Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 648: | Line 648: | ||
:Comments: |
:Comments: |
||
:::IFreedom1212 made a series of, rather than an isolated, offensive comments during the Manning discussion, to the exclusion of doing virtually anything else. If we are going to identify editors who behaved very poorly during the discussion, I agree he would be a fine place to start (although I note that he hasn't edited at all in three weeks). An alternative version of the finding might be along the lines of: "During the discussion of the proposed pagemove, IFreedom1212 made numerous offensive comments that demeaned the article subject and the subject's gender identity" or similar. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::: |
|||
===Discriminatory speech by Scottywong=== |
===Discriminatory speech by Scottywong=== |
Revision as of 19:38, 28 September 2013
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
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. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.
Expression error: Unexpected mod operatorAbstentions | 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:
- Proposed. Kirill [talk] 22:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Risker (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- AGK [•] 23:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Courcelles 02:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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:
- Proposed. Kirill [talk] 00:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- I think a more peaceful, more productive discussion is going to happen if we get this case closed this week, and then have a new RM, rather than trying to have two parallel processes going on at once. Courcelles 18:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- 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)
- 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)
- In response to Courcelles' comment above, maybe we should revisit this in a couple of days, when we have a sense of whether we will be able to finalize the case quickly or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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:
- Kirill [talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Courcelles 15:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- NW (Talk) 17:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is broadly true. I could quibble with aspects (and may wind up doing so anyway), but those aspects aren't essential to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 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:
- Kirill [talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Courcelles 15:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- NW (Talk) 17:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:36, 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:
- Kirill [talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Courcelles 15:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Last part is unambiguous: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article." NW (Talk) 17:23, 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:
- Kirill [talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Courcelles 15:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- NW (Talk) 17:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I suspect the reason the policy does not expressly require explanations is because in many cases, including those that led to the initial creation of the policy, the removal is self-explanatory. Where that is not the case, an explanation should always be provided. To AGK's point below, any BLP removal must certainly have a good-faith explanation, whether or not it has yet been explicitly stated. I do not believe there has been a widespread problem with frivolous claims of BLP violations, though the application of BLP can certainly be subject to dispute in any given case, especially as one moves from blatant violations to more nuanced BLP issues where balancing of competing considerations is required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- 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:
- 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)
- If anything, discriminatory is too polite a label for certain comments made in this matter. Courcelles 15:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Second choice. NW (Talk) 19:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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)
- Obviously I support the ideals and ideas behind Kirill's proposal. However, attempting to define in advance what types of "speech" are and are not permissible is always, at best, a difficult drafting exercise. Beyond that, as I said on the workshop, I think that trying to do so may make resolving this case more difficult than it needs to be. The proposed decision's approach is to (1) define "discriminatory speech"; (2) identify offensive comments during the move discussion that should be rebuked; and (3) fit each of the comments into the definition of "discriminatory speech." It seems to me that it would be conceptually easier simply to pick out the most offensive of the comments that were made, if we wish to specify particularly inappropriate comments, and simply state that they were offensive and why, without debating whether they feet neatly within our newfound definition. In any event, I've proposed 5.1 below, which can be an alternative or an addition. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to think this one over before voting. AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- As I stated on the mailing list, I support the general concept but think that it would be best to incorporate Newyorkbrad's workshop draft as well. NW (Talk) 17:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Non-discrimination
5.1) Wikipedia welcomes and treats editors and readers equally regardless of personal characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. Comments that demean any person—whether a a fellow editor, an article subject, or any other person—on the basis of such personal characteristics are unwelcome. Offensive comments of this kind, especially when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking, topic restrictions, or other sanctions.
- Proposed. See above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- First choice. NW (Talk) 19:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
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.
- Oppose:
- 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:
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Courcelles 15:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Kirill [talk] 16:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- NW (Talk) 17:20, 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:
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Although I don't see how this is particularly relevant to anything here. Kirill [talk] 16:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Accurate enough. AGK [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- There is a meme going around that Morwen and David Gerard and others were "advocating" (or as Salvio is linking to, WP:SOAPBOXING). I don't want support of this principle to imply that I agree with that position. NW (Talk) 17:19, 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:
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- NW (Talk) 17:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Applicability of BLP
10) All living people who are subjects of Wikipedia content are entitled to the protections of the BLP policy. An editor's personal dislike of the subject or their actions does not abrogate in any way the usual protections of the policy.
- Support:
- Proposed. A person's actions do not, and cannot, reduce the stringent nature of our BLP policy, without gutting it. In fact, editing articles of BLP subjects whose conduct could be vilified? Strict adherence to BLP is, if anything, even more important than on non-controversial topics. Courcelles 17:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
BLP and article titles
11) The BLP policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page.
- Proposed. During the early phases of the discussion, I was disturbed by some editors' assertion that "BLP does not apply to article titles." The BLP policy applies to every aspect of the encyclopedia. On reflection, this should be obvious: For example, in the hopefully unlikely event that an article title contained an unsourced negative statement about a living person, it would certainly need to be changed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Courcelles 19:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- NW (Talk) 19:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
BLP and individuals' names
12) The BLP policy does not expressly address whether, when an individual has changed his or her name (for reasons of gender identity or any other reason), the article should be titled under the name by which the subject currently self-identifies or under the former or repudiated version of the individual's name. It may be desirable for the community to clarify the BLP policy or the article title policy to expressly address this issue, such as by identifying factors relevant to making this decision. In the interim, such issues should be addressed with understanding and sensitivity toward the dignity and well-being of the article subject, counterbalanced if appropriate with any other encyclopedic considerations that may be relevant.
- Proposed. See also Wikipedia:Manual of style#Identity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- 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:
- 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:
- Morwen (talk · contribs) changed the title from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning", directly citing the announcement ([1]);
- Cls14 (talk · contribs) changed the title from "Chelsea Manning" back to "Bradley Manning" ([2]);
- Morwen (talk · contribs) again changed the title from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning", once again citing the announcement ([3]);
- 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:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
- The very last one is the one that concerns me; the moving admin's comments 9 minutes before making the move are interesting, There are several issues here, the most important of which is WP:BLP. If there is overwhelming support that this move fulfills the BLP guidelines, I'm not going to move the article back. Courcelles 18:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 3) This finding doesn't seem to fully capture the initial scenario from last month. First, was there not discussion between Morwen and Cls14? I have read various claims regarding whether any discussion actually happened before the third move. Additionally, Tariqabjotu's comment here (almost immediately executed, with no edits on his part in between[5]) is also important to note: "While an undiscussed move is standard technical request reason, I want to see how the discussion on the talk page plays out. There are several issues here, the most important of which is WP:BLP. If there is overwhelming support that this move fulfills the BLP guidelines, I'm not going to move the article back." NW (Talk) 18:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
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 ([6]).
- Support:
- 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 ([7], [8], [9]).
David ultimately provided a detailed explanation of his rationale on August 27, five days after he had made the change in question ([10]).
- Support:
- Kirill [talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- As a statement of fact, seems valid. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with David Fuchs. Courcelles 18:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- NW (Talk) 18:49, 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:
- The word "Bradley" was present in the title before the change and was not present in the title after the change, and was therefore "removed".
- The word "Bradley" is a name for the living person who is a subject of the article, and is therefore "material about a living person".
- The edit summary associated with the change ("Reverting move per WP:BLP") is an assertion of non-compliance with the policy.
- There is no credible evidence suggesting that the assertion of non-compliance was made in bad faith.
- 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:
- Oppose:
- To me this FoF boils down to treating BLP invocation as first-mover advantage in a content dispute. We don't have "protected edits". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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" ([11]). This discussion continued for nine days.
- Support:
- Kirill [talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Purely factual. (Though I think these timeline FoF's would have been more useful combined into a single one.) Courcelles 18:42, 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 ([12]). In subsequent statements, the administrators have reiterated the absence of any consensus ([13], [14]).
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:
- Oppose:
- 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)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- The first paragraph is true, I'm not willing at all to have ArbCom rule that the close was the correct one, however. Courcelles 18:46, 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 ([15]) and BD2412, acting on behalf of all three administrators, changed the title of the article from "Chelsea Manning" to "Bradley Manning" ([16]).
- Support:
- Kirill [talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Purely as a statement of what occurred. Courcelles 18:50, 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:
- 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".
- 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).
- 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:
- Oppose:
- As explained here, this is downright wrong. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Offensive comments in the discussion
9 1/2) During the community discussion of whether the article should be titled "Bradley Manning" or "Chelsea Manning", and whether this individual should be referred to by male or female pronouns, several editors made inappropriate and in some instances overtly offensive comments concerning the article subject's self-identified transgender status. While a majority of the participating editors expressed their views reasonably and appropriately way, a disappointing number did not. Among the comments that coarsened the debate and brought it into disrepute were those offensively comparing the life choices of individuals transgender persons to pretending to be an animal, or by making crass and gratuitously indecorous references to anatomical changes. However, it would not be accurate to say, as one or two editors appeared to imply, that everyone favoring "Bradley Manning" was necessarily doing so based on "transphobia" or was advocating "hate speech."
- Support:
- Proposed for consideration as either an introduction to or a substitute for the "discriminatory speech" findings as to individual editors (although we still made want to identify the very worst offenders). My thanks to those who commented on the workshop. I anticipate that further copyedits may be suggested and would welcome the suggestions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- 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:
- Oppose:
- 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:
- Oppose:
- 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?").
- 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:
- Oppose:
- 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:
- 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'").
- 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:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
- IFreedom1212 made a series of, rather than an isolated, offensive comments during the Manning discussion, to the exclusion of doing virtually anything else. If we are going to identify editors who behaved very poorly during the discussion, I agree he would be a fine place to start (although I note that he hasn't edited at all in three weeks). An alternative version of the finding might be along the lines of: "During the discussion of the proposed pagemove, IFreedom1212 made numerous offensive comments that demeaned the article subject and the subject's gender identity" or similar. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
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'").
- 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:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Josh Gorand
19) User:Josh Gorand has adopted a problematic battleground approach to the discussion. [17][18][19][20]
- Oppose:
- 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. [21], [22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27]
- Oppose:
- I see no evidence that Phil was involved in the actual dispute here. Kirill [talk] 01:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Phil Sandifer's comments on the workshop here help me to conclude that a finding and a remedy concerning him are not necessary. Going forward, while I recognize the depth of Phil Sandifer's intellectual and emotional commitment to his views concerning identification of transgender persons, I hope he can realize that his expressions will be both more collegial and more effective if he uses more moderate language and he explains rather than announces his conclusions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Off-wiki canvassing
21) During the discussion, the consensus-building process was tainted by off-wiki canvassing. [28], [29], [30]
- Support:
- Oppose:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Baseball Bugs
22) During the course of the dispute, Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) frequently accused other participants in the dispute of malice [31], [32] [33]; engaged in discriminatory speech based on his personal view of the article subject's actions [34] [35] [36] [37]; and needlessly personalised the dispute [38].
- Support:
- Proposed. The sum of BB's contributions to this dispute are enough that they, in my opinion, must be part of this decision. Courcelles 19:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- 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:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
- This remedy summarizes what is likely to happen anyway in the upcoming weeks, whether we direct it or not. Other than adding this Committee's imprimatur to the discussion, the only thing we would really be adding here is the direction that ArbCom select the closing administrators. I don't necessarily object to doing that —we've done it a couple of times before—but I am not certain it is necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Cjarbo2 topic-banned
2) Cjarbo2 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
- Support:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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.
- Oppose:
- 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.
- Oppose:
- Per the related finding. Kirill [talk] 01:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Per my vote on the related finding, and subject to my comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 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
-