inner

. Perhaps an admin would be kind enough to fix it. My only excuse is that my work is often interrupted, as it was several times today, making me hit 'submit' before I've properly reviewed a post.

The Guardian article has links to the various WP pages mentioned, and is an excellent overview of the Bradley BLP story.

Mancunium wrote:One of the most disgraceful things about Wikipedia is that its administration is hysterical about the personal information of its creepy anonymous editors, but doesn't give a damn about the personal information of its subjects

SB_Johnny wrote:

Mancunium wrote:Does Jimmy Wales really think that the typical Wikipedia editor is a PhD? Really?

Let alone 26 years old with a PhD. Unless it's a degree from a crackerjack box, you probably wouldn't get a doctorate at 26 if you wasted any time playing around on WP.

The Joy wrote:

SB_Johnny wrote:

Mancunium wrote:Does Jimmy Wales really think that the typical Wikipedia editor is a PhD? Really?

Let alone 26 years old with a PhD. Unless it's a degree from a crackerjack box, you probably wouldn't get a doctorate at 26 if you wasted any time playing around on WP.

Well, Essjay (T-C-L) did.

EricBarbour wrote:Anyone wanna see some fresh-baked cookies? They relate to this thread, strangely enough.

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:Anyone wanna see some fresh-baked cookies? They relate to this thread, strangely enough.

Do these cookies believe they are actually muffins and demand to be treated as such?

Cla68 wrote:

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:Anyone wanna see some fresh-baked cookies? They relate to this thread, strangely enough.

Do these cookies believe they are actually muffins and demand to be treated as such?

If you don't, you are engaging in hatespeak. I think I'm going to start telling every editor in WP who disagrees with me that they are engaging in hatespeak. It appears that this is the best course of action to persuade people to accept your position on any particular topic.

Randy from Boise wrote:

Cla68 wrote:

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:Anyone wanna see some fresh-baked cookies? They relate to this thread, strangely enough.

Do these cookies believe they are actually muffins and demand to be treated as such?

If you don't, you are engaging in hatespeak. I think I'm going to start telling every editor in WP who disagrees with me that they are engaging in hatespeak. It appears that this is the best course of action to persuade people to accept your position on any particular topic.

Feel free to carry on, ArbCom has your back...

RfB

EricBarbour wrote:

cookies.png

everyking wrote:It's pretty interesting. Cla68 was accused of "outing"--falsely, it seems--and was blocked for a good long while. Remember? But then somebody actually does that to Cla68--actually, deliberately posts his personal information--and nothing is done about it. If this is something the ArbCom takes so seriously, why doesn't it enforce the policy consistently?

translation:

Chelsea Manning: five Wikipedia users banned for transphobia

Manning has requested to be known as a woman, and to be named Chelsea. Her request was discussed at length within the Wikipedia community of editors. Some refused to change her personal page on the site. But the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee finally decided that the names of people - just like people themselves - can change, and it validated the "Chelsea Manning" page in its English-language version. It also decided to ban five editors from "all pages related to transgender issues", for transphobic comments posted on the site.

An example of transphobic message from one editor: "He is clearly mentally unstable, and his latest comments and his desire to be called Chelsea should not be taken into consideration before his words are supported by concrete actions."

Note that the French Wikipedia page still uses the pronoun "he" and still refers to "Bradley Manning" in its title.

Bradley Edward Manning (ou Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, selon son souhait1) est un analyste militaire de l'armée des États-Unis de nationalité américano-britannique2, né le 17 décembre 1987 à Crescent, Oklahoma (États-Unis). Après avoir transmis à WikiLeaks différents documents militaires classifiés, il a été condamné le 21 août 2013 à trente-cinq ans de prison.

[...]

Le 22 août 2013, Manning demande publiquement qu'on l'appelle Chelsea Manning13,14 et compte demander un changement d'identité conformément à son genre1. Néanmoins, la plupart des médias continuent d'utiliser le prénom Bradley, utilisé depuis le début de l'affaire15. Manning dit s'attendre à ce que l'évocation des évènements ayant eu lieu avant son annonce puisse se faire encore avec le nom de Bradley1.

translation:

Bradley Edward Manning (or Chelsea Elizabeth Manning as he prefers to be known) ...

On 22 August 2013 Manning publicly requested be known as Chelsea Manning, and he intends to have his identity changed to conform with his gender. However, most of the media continue to use the name Bradley, which has been used since the beginning of the affair. Manning has said that he expects that any mention of his history, prior to his announcement, can still be made using the name Bradley.

Mancunium wrote:

But the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee finally decided that the names of people - just like people themselves - can change, and it validated the "Chelsea Manning" page in its English-language version.

Mancunium wrote:It would be too depressing to check out what the other-language Wikipedias have to say.

Mason wrote:Wikidata gives a handy summary of which Wikipedias use the old and new names for Manning. Judging from the ones using Latin alphabets, it seems to be running about half and half.

Poetlister wrote:

everyking wrote:Everyking, you've been around long enough to know the answer to that one!

everyking wrote:

Poetlister wrote:

everyking wrote:Everyking, you've been around long enough to know the answer to that one!

I wonder what you have to do to get one of these special "get out of jail free" cards.

Vigilant wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:

Cla68 wrote:

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:Anyone wanna see some fresh-baked cookies? They relate to this thread, strangely enough.

Do these cookies believe they are actually muffins and demand to be treated as such?

If you don't, you are engaging in hatespeak. I think I'm going to start telling every editor in WP who disagrees with me that they are engaging in hatespeak. It appears that this is the best course of action to persuade people to accept your position on any particular topic.

Feel free to carry on, ArbCom has your back...

RfB

Bakeryphobe!!

DanMurphy wrote:

UPDATE 10/23: So, I woke up to find this in my e-mail box:

Please contact the Arbitration Committee to explain why you have posted personal, non-public information about another contributor on your personal blog. This blog post has direct ramifications on the project, and may put you in gross violation of the project's norms and policies.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Anthony (AGK)

Ooooh... Sounds like we gotta baddass over here!

On the other hand, Sandifer sounds like a paranoid little lefty git.

The reason why I did this should be straightforward and obvious: it's in the public interest to know that employees of the US Military are attempting to covertly influence the tone and direction of Wikipedia's coverage of Chelsea Manning. I am not attempting to assert some sort of conspiracy - I'm sure that Ainsworth was acting on his own initiative, and that it's merely that his values align with those of his employer. However this does not change the fact that he is employed by the institution currently imprisoning Chelsea Manning and denying her medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria, and that he is hypocritically trying to influence Wikipedia's coverage of this from behind a pseudonym while decrying other people for their conflicts of interest.

DanMurphy wrote:Sandifer was banninated!... By the Starter's Chamber, with young master AGK delivering the coup de disgrace.

The difference is, of course, the banning arbitrators hang out on Wikipediocracy - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

DanMurphy wrote:Mr. Gerard would like to give a shout out to the people really pulling the strings.

The difference is, of course, the banning arbitrators hang out on Wikipediocracy - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Roger Davies, AGK, Timotheus Canens, Salvio giuliano, WormThatTurned, Newyorkbrad, SilkTork

DanMurphy wrote:Mr. Gerard would like to give a shout out to the people really pulling the strings.

The difference is, of course, the banning arbitrators hang out on Wikipediocracy - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I recall how I was banned from Citizendium ... three years after the last of my 10 edits there. For comments about CZ made on another site. The intention was not, of course, to send me a message - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 wrote:As I expected, he does read us even though he apparently holds us in contempt. Common theme.

Anyway, I have always been careful not to discuss the nature of my work or my organization of employment on the Internet or exactly where I live. I haven't seen the links that Mathsci, Phil, and David Gerard, among others, apparently used to find out where I lived and worked. I would like to know so I can see how they did it.

I have, for what it's worth, appealed the ban to Jimmy Wales.

DanMurphy wrote:More Gerard - I share this one because I can't make heads nor tails of it:

I recall how I was banned from Citizendium ... three years after the last of my 10 edits there. For comments about CZ made on another site. The intention was not, of course, to send me a message - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I mean, I get that he's saying that the bannination! of this Sandifer construct is meant to frighten off the other chickens from pecking at the identities of other chickens. But, well, Citizendium (is that even how that children's crusade spelled its name? I don't remember)? Does this mean that he thinks there's some kind of dangerous conspiracy to enforce what Wikipedia has claimed was some kind of important "rule" by dangerous outside subversives? And the allusion to Citizendium proves it? That it's wrong to use punishment to deter community misbehavior? Or is it simply paranoid (or, less charitably, manipulative) rambling by a master of the Wikipedian Dark Arts? I really couldn't say.