Private Manning arbitration

[Vigilant]

Hopefully, we can discuss the ARBCOM case here.

Some very strange things coming out of Sue Gardner's mouth these days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ue_Gardner

Editors who labeled other people's comments as transphobic are not admonished

7) Editors whose comments were labeled as transphobic may disagree with that labeling and be personally offended by it. However, use of the word transphobic to describe another editor’s arguments or views does not constitute a personal attack, and is within the realm of acceptable discourse.

Does that mean that you can call someone's arguments "faggot arguments" or "nigger arguments" and be within the realm of acceptable discourse?
Seems a strange sort of distinction without a difference to call someone's arguments a foul name and not have that be actionable.

When is she leaving again?


I have no idea what this person is actually trying to convey.

DHeyward, if you are objecting to terfs, among other people, being called transphobic, some terfs, among other people, have earned that label, by claiming that "the practice of transsexualism should be morally mandated out of existance," "all transsexuals **** women's bodies," or by outing trans women, or the like. I know someone who was doxxed, and accused of violating wbw space at Michfest, when she had not even attended Michfest. Although the "cotton ceiling" was and is a problematic term, afaik a certain notorious serial doxxer is misrepresenting it. And "autogynephilia" is a fringe theory. Ananiujitha (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is that in the context of a Wikipedia discussion on a talk page, nobody can "earn" an insult. The proper remedy for poor behavior is not an insult based on poor behavior but the proper administrative sanctions based on poor behavior. There are policies for how to deal with someone who behaving in a transphobic or racist or sexist manner, but "calling out" someone that "earned it" is not among them.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

But if someone demonstrates actual transphobia, by even the narrowest definition of the term, then calling them transphobic is not an insult. It's a description, and that's what I meant by saying that some had earned that [description]. DHeyward was complaining about terfs, off-wiki, being called transphobic, so I was pointing out that some of them are transphobic. No two ways about it. Ananiujitha (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand many of the words and understand the overall meaning, but this text eludes rational parsing.

Urban dictionary to the rescue
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TERFs

[Mancunium]

I have no idea what this person is actually trying to convey.

DHeyward, if you are objecting to terfs, among other people, being called transphobic, some terfs, among other people, have earned that label, by claiming that "the practice of transsexualism should be morally mandated out of existance," "all transsexuals **** women's bodies," or by outing trans women, or the like. I know someone who was doxxed, and accused of violating wbw space at Michfest, when she had not even attended Michfest. Although the "cotton ceiling" was and is a problematic term, afaik a certain notorious serial doxxer is misrepresenting it. And "autogynephilia" is a fringe theory. Ananiujitha (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, sure. If the Chelsea Manning case has taught us anything, it is that some terfs are transphobic. Everyone knows that.

It was "autogynephilia" that stumped me. Fortunately. Wikipedia has a very transpositive, yet neutral POV, article to explain it: Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology (T-H-L)

Autogynephilia (/ˌɔːtoʊˌɡaɪnəˈfɪliə/; from Greek “αὐτό-” (self), “γυνή” (woman) and “φιλία” (love) — "love of oneself as a woman") is a term coined in 1989 by Ray Blanchard, to refer to "a man's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman."[12] Alternative terms proposed for this notion include automonosexuality, eonism, and sexo-aesthetic inversion.[28] The DSM-IV-TR includes an essentially equivalent definition, and recognizes autogynephilia as a common occurrence in the transvestic fetishism disorder, but does not classify autogynephilia as a disorder by itself.[29] The paraphilias working group on DSM 5 included autogynephilia and autoandrophilia as subtypes of transvestic disorder, a proposal that was opposed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) due to lack of empirical evidence for the theory.[2][3]

There is also, naturally, autoandrophobia: a condition about which we should all become more aware.

[Cla68]

The elephant in the room of that ArbCom case is that many of the participants, including Sue Gardner, David Gerard, Morwen, and Phil Sandifer are trying to use their positions as insiders or authorities in Wikipedia to advocate for a certain point of view with regards to transgender issues as they relate to the Manning situation. The weird thing is, they aren't even trying to hide or disguise it. They're very open about the fact that they believe using Wikipedia to support their social ideals is the right thing to do.

ArbCom has decided that all their off-wiki comments, including tweets, blog posts, statements to the media, and comments in other Internet forums, are inadmissible as evidence. Therefore, they're probably going to get away with it, except for David Gerard and Phil Sandifer, whose enthusiasm over their agenda carried over into their WP actions. If nothing happens to them, WP's administration is basically saying that activist editing in WP is ok, as long as you don't edit war, abuse administrator tools, or call someone names.

[Tarc]

Yeesh. TERFs? Autogynephilia?

Can't we just go back to when being in drag was funny?

[Zoloft]

They lost me at 'cotton ceiling.' The term reminded me of pillow and sofa cushion forts...
It's... not... like that.
The lesbian I asked about the term laughed for several minutes.
I am now looking for a small plush animal to cuddle.

[Vigilant]

What the hell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... ontroversy

I'm interested to hear from people who considered stopping editing due to the Manning article title controversy

In the discussions about what to name the article about Chelsea Manning, a number of editors have said they've been really unhappy with the way other editors were talking to them --- some, to the point where they said they were considering leaving Wikipedia.

From what I could tell, those expressions of pain and anger mostly got ignored, which struck me as strange. In other communities I'm a part of participants mostly try to avoid hurting each other, and when someone is made upset to the point of quitting, the people who are left behind generally express regret and dismay. Even --or maybe especially-- in cases in which the person who left was in some way unusual or an outlier. I think that's wise: communities have a tendency to narrow over time into groupthink and systemic bias, and diversity safeguards against that.

(This is particularly relevant and important to me because the Wikimedia Foundation has of course identified editor retention as the single biggest problem facing Wikipedia. Our top priority is to attract and retain more editors. And importantly, our research tells us that one of the main reasons people cite for quitting is unpleasant interactions with other editors.)

In thinking about this, I decided I wanted to open a spot on my userpage in which people who'd considered leaving Wikipedia because of the Manning dispute could --if they want to-- tell the story of what happened. What specifically about the way you were treated made you unhappy, and what would've needed to have happened to have fixed it. Is there anything other editors could have said or done. If you kept editing afterwards, what motivated you. What could tip the balance for you in future, either way.

You can name people or quote comments if you want, but for the purposes of this I think it probably makes sense not to --- it risks re-staging the same conversations over here, and also I am most interested in what other people could do to help. FWIW I'm not exactly sure what I'm planning to do with this. But at a minimum, I think it'd be useful reading in terms of helping editors figure out how they can best support their colleagues. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Objection: Leading the witness, your honor!
Bench: Sustained.

That whole section of her talk page is wildly unprofessional for the head of an encyclopedia.
Way, way beyond the pale.

After she moves on, someone can indef her.

[Randy from Boise]

The elephant in the room of that ArbCom case is that many of the participants, including Sue Gardner, David Gerard, Morwen, and Phil Sandifer are trying to use their positions as insiders or authorities in Wikipedia to advocate for a certain point of view with regards to transgender issues as they relate to the Manning situation. The weird thing is, they aren't even trying to hide or disguise it. They're very open about the fact that they believe using Wikipedia to support their social ideals is the right thing to do.

Ex-fucking-zactly!

I'm sick to death of all the Transgressive Heterosteria that the PC Choir has been yodeling for the last four weeks...

Bold-Revert-Discuss is how we do things at WP. Those jackasses think its about Might Makes Right and abuse of power tools for what they perceive as a greater political good.

RfB

[dogbiscuit]

The elephant in the room of that ArbCom case is that many of the participants, including Sue Gardner, David Gerard, Morwen, and Phil Sandifer are trying to use their positions as insiders or authorities in Wikipedia to advocate for a certain point of view with regards to transgender issues as they relate to the Manning situation. The weird thing is, they aren't even trying to hide or disguise it. They're very open about the fact that they believe using Wikipedia to support their social ideals is the right thing to do.

ArbCom has decided that all their off-wiki comments, including tweets, blog posts, statements to the media, and comments in other Internet forums, are inadmissible as evidence. Therefore, they're probably going to get away with it, except for David Gerard and Phil Sandifer, whose enthusiasm over their agenda carried over into their WP actions. If nothing happens to them, WP's administration is basically saying that activist editing in WP is ok, as long as you don't edit war, abuse administrator tools, or call someone names.

Just another reflection of how Wikipedia is a dysfunctional mess, and Sue is doing on transgender what the VE team are doing - "our opinion is right, everyone else is wrong, and we are so clever that we are going to force the issue down your throat."

The WMF crowd are in a big soup of Wikipedianess, feeding back off each other, concentrating the Wikipedia thinking. I think it is another example of how the Wikipedia-think is damaging people's ability to cope with the real world. Wikipedians have created the self-image of being better than the rest of the world, and nobody can tell them otherwise because that would be trolling or uncivil; the natural progression will be for them to get more and more isolated.

Although we have made the cult assertion many times before, I can see the WMF getting so isolated in their thinking that they are becoming the physical embodiment of what was only an online cult. Could these people function away from the WMF without some good, solid deprogramming? What is interesting is that Jimbo, once the cult leader, is not really part of it. I suspect that because he is not immersed in the cult-think he can more and more see that the WMF are going bonkers (and not in a clown sense).

[Lukeno94]

The easiest way to solve the naming dispute? Put the article at "Private Manning".

[Tarc]

The easiest way to solve the naming dispute? Put the article at "Private Manning".

"Split the baby" is never a wise solution.

[Vigilant]

The easiest way to solve the naming dispute? Put the article at "Private Manning".

"Split the baby" is never a wise solution.

It is if you're sick of the argument and don't care what the solution is.

[The Devil's Advocate]

According to Scottywong (T-C-L) and Thryduulf (T-C-L), Cla68 is "stalking" Morwen by reading a public Twitter feed discussing the Manning name dispute.

[Vigilant]

According to Scottywong (T-C-L) and Thryduulf (T-C-L), Cla68 is "stalking" Morwen by reading a public Twitter feed discussing the Manning name dispute.

Poor Scotty Weiser.

Are you still editing your employer's article? On company time? Still an admin?

Ashley van Haeften is very, very jealous of you right now.

[Vigilant]

Wow.

Thryduulf (T-C-L) is kind of a dick.

Tariqabjotu dysysopped

1) For deliberate violation of the BLP policy and gross violation of the standards expected of an administrator, Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is dysysopped. He may only regain the tools following a successful request at WP:RFA a minimum of six months after this case closes.

For a single, good faith, action in a highly divisive situation?
Even MONGO thinks Thryduulf's a dick about this.

[Vigilant]

Starting to look like a witch hunt

Because many of these findings are based on my evidence, I will make one general comment here, rather than repeat myself several times. I broadly agree with most of Newyorkbrad's comments, and believe that admonishments should suffice. Isolated examples of ignorance should be treated differently than consistent and knowing bigotry. My intent with presenting that evidence was to clearly demonstrate that the discussion was fatally compromised by an atmosphere of misunderstanding or overt hostility toward transgender people, and thus should not be considered as a fair expression of community consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Magnanimous of you.

[Hex]

Can't we

No.

[Randy from Boise]

ArbCom should never have taken this case, as was clear from the outset.

It's patently obvious at this point, probably even to Tarc, that the title should be Chelsea Manning with a redirect from Bradley Manning from the time that the Associated Press made this official style and sent out a notice of such to its member newspapers on Aug. 26.

As far as the case goes, after about a million wasted words there will probably be some sort of bland decision issued which does or does not commit to the central question of whether BLP trumps COMMONNAME and which topic bans about a dozen people, including most definitely Baseball Bugs.

I hope and presume that Gerard will lose tools.

Outside of that, this is all just a big waste of time — which should have been predicted weeks ago.

No matter what they do, ArbCom has failed by taking a case about a content dispute in the first place.

RfB

[Vigilant]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that Sue Gardner, head of WMF, jumped into an ARBCOM case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =574276167

Doesn't that expose them to section 230 liability issues?

[Tarc]

ArbCom should never have taken this case, as was clear from the outset.

Ultimately, the issue of Manning herself is besides the point. What I want to see Arbcom deal with here is the question of what does one do with a calmly-worded, non-emotive, argument of

"I am free to decline to refer to a person by names and pronouns that do not match with what they are, in my opinion, biologically."

Some feel that that is inherently and undeniably transphobic, a few even go as far as calling it discriminatory and "hate speech". Others see it more as a right to an opinion.

Which way does Arbcom go?

[Zoloft]

ArbCom should never have taken this case, as was clear from the outset.

Ultimately, the issue of Manning herself is besides the point. What I want to see Arbcom deal with here is the question of what does one do with a calmly-worded, non-emotive, argument of

"I am free to decline to refer to a person by names and pronouns that do not match with what they are, in my opinion, biologically."

Some feel that that is inherently and undeniably transphobic, a few even go as far as calling it discriminatory and "hate speech". Others see it more as a right to an opinion.

Which way does Arbcom go?

They will have a meeting of minds and thoughtfully consider all the alternatives.

Then they will screw this up.

[tarantino]

Wow.

Thryduulf (T-C-L) is kind of a dick.

Tariqabjotu dysysopped

1) For deliberate violation of the BLP policy and gross violation of the standards expected of an administrator, Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is dysysopped. He may only regain the tools following a successful request at WP:RFA a minimum of six months after this case closes.

For a single, good faith, action in a highly divisive situation?
Even MONGO thinks Thryduulf's a dick about this.

Thryduulf is another longtime friend of Morwen.

Description     English: The hand of God Morwen.
     Photograph taken by me (Chris McKenna) 2005-03-26.
Author     Thryduulf at en.wikipedia

[Tippi Hadron]

Wow.

Thryduulf (T-C-L) is kind of a dick.

Tariqabjotu dysysopped

1) For deliberate violation of the BLP policy and gross violation of the standards expected of an administrator, Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is dysysopped. He may only regain the tools following a successful request at WP:RFA a minimum of six months after this case closes.

For a single, good faith, action in a highly divisive situation?
Even MONGO thinks Thryduulf's a dick about this.

Thryduulf is another longtime friend of Morwen.

Description     English: The hand of God Morwen.
     Photograph taken by me (Chris McKenna) 2005-03-26.
Author     Thryduulf at en.wikipedia

Hand of god indeed (03:18). :(

[The Devil's Advocate]

It seems in one blog post Morwen was claiming to be getting blackmail threats. The actual e-mails don't really indicate that as it appears to just be asking Morwen to disclose a "personal interest" in the case that is not mentioned. One could take it as being a threat of "outing", but Morwen's identity is no secret, unless the "outing" would be of Morwen's previous name.

[Midsize Jake]

It seems in one blog post Morwen was claiming to be getting blackmail threats. The actual e-mails don't really indicate that as it appears to just be asking Morwen to disclose a "personal interest" in the case that is not mentioned. One could take it as being a threat of "outing", but Morwen's identity is no secret, unless the "outing" would be of Morwen's previous name.

I hate to admit this, but it actually would be better if Ms. Brady would mention on her user page that she's a transgendered person, given that she has indeed accused various people of "transphobia." She certainly shouldn't have to if she hadn't been making such accusations, of course.

Also, isn't there a better word than "transphobia" to describe people who aren't actually afraid of transgenderism, or TG people in general, but still take a dim view of the whole business? The "phobia" suffix is just too connotative, and they're shooting themselves in the collective foot by insisting on it. "Cissexism" seems more accurate, but as a word it doesn't have much conversational "zing," and it's sort of hard to pronounce too... Personally, I'd go with "transbasher" or "gender-reactionary." I suspect Mr. Usher would feel a bit less insulted by either of those, and who knows - he might even be willing to stop sending those e-mails too, at least for a little while.

[Tarc]

Personally, I'd go with "transbasher"

Yea, a term that implies physical violence is ever-so-much better.

[Vigilant]

It's all very strange that Ashley van Haeften can rightly be called out for calling people homophobes without evidence, but calling people transphobes without evidence is just fine for casual use in an ARBCOM case.

Hey ARBCOM,
You know this makes you guys looks like hypocritical morons, right?
I guess being gay doesn't hav3 quite the same cachet as trans right now.

[thekohser]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that Sue Gardner, head of WMF, jumped into an ARBCOM case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =574276167

Doesn't that expose them to section 230 liability issues?

Only if someone related to Chelsea Manning wishes to the sue the Wikimedia Foundation about what Gardner posted.

[Vigilant]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that Sue Gardner, head of WMF, jumped into an ARBCOM case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =574276167

Doesn't that expose them to section 230 liability issues?

Only if someone related to Chelsea Manning wishes to the sue the Wikimedia Foundation about what Gardner posted.

I mean from a "Head of the organization trying to control content on the site" type of liability.
Doesn't Section 230 disallow having both immunity and site content control in most cases?

[thekohser]

I mean from a "Head of the organization trying to control content on the site" type of liability.
Doesn't Section 230 disallow having both immunity and site content control in most cases?

That is not my interpretation of what case law has guided. Gardner would cripple the Wikimedia Foundation's immunity if she were, for example, editing Wikipedia with comments that would encourage others to libel and defame people on Wikipedia. But, an online host who tries to control the site's content for the overall improvement of the content would not typically be jeopardizing Section 230 protection.

[Vigilant]

I mean from a "Head of the organization trying to control content on the site" type of liability.
Doesn't Section 230 disallow having both immunity and site content control in most cases?

That is not my interpretation of what case law has guided. Gardner would cripple the Wikimedia Foundation's immunity if she were, for example, editing Wikipedia with comments that would encourage others to libel and defame people on Wikipedia. But, an online host who tries to control the site's content for the overall improvement of the content would not typically be jeopardizing Section 230 protection.

[Vigilant]

Here's a guy making some sense on the workshop page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... e/Workshop

The BLP claims are hollow. As far as I know, the only gender ever explicitly expressed by Manning have been female. Her chat logs bear that out and they have been public for over a year. Why a new verbal statement is somehow different than the old verbal statements and suddenly makes this a BLP issue is a threadbare argument. No one tuned in to the gender aspect of this case believes she has expressed anything but female since before her arrest. Manning didn't know if she was a cross-dresser or transgender until her deployment put her under stress (this is in her chats with Lamo). That was clear three years ago in May 2010. Deliberately changing the article and claiming BLP when she was sentenced and getting maximum attention reeks of activism, especially when coupled with activist statements. It didn't become a gender identity BLP problem because of her Today show statement if it wasn't one when the chat logs came out. The BLP argument was used as a secondary defense to the charge that Wikipedia was being used as a tool to push an agenda to make "transgender" the main issue. It easily could have waited until the sentence hysteria passed before proposing a move but that would have missed the opportunity to exploit her situation for a cause. Those editors got the media attention they sought, made their statements and moved on. Let's stop pretending that the real reason was an immediate BLP concern for Chelsea Manning a week after the media interviews ended and three years after she expressed her gender identity. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You really don't see a difference between statements made in what she presumed were private chat logs and a statement made to the Today show? Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think people well versed in the topic read the chat logs and multiple doctor accounts, the accounts of her presenting herself in public as female outside the army prior to deployment (and "passing"), discussing hormones and hair removal, and her saying she had gender identity disorder and it was confirmed by her doctor and lawyer during court testimony well over a year ago wasn't enough? Please tell me when you learned the name Breanna but didn't believe it meant she was female despite her statement and her doctors. Can you point to any statements she made where she didn't express her gender as female? Certainly nothing since she said she was female in 2010. You don't think she magically changed overnight or that this change in her gender happened when her lawyer read the statement, do you? Are you telling us that Morwen and David didn't believe she was female until the press release? Or that the WP article wasn't harmful until then? The truth is this has been known for over a year without any BLP issues. The real tragedy is that she was the most vulnerable in 2010 when she threatened to shoot herself in the chat log over it and you're defending the position that it was really only an issue after the Today show announcement. If it was a BLP issue and "harmful", it's been one for a while. But in fact it's not and it's farfetched to argue that persons so knowledgeable wouldn't have made the BLP argument just as strongly a year ago when the chat logs came out and mentioned suicide a la Lucy Meadows. Sorry, it doesn't hold any water to claim it only when it's expedient to explain activist agenda's couched in policy. This move had nothing to do with protecting Chelsea Manning from a BLP violation. --DHeyward (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

His argument is sound and makes Morven and David Gerard look very foolish and very guilty of blatant activism.
I don't see how either of them keep the tools at this point.

[thekohser]

I don't see how either of them keep the tools at this point.

You don't? I do. But maybe I've been around Wikipedia longer than you have.

[Randy from Boise]

I don't see how either of them keep the tools at this point.

You don't? I do. But maybe I've been around Wikipedia longer than you have.

I think it's gonna be a split decision: Gerard, who was more aggressive and who clearly wheel-warred, will lose the gear. The simple tool-using POV warrior Morwen will get a lecture.

RfB

[Tarc]

It's all very strange that Ashley van Haeften can rightly be called out for calling people homophobes without evidence, but calling people transphobes without evidence is just fine for casual use in an ARBCOM case.

Oh ho ho, I'd quite forgotten about that case, and I contributed a fair bit to it.

I think I may see some material for a last-minute Workshop filing...

[EricBarbour]

I mean from a "Head of the organization trying to control content on the site" type of liability.
Doesn't Section 230 disallow having both immunity and site content control in most cases?

That is not my interpretation of what case law has guided. Gardner would cripple the Wikimedia Foundation's immunity if she were, for example, editing Wikipedia with comments that would encourage others to libel and defame people on Wikipedia. But, an online host who tries to control the site's content for the overall improvement of the content would not typically be jeopardizing Section 230 protection.

Off topic, but this is why, if you dislike the way Wikipedia is run, you should be finding ways to poke holes in its Section 230 immunity.

Free advice: start with WMF contractor/employee/whatsis Pete Forsyth.

[Anroth]

Section 230 allows the WMF editorial control as well as freedom from liability. At least until someone tests it in court......

[Jim]

It's all very strange that Ashley van Haeften can rightly be called out for calling people homophobes without evidence, but calling people transphobes without evidence is just fine for casual use in an ARBCOM case.

Oh ho ho, I'd quite forgotten about that case, and I contributed a fair bit to it.

I think I may see some material for a last-minute Workshop filing...

Do.

[Midsize Jake]

Section 230 allows the WMF editorial control as well as freedom from liability. At least until someone tests it in court......

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, please. Section 230 doesn't "allow" the WMF "editorial control" or anything else. The courts have interpreted it in such a way that they can set broad policy guidelines, limit access, and some other things without being automatically deemed a "publisher" - but as you say, how far they can go with that has not been adequately tested. And it doesn't allow freedom from liability either - at least not all of it; the courts have interpreted it to mean they can't be held liable for what their users post the way traditional publishers can (thus making it grossly unfair to traditional publishers), but they're still liable for whatever they post themselves.

That's why every single WMF staff user page says "whatever I post is my personal opinion and not that of the WMF," as if this would indemnify them in every possible case where a WMF staffer posts something nasty, like recommending that someone stab their girlfriend in the neck with a pen. My guess is that it would not indemnify them in any number of case scenarios, but so far they've somehow managed to avoid being sued for libel over something posted by a staff member. (Probably just a matter of time...)

I know I keep harping on this, but people keep talking about Section 230 as if it's some sort of ironclad pillar of protection for website operators, when it's actually nothing of the sort. All (and not just "nearly all," but all) of the protections it currently affords website operators under the CDA are based on judicial interpretation and some very thin (IMO) precedents in case law. More importantly, all of it could be reversed with a single court decision, though I'll admit that at this point it would probably have to be a SCOTUS decision - and that it isn't likely to happen soon.

[Vigilant]

David Gerard has officially lost his mind.

4.10 Proposals by David Gerard

4.10.1 Proposed principles
4.10.1.1 Offensive commentary
4.10.1.2 Perceived harassment
4.10.1.3 Means of contributing
4.10.1.4 Biographies of living persons
4.10.1.5 Application of the BLP policy
4.10.1.6 The BLP policy requires immediatism, not eventualism
4.10.1.7 Special BLP enforcement
4.10.1.8 User conduct
4.10.1.9 Casting aspersions
4.10.1.10 Tone during disputes
4.10.1.11 Tariqabjotu's understanding of BLP is grossly defective.
4.10.1.12 Badgering by Tariqabjotu
4.10.1.13 Personal attacks by Tariqabjotu
4.10.1.14 Admitted tag-teaming by Tóraí
4.10.2 Proposed remedies
4.10.2.1 Commendation to requested move closers in this case
4.10.2.2 Tariqabjotu shall not take administrative actions on any article relating to a living person
4.10.2.3 Tariqabjotu banned for one month

The sound of a desperate man trying to shift blame elsewhere.

What a douche.

[Vigilant]

Also, its wikipediocracy's fault this is happening

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 this page.

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.

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) 08:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

LOOK! OVER THERE!!!

A TROLL!!!

Don't desysop meeeeeeeee!!

[Vigilant]

I thought of you guys.

[Midsize Jake]

The "workshop" page is a good example of why Wikipedia is ruined by Wikipedians and their egos and inferiority complexes. It's not a "conspiracy" if it's just two, or even three, people getting together (online, offline, or wherever) to do something that others might object to. The word "conspiracy" should be reserved for something far more extensive, grander, than that. Various people on the page in question point this out numerous times, but Dave ignores them, insisting that they're talking about a "conspiracy theory." Dave actually wants them to think of it that way because it makes him appear much more important and "powerful" than he actually is, even as he ridicules others for supposedly thinking he's that important and powerful, which they almost certainly do not.

The end-result is that the participants become mired in a dispute over who did what, when, with whom, why, and how serious a violation was this, and who else might have been involved, ad nauseam - while the central issues are largely ignored, because they don't sufficiently contribute to the self-aggrandizement and ego-reinforcement of the "accused parties."

[Randy from Boise]

Congratulations to ArbCom!!!

This idiotic case — which never should have been started — has just gone over 1,000,000 bytes of blather on the Workshop page alone. It's a real monument to ArbCom's ongoing efforts to transform WP into a useless time-sink.

That's the equivalent of 50 very substantial 20,000 character articles flushed down the crapper.

To this can be added approximated 485,000 characters of text on the other five pages associated with the case. So please do add another 20+ substantial articles worth of dearth to the dung heap.

Of course, the underlying issue behind this case can't be solved by ArbCom at all, since it is a content matter.

Huzzah!

RfB

Let's review the names of the six International SuperGeniuses who voted to accept this case, for the record:

AGK (T-C-L)
Courcelles (T-C-L)
Kirill Lokshin (T-C-L)
NuclearWarfare (T-C-L)
Roger Davies (T-C-L)
Salvio giuliano (T-C-L)

Pat yourselves on the back, heroes!

[TungstenCarbide]

Congratulations to ArbCom!!!

This idiotic case — which never should have been started — has just gone over 1,000,000 bytes of blather on the Workshop page alone...

does that mean it can't be edited with VE?

[Randy from Boise]

Congratulations to ArbCom!!!

This idiotic case — which never should have been started — has just gone over 1,000,000 bytes of blather on the Workshop page alone...

does that mean it can't be edited with VE?

Can you imagine how badly Flow is gonna melt down the first time ArbCom pitches the tent for another circus?

RfB

[dogbiscuit]

Congratulations to ArbCom!!!

This idiotic case — which never should have been started — has just gone over 1,000,000 bytes of blather on the Workshop page alone...

does that mean it can't be edited with VE?

[dogbiscuit]

Congratulations to ArbCom!!!

This idiotic case — which never should have been started — has just gone over 1,000,000 bytes of blather on the Workshop page alone...

does that mean it can't be edited with VE?

Can you imagine how badly Flow is gonna melt down the first time ArbCom pitches the tent for another circus?

RfB

Can you imagine trying to set up an ArbCom page using Flow?

Still, at least it'll encourage all the newbies to join in the fun.

[Randy from Boise]

Congratulations to ArbCom!!!

This idiotic case — which never should have been started — has just gone over 1,000,000 bytes of blather on the Workshop page alone...

does that mean it can't be edited with VE?

Feel free to file a bug report if it can't be edited... We don't want to disenfranchise the all-important novice editors.

RfB

[Tarc]

And we're off to the races!

Early gems include Kiril voting to topic ban Daniel32708 (T-C-L), whose entire WIkipedia history consists of a single comment in the Manning debate, while opposing a topic ban for Josh Gorand...

[Randy from Boise]

TL;DR Summary

Gerard skates.

Moral: "Administrative Tool Abuse in Defense of Official House Point Of View is Always Okay. Love, —Arbcom."

RfB