, 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 10 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

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.

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:

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 "

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)[reply]
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)[reply
   ]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Risker (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. [•] 23:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
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)[reply]
7. Courcelles 02:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Moratorium on move discussions extended

2) The moratorium on move discussions concerning the article "

" 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)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

3. Per NW and Courcelles. T. Canens (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. While I understand where my colleagues in the oppose heading are coming from, I don't think the situation will be helped by parallel discussions. The onus is of course on us to deliver a speedy and considered decision. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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.
   [•] 16:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. I think the requested move discussion should go on as scheduled; its results should not be particularly dependent on this case. Risker (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. We should not hold off a content decision, which we cannot make because arbitration is a slow process. Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. I wish to all ends that this discussion had NOT been started, but, it has. I cannot support passing this injunction to shut it down at this point. Courcelles 22:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

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

   NW (Talk) 17:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. 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)[reply]
7. T. Canens (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Risker (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 07:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

   NW (Talk) 17:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. T. Canens (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Risker (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 07:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Noting that similar considerations also apply when removing material, and when editing a page and making a conscious choice to allow existing material to remain in place (i.e. all aspects of the editing process need to be done with sensitivity). Reading that WMF resolution from 2009, I'm struck both by how much and how little has changed since then. Defining harm to the subject and understanding the concept of
    human dignity isn't easy. Often what is needed more than high-sounding principles and guidelines is editors able and willing to edit sensitively and dispassionately on a given BLP topic with back-up from administrators where needed, though high-profile articles present their own set of problems. Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

   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)[reply]

6. T. Canens (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. While this is fairly clearcut, the assessment of arguments on whether or not specific material, used in specific circumstances, is a BLP violation can be nuanced, and policy for these kinds of situations is not well-developed. Step one in determining whether or not material can be restored or otherwise changed is the collegial discussion and consensus on whether or not there is, in fact, a BLP violation. Risker (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Worm^TT(talk) 07:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Really, this is just a specific example of the wider dictum that any edit made to a BLP should be done with care and should be explained if challenged or likely to be challenged. i.e. Those making or requesting edits (or opposing such edits) need to be able to explain clearly why material should or should not be changed, added or removed. Everything else flows from that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Clear statement of important general principle, although application of the principle can become complicated in unusual cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Ambiguity regarding explanations in the 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)[reply]

   Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 15:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 17:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. 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)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Including the letters "WP:BLP" in an edit summary does not confer carte blanche to do whatever one wants.
   [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. While there is no explicit instruction for when and how an explanation should be given, this must be read in concert with other policies, guidelines, and common sense. Changes based on the
   biography of living persons policy that directly relate to an ongoing controversy being discussed at the article's talk page, or that are restoring changes that have already been challenged, should be explained forthwith. Any editor or administrator who makes a change in such circumstances should be clearly articulating the reason for the change. Risker (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Per Risker. T. Canens (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Risker put it better than I could. Changes, especially those out of the norm due to BLP, should be explained. Plausibly controversial changes on highly charged subjects are never going to end well and therefore a full rationale should be used. Worm^TT(talk) 07:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Swayed by Risker. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Risker. Context is everything here. Experienced editors in particular should know the difference between a self-explanatory action and one that will need something more than a note in an edit/log summary. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

   Second choice. NW (Talk) 19:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. First choice.
   [•] 21:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Acceptable, but for reasons stated, prefer either 5.1 or 5.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This principle is confusing. The NDP protects employees and users from being discriminated against *by the Foundation*, it should not be invoked during disputes among editors. Also, the NDP (and NPA/CIV for that matter) does not cover article subjects, which are not mentioned anywhere therein. To protect them, we have BLP. To protect fellow editors, we have NPA. No need to muddle the water with an imprecise principle. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree with Salvio giuliano on this point. Further, while I believe that there were many inappropriate, bigoted, insensitive, and inflammatory comments, which violated the
   no personal attacks policy either directly or by blanket attribution of characteristics to an entire group, I do not see any actually discriminatory comments. Nobody, on any side, was calling for the complete removal of the article or any part of the article *because* of Private Manning's gender identity, or anyone else's gender identity; that would be discriminatory. Discrimination, to me, is a very specific concept and the Arbitration Committee should be using clear non-inflammatory language in its decisions. As such, I have a significant difficulty with several of the other findings. Risker (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Per Salvio. T. Canens (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Arbitration principles should not be inflammatory, the idea is that arbitrators look at the whole picture and calmly make a decision. I agree that the actions of many were unacceptable, and they should be dealt with, but principles like this are not the way. Worm^TT(talk) 09:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Am not comfortable with this use of the phrase 'discriminatory' as this is too closely tied to discrimination which has very specific meanings in legal and ethical contexts. Possibly a better wording would be 'hostile speech' or 'exclusionary speech', as the effect is to create an environment where some feel excluded and discriminated against (which is clearly the intended meaning here). Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• I'm going to think this one over before voting.
  [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]

Non-discrimination

5.1) Wikipedia welcomes and treats editors and readers equally regardless of personal characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. Comments that demean any person—whether 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.

Support:

1. Proposed. See above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   First choice. NW (Talk) 19:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Only choice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice. This says, in more words and with less reference to the applicable policies, exactly the same as
   [•] 21:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   T. Canens (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. Broadly agree, though with comment below. Worm^TT(talk) 09:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Only choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Using the word 'unwelcome' waters this down too much. The contrast between 'welcomes' in the first sentence and 'unwelcome' in the second sentence is jarring. I've suggested an alternate version in the comments below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose largely for the reasons mentioned in my struck abstention. Supporting 5.2. Risker (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Too mealey-mouthed, with the unwelcome language. Courcelles 05:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Procedural oppose. T. Canens (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I was going to support this, despite the header that again uses the word "discrimination", until I really focused on this. I agree about inappropriate comments that focus on personal characteristics unrelated to the actual topic of discussion and/or editorial ability. I will note, however, that editorial decisions are to be made *irrespective* of some of these factors (i.e., from a neutral point of view), and there are many editorial decisions (including consensus decisions and those made by the Arbitration Committee) that individual editors and readers could easily perceive as being unequal treatment. Examples: naming of geographical features in Asia, articles about religious figures, historical articles related to various conflicts. In my mind, the second two sentences are correct, but the first one extends the principle too far. Risker (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Moving to oppose[reply]

Comments:

It's been suggested on the workshop and the talkpage to change "unwelcome" to "prohibited." Any objections? Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly not object. I would have absolutely supported this, but Risker's comment has given me pause. I wonder if there might be a better phraseology than "treats ... equally", when we don't always - due to NPOV and undue weight issues. So far though, I haven't thought of a better comment. Worm^TT(talk) 07:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggested phrasing (under the header 'Editing environment') would be:

Wikipedia editors and readers form a diverse range of backgrounds, including ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of such characteristics are considered offensive and create a hostile editing environment. When extreme or repeated after a warning, such conduct is grounds for blocking or other sanctions.

I'm sure similar principles have been proposed in previous cases. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This wording works for me. How about "Equality and respect" for the header? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Equality and respect" for the header would help me support that. The other problem I noticed is that the opening words seem to say that the principle is about whether readers should be treated equally to, or differently from, editors. I know that is not the intention, but it can easily be read that way. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with this wording too, and like NYB's header. Worm^TT(talk) 07:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose a principle phrased like this. We start mentioning "creat[ing] a hostile editing environment" and suddenly we have this. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow? One thing I am uncomfortable with is the way this principle seems to try and establish basic levels of respect, tolerance and acceptance that shouldn't need to be spelt out. It seems to be about trying to establish an ideal to live up to. That's not really how communities, particularly online ones, work. I think the key principle here is how to have debates in an online environment, and recognising when discussions become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Equality and respect

5.2) Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions.

Support:

1. Alterative formulation, largely based on Carcharoth's draft, with some tweaking to address the comments. All of us agree on the underlying idea here, so it should be possible to craft language that works for everyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Equal preference with 5.1.T. Canens (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Only choice. T. Canens (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Though I am still uncomfortable at the seeming need to explicitly state what should be obvious unwritten codes of conduct. Common humanity and the
   inalienable rights all spring to mind. Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Equal pref with 5.1 Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Risker (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice to 5 (note I opposed 5.1 outright) Courcelles 05:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Happy with this, equal preference with 5.1 Worm^TT(talk) 07:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Even though it is parenthesised, "particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning" dilutes this too much.
   [•] 21:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Per AGK. Kirill ^[talk] 03:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. I prefer 5.1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

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

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.
   [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Additional comment: The policy states the committee can propose "means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated", but says nothing about those means being the aforementioned "procedures by which policy can be enforced". This principle is a problematic amalgamation of two unrelated sentences of the policy.

   [•] 00:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I don't see the clash that AGK does, but I agree with him about the impression that gives. NW (Talk) 23:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per NuclearWarfare. Risker (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. T. Canens (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 07:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Opposing in the absence of the addition I suggested below. In any event, it appears we won't need to invoke this authority in this case, as the RM discussion is underway without our involvement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Unlikely to be needed, though precisely what that part of the policy means needs further discussion at some point. Also, ArbCom shouldn't be the one to interpret the arbitration policy. If parts of that policy are not clear, there needs to be a mechanism to address that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

The proposal should probably be edited to reflect that we have exercised this authority, and will continue to exercise it, only in exceptional cases of impasse in community decision-making (of which I am not sure this is one at this point). Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. Courcelles 15:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^[talk] 16:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   NW (Talk) 17:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. It's worth emphasizing here that our including a principle in a decision suggests that the principle is relevant to issues that have been raised in the case. It is not, in itself, a finding that the principle has been breached by any of the parties to the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. T. Canens (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Risker (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC) I'll expand a bit here to add that casting aspersions on a group or class of editors is usually also inappropriate. Risker (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 07:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Advocacy

8) Wikipedia should not be used to

, secondary sources, 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)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
4. Although I don't see how this is particularly relevant to anything here. Kirill ^[talk] 16:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Accurate enough.
   [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   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)[reply

   ]

6. General support, though I probably will try to come up with some copyedits. It is a misuse of Wikipedia to "push" a point of view into articles, or to edit them non-neutrally in support of a specific point of view on a controversial issue. However, that obviously does not mean that people can not argue on talkpages or in policy discussions in support of outcomes they agree with. Similarly, if an editor moves an article from title A to title B, it obviously means that he or she believes title B is preferable, for one or more reasons, to title A; it would be nonsense to say that only people who are indifferent between the proposed titles can make pagemoves, although once it has become clear that the move is controversial and consensus needs to be assessed, the principle of administrator non-involvement comes into play. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. T. Canens (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Risker (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 08:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. When considering some of the issues at play here, it would be useful to draw a distinction between (i) advocacy and promotion of a viewpoint; and (ii) educating or informing others. It depends to a large extent who the editors in question are speaking for and to whom they are speaking. Are they speaking for themselves, or on behalf of a group? Are they speaking to someone else within a discussion, or are they addressing the crowd? It is when people get on a soapbox and try and advocate for the interests of a wider group of people that things can start to get out of control. There is a time and a place to do that sort of thing, and those taking part in Wikipedia discussions need to be aware of that and avoid side-tracking ongoing discussions. If certain discussions appear to present the opportunity to educate or inform others, sometimes the best thing to do is link to a separate location to discuss those issues (or start a new sub-header) rather than divert the focus of the discussion in question. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I would have preferred the entire principle that has, in the past, been used when discussing possible advocacy on the project (the one that emphasizes that Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia founded on the

five pillars), but this will do. I'm actually kind of surprised at the lack of emphasis on the need for edits, content decisions, and interpersonal communications to be founded on whether or not an action is encyclopedic and within the pillars; however, this principle at least is accurate. Risker (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Risker, why don't you quote the past principle you have in mind? It may be that there's no objection to swapping it in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one I was thinking of is "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited." The first sentence in particular would be useful. Risker (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that no one acted on this suggestion, and it's probably too late in the decision-making process to do so now, but I'm certain that this principle would enjoy full support here as it has in the past. (If anything, our inclusion of this principle in prior decisions has been derided by several people as too much of an overgeneralized platitude to be meaningful; personally, I've always wanted it included, and it's good to see that when omitted it's been missed.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tag-team editing

9) Tag teams work in unison to push a

prevailing – is prohibited.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. Per David Fuchs. I think we should include this principle, even if we do not make findings related to it; the lack of a finding is sometimes as significant as the presence of a finding. Risker (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. Broadly per Courcelles. I don't see any evidence that tag-teaming has occurred in any meaningful way during this dispute.
   [•] 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   NW (Talk) 17:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. I think we concluded here that this may not be the best way of framing this concept. In any case, I'm not sure this is needed for the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. T. Canens (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. "Tag-team" is a very difficult concept, which is too often used to ignore consensus. It does happen, editors colluding to circumvent changes, but I'm not convinced it's happened here. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Not seeing the relevance here. If a finding related to this emerges, I will revisit this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Applicability of the BLP policy

10) All living people who are subjects of Wikipedia content are entitled to the protections of the

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:

1. 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)[reply]
2. Sure. Kirill ^[talk] 21:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. [•] 21:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   NW (Talk) 22:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. Risker (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. T. Canens (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 08:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The BLP policy and article titles

11) The

policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page.

Support:

1. 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)[reply]
2. Courcelles 19:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 19:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^[talk] 21:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. T. Canens (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. [•] 21:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. I was rather astonished to see the assertions that NYB mentions; article title conventions have long recognized that
   biography of living persons policy applies and BLP's principles have been incorporated directly into several naming conventions. Risker (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 08:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The BLP policy and individuals' names

12) The

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.

Support:

1. Proposed. See also
   Wikipedia:Manual of style#Identity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. In response to the below: this principle says the dignity and well-being of the subject is a concern, not the foremost concern.
   [•] 21:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   NW (Talk) 22:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. We may not go as far as the "do no harm" principle, but we should endeavour to do as little harm as possible, whilst remaining an encyclopedia. Finding that sweet spot when the encyclopedic considerations are included whilst minimising the harm that can be caused is difficult - but not impossible. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^[talk] 10:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. In the last sentence, it should be the other way around: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means that encyclopaedic considerations always take precedence, though they ought to be tempered by the desire not to cause distress needlessly. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure I see a strong difference between considering A balanced by B and considering B balanced by A. In any event, "encyclopedia considerations" do not always take precedence, unless one considers "not demeaning living individuals without a corresponding gain" to itself be an "encyclopedic consideration". This balancing analysis is most developed in wiki terms in "invasion of privacy" type BLP situations; compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff; see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Outside view by Newyorkbrad for somewhat dated analyses, or my posts on Volokh for somewhat dated but still useful analyses. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC) And see generally the unanimously adopted principles in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, in my opinion, there is indeed a difference between A balanced by B and vice versa; the idea is that what comes first is more important than what comes next, which entails that, when it's impossible to reach a compromise (because sensitivity would require A and encyclopaedic concerns would require not-A), the most important one (i.e. the first) takes precedence. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Agree with Salvio on this one. Ultimately deference to an article subject's wishes can conflict with the stated aim of a neutral, reliable, and broad encyclopedia. The former should definitely be considered, but it's in the context of the latter pillar. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Concur with Salvio, including his comments in the discussion following his vote. Risker (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Salvio. T. Canens (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. This sort of thing is best not addressed in an arbitration case, but by actual reasoned discussion on the talk page of the policies in question. Arbitrators who think that the policies are deficient absolutely should post to the talk page of the policies in question and suggest changes, though the community will have the ultimate say. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

The opposers' concerns could be addressed with some editing of the last sentence (as also suggested on the talkpage). Should I offer an alternative with such a change, or let this go? Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support with the edit. T. Canens (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would likewise support if the last sentence went poof. Courcelles 05:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version offered as 12.1 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP policy and individuals' names

12.1) The

to expressly address this issue, such as by identifying factors relevant to making this decision. In the interim, such issues are subject to resolution through ordinary Wikipedia processes, taking into account all relevant considerations.

Support:

1. Proposed as alternative to allay the opposers' concerns with 12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, but prefer 12 Worm^TT(talk) 07:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Good, but equal preference to P12.
   [•] 09:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. T. Canens (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Equal pref to 12; I don't particularly see the need to get into this much hairsplitting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Only choice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Courcelles 22:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Okay with this, although I am concerned that adding something to this effect to the article title policy will create black-and-white rules that do not take into consideration specific situations, and could lead to advocacy positions. I am thinking, as I write this, of a specific case where an article title has been changed because of the interpretation by a few editors that an article subject would want things that way, despite the fact that the article subject has gone by multiple names over the course of time and there are lots of questionable circumstances. Risker (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand your concern and that's why I included in the proposal the "such as by identifying relevant factors" wording. It is a mistake, in this context as in many others (both on-wiki and in RL), to imagine that any policy or guideline written in advance can anticipate and provide an outcome for all possible situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Standards of conduct for administrators

13) Wikipedia:Administrators is the policy enumerating the rules that administrators ought to follow when using their tools. Among these are the following:

1. Accountability
   , under which administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
2. Wheel war
   , under which administrators are expected not to repeat a reversed administrative action when they know that another administrator opposes it, unless a clear community consensus decision has subsequently overruled the other administrator's opposition.
3. Involved administrators
   , under which editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   @

   [•] 21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Thanks for correcting my oversight, AGK! You're of course correct. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. [•] 21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Again, I think that this principle needs to be included, because whether or not we make findings on this point, it is one that has been examined during the course of the proceeding. Risker (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 09:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'll support as a general statement, repeating my observation that our including a principle in a decision is not a finding that the principle was violated in this case. Any objection if I spell out some of the shortcut names? Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. True, but incomplete, and not particularly relevant to boot. Kirill ^[talk] 21:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Conduct on arbitration pages

14) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Proposed, since the conduct of certain editors during this case is important to some of the proposed findings. T. Canens (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 02:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 07:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Risker (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. [•] 21:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

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 when the case was accepted was 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)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 18:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 18:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. The question of whether this individual should be referred to by male or female pronouns, particularly in discussion of the period in his life before August 22, has also arisen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. [•] 01:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Copyedited to avoid saying 'currently'. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. This is the key focus of the dispute, although there are also a few related side skirmishes. Risker (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Accurate.
   [•] 01:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. General support, though I'm undecided about whether we should also address the comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 09:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Okay with this, although I do note that Tariqabjotu did show some specific awareness of the potential for a BLP argument to direct the final decision on title. Risker (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per comment below, as it concerns Tariqabjotu, this one just isn't true at all. Courcelles 13:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Per below. NW (Talk) 17:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

• I note Thryduulf's (and others') comments on the talk page that the step where David Gerard move-protected the page is not included between #3 and #4 in this chronology. I believe this is a noteworthy omission, and should have been included in the chronology; however, I also note that David Gerard, despite comments to the talk page, did not explain *why* his protection was based on BLP for several days after the fact. Thus, neither administrator followed best practices, and both of their actions (or lack of action, in the case of David Gerard adequately explaining the move protection) were factors in the escalation of this dispute. As noted elsewhere, I would have expected a more thorough explanation by David Gerard about why the article required move protection; I would have expected Tariqabjotu to push for a more thorough explanation before moving the article over protection. Risker (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 18:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 18:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. [•] 01:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Accurate, although if the Committee winds up split on the propriety of the re-move or the closure I'm not sure where all of this will lead us to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 09:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Rationale for change of article title by David Gerard

4) David Gerard initially 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. However, David Gerard made a number of explanatory statements regarding his actions to the page ([7], [8], [9]), and ultimately provided an extensive explanation of his rationale on August 27, five days after he had made the change in question ([10]).

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. As a statement of fact, seems valid. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree with David Fuchs. Courcelles 18:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 18:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. (We might insert "he believed" after "of why" in the first sentence, but I don't feel strongly about it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. True, as written. The delay in providing a detailed explanation was, however, one of the factors that poured fuel on the fire. Risker (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The third diff given ([11]) contains David's explanation.
   [•] 21:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   That's an explanation of why MOS:IDENTITY applies; David only mentions BLP to say that it requires immediatism and not eventualism. Ok, I agree, but where is the explanation of why "Bradley" would be a BLP-violation? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per AGK, David Gerard provided an explanation within an hour of his action, implying that he waited 5 days is not correct. The fact that he also provided such an extensive explanation 5 days later should be seen as a positive. Worm^TT(talk) 09:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I made a copy edit to the FOF to hopefully address

AGK's concern as well as those concerns raised on the talk page. NW (Talk) 22:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

   There is no technicality here, and an administrator who cites BLP problems with an article title should have his or her opinion respected until there is consensus to change. That is straightforward to me, in both a normative and positive sense. NW (Talk) 16:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. 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)[reply]

   Well, we do have them in some circumstances; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. The question is whether this dispute falls within those circumstances, and in any event, whether those involved at the time reasonably believed it did or did not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. This is being used to trip up the closing administrators on a technicality.
   [•] 21:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. T. Canens (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per David Fuchs and AGK Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Both Kirill and the opposers make some valid points. I hope that given the prominence this dispute has taken on, the BLP policy will be edited to set forth the expectation that the reasons for a potentially controversial, or actually disputed, BLP-based action be promptly explained. Thus, hopefully the issue raised in this analysis will not recur in this form. This specific controversy is being resolved through the current requested-move discussion that started yesterday. Under the circumstances, I don't see a pressing need to further analyze this idiosyncratic situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per NYB. Not sure a detailed analysis is needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Don't think this is needed. Risker (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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" ([12]). This discussion continued for nine days.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. 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)[reply]
3. [•] 01:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree with Courcelles about combined FoFs, but this is fine Worm^TT(talk) 09:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 16:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8. Risker (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 ([13]). In subsequent statements, the administrators have reiterated the absence of any consensus ([14], [15]).

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)[reply]
2. Accurate; and pace Courcelles, rather than a ruling as to the merits of the close, I merely see an explicit affirmation that we will make no such ruling.
   [•] 01:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Accurate Worm^TT(talk) 10:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   There is no mention anywhere in the closing administrators' statement of them having found (or even looked for) a consensus on the BLP question. There is a dismissal of the BLP allegations, yes—but I believe that this dismissal was based on the admins' own evaluation of the substance of the BLP claim, not on any consensus to that effect expressed by the members of the community who participated in the discussion. It was, in essence, a "super-vote" made by the administrators when they closed the discussion rather than a reflection of a consensus that had already formed prior to that moment. Kirill ^[talk] 00:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Kww explains on the talk page how the panel reached the conclusion that there was consensus that using Bradley as title was not a BLP-violation. Not to mention that admins are always expected to evaluate the strength of the opposing arguments when they are determining what the consensus is on a given matter; doing otherwise would be vote-counting. I'm about to propose an alternative FoF, pilfering Kww's wording, with which I agree. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. 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)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 16:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Risker (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Same general thoughts as on FOF 5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I'm still evaluating this. I'd appreciate if Kirill would respond to Salvio's comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of consensus

7.1) 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 ([16]) as to the name, but that it is not a BLP violation to maintain the title at "Bradley Manning". Furthermore, they found that BLP is not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, "Chelsea Manning".

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. [•] 21:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. T. Canens (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 10:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Factual statement of what happened, while not endorsing the conclusions. Unlike NYB, I think some finding that this close took place is needed (more than what is stated in the next finding). What is needed (as others have pointed out) is a general discussion by the editing community on how to handle such cases, hopefully resulting in consensus on guidance. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Risker (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Unlike Kirill, I do think this decision was within the scope of the administrators. Risker (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This is technically correct, but misses the point that the closing administrators had no authority to make such a finding regarding the BLP question without an explicit consensus to that effect. Kirill ^[talk] 11:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Per Kirill. NW (Talk) 16:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Same general thoughts as on FOF 5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 ([17]) and BD2412, acting on behalf of all three administrators, changed the title of the article from "Chelsea Manning" to "Bradley Manning" ([18]).

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Purely as a statement of what occurred. Courcelles 18:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. [•] 01:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Historically correct, although the new RM discussion may result in a change to the title in the next few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 16:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7. Per Courcelles. Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Risker (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. T. Canens (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose:

1. As explained here, this is downright wrong. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. [•] 21:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. T. Canens (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 10:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Risker (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

would like to support this, but I cannot support either of the Evaluation of consensus drafts and so will abstain. NW (Talk) 16:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per my comment on finding 5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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, 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 transgender people to pretending to be an animal, or 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:

1. 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)[reply]
2. Fine as is.
   [•] 21:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Worm^TT(talk) 10:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This is incomplete. Although this FoF correctly acknowledges that not everyone voting in favour of Bradley did so out of transphobia, which is a good thing, it fails to mention that the discussion became a charlie foxtrot not only because of people making offensive remarks, but also because of the strident accusations of bigotry that have been levelled indiscriminately. Both these behaviours were disruptive and both need to be censured. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Salvio, would you like to submit a Platform Finding 9 ¾ detailing those strident accusations so we can vote on that as well? NW (Talk) 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. In favour of the alternate finding below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prefer 9 3/4. Risker (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Prefer 9 3/4. T. Canens (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. The option below is far superior. Courcelles 05:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Prefer the below. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Conduct during discussions

9 3/4) While a majority of the participating editors expressed their views reasonably and appropriately during the community discussion on the "Bradley/Chelsea Manning" page title, a number did not. Poor commentary included disparaging references to transgendered persons' life choices or anatomical changes. These comments, along with excessively generalized or blanket statements concerning motivations for wishing the page title to be "Bradley Manning", significantly degraded good-faith attempts to establish a consensus on the issue.

Support:

1. I welcome copyedits. Proposed to address the poor conduct of parties on all sides of the issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Thanks for proposing this principle, David. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. T. Canens (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Preferred. Risker (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 07:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Courcelles 05:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cjarbo2 seems to deny that Manning is correct to decide that her true gender is female. That is discrimination.
   [•] 21:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   NW (Talk) 16:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. The cited comment is insensitive but, in my view, it is insufficient to warrant branding this editor as a bigot (that's what saying that someone "engaged in discriminatory speech" ultimately may be taken to mean) in an arbitration finding. The editor made another comment that was actually more objectionable, cited in the evidence, but quickly edited it to remove the most offensive aspect. The editor hasn't edited in a month. I think the best outcome here would be for an administrator to place the editor on warning for discretionary sanctions, rather than a formal arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose as written, per this comment. Would support something along the lines of "unacceptable commentary" or that such commentary such as that is offensive and has no place anywhere in Wikipedia, per
   WP:BLPTALK. Will propose something along those lines if other arbitrators agree. Worm^TT(talk) 11:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. For the following FoF I am going to oppose, I largely agree with Salvio and Newyorkbrad. I do plan on writing a specific remedy to deal with these caliber of comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per WTT and Salvio. Risker (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Newyorkbrad, agreeing entirely with him about the more objectionable comment that was withdrawn. Even saying something like that and withdrawing it should put this editor on notice immediately for future sanctions if they say anything like this again. Carcharoth (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Maintaining my opposition per my comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. T. Canens (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Salvio and NYB are correct that discriminatory speech has a specific meaning, and these comments and those in subsequent FoFs do not fall into the pigeon hole. The comments are beyond insensitive though and are wholly unacceptable. We need to have findings on them, but I cannot accept them as currently written. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the comments in these findings of fact, while many of them are offensive, ill-informed, insensitive, hyperbolic and/or odious, are not discriminatory. Risker (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory speech by ColonelHenry

11) During the course of the dispute,

).

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. The comment in question contributed to the general deterioration of the article talk page, and the assumptions it turns on are fundamentally discriminatory. It therefore demands a finding of fact. I am unconvinced by the below that the comment in question is merely "insensitive"; it is clearly far worse than that.
   [•] 01:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   NW (Talk) 16:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. Courcelles 23:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. This comment was crass and insensitive, but I am not sure that an isolated comment made in the heat of the controversy warrants a formal arbitration finding. I recommend that an administrator place this editor on warning under the discretionary sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose as written, per this comment. Would support something along the lines of "unacceptable commentary" or that such commentary such as that is offensive and has no place anywhere in Wikipedia, per
   WP:BLPTALK. Will propose something along those lines if other arbitrators agree. Worm^TT(talk) 11:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not discriminatory, but would still support sanctions of some form. The entire comment was unnecessarily confrontational and aggressive and, as AGK says, contributed to the discussion going downhill. Carcharoth (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. While I agree with Salvio and WTT that this is not discriminatory speech, I also agree with AGK that this and similar comments from others was at least partially responsible for the deterioration of civil discourse on the talk page. Risker (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. T. Canens (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Disruptive participation by ColonelHenry

11.1) During the course of the dispute,

that was offensive, confrontational, and contributed to the general deterioration of debate on the article talk page.

Support:

1. Proposed.
   [•] 23:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Worm^TT(talk) 13:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I believe this single comment isn't sufficient for a finding; in fact, if the first proposed finding alleging this comment was discriminatory had not been proposed, I do not think we would even be considering findings for single comments in a very heated debate. Risker (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC) added missing words[reply]
2. Per Risker. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Moving to oppose. On balance, and following discussion with the editor on the PD talk page, I agree with Risker and Salvio. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per Risker and my comments elsewhere on the talkpage, despite the highly intemperate and inflammatory response to the notification that I asked be provided to him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Would a clerk (or any other uninvolved editor) please advise ColonelHenry that this finding and the remedy below are being proposed. There is no reason to believe he has been following the proceedings, and his input (on the talkpage) would be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory speech by Daniel32708

12) During the course of the dispute,

).

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles 19:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Though per the below, one of us should probably just dispense with the bureaucracy by indefinitely blocking the account.
   [•] 01:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   NW (Talk) 16:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This was a highly insensitive fashion for expressing the opinion that the article should remain at
   Bradley Manning. The animal analogies used, individually and cumulatively, demeaned trans individuals and coarsened the discussion. Nonetheless, the offensive remark was limited to a single edit, which appears to be the editor's only contribution in several months. I think the more measured approach would be a discretionary sanctions warning (applicable to both usernames, of course) rather than a formal arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Per NYB. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose as written, per this comment. Would support something along the lines of "unacceptable commentary" or that such commentary such as that is offensive and has no place anywhere in Wikipedia, per
   WP:BLPTALK. Will propose something along those lines if other arbitrators agree. Worm^TT(talk) 11:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per WTT. Risker (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. If anything, the more offensive part of the (incompletely quoted) comment is the last sentence. Cannot support as written, but would support putting all these editors on formal notice that if this conduct is repeated they will face sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Maintaining my opposition per my comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. T. Canens (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Something strange is going on here. A check of contributions for Daniel32708 reflects that the quoted comment is the account's only edit. I would ordinarily say that a formal arbitration finding would be serious overkill for an editor with only one edit. However, digging a little deeper reflects that Daniel32708's username was changed to something else, several months ago. At this point I am not sure that the new Daniel32708 shouldn't be blocked as potentially an impersonation account. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is impersonation; rather, it looks like Daniel32708 had his account renamed and then forgot about it. T. Canens (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; I accept that conclusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive participation by Daniel32708

12.1) During the course of the dispute,

] not gay-lobby propaganda").

Support:

1. Proposed.
   [•] 23:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. The reason the debate went downhill so fast was the manner in which people made their arguments, creating an unacceptable situation. We need to make it clear that comments such as these, comparing a gender identity issue to that of claiming to be an animal, are wholly unacceptable and needlessly provocative. A finding is necessary at a minimum. Worm^TT(talk) 07:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This comment was certainly inappropriate and offensive, but I still think it's a bit disproportionate to adopt a formal arbitration finding against a user who has made only one edit in the past four months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Newyorkbrad. Indeed, if the first proposed finding alleging this comment was discriminatory had not been proposed, I do not think we would even be considering sanctions for a single comment in a very heated debate. Risker (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC) added missing words[reply]
3. Moving to oppose per my comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Risker. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. While I recognise DHeyward's apology, it is still true that he made an unacceptable comment about the article subject; and reading his comment in context makes the sentence cited here even worse (I find "He can call himself anything he likes" even worse).
   [•] 01:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I disagree, Newyorkbrad. The context to me is clearly that Chelsea Manning's self-identification should be treated as irrelevant for anything; in conjunction with other statements made by DHeyward, I see that as perfectly adequate to pass a FOF. NW (Talk) 16:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Per Salvio. Even without the withdrawal and apology, I am not sure this isolated statement would have warranted a finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC) I also note the observation on the talkpage that read in context, the comments referred primarily to the article subject's legal status and identity at that point in time, rather than making some broader issue of the subject's self-identified gender identity or gender expression. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm less convinced about this one, partially by the tone of the rest of the comment, but mostly because DHeyward himself stepped up and accepted the issue with his comments. Worm^TT(talk) 11:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. DHeyward has in my eyes shown himself to be generally level-headed, and quick to apologize for poorly-considered remarks; I don't know what his particular biases are but he has done a good job of trying to forge common ground among parties that are very much opposed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not convinced that a finding is required. T. Canens (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per NYB and David Fuchs. Risker (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Though I came close to supporting. Those engaging in this sort of commentary need to realise it is offensive before they say it, not afterwards. Apologies and retractions may help, but don't fully undo the effect. The subsequent conduct may mitigate any need for sanctions, but a general probation may still be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Read in context, I believe this editor was saying that before retitling the article, we would want to see additional evidence of Manning's adoption of a female identity beyond the statement of August 22, and/or a changeover from "Bradley" to "Chelsea" in the usage of reliable sources. (The editor was presumably unaware of Manning's prior expressions of female identity, which had not attained nearly the amount of attention as the statement at sentencing, especially as of that time.) I believe this was an acceptable expression of the editor's opinion of how Wikipedia policy applied to this situation, whether or not I personally agree with his opinion or how he phrased it, and find no misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agreed in this case with Newyorkbrad.
   [•] 21:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Per NYB. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per NYB. Worm^TT(talk) 11:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. T. Canens (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per NYB. Risker (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Carcharoth (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

NW (Talk) 16:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Courcelles 19:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. This was probably the single most obnoxious and gratuitously offensive comment in the whole discussion, and while I'd prefer to see the finding phrased differently (per my comments elsewhere on the page), I certainly agree there is no place on Wikipedia for this sort of comment. Hitmonchan appears to edit primarily articles about football, and I suspect that he got caught up in the emotions of the move discussion and wound up writing something whose tone if not substance he regrets a month afterward. If that is the case, it would be useful for him to say so; I'd welcome someone's calling his attention (and that of any other editors mentioned in this proposed decision who may be unaware) to the fact that findings and remedies against them are being discussed here and that they may comment on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dreadful conduct.
   [•] 21:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Wholly unacceptable. Worm^TT(talk) 11:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. T. Canens (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 16:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8. This is a pretty clear example where the meaning is unmistakable, the tone is inflammatory, and the comments generally have no basis in policy or guideline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. This one does seem to meet the bar of discriminatory comment. Risker (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. The use of violent imagery to make a point here is gratuitous and completely unacceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 19:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Subject to my comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. [•] 21:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Would prefer different wording, per earlier comments, but these two were clearly unacceptable. Worm^TT(talk) 11:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. T. Canens (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support largely on the basis of repeated statements, and lack of any discernable policy/guideline-based arguments. There to fan the flames and register his opinion, not participate in a dialogue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 22:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9. Per David Fuchs. These again contain sufficient elements of discrimination that I can support. Risker (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Though the editing history is somewhat brief, so difficult to make an assessment here of the editor's overall contributions (maybe things will improve, maybe not). For now, what David says sums it up perfectly: "There to fan the flames and register his opinion, not participate in a dialogue.". Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Moving to oppose per my comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

[•] 21:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I've explained higher on the page why I don't think introducing the concept of "discriminatory speech" or "hate speech" into the decision is helpful. There are arguments pro and con, and I don't think the decision will stand or fall on what wording is used in this regard. I could amplify my view by discussing the benefits and drawbacks of "speech codes" that have been adopted by real-world institutions, but as

Fermat would put it, the margin here is too narrow to fit the argument in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]
2. Courcelles 19:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. [•] 21:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   NW (Talk) 22:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Offensive, but not discriminatory speech. Scottywong did not say that he considers transgender people to be animals or anything less than human; he merely made a very ill-advised analogy. So, as I said, offensive? Yes. Hate speech? No. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Scottywong was entitled to his opinion that the article should not be moved from
   Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning. To be sure, he expressed his view in an insensitive way that he could and should have realized would offend fellow editors; the analogy of a man thinking he is a dog, cited in the proposed finding, was especially unhelpful. Nonetheless, read as a whole, Scottywong's post in the move discussion was clearly a good-faith effort to address the proper article title in the context of relevant policies and encyclopedic considerations, and his evidence in this case suggests that Scottywong has no desire or intention to engage in any "discriminatory speech." To be very clear, I would like to see no further metaphorical or analogical references, in discussions of Manning or any other trans individual, to dogs, cats, pigs, and so forth. However, under all the circumstances, in the case of this long-time, good-faith editor, I do not believe a formal arbitration finding is required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Oppose as written, per this comment. Would support something along the lines of "unacceptable commentary" or that such commentary such as that is offensive and has no place anywhere in Wikipedia, per
   WP:BLPTALK. Will propose something along those lines if other arbitrators agree. Worm^TT(talk) 11:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Risker (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Salvio. Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. T. Canens (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. I've read Tarc's rebuttal, and it doesn't convince me. Both comments try to make the issue one of politics. There may be a time and a place for that discussion, but that page was not it. The talk page of articles on living people are not the place to hash out some conservative vs liberal/progressive ideology clash. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Tarc has now
   disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, particularly within a sensitive discussion involving a living person and laden with raw emotions on both sides. On the other website, Tarc described his conduct as "a minor point-making exercise, in the ballpark of the BLP breaching experiment, nothing more"; needless to say, however, "BLP breaching experiments" are not tolerated. Here, the "point" that Tarc claims he was trying to illustrate strikes me as indiscernible and obscure, but it is no more acceptable to play games in a single-buttock fashion and thus disrupt Wikipedia pointlessly rather than pointfully; nor is it a defense that Tarc was trolling the denizens of another website rather than only this one. Moreover, by repeatedly defending his deliberately provocative analogies after he made them, Tarc unnecessarily created further tensions within this already complex and embittering arbitration case itself. Under these circumstances, I am switching my vote to support, although the wording of the proposed finding is out of date. I may offer an updated proposed finding more directly focused on the unnecessary disruption that Tarc caused and the ensuing gratuitously given offense and the waste of everyone's time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Second choice. T. Canens (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The first expression cited here has been rebutted elsewhere. The latter expression used by Tarc was clearly problematic, but I am willing to excuse it as an isolated misstatement because the rest of the comment was reasonable and non-discriminatory.
   [•] 22:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Per AGK. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per AGK, first comment, whilst insensitive, has been debunked (Tarc's statement). Second, I agree with AGK completely. Worm^TT(talk) 12:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Mostly per AGK, but I'll reiterate my point that animal-related metaphors and analogies should be dropped. To Tarc more generally, I understand that you pride yourself on using direct language in discussions, but a little more restaint in sensitive contexts would not hurt. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Changed to support, see above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 22:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   T. Canens (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Not discriminatory speech, but very inflammatory and offensive. The "lipstick on a pig" is used almost exclusively to describe concepts, and the comparison here to a specific human is unacceptable. Risker (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Disruptive participation by Tarc

18.1) During the course of the dispute,

.

Support:

1. First choice. T. Canens (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wikipedia isn't a game or a social experiment – and to treat it as such, to the detriment of our articles, is unacceptable.
   [•] 13:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Per AGK. Wasting everyone's time for your own games is singularly unhelpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Risker (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree with the points raised. Worm^TT(talk) 07:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per all above and per my comments on 18 (and on Tarc's talkpage). We might also add that after his comments were criticized during this case, Tarc disingenuously defended them, deliberately compounding the waste of time and energy he had already caused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Courcelles 23:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Josh Gorand

19)

).

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Josh says "it's hard to see any other explanation for someone insisting on calling an individual who self-identifies as female by using their former name with which they no longer identifies, than virulent hatred of transgendered people". Many of the pro-Bradley editors opposed moving back the article because they think the subject should be referred to under the name she is most notable for. This thinking was reasonable, and mirrors the thinking of many other reputable news outlets. While I recognise Josh's frustration that some pro-Bradley editors were engaging in outrageous hate speech, I do not consider it acceptable that he lumped every pro-Bradley editor into the same category. This finding is therefore warranted.
   [•] 22:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Worm^TT(talk) 12:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 21:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. I don't think poor behavior on the part of others gives a free pass for further inflammatory comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 22:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7. Per AGK. Risker (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. The worst aspects of the discussion involved people stating their opinion on the move, and then taking a deep breath, getting up on a soapbox, and venting forth on their views, sometimes at great length. This was one of those situations where everyone needed to keep their comments short and succinct and on-topic. Once it descended into a general free-for-all there was little hope. Josh, from what I can see, was one of those that contributed to this deterioration of the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Opposing as phrased, but Josh Gorand should allow the renewed RM discussion to take its course at this point. (As an aside, I think the striking-through of Josh Gorand's comment and !vote in support of the RM, on the technicality that he framed the move proposal although in reality the RM was inevitably going to open yesterday anyway based on the expiration of the 30 days, while it's not going to affect the result at all, is symbolically unhelpful.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I've never found the term "battleground" to be helpful, but some of this editor's rhetoric during the discussion was obviously excessive and unhelpful. Kirill's point is a mitigating factor. Not sure whether we need a finding here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Sandifer

20)

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Accusing all editors who support a point of view of transphobia is unacceptable and has a chilling effect on discussions. I understand Phil's outrage, given some of the commentary of the opposing side, but that does not excuse his comments. Worm^TT(talk) 12:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Generally I don't view the actual arbitration proceedings as fodder for findings, however it contributes to further issues regarding the level of discourse, and definitely made the case worse for everyone. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. I understand emotions were running high, but some of the cited diffs, particularly those to one of the admins who closed the first move discussion, go too far. At some point, Phil made a choice to stay away from Wikipedia and write about his concerns. That looked to me to be the right decision, as when you feel this strongly, it can be difficult to participate calmly in discussions. On a side note, I'm not sure if it was ever picked up on, but in the third diff Salvio quotes, Phil implies that Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner were communicating BLP concerns from the Foundation. That was never, as far as I am aware, the case. They were, from what I can tell, speaking in their personal capacities. In any case, if the Wikimedia Foundation had concerns, they would have stepped in by other means. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Carcharoth. Risker (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Courcelles 05:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I see no evidence that Phil was involved in the actual dispute here. Kirill ^[talk] 01:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. 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)[reply]
3. [•] 22:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   NW (Talk) 22:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Off-wiki canvassing

21) During the discussion, the consensus-building process was tainted by off-wiki

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Probably inevitable and not actionable, but those editors who really want a consensus to form, rather than a stacked vote, will hopefully realise that using social media like this usually backfires. I note the current move discussion does have a big notice at the top about this sort of thing. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

2. Unacceptably old-fashioned finding of fact. To tweet once is hardly to canvass.
   [•] 22:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   NW (Talk) 22:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. There's room to interpret some elements of canvassing, but I'm more inclined to agree with Kirill and Newyorkbrad's comment below. Risker (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Only one of these is actually canvassing. Courcelles 05:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. For the moment, I'm going to abstain. The first did appear to be canvassing, but as NYB states below our canvassing policy is hugely out of date. We live in a world dominated by social media, where people will highlight matters to each other quickly. I think the community needs to consider the issue of canvassing in this changing world, and as such feel uncomfortable making a decision on it here. Worm^TT(talk) 12:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

For years I've been struggling to figure out how our anti-canvassing policies should be updated and applied. Given the prominence of Wikipedia and of Wikipedia articles, it is entirely inevitable that when controversies arise, they will be discussed off-wiki both privately and publicly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs

22) During the course of the dispute, Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) frequently accused other participants in the dispute of malice [33], [34] [35]; engaged in discriminatory speech based on his personal view of the article subject's actions [36] [37] [38] [39]; and needlessly personalised the dispute [40].

Support:

1. 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)[reply]
2. Kirill ^[talk] 21:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Baseball Bugs got far too caught up in the emotions of the moment in his comments about this article. Although one or two of these comments might be excused, their cumulative effect was most unhelpful. However, I note Baseball Bugs' statement on his userpage that he does not anticipate further involvement with this dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Fully accurate. By the by, one of these diffs also contains a reference by BB to the subject as "him/her/it".
   [•] 22:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 12:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. T. Canens (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. There are a lot of issues with Baseball Bugs' behavior, but this realm of his conduct is clearly problematic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 22:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9. It is telling that so many diffs were found for this editor's conduct. Saying now that they will stay away is a start, but doesn't undo the effect of those comments. Whether or not those comments were valid, the effect was confrontational and escalating, rather than the correct approach of attempting to both identify and resolve a dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Risker (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Would a clerk (or anyone, really) please advise Baseball Bugs that he's being proposed for a finding here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard's use of tools

23) During the course of the dispute, David Gerard used his tools to protect the article from being moved back to "Bradley Manning", mentioning "MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP" and, after another administrator moved the article back to its original title, he reversed that administrator's action. Finally, after getting involved in the content dispute on the article's talk page, he reversed the full edit protection imposed by another administrator.

After acting in his capacity as an administrator, at first, David Gerard failed to provide a detailed explanation of why he thought the title "Bradley Manning" would have violated the biographies of living persons policy and, when questioned, replied in an uncivil manner, accusing his interlocutors of disruptive behaviour. [41], [42], [43], [44]

David's actions violated the administrator policy sections on

.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. If an administrator is going to be unavailable to immediately explain any controversial admin action, and can reasonably be seen as involved, then common sense is that they should refrain from the action in question; this has long been held as common sense when blocking/unblocking editors or removing protection on an unstable article, and should be considered in a situation like this. BLP concerns are not a pass for acting with questionable judgement. I don't see anything in any previous arbitration cases where it says "involved admins, undertake this action, wheel war to keep your version, and wait a week to explain". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Even assuming for the sake of argument that these admin actions are actually enforcement actions under the Footnoted quotes decision, nothing in that decision authorized admins to wheel war or to perform an admin action while involved, nor does anything in that decision relieve them of their responsibility to timely and fully explain their actions when requested. Moreover, none of these admin actions were ever logged at the
   appropriate location, as required by the decision, nor did any of them reference the special enforcement provisions, and it should be obvious that reducing the level of protection applied to the page cannot be a BLP special enforcement action. T. Canens (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Axiomatically, it is inadvisable to repeatedly make enormous changes to a contentious article that is of current interest to the readership. David did so, and moreover neglected to respond to the reasonable counter-arguments that had been raised on the talk page at the time of his actions. Although I sympathise with David's frustration at the time, I cannot condone his hastiness in acting and his lack of forthcomingness with the editors opposing his move.
   [•] 20:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. There is a reasonable case here that the finding is valid. I do think that we need to draft and vote on findings on the other administrators that took actions here over page moves. My overall impression is that things may have gone better if another administrator (one that was more objective) had handled matters, and/or if David had stepped back after the initial actions and requested actions from other administrators. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. While I don't think the wheel-warring provisions apply here (I do agree David believed he was acting on a BLP matter), the very significant delay in explaining why he felt this was a BLP violation, and the snideness of some of his responses, was belittling to those who either disagreed or alternately did not understand his reasoning. It is reminiscent of the parent answering "Because I said so" to the toddler asking "why?", which is not an appropriate communication strategy when tensions are high and misunderstanding is rife. Risker (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Thanks to Salvio's explanation on the talk page here, I can now see the wheel warring aspect, moving the page whilst the protection was on it made it an admin action. Warring over admin actions makes it wheel warring. Worm^TT(talk) 10:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. David's actions in this dispute were consistent with the
   instructions given to administrators during the Footnoted quotes case. If those instructions have resulted in an outcome that is less than ideal, then the fault is our own; we cannot condemn administrators merely for doing as we told them to. Kirill ^[talk] 21:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Having already expressed his opinion on the article's talk page, David could not invoke that particular provision, because under

   WP:BLPBAN anywhere). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   NW (Talk) 17:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. I could have been okay with this, right up to the mention of wheel warring, That's not what happened here. Courcelles 05:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I'm not seeing the

WP:INVOLVED and he shouldn't have been using the tools, as such I won't oppose this finding. Worm^TT(talk) 10:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments:

Would a clerk (or another uninvolved user) please notify David Gerard that this has been proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 "

".

As with all decisions about content involving living persons, the policies on

.

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)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This is superfluous. With discretionary sanctions in place, I hope the community will be capable of handling the discussion. Also, Id prefer it if we allowed the community to choose who will end up closing the RM. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. We need to remove those who cannot discuss this sensibly, and let the community try again. Time has passed, I believe the community has the ability to do so, especially with the discretionary sanctions in place. Worm^TT(talk) 12:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Unnecessary. T. Canens (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Moot now, as the renewed RM discussion is underway and will hopefully lead to a consensus. Kirill's comments about how editors should behave during the discussion are sound, as is his comment that anyone who disrupts the discussion may if necessary be pagebanned (under the discretionary sanctions). Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Rendered moot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Moot. NW (Talk) 22:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. Courcelles 15:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Would have opposed even though the issue is moot now. This sort of structured approach should only be taken if repeated disputes and discussion cycles fail, which is not the case here so far. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Risker (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I don't think what we do matters much, either way.
   [•] 22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

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)[reply]

Cjarbo2 topic-banned

2)

topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per
   [•] 22:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Even though I opposed the findings for many of the named editors, I think the conduct for most of them, per the finding on conduct during discussions, rises to the level where a topic ban is warranted (effectively a discretionary sanction imposed by ArbCom without an explicit accompanying finding). If topic bans fail to pass, I agree with Newyorkbrad that all named editors in this case should be aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect and may be applied to them without further warning. I would also support a general reminder per David Fuchs. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. Per Carcharoth. T. Canens (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm opposing an open-ended topic ban, but this editor is on notice that discretionary sanctions may be applied without further warning should he make any further inappropriate comments on this subject. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prefer a generalized reminder for the parties whom I do not believe have risen to conduct that requires a specific personalized finding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per David Fuchs. Risker (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Moving to oppose per my comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Support in principle, but would require a finding I can get behind. Worm^TT(talk) 12:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

ColonelHenry topic-banned

3)

topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per
   [•] 22:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Courcelles 23:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Even though I opposed the findings for many of the named editors, I think the conduct for most of them, per the finding on conduct during discussions, rises to the level where a topic ban is warranted (effectively a discretionary sanction imposed by ArbCom without an explicit accompanying finding). If topic bans fail to pass, I agree with Newyorkbrad that all named editors in this case should be aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect and may be applied to them without further warning. I would also support a general reminder per David Fuchs. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. Per Carcharoth. T. Canens (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Supporting per new finding. Worm^TT(talk) 13:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm opposing an open-ended topic ban, but this editor is on notice that discretionary sanctions may be applied without further warning should he make any further inappropriate comments on this subject. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per other opposes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per David Fuchs. Risker (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Switching to oppose following discussion with the editor on the PD talk page, including this response, which while it may not satisfy all arbs, is good enough for me. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Support in principle, but would require a finding I can get behind. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Daniel32708 topic-banned

4)

topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles 20:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per
   [•] 22:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Even though I opposed the findings for many of the named editors, I think the conduct for most of them, per the finding on conduct during discussions, rises to the level where a topic ban is warranted (effectively a discretionary sanction imposed by ArbCom without an explicit accompanying finding). If topic bans fail to pass, I agree with Newyorkbrad that all named editors in this case should be aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect and may be applied to them without further warning. I would also support a general reminder per David Fuchs. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. Per Carcharoth. T. Canens (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. I do support a topic ban here. I would accept a time limited one, but am happy with indefinite. Worm^TT(talk) 07:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I'm opposing an open-ended topic ban, but this editor is on notice that discretionary sanctions may be applied without further warning should he make any further inappropriate comments on this subject. This applies to both of his usernames. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Risker (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Move to oppose per my comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Support in principle, but would require a finding I can get behind. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

DHeyward topic-banned

5)

topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

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

Oppose:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Although I supported
   [•] 22:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Oppose based on comments at finding. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 22:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. T. Canens (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Though I think that for many of the named editors a topic ban is warranted per the finding on conduct during discussions, I am opposing here as I don't think the conduct will be repeated. However, I agree with Newyorkbrad that all named editors in this case should be aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect and may be applied to them without further warning. I would also support a general reminder per David Fuchs. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Risker (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

DHeyward admonished and reminded

5.1) DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for using discriminatory speech (see #Discriminatory speech by DHeyward), and reminded to express his position more carefully when editing articles about transgender topics or individuals.

Support:

1. Proposed.
   [•] 22:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Oppose:

1. Given DHeyward's more recent comments on the workshop and on User talk:Sue Gardner, this is not necessary. See also my comments on the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Don't think an admonishment is necessary for this user. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. T. Canens (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. I would support this if the 'for using discriminatory speech' bit was removed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Risker (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I could accept this, but would require a finding I can get behind. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 22:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Dirac66 topic-banned

6)

topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

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

Oppose:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per my comments on
   [•] 22:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. T. Canens (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Though I think that for many of the named editors a topic ban is warranted per the finding on conduct during discussions, I am opposing here as I don't think the conduct will be repeated. However, I agree with Newyorkbrad that all named editors in this case should be aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect and may be applied to them without further warning. I would also support a general reminder per David Fuchs. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Risker (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Hitmonchan topic-banned

7)

topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles 20:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. [•] 22:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. T. Canens (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 22:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9. Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I don't think there's much point in topic-banning an editor who hadn't edited in the area before, and hasn't since. The discretionary sanctions should be more than sufficient to handle this. This despite my support of the relevant finding. Risker (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

IFreedom1212 topic-banned

8)

topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 20:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. [•] 22:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. T. Canens (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I don't think there's much point in topic-banning an editor who hadn't edited in the area before, and hasn't since. The discretionary sanctions should be more than sufficient to handle this. This despite my support of the relevant finding. Risker (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Move to oppose per my comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Scottywong topic-banned

9)

topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles 20:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. [•] 22:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Oppose:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Though I think that for many of the named editors a topic ban is warranted per the finding on conduct during discussions, I am opposing here as I don't think the conduct will be repeated. However, I agree with Newyorkbrad that all named editors in this case should be aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect and may be applied to them without further warning. I would also support a general reminder per David Fuchs. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. T. Canens (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Risker (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Support in principle, but would require a finding I can get behind. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Tarc topic-banned

10)

topic or individual, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per my support on the related finding. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. T. Canens (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per the new F18.1.
   [•] 13:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Per new FoF. I wouldn't be opposed to a topic ban from all BLPs, given the apparent flippancy he has towards degrading discussions relating to them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per new finding of fact. Risker (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. I would also support a all-BLP topic ban, like David. Courcelles 23:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per

[•] 13:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Re-affirming my oppose. Tarc's actions were unacceptable, not regarding the article or discussion, but rather disrupting Wikipedia processes in a highly tense area. I support an admonishment, or simply a reminder to not do such things again lest he be blocked under

   WP:POINT, but a topic ban is not fit for purpose. Worm^TT(talk) 07:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

   ]

3. See my comments on the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   (Updating after new finding) Tarc's conduct was unacceptable (see my comments on findings 18 and 18.1 above, and on his talkpage), and his flippancy in response to my criticism of his behavior is infuriating, and I will not mourn if this remedy passes; but I don't think it is really the right remedy, and would prefer a more general warning against any further disruptive point-making. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   T. Canens (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Risker (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Moving to support Risker (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Responding to Newyorkbrad's comment that he 'would prefer a more general warning [for Tarc] against any further disruptive point-making': I considered proposing a remedy to ban Tarc indefinitely from all arbitration pages, but then realised there is little point. It is unlikely that any arbitrators (or any editors either) will ever take Tarc seriously again, or take note of anything he has to say. That approach is likely to be remedy enough. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Gorand topic-banned

11)

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)[reply]
2. Second choice. Proposing R11.1 as an alternative and my first choice.
   [•] 22:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. First choice. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Only choice. T. Canens (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Only choice, esp. in light of today's block for edit warring on this topic. Courcelles 21:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per my support on the related finding. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per the related finding. Kirill ^[talk] 01:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Too harsh, even assuming we pass the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll revisit this vote in the next day or two in light of today's developments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Staying opposed at this point, but please see my comment on the proposed finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Too harsh, even in the light of recent developments. NW (Talk) 22:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. Would like to give the discretionary sanctions a chance to work here first; however, Josh is probably a lot closer to a topic ban here than just about everyone else. Risker (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Would like to give the discretionary sanctions a chance to work here first; however, Josh is probably a lot closer to a topic ban here than just about everyone else. Risker (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Risker (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Josh Gorand admonished and reminded

11.1) Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is admonished for disruptive conduct (see #Josh Gorand), and reminded to engage more carefully in disputes about transgender topics or individuals.

Support:

1. Proposed. First choice.
   [•] 22:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Second choice Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 22:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. Risker (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Way too lenient. If we are voting to topic ban editors who have only made one offensive remark, then, in this case, where there is a pattern of disruptive edits a topic ban is warranted
   a fortiori. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. T. Canens (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Edit warring while a vote to topic ban you is going on is an especially poor decision. Insufficient. Courcelles 21:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Salvio. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. The finding and the associated reminder that discretionary sanctions are available for any additional problematic behavior will hopefully be sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Phil Sandifer topic-banned

12)

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)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per my support on the related finding. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per the related finding. Kirill ^[talk] 01:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per my vote on the related finding, and subject to my comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. [•] 22:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. I believe a finding is sufficient, would consider an admonishment, but this is excessive. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Wouldn't even support an admonishment. NW (Talk) 22:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. Party per Risker, but I think excessive at this time, if there are problems in the future, DS can be used to deal with them. Courcelles 05:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Would like to give discretionary sanctions a try first; however, this may be a case where the editor's deeply held personal beliefs are in significant conflict with the ability to edit and discuss neutrally in the topic area. Risker (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Would support an admonishment, if one is proposed. T. Canens (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to give discretionary sanctions a try first; however, this may be a case where the editor's deeply held personal beliefs are in significant conflict with the ability to edit and discuss neutrally in the topic area. Risker (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Moved to oppose[reply]

Comments:

Baseball Bugs topic-banned

13) Baseball Bugs is indefinitely

topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information

, broadly construed.

Support:

1. At the end of the day, I think this editor's bigger problem here -- though not the only one -- is one of politics; c.f. the diffs above labeling Manning a "traitor" to justify ignoring BLP. This indicates this is more a general problem with leakers than with just Manning, as well. Courcelles 21:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. [•] 22:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Support, though I do agree with NYB's comments below. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. T. Canens (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. I see Brad's point, but I also think we should take the opportunity to try and stem troublesome content in a fraught area, even if it will not fully address the issues with the editor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Per DF; also see below. NW (Talk) 22:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7. Per my support of the related finding. Am OK with the topic ban being extended to cover a wider area, though I would also be amenable (if this passes) for this editor to file a request for a more formal review, though that might lead to further sanctions being placed depending on what the review concludes, rather than any of them being lifted. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I don't think this remedy is well-tailored to the problem. Also, as I point out under the finding of fact, Baseball Bugs has indicated he doesn't expect any further involvement in this dispute. However, this is not the first time in which Baseball Bugs has been urged to tone it down at least one notch, if not several. His best value to the encyclopedia and the community clearly does not come in the form of wading into contentious discussions and intemperately typing the first thing that comes to mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. I would rather give general sanctions a chance to work here. This is not the first time that Baseball Bugs has behaved inappropriately, but I do not think that his issue is specifically with this topic; it is a more general issue. Risker (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I would rather give general sanctions a chance to work here. This is not the first time that Baseball Bugs has behaved inappropriately, but I do not think that his issue is specifically with this topic; it is a more general issue. Risker (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Moved to oppose[reply]

Comments:

I agree with Courcelles and NYB, and think that the conduct restriction that we passed in Doncram might be better suited for this editor. NW (Talk) 17:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised Baseball Bugs hasn't already been the subject of a case; I think he needs to clean up aspects of his act. But his antics away from the Manning matter aren't the subject of this case, and I haven't followed his other behavior very recently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs general editor probation

13 ½) Baseball Bugs is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Baseball Bugs repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed as if they were

discretionary sanctions

.

Support:

Proposed as supplement to above proposal. NW (Talk) 22:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Good idea, as an additional measure. Courcelles 23:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. T. Canens (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Far far too broad. I cannot imagine a situation where I would agree to general probation on any editor - if they are causing that much trouble in every area, they should blocked/banned. Worm^TT(talk) 07:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per WTT, if this were actually necessary (which it is not), we should be voting to site-ban the subject – not telling the community to nanny them.
   [•] 20:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. A reasonable suggestion, but on the whole I think the "nannying" terminology is appropriate. His conduct in this area can be addressed via DS if needed; elsewhere we don't really have the grounds. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per WTT. Risker (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is outside the scope of the case, and hasn't been the subject of evidence. Anecdotally we all know, as I said higher on the page, that Baseball Bugs should do a better job of coloring within the lines, but I'm not ready as an arbitrator to pass a remedy governing all aspects of his behavior at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

David Gerard desysopped

14) For his misuse of the administrator tools, David Gerard (talk · contribs)'s administrative privileges are revoked.

Support:

1. This is necessary because David is still adamant that he did nothing wrong, which does not instill me with any confidence that something like this won't happen again. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Looking at this in a new light due to the wheel violation, I no longer feel this is excessive. I do note that the actions were in good faith to uphold BLP as Carcharoth points out, but wheel warring is unacceptable. The entire point of locking an article down is to ensure community discussion, not supervoting by administrators even in BLP situations. Worm^TT(talk) 10:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Disproportionate and excessive, even assuming a finding of misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per the related finding. Kirill ^[talk] 21:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Just no. NW (Talk) 17:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Excessive. Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

3. Per my colleagues, this would be excessive as a remedy. David's actions were clearly ill-considered, but I do not think they demand a desysopping.
   [•] 20:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Though I supported the related finding, the actions were taken in good faith to uphold BLP, which mitigates things enough here for me to oppose this remedy. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Carcharoth. I do not wish to see a chilling effect on administrators upholding BLP. Risker (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Risker. Courcelles 05:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. T. Canens (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

David Gerard admonished

14.1) David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).

Support:

1. Proposed.
   [•] 20:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Per my support of the related finding. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Distant second choice, as I consider this excessively lenient, but it's necessary to put across the message that David's conduct was incompatible with Wikipedia's standards of conduct for admins. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per my support of the related finding. Risker (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. The fact I don't care for the details of the FoF doesn't negate the need for this. David's conduct wasn't, by any means, ideal; though his heart was in the right place of upholding BLP. Courcelles 05:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Worm^TT(talk) 07:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

David Gerard restricted in use of tools

14.2) David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.

Support:

1. Proposed, in addition to the above and not as an alternative. It is quite apparent that David's lack of objectivity about these issues has been problematic. We should therefore formalise our expectation that he restrain himself to the role of "involved editor", and not take administrative actions, in future disputes similar to this one.
   [•] 22:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. T. Canens (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles 17:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. David had an outstanding opportunity, as a longtime experienced editor familiar with the social concepts related to transgenderism, to provide policy-based, subject-sensitive arguments in a way that educated users and supported a move of the article to the "Chelsea" title. Instead, he appeared from just about all angles to be engaging in "activism by adminship"; that is, by using his administrative tools to force his preference without adequately explaining his reasoning. Administrator involvement does not just include past interactions with editors or financial conflict of interest; it includes actions taken on subjects about which one has strongly held opinions. From that sense, David was involved. Risker (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 07:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per related finding. Kirill ^[talk] 00:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Too broad in my opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per NYB. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Discretionary sanctions applicable

15) The

standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology

for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. [•] 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. WP:BLPBAN would also be worth a mention here... Courcelles 01:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kirill ^[talk] 17:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. T. Canens (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   NW (Talk) 22:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8. Not sure about the logging provision - I would want to see actions taken over the naming dispute logged here, but I can see that it would be simplest to log in one place. Hopefully it will be possible to tell the difference between the logged actions in practice. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Fine with doing all the logging on the Sexology case page. Risker (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm ambivalent about the logging provision (it wasn't in the original proposal as I posted it). If we adopt this as-is, a cross-reference should be put on the final decision page, both to prevent admins logging in the "wrong" place and so anyone needing to can consult the list of who has been sanctioned (though hopefully no one will have to be). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reminded

16) All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

Support:

Proposed. NW (Talk) 22:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. T. Canens (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Worm^TT(talk) 07:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles 21:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Suggested copyedit: perhaps change "was found to be incivil" to "has been criticized in connection with this case". Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I changed it to 'subject to a finding in this case' which is really what the link is saying (I don't think 'incivil' has been used anywhere else on this page). I'll alert those who have voted to this change. Carcharoth (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7. Risker (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

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)[reply]

• Per Newyorkbrad's comment here, we need to be sure that all the editors named in this decision are aware of it and have had a chance to respond. I had earlier said the following on the arbitration mailing list (at 21:47 UTC on 5 October 2013). "We appear to be voting to sanction people who have not edited since the edits in question, and who are thus not aware of the case and have not had a chance to say anything in their defence". Since then, I've looked through the contributions of the accounts named in this decision, and four accounts (Daniel32708/Imprimaturcr, Casy Penk/Resoru, Cjarbo2, and IFreedom1212) haven't edited since August or early September, which is before the proposed decision was posted. Obviously we can't hold up the case until they turn up, but it should be noted that they were not present during voting. Until wording to that effect is added, I am moving to oppose or abstain on findings and remedies related to those editors. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I would rather we worked on available evidence and would remove anything should they request clarification. I would certainly take into account the fact that a person was not present during a case in a clarification request, but am not willing to allow people to just duck out to avoid sanctions. Worm^TT(talk) 07:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think anyone is ducking out to avoid sanctions. I think some editors are genuinely unaware that the proposed decision has been posted. I've just finished a more in-depth analysis of the recent contributions of the twenty editors named in this decision, in an attempt to ascertain who has been participating in the case and who has not. Thirteen of them are definitely aware of the case, but as the response of ColonelHenry on the PD talk page showed, some editors were not following the case after being notified. I've asked the clerks to notify the following seven editors (who have not participated at the proposed decision talk page so far),to let them know that they are named in the proposed decision, that discussion and voting is ongoing, and that they should respond on the proposed decision talk page if they wish to contest the decision, particularly the parts in which they are named:

  • User:Scottywong
  • User:Cls14
  • User:Dirac66
  • User:Resoru
  • User:IFreedom1212
  • User:Cjarbo2
  • User:Imprimaturcr

  It is possible that the links I've left above will notify the editors, but some may have notifications turned off, and there is a limit to how many notifications can be sent in one edit (this is presumably why Kirill's posting of the proposed decision didn't notify all those named). There are another two editors who are aware of the case, but haven't posted to the PD talk page. I will follow those up myself. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Rschen7754 00:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Scope of policy on biographies of living persons	10	0	0		·
2	Sensitivity towards living persons	10	0	0		·
3	Removal of material about living persons	10	0	0		·
4	Ambiguity regarding explanations in the BLP policy	4	6	0		Cannot pass
5	Discriminatory speech	4	6	0		Cannot pass
5.1	Non-discrimination	6	3	0		Cannot pass
5.2	Equality and respect	7	3	0		·
6	Authority of the Arbitration Committee	2	8	0		Cannot pass
7	Casting aspersions	10	0	0		·
8	Advocacy	10	0	0		·
9	Tag-team editing	3	7	0		Cannot pass
10	Applicability of the BLP policy	9	0	0		·
11	The BLP policy and article titles	10	0	0		·
12	The BLP policy and individuals' names	4	5	0		Cannot pass
12.1	The BLP policy and individuals' names	8	0	0		·
13	Standards of conduct for administrators	8	1	0		·
14	Conduct on arbitration pages	9	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Nature of underlying dispute	10	0	0		·
2	Initial changes of article title	7	1	0		·
3	Change of article title by David Gerard	9	0	0		·
4	Rationale for change of article title by David Gerard	8	2	0		·
5	Analysis of change of article title by David Gerard	1	5	3		Cannot pass
6	Requested move discussion	8	0	1		·
7	Evaluation of consensus	3	6	1		Cannot pass
7.1	Evaluation of consensus	7	1	1		·
8	Change of article title by closing administrators	9	0	0		·
9	Analysis of change of article title by closing administrators	1	7	1		Cannot pass
9 1/2	Offensive comments in the discussion	3	6	0		Cannot pass
9 3/4	Conduct during discussions	8	0	0		·
10	Discriminatory speech by Cjarbo2	2	6	1		Cannot pass
11	Discriminatory speech by ColonelHenry	3	5	2		Cannot pass
11.1	Disruptive participation by ColonelHenry	2	4	0		4
12	Discriminatory speech by Daniel32708	3	7	0		Cannot pass
12.1	Disruptive participation by Daniel32708	2	4	0		4
13	Discriminatory speech by DHeyward	2	7	0		Cannot pass
14	Discriminatory speech by Dirac66	1	8	0		Cannot pass
15	Discriminatory speech by Hitmonchan	10	0	0		·
16	Discriminatory speech by IFreedom1212	9	1	0		·
17	Discriminatory speech by Scottywong	3	7	0		Cannot pass
18	Discriminatory speech by Tarc	4	4	1		1
18.1	Disruptive participation by Tarc	8	0	0		·
19	Josh Gorand	8	2	0		·
20	Phil Sandifer	7	3	0		·
21	Off-wiki canvassing	3	4	3		Cannot pass
22	Baseball Bugs	10	0	0		·
23	David Gerard's use of tools	7	2	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Discussion on article title	1	8	1		Cannot pass
2	Cjarbo2 topic-banned	3	5	1		Cannot pass
3	ColonelHenry topic-banned	5	5	0		Cannot pass
4	Daniel32708 topic-banned	5	5	0		Cannot pass
5	DHeyward topic-banned	1	8	0		Cannot pass
5.1	DHeyward admonished and reminded	1	6	1		Cannot pass
6	Dirac66 topic-banned	1	8	0		Cannot pass
7	Hitmonchan topic-banned	9	1	0		·
8	IFreedom1212 topic-banned	8	2	0		·
9	Scottywong topic-banned	3	6	1		Cannot pass
10	Tarc topic-banned	7	3	0		·
11	Josh Gorand topic-banned	7	3	0		·
11.1	Josh Gorand admonished and reminded	2	5	0		Cannot pass	[1]
12	Phil Sandifer topic-banned	4	6	1		Cannot pass
13	Baseball Bugs topic-banned	7	2	0		·
13 1/2	Baseball Bugs general editor probation	2	7	0		Cannot pass
14	David Gerard desysopped	3	6	1		Cannot pass
14.1	David Gerard admonished	8	0	0		·
14.2	David Gerard restricted in use of tools	7	3	0		·
15	Discretionary sanctions applicable	9	0	0		·
16	Editors reminded	7	0	0		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Standard enforcement	0	0	0		Cannot pass

Notes

1. ^ Second choice votes have not been included in this total as 11 is passing.

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

1. I will ask the clerks to update the implementation notes, and some voting still remains, but the core of a decision is there, so I am starting the motion to close the case as I don't anticipate further changes in my votes. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^[talk] 12:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. This looks done to me. Courcelles 22:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 07:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Looks like we are done here. T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. [•] 21:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. I suppose it might be fun to keep this open a few more days so people can continue to call us various names on the talkpage, but let's not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[•] 21:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

There's still a few loose ends to tie up. T. Canens (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments