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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Temporary discretionary sanctions

1) The articles "Bradley Manning", "United States v. Manning", and "Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage" are placed under standard discretionary sanctions for the duration of the case. Unless otherwise provided for in the final decision, any sanction imposed pursuant to this injunction will automatically lapse upon the closure of the case.

Enacted on 23:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Support:

1. Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 22:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
2. It's probably superfluous, considering we already have WP:BLPBAN, but it certainly can't hurt. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
5. AGK [•] 23:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
6. Although with the calming of tensions and tempers in recent days, I hope that sanctioning anyone will not be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 02:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
8. And for any administrator who happens to be reading this: yes, that means please feel to take affirmative action and we will try our best to back you. NW (Talk) 02:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Moratorium on move discussions extended

2) The moratorium on move discussions concerning the article "Bradley Manning" is extended until October 14 or the closing of this case, whichever occurs first.

Support:

1. Proposed. Kirill ^[talk] 00:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Willing to support this. As Newyorkbrad mentions, the recency of the event has faded, allowing us to hope that a future discussion won't be like the last. But I see no reason to conclude that it will go well when everyone who is participating in the discussion knows ArbCom is voting on a parallel decision. We are not mobile enough to handle disruptive case participants with temporary injunctions, and one thing that I think we should learn from this case is that administrators are reluctant to use discretionary sanctions when they think ArbCom is already looking into the matter. NW (Talk) 13:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per my comments when declining the case. In particular: "a full arbitration case has the potential to prolong matters needlessly" and "If a case does open, there may be calls (from arbitrators and case participants) for motions from the committee stating that any future renaming discussion is to be delayed until the case has ended - I am not convinced ArbCom has the authority to do this." If the concern is that some of the current case participants may degrade any move discussion, then we should focus on injunctions banning them from such discussions, rather than prolonging matters until the case is concluded. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. I do not see why delaying the renewed RM discussion would be helpful. The article right now is at a controversial title (and a title to which, if the proposed decision posted by Kirill is adopted, we would find it was improperly moved back to); this injunction would freeze it at that title for, realistically, at least a week and possibly two. The original noticeboard discussions on "Chelsea Manning" vs. "Bradley Manning" were flawed or affected by factors including the recency of events, some excessive emotionalism, crass and offensive comments, personal accusations by editors against one another, alleged canvassing (I have not yet evaluated that allegation), and others. With weeks now having elapsed, I believe—and I hope—that the closers' 30-day moratorium served its purpose and that the community can now discuss the issue and balance the relevant considerations in a more considered and less confrontational fashion, yielding a consensus result. While our decision in this case might provide some guidance on relevant conduct in this type of discussion and on how the BLP policy applies to it, at the end of the day what to title this article is a content decision that we are not going to rule upon. Hence, I see more downside than upside to our mandating a delay of the discussion. Any inappropriate comments or behavior in the discussion can be addressed by applying the discretionary sanctions injunction we already adopted (or for that matter the discretionary sanctions passed in the Sexology case); the editors named in the proposed decision could perhaps be placed "on notice" of the availability of such sanctions, if warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
3. I consider it unlikely that the community will rush into a move request immediately after the existing moratorium ends. If it does, I don't think it is necessary for us to obstruct it from doing so. If it doesn't, then this motion (which is ideologically problematic) is in any case unnecessary. AGK [•] 16:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Scope of policy on biographies of living persons

1) The policy on biographies of living persons requires that all material concerning living persons in Wikipedia adhere strictly to Wikipedia's three core content policies (verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research).

The policy is written in a deliberately broad fashion, and its application is not limited to unsourced or poorly sourced material. Any material about a living person that fails any of the three core content policies is non-compliant with the policy and is subject to removal as described therein.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 15:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
5. AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sensitivity towards living persons

2) The policy on biographies of living persons requires that editors act with a high degree of sensitivity and consider the possibility of harm to the subject when adding information about a living person to any Wikipedia page. This requirement is consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation's guidance that human dignity be taken into account when adding information about living persons to Wikimedia projects.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 15:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
5. AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Removal of material about living persons

3) The policy on biographies of living persons requires that non-compliant material be removed if the non-compliance cannot readily be rectified. The policy does not impose any limitations on the nature of the material to be removed, provided that the material concerns a living person, and provided that the editor removing it is prepared to explain their rationale for doing so.

Once material about a living person has been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion that such material is non-compliant, the policy requires that consensus be obtained prior to restoring the material.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 15:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
5. AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Ambiguity regarding explanations in BLP policy

4) The policy on biographies of living persons states that editors removing material on the basis of an assertion of non-compliance with the policy must be prepared to explain their action to others.

The policy does not state whether an explanation must be provided immediately upon removing the material, or only when requested by another editor, and does not identify any specific deadline for providing the explanation. The policy is ambiguous as to whether the removal of material is subject to the protections set forth in the policy during the period between the removal and the explanation, or only after an explanation is provided.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 15:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Including the letters "WP:BLP" in an edit summary does not confer carte blanche to do whatever one wants. AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Discriminatory speech

5) Discriminatory speech is defined as any statement that ridicules, denigrates, insults, belittles, or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual or group on the basis of a characteristic such as national or ethnic origin, race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability.

Engaging in discriminatory speech violates several Wikipedia policies, including the policy on personal attacks and the civility policy, as well as the Wikimedia Foundation's non-discrimination policy.

Support:

1. Several people—including Newyorkbrad, whose opinion in such matters I deeply respect—have suggested that "discriminatory speech" is too harsh a label. I agree that the term is a harsh one, but it is intentionally so.

   The editors named in the findings below were not merely impolite or insensitive. They have called for transgender people to have their genitials torn off; they have compared them to dogs and pigs; they have denied their identities and their very existence. Their conduct amounts to a concerted victimization of a vulnerable, legally protected minority group, both as subjects of articles and as Wikipedians. Their actions were deliberate, utterly reprehensible, and deserving of condemnation in the strongest possible terms, not dismissal as mere improprieties. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

2. If anything, discriminatory is too polite a label for certain comments made in this matter. Courcelles 15:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'll be commenting and voting on the decision over the weekend, but for clarity, I might note that my comments on the workshop were written when there were proposed "discriminatory speech" findings against several more editors not named in this draft final decision, some of whose comments were far less objectionable than the worst of those Kirill has quoted below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Authority of the Arbitration Committee

6) The arbitration policy authorizes the Committee to create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced and by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Courcelles 15:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This principle is accurate, but it gives the impression we are making way for a rash of unwelcome, novel rulings. I don't like that. We should just pass a substantive decision on this dispute – and not worry about reminding people of what they already know. AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Casting aspersions

7) An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Emphasis on the last clause. Accusations, even if well-founded, during a discussion on an article talk or similar venue will degrade discussions without benefit. They are not places to "score points". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Courcelles 15:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Kirill ^[talk] 16:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
5. AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Advocacy

8) Wikipedia should not be used to advocate any particular position. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally what is currently found in reliable, secondary source, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Noting that putting forward arguments for or against a perspective can be a useful activity on talk pages, though. Courcelles 15:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Although I don't see how this is particularly relevant to anything here. Kirill ^[talk] 16:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
5. Accurate enough. AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tag-team editing

9) Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Supporting for now, not yet sure whether there are relevant elements to the rest of the PD to merit it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I think irrelevant to this case. The evidence might show some off-wiki canvassing on Twitter, but tag-teaming is not what went on here, and including this is not helpful. Courcelles 15:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Per Courcelles. Tag-team editing is only relevant when it serves to subvert policy; there is no evidence that anything along those lines took place here. Kirill ^[talk] 16:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Broadly per Courcelles. I don't see any evidence that tag-teaming has occurred in any meaningful way during this dispute. AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Nature of underlying dispute

1) The underlying dispute in this case concerns the choice of title for the article which is currently titled "Bradley Manning". The dispute was directly precipitated by a public statement made by the subject of the article on August 22, 2013, in which the subject self-identified as "Chelsea Manning".

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Initial changes of article title

2) Following the announcement by the subject of the article, several editors made a series of changes to the title of the article:

1. Morwen (talk · contribs) changed the title from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning", directly citing the announcement ([1]);
2. Cls14 (talk · contribs) changed the title from "Chelsea Manning" back to "Bradley Manning" ([2]);
3. Morwen (talk · contribs) again changed the title from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning", once again citing the announcement ([3]);
4. Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) changed the title from "Chelsea Manning" back to "Bradley Manning", citing a move request filed by StAnselm (talk · contribs) ([4]).

None of the editors involved in making these changes cited the biography of living persons policy as the basis for doing so, and there is no evidence that any of the changes were performed in bad faith or in violation of Wikipedia policy.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Change of article title by David Gerard

3) Following the conclusion of the initial series of changes to the title of the article, David Gerard (talk · contribs) changed the title from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning", citing the biographies of living persons policy ([5]).

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Rationale for change of article title by David Gerard

4) David Gerard did not provide a detailed explanation of why the title "Bradley Manning" was non-compliant with the biographies of living persons policy at the time he changed the title, although he made a number of explanatory statements in response to direct inquiries from other editors ([6], [7], [8]).

David ultimately provided a detailed explanation of his rationale on August 27, five days after he had made the change in question ([9]).

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Analysis of change of article title by David Gerard

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

1. The word "Bradley" was present in the title before the change and was not present in the title after the change, and was therefore "removed".
2. The word "Bradley" is a name for the living person who is a subject of the article, and is therefore "material about a living person".
3. The edit summary associated with the change ("Reverting move per WP:BLP") is an assertion of non-compliance with the policy.
4. There is no credible evidence suggesting that the assertion of non-compliance was made in bad faith.
5. An explanation of rationale was ultimately provided (see #Rationale for change of article title by David Gerard).

When evaluated on the basis of these factors, the change made by David Gerard did comply with the criteria set forth in the biography of living persons policy, and was thus entitled to the special protection provided by that policy for such changes, particularly the requirement that consensus be obtained prior to restoring the material removed by the change.

Because of certain ambiguities in the biography of living persons policy (see #Ambiguity regarding explanations in BLP policy), it is unclear whether the special protection provided by the biography of living persons policy came into effect at the time the change was made, or five days later when the detailed explanation was provided. However, the protection was certainly in effect from the time that David provided his detailed explanation on August 27.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Requested move discussion

6) Following the change made by David Gerard to the title of the article, CaseyPenk (talk · contribs) [subsequently renamed to Resoru (talk · contribs)] opened a requested move discussion and proposed changing the title of the article back to "Bradley Manning" ([10]). This discussion continued for nine days.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Evaluation of consensus

7) On August 31, three administrators — BD2412 (talk · contribs), Kww (talk · contribs), and BOZ (talk · contribs) — evaluated the requested move discussion and determined that it had not reached a consensus ([11]). In subsequent statements, the administrators have reiterated the absence of any consensus ([12], [13]).

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

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Misleading. It's true that the admins who closed the discussion found that there was no consensus as to how the article should be titled, but this is being used, hereinafter, to argue that the panel also found that there was no consensus that using "Bradley Manning" as title would not be a BLP-violation, which is wrong. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Change of article title by closing administrators

8) Having evaluated the requested move discussion and determined that no consensus had been reached, BD2412, Kww, and BOZ closed the discussion ([14]) and BD2412, acting on behalf of all three administrators, changed the title of the article from "Chelsea Manning" to "Bradley Manning" ([15]).

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Analysis of change of article title by closing administrators

9) In order to evaluate whether the closing administrators' change to the title of the article complied with the provisions of the biography of living persons policy, it is necessary to determine whether the change restored material about a living person which had previously been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion of non-compliance, and, if so, whether consensus was obtained prior to restoring the material. With regard to the closing administrators' action:

1. The word "Bradley" was not present in the title before the change and was present in the title after the change, and was therefore "restored".
2. The word "Bradley" is material about a living person which had previously been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion of non-compliance (see #Analysis of change of article title by David Gerard).
3. No consensus to restore the material had been identified by the closing administrators at the time the change was made (see #Evaluation of consensus).

When evaluated on the basis of these factors, the change made by the closing administrators did not comply with the criteria for restoring such material and was therefore in violation of the biography of living persons policy.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As explained here, this is downright wrong. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Discriminatory speech by Cjarbo2

10) During the course of the dispute, Cjarbo2 (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ("He is a woman only in his own head, and the collective imagination of the radical left").

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Insensitive? Yes. Discriminatory speech? Definitely not. This decision is adopting an unacceptably loose definition of "discriminatory speech". Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Discriminatory speech by ColonelHenry

11) During the course of the dispute, ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ("we wouldn't trade a one-day circus freak show with the years and significance under his own name").

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Again, insensitive? Yes. Discriminatory speech? Definitely not. This decision is adopting an unacceptably loose definition of "discriminatory speech". Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Discriminatory speech by Daniel32708

12) During the course of the dispute, Daniel32708 (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ("If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog, or a cat, would they change it to reflect such a non-sense?").

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discriminatory speech by DHeyward

13) During the course of the dispute, DHeyward (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ("'Chelsea Mannning' does not exist").

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Superfluous, considering DHeyward's subsequent statements, where he acknowledges how offensive his words have been and apologises. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Discriminatory speech by Dirac66

14) During the course of the dispute, Dirac66 (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ("One does not become female just by saying one wants to be").

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discriminatory speech by Hitmonchan

15) During the course of the dispute, Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ("Only when his testicles are ripped out of his scrotum... will I call Manning a 'she'").

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discriminatory speech by IFreedom1212

16) During the course of the dispute, IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ("He is clearly mentally unstable and his... desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit", "I will continue to refer to him as a male as long as he has a dick").

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discriminatory speech by Scottywong

17) During the course of the dispute, Scottywong (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ("if Manning came out tomorrow and said that he'd like to be considered a dog instead of a human... we should refer to him as Rover, and use 'it'").

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discriminatory speech by Tarc

18) During the course of the dispute, Tarc (talk · contribs) engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ("Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe", "Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so").

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Josh Gorand

19) User:Josh Gorand has adopted a problematic battleground approach to the discussion. [16][17][18][19]

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. While Josh's conduct was not ideal, he was largely justified in his criticism; the discussion was riddled with virulently transphobic comments. A certain amount of excessive zeal can be forgiven in the face of such. Kirill ^[talk] 01:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Phil Sandifer

20) User:Phil Sandifer has exhibited signs of having a battleground mentality, feeling that all who oppose his position are transphobic. [20], [21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26]

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I see no evidence that Phil was involved in the actual dispute here. Kirill ^[talk] 01:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Off-wiki canvassing

21) During the discussion, the consensus-building process was tainted by off-wiki canvassing. [27], [28], [29]

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Of these, only the first example is arguably canvassing; the other two appear to show the individuals involved advising outside participants not to interfere in the discussion. Kirill ^[talk] 01:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

   The second diff has TransMediaWatch saying they were advised to join in the discussion by another admin, and the third clearly has Gerard advertising the RfAr. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

   I don't doubt that there was canvassing taking place, both for and against them move; but the subtext of this particular finding seems to be—to me, anyways—that Abigail and David were responsible for it, which I don't believe is born out by the evidence. Kirill ^[talk] 16:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discussion on article title

1) The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on the title to be used for the article currently located at "Bradley Manning".

As with all decisions about content involving living persons, the policies on biographies of living persons, reliable sourcing, and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area.

The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors. The Arbitration Committee will announce the names of the three editors no later than one week following the close of the case.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Cjarbo2 topic-banned

2) Cjarbo2 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

ColonelHenry topic-banned

3) ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Daniel32708 topic-banned

4) Daniel32708 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

DHeyward topic-banned

5) DHeyward (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Dirac66 topic-banned

6) Dirac66 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Hitmonchan topic-banned

7) Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

IFreedom1212 topic-banned

8) IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Scottywong topic-banned

9) Scottywong (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tarc topic-banned

10) Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Josh Gorand topic-banned

11) Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per the related finding. Kirill ^[talk] 01:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Phil Sandifer topic-banned

12) Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per the related finding. Kirill ^[talk] 01:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Standard enforcement

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision:adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

As I've said in private, I consider Kirill's draft unacceptably one-sided. I'm trying to provide a little bit of balance... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass

{Passing principles}

{Passing findings}

{Passing remedies}

{Passing enforcement provisions}

Proposals which do not pass

{Failing principles}

{Failing findings}

{Failing remedies}

{Failing enforcement provisions}

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

Oppose

Comments