Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
t e

If you wish to submit evidence, please do so in a new section (or in your own section, if you have already created one). Do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the prescribed limits. If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page. Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100

. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a

if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Current word length: 720 (limit: 500); diff count: 9. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

Clarity of the BLP policy

The

to the page, none of which pertained to this issue. This is to illustrate that it was not clearly defined at the time; nothing about gender identity was either added or removed.

MOS:IDENTITY

The issue of gender identity is, however, covered in the

two days prior to Manning's self-identification as female:

“

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time).

”

Verifiability

Manning became a high-profile public figure well before she revealed her true gender identity. As such, most sources will refer to her as "Bradley Manning", using male pronouns such as "he", "him", "his", etc. But since Manning came out as female, many major media outlets have followed suit. For example: the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Los Angeles Times, the Telegraph, the Independent, etc. Thus, the name "Chelsea Manning" now satisfies

guideline.

Preference of Manning

Manning herself has asked that people refer to her using female pronouns.[2][3]

Manning move war

The sequence of events that occurred between several trusted users (mostly administrators) on August 22 can be viewed in the page's public logs. To give a basic synopsis:

• Administrator
  BLP
  ).

• autopatrolled flag, reversed Morwen's move with the following summary: "This is a bloke called Bradley Manning". He was unaware of Manning's announcement at the time, and apologized to Morwen
  shortly thereafter. He is not a party to this case.

• Likely assuming a misunderstanding on Cls14's part, Morwen altered the title again (one minute prior to his post on her talk page).

• Pursuant to a listing made by
  requested moves, administrator Tariqabjotu moved the article back
  to its original name pending further discussion. StAnselm is not listed as an involved party.

• Tariqabjotu's action was reversed by administrator David Gerard, whose edit summary was as follows: "Reverting move per WP:BLP". There was no attempt at discussion beforehand, nor was there any prior notice given to Tariqabjotu. David's unilateral action drew both praise and criticism from several other users on his talk page; he has defended his move by saying that BLP "mandates immediatism." For contextual purposes only, David is a former arbitrator and once had access to the checkuser and oversight tools, but these were removed in 2009 due to inappropriate usage.

• On that related note, administrator Mark Arsten fully protected the article due to the content dispute. David reversed this action, justifying it by saying that "the moves were all admins; actual vandalism to the text hasn't been a problem so far". Mark took issue with this and chimed in on the discussion at David's talk page (see the link in the above bullet for details). However, the former has since posted on the evidence talk page, making clear that he considers the protection reversal to be a non-issue. Mark Arsten is not a party to this case.

• After a
  MOS:IDENTITY
  , and also because there was no consensus for the move. BD2412 also placed a 30-day moratorium on any new proposals to rename the article. None of these three administrators are listed as parties to this case.

• Addendum — Sorry, missed the talk page discussion mentioned by Psychonaut below. I've now fixed that part of my evidence to more accurately convey the actual dispute. In case there were any misunderstandings, I never meant to cast Morwen's move in a negative light. I should also note that my reference to her being an administrator was purely for contextual purposes, and does not pertain to the rename itself.
• Addendum #2 — Per Kww's post on my talk page, I also mistakenly misrepresented BD2412's decision as reflecting community consensus, when in fact none existed (I read through the discussion, but I'd forgotten to change that before saving the page).

Current word length: 1327 (limit: 1000); diff count: 31. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

Opposition riven with personal biases and ignorance of transgenderism

A significant number of !votes in the requested move discussion included statements that indicated the user's personal dislike, contempt or ignorance of transgenderism. These statements are not necessarily indicative of intentional transphobia (though some are), but they are indicative of a failure to understand or accept a modern medical and psychological understanding of transgender people. They often demonstrate a profound insensitivity to the article subject that is at odds with human decency — up to and including complete denial of her gender identity.

• IFreedom1212 refers to Manning as a male and claims that "he is clearly mentally unstable and his latest remarks and desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit until the words are matched by some serious and tangible action." [4]
• Carrite calls the move "activist stupidity... bringing WP into disrepute" and demands that the article not be renamed until Manning undergoes sex change surgery [5]
• Norden1990 rejects Manning's transgenderism entirely, saying "he is definitely male." [6]
• An anonymous IP user asserts that renaming the article is "radical political advocacy (which advocacy is the sole reason Manning's article keeps being mangled to describe him as Anything-But-Male)." [7]
• An anonymous IP user claims that renaming the article was "done only to please the social justice warriors. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source, not a forum to push your gender politics." [8]
• CombatWombat42 says "Actually my biggest problem with this whole debate is people telling me what I have to do. There is no framework for issues like this and it should be discussed and figured out, but I am not a person that likes to be told "you have to do it this way" especially when their reason is "I want it to be that way" or "It makes me feel better". Please stop implying that all gender identity issues have been worked out and that everyone agreees with you, some people are uncomfertable calling people who are genetically and physically male "her" and "she" for any number of reasons." [9]
• An anonymous IP user claims "I think a fair statement in society is that we'll tolerate you doing what you want in terms of body modification and unusual sexual practices, and in exchange you can tolerate our freedom to use language as we please, and not try to enforce political correctness and thought crime." [10]
• Fightin' Phillie says "(S)He is a male, was through the entire trial, and will be throughout the entire prison sentence. (S)He has been and will be a male for everything that (s)he is notable for." [11]
• Surfer43 says "No matter what he says, he is still himself" - with bolding as per the original. [12]
• Count Truthstein says "The subject is still male in every meaningful sense." [13]
• Necrothesp says "Oh come on, let's be real here. Who the hell is Chelsea Manning? What he chooses to call himself now is utterly irrelevant." [14]
• Wasmachien says "While I think there's nothing wrong with being transgender, the level of activism here that has nothing to do with Manning makes me want to vomit. Please take your struggle for recognition elsewhere." [15]
• Cjarbo2 writes "I think the politicization and ridiculous PC attitude on this website do a disservice to people hoping to get factual information. The fact is, this is a guy, legally and biologically, who has a male name legally. He is a woman only in his own head, and the collective imagination of the radical left." [16]
• Daniel32708 says "If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog, or a cat, would they change it to reflect such a non-sense? Biologically he is a man and will die a man (check his chromosomes XY), and legally he is a man (he even asks to be called by his male name in official stuff). It is stupid to change the wikipedia article... this deserves, at most, a brief section. Wikipedia is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda." [17]
• Taylor_Trescott wrote ""I am a girl, call me Chelsea" is the worst move rational I've heard in a while. This page is currently laughable and embarrassing." [18]
• Tarc claimed that "his actual name is Bradley Manning" and called the move "LGBT politics run amok." [19]
• Alandeus opposed the move on the grounds that "1) Gender change currently is just a wish and not official. 2) Gender change is not carried out physically." [20]
• ColonelHenry refers to transgenderism and Manning's announcement as a "one-day circus freak show." [21]
• Scottywong says "What would we do if Manning came out tomorrow and said that he'd like to be considered a dog instead of a human, that we should refer to him as Rover, and use "it" instead of "he/she"? Manning can say that he wants to be a girl all he wants, but the fact remains that he's not." [22]
• Hitmonchan says "He's still a man." [23]
• DebashisM says "Just because (s)he has shouted to be known by some other name does not actually mean that (s)he is actually a transgender." [24]
• Toyokuni3 says "this individual is morphologically, chromosomally, and most important legally still male." [25]
• WeldNeck says "He's still got the chromosomes, package and legal name of a guy and no ammount of critical queer/feminist/gender analysis will get around those three simple truths." [26]
• DHeyward says "he is Bradley Manning and will be until his sentence is served. He will be housed with male inmates and will not be given any gender reassigmnent. He can call himself anything he likes, but legally his name is Bradley Manning, He is widely known as Bradley Manning and the Army will only refer to him as Bradley Manning. "Chelsea" should barely be a footnote. "Chelsea Mannning" does not exist." [27]
• TeddyTesseract says "Wikipedia (which purports to be an encyclopaedia) and it's talk pages shouldn't become a forum for LGBT activism WP:ACTIVIST . "Sensitivity" for Private Manning's feelings (who is a criminal convicted of treason) is just a red herring. This entire episode has been a phenomenally successful work of internet activism; The topic of transgender-ism (originating from THIS very page) has now made most mainstream media outlets (with the exception of the left wing press, the reputation of wikipedia has taken a severe battering)." [28]

Similar comments outside of the !vote

The !vote for the requested move was hardly the only area where such comments were made.

Tarc

• "This guy is "Bradley Manning", a man and a male, both sex and gender. Period. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe y'know." [29]
• "There is simply no actual person named "Chelsea Manning" here. What we have is a man named "Bradley Manning" who wants to be called by this other name (and awhile ago it was reportedly "Breanna") and referred to as "she"." [30]
• "It is not a fringe opinion, it is a very real one that is tied to the rejection of political correctness. I give no credence to Bearcat's "medical records are private therefore we just have to go by what the subject says", it's just too absurd to even address. ... Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so. You can deride that as "fringe" if that's what makes you comfortable with yourself, I really don't plan to spend much time haranguing you on why that's incorrect. But from a Wikipedia policy standpoint, we're still at the simple place and time where Manning is still regarded as a male, and generally addresses him as such." [31]
• "If we're addressing him by a masculine name, then we should certainly be addressing him by masculine pronouns. Seriously, it is about time for the political correctness to take a backseat to common sense." [32]

Others

• Hitmonchan says "Only when his testicles are ripped out of his scrotum and replaced with synthetic ovaries and has his sex changed from "male" to "female" will I call Manning a "she", but for now, if you have testicles and aren't a hermaphrodite, you are subjected to be referred to with male nouns." [33]
• Theofficeprankster wrote "Apparently the liberal thing to do these days is to pretend that we don't know this person has a penis." [34]

Current word length: 185; diff count: 0.

Corrigendum to Kurtis's timeline

Kurtis's timeline of the #Manning move war above contains a few problems. Specifically, he writes that the initial move by "Administrator Morwen… was done without discussion". In the ensuing move discussions, this was an oft-repeated falsehood, and I am disappointed to see it reproduced here, despite numerous refutations by Morwen herself and other editors.

To once again set the record straight, is absolutely untrue that the move was carried out without discussion. The article talk page as it appeared at the time of the move shows that a brief discussion had occurred between three users: 68.81.192.33 (whose opening comment was unsigned), Nicholas Perkins, and Morwen. Morwen was a participant in, but not the initiator of, this discussion.

Also, though it's true that Morwen is an administrator, this move (and her subsequent one) did not require administrator privileges; any autoconfirmed user had all the requisite permissions to move the page. Morwen also never specifically invoked her authority as an administrator when making the moves. Despite this, Morwen's putative "abuse of the admin tools" was another scurrilous falsehood often repeated in the ensuing discussions of the move.

Current word length: 947; diff count: 7.

Interpretation of BLP

It is true that

While

MOS:IDENTITY

does not mention article titles specifically, it would be a highly inconsistent interpretation of that guideline to assume it doesn't cover it. The basic principle of MOS:IDENTITY is that Wikipedia needs to respect a "person's latest (original emphasis) expressed gender self-identification" in "any phase of that person's life."

WP:POLICY

states:

"Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense."

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY

states:

"Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus."

Wikipedia:Five pillars states:

"Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording"

According to the Transgender Law Center,

"it is extremely disrespectful to be called by a pronoun or name one does not chose for oneself. It invalidates one's identity and self-concept. This lack of validation and recognition can and often does lead to depression and suicide."[36]

The Leveson Inquiry stated that the use of former names "causes obvious distress" and may be "intensely painful."[37]

Specifically discussing this case, a blog post by digital media ethics scholar Amy Dobrowolsky argues that misgendering a transgendered person is perceived by transgendered people and others as a form of (verbal/psychological) violence, and that "old names are frequently weaponised against us."[38]

The way we treat Manning does not only affect Manning herself, but has a profound effect on other transgendered people who read this article and society at large.

Other media

Removed due to lack of space

BLP violations and personal attacks by various editors

A large number of editors made comments that clearly violated BLP, degraded Manning and transgendered people in general, and created a hostile environment (cf. evidence provided by NorthBySouthBaranof). A number of editors made reasonable and justified comments pointing out hate speech and the lack of any administrative action to prevent it on that talk page. It was both understandable and good for Wikipedia's reputation that some editors called out what was going on there on Wikipedia and elsewhere (eg. administrator PhilSandifer's article here[39]). The media response to what happened here clearly demonstrates that.

Tariqabjotu made personal attacks

As pointed out by Thryduulf (talk · contribs) and others, Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) was engaged in wheel-warring over the title in direct violation of the BLP policy. In the aftermath, he made several personal attacks. In these two edits[40][41], for example, he told David Gerard that "Your arrogance knows no bounds" and further used words like "disgusting", "manipulation" and "collusion" (an accusation of bad faith) against him. He has also made several comments speculating on David's and Morwen's private life, repeatedly inappropriately claiming that because they have met (in the context of Wikimedia UK), they are engaging in "collusion" (per above).

TParis aggressively singling out another editor over several weeks for (correctly) pointing out transphobic commentary

TParis posts a comment on WP:ANI with several obvious and gross misrepresentations* of an editor's comments, which is clear from reading them in context[42] In the subsequent discussion[43] his claims are rejected and a number of his misrepresentations pointed out specifically (note that several participants in that discussion had themselves made comments like this[44]; this was essentially an attempt by people favouring Bradley and making inappropriate comments to silence those pointing this out, that was opposed by those uninvolved). TParis didn't accept the outcome, and has, in a severe case of

but how editors protesting against hate speech are aggressively victimised.

• Such as claiming "I said no" is a "personal attack", when the comment was a response to an editor repeatedly unproductively asking the same question over and over after being told the matter was addressed in another section and that rehashing a lengthy debate was unnecessary; claiming an explanation of an administrator's (reasonable) use of the word transphobia was a "personal attack"; see diffs linked in ANI discussion for context

Evidence presented by thehistorian10

Current word length: 463; diff count: 0.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

WP:MOS and WP:MOS Identity

I concur in the arguments presented that

MOS:IDENTITY

doesn't mention anything about titles. This is an argument about titles, and nothing else. MOS:IDENTITY itself quite clearly states that it does not apply to titles.

The application of WP:TITLES and WP:COMMONNAME

WP:TITLES trumps WP:BLP. BLP is a guideline, and is therefore not technically enforceable. Whilst BLP does say that it applies to titles, it does not cover this scenario, and is therefore unenforceable for two reasons. Further, this is supported by the fact that the admins who decided the move request clearly stated that BLP does not apply to article titles. Therefore, Josh Goarand's attempts to invoke BLP, when it has been clearly stated to be inapplicable, are dead in the water.

WP:TITLES especially requires that when deciding on titles for articles, it should be that the more commonly recognised title should be used. In this circumstance, the subject of this article was more commonly known as Bradley, as that is his birth name. the name "Chelsea" only came out recently, and even stil, nearly a month after the release of the statement declaring the change of name, not every news source has adopted it. An example is the BBC, one of the most respected news sources in the world.

In closing the original move case, the admins stated that WP:COMMONNAME is the basic policy that should be worked from when deciding on article titles. As I have stated, this policy dictates that Bradley Manning be the title.

rebuttal to other users' "evidence"

I have rebutted Josh Gorand's evidence already, and will not deal with it again here. I can only respond to User:Kurtis by stating that his reliance on newspapers to satisfy the WP:COMMONNAME is unstable. These newspapers are biased and partial, with publicly known political allegiances. Some other sources, which have not been mentioned, might disagree and remain with Bradley (cf. BBC). Use impartial and uncontroversial sources.

Regarding the "preference" argument made by Kurtis, it should be borne in mind that in Manning's own statement, he still accepts male pronouns in official matters. Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is an "official matter", and thus the male pronouns should be used.

I do not disagree with the timelines submitted by User:Psychonaught, and Kurtis (notwithstanding my rebuttal to other parts of Kurtis' submission). I also concur with and adopt the submissions of User:NorthBySouthBaranof. Having reread User:Josh Gorand's submission, the vague reference to "The Leveson Report" doesn't help. The report is very large, and more specific references are needed in order to substantiate points made that rely on the Leveson Report.

I hope I have been of use to this Most Honourable Committee, and this concludes my submissions to this committee. --The Historian (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify that

]

Evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate

Current word length: 320; diff count: 3.

David Gerard misused administrative tools while involved in the dispute

After one non-admin moved the article back to Bradley Manning and Gerard rejected another non-admin's suggestion it should go through the Requested Move process, Gerard move-protected the page so that only admins could change the title. Over the period of an hour the discussion largely focused on style guidelines, with only Gerard suggesting it was a BLP issue. Despite this, when an uninvolved admin reverted the move as needing to go through RM, Gerard promptly reverted it back. Being involved in a move-war is one thing, but in this case Gerard appears to have imposed move-protection to lock out non-admin who disagreed with him and reverted an uninvolved admin through that protection to keep the title he wanted.

David Gerard has prior history of misusing administrative tools

• As discussed here, Gerard oversighted edits in 2007 due to them being embarrassing for another editor and not because of any policy objection. He claimed it was justified because it was being used for "trolling", but should have merely been deleted instead, though many editors did not accept his rationale as even justifying revision deletion.
• Was found here in a 2008 case to have shown ownership behavior when edit-warring over a page regarding IRC, including use of page protection as part of the dispute.
• In this instance he used Checkuser against an opposing disputant from the IRC case noted above and subsequently blocked the editor for using an openly acknowledged joke account. The block was quickly overturned.
• Having apparently disclosed another editor's personal information on his blog, Gerard was stripped of his oversighter and checkuser privileges in 2009.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard has been a relatively inactive admin in the past few years

• Just 100 blocks or unblocks performed since April 2008, most of them batch actions, with only four in the past three years.
• Just 100 deletions or restorations since February 2008 and less than 50 in the past three years.
• Just 50 page protections since March 2006 and only 11 in the past three years.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current word length: 410; diff count: 2.

WP:COMMONNAME is a policy of Wikipeda

The page Wikipedia:Article titles is a policy of Wikipedia. Policies represent "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."

WP article titles are to use the common, recognizable name of their subject

The policy page Wikipedia:Article titles states:

"Titles are often the names of article topics, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural....."

At the time of the start of this controversy, Bradley Manning was the name most commonly used in reliable English language sources for this subject

As of this moment (Sept. 8, 2013, 11:00 pm PDT), a simple Google search for "Bradley Manning" returns 13.2 million hits: [50] The same simple Google search for "Chelsea Manning" returns 2.5 million hits — only 18.9% the number for the previous name. [51]

When this controversy erupted, the disparity was even greater.

Wikipedia is not written by its article subjects, it is written by third parties using independently-published reliable sources

This is presented axiomatically for now.

The cause of the problem was rewriting, retitling, and locking ahead of coverage in reliable sources

Evidence presented elsewhere of abuse of tools by administrators to "lock in" their favored language outside of normal editorial processes. Note especially the clear wheel-warring and tool abuse of David Gerard. [52] [53] Carrite (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• @NorthBySouthBaranof. You didn't bother to notify me, did you bother to notify any of the other 24 editors who you have characterized as "riven with personal biases and ignorance of transgenderism" and "personal dislike, contempt or ignorance of transgenderism"? I didn't think so... You might also want to present evidence of your own expert credentials which give you room to speak about the purported failure of others to "understand or accept a modern medical and psychological understanding of transgender people." Carrite (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• @Adam C. Your AP citation is compelling in terms of WP sourcing. That was sent out to AP members on August 26 and the mainstream media followed suit shortly thereafter. The out of process name change of the Manning article, backed by administrative tool abuse, took place on August 22. Therein lies the root of the ongoing difficulty. People were trying to "make a point" by "leading" (activism) rather than to follow published sources and the result was, in the common vernacular, a clusterfuck. We have established editing procedures to resolve content disputes for a reason. If advocates of the change had played by the rules, this would have been wrapped up more than a week ago... The essence of the content fight was effectively resolved even before ArbCom took this case. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to move Chelsea Manning back to Bradley Manning puts Wikipedia into disrepute.

I would like to direct the Arbitrators to

As such, the decision certainly seems to put Wikipedia in disrepute, and to go wildly against all outside standards.

I'd like to quote the Associated Press blog:

“

The Associated Press will henceforth use Pvt. Chelsea E. Manning and female pronouns for the soldier formerly known as Bradley Manning, in accordance with her wishes to live as a woman. [...] The use of the first name Chelsea and feminine pronouns in Manning’s case is in conformity with the transgender guidance in the AP Stylebook. The guidance calls for using the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth.

”

Even Fox News - not particularly noted for their kindness to LGBT issues - has made the switch [55].

At this point, Wikipedia is far out on its own, and I can't see how Wikipedia can justify the current state, let alone lock itself into the decision for a month.

Now, motivations matter to judging people's behaviour, but do not matter when judging effects. There certainly are a few posts that are transphobic floating around, but we can certainly

]

@Carrite: As noted in the AP blog post, the AP stylebook specifically states that switching to the feminine name and pronouns (or vice-versa in other cases) is AP policy; as such, this switch in the sources was inevitable throughout most media. I don't think there was any particular harm in Wikipedia going with the inevitable, further, I'd like to note that...

The move back to "Bradley Manning" happened after pretty much every major news source had switched to Chelsea Manning - and was accompanied by a one-month moratorium on new name discussions

The move back to Bradley Manning happend on August 31.

On August 27th, MSNBC published a discussion of which news outlets were using Chelsea and female pronouns. In summary:

Using (as of the 27th)

• MSNBC/NBC
• CBS
• The New York Times
• The Associated Press
• NPR
• The Chicago Tribune (though they noted they'd identify her former name on first reference, for clarity)
• Time.
• The Washington Post

Not using/Not consistently using

• Fox News (TV, I believe)
• The National Review
• The Washington Times
• Politico

There's a certain amount of judgement call in that list, but I think that's reasonably fair at stating the intent of most of the organizations. I left out USA Today as judging based on a story from the 23rd (the day after the announcement) seemed unfair. I believe that most of the not-using have moved to using the new name by now; see, for example, the Fox News article linked above. See also [56] - Indeed, whatever they're doing on air, I can't find any article ont he Fox News Website insisting on Bradley since the announcement.

In addition, by the 31st

• The Wikipedia Signpost had published an article on praise for Wikipedia's actions by news outlets, including Slate, the Daily Dot, and the New Statesman.
• The British Newspapers seem to have made the switch. The Telegraph, The Times, The Independent, The Guardian.

And so on. As such, to revert back to Bradley Manning on the 31st was clearly a mistake. To block further discussion for a month immediately after making such a controversial change was a horrifically bad decision.

Now, do I think the admin triad who decided on the one month ban should suffer any consequences from Arbcom? Well, I haven't looked too closely at the voting that led to it. It's possible that it's a den of transphobia and that any admin convinced by such voting is unfit to be an admin. It's possible that the Chelsea Manning side did such a terrible job explaining themselves that the admins, without doing additional research, couldn't have known better. Or it's possible that they looked at a complicated set of arguments, threw up their hands and did vote counting.

The one-month ban on discussion, in a quick-moving news story, was a severe lack of judgement. But, unless there was malice, it shouldn't lead to Arbcom consequences beyond, perhaps, an admonishment. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguously transphobic statements happened during the debate.

For the purposes of this evidence, I'm only going to be looking at

, and I ended up only reviewing the first third or so. I will not be looking at any other archive; the point, I think, is made that transphobia happened; I don't think trying to document every single occurence is particularly useful.

"Unambiguous" is here defined as:

1. Denial that transgender people exist, e.g. something on the lines of "He is a man in every possible definition, and no claims by him can change that." I did not include statements that a transgender person should not count as such until hormone therapy begins, as these could well be more to do with ignorance of the issue as opposed to transphobia.
2. Attacks on Manning based on her being transsexual. (Hate speech.)

I have left out a number of borderline cases, such as 'Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia", not a site designed to protect people's "feelings". [...] The argument seems to be that it's "rude" or "hurtful" or "mean" to use he to refer to Bradley.' (91.153.87.155 (talk · contribs)).

I think it's helpful to just list the worst examples, as the point is to establish that transphobic comments happened, the Arbcom can decide on what to do with that and how far to cast their nets on their own afterwards.

1. Support - The subject is still male in every meaningful sense. He is widely known as Bradley Manning and that is the name that he had while he had the majority of the notable experiences that this article covers. There has been no proper discussion of this move either. Count Truthstein (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per Rannpháirtí anaithnid, common sense, and general opposition to the use of Wikipedia as a platform for radical political advocacy (which advocacy is the sole reason Manning's article keeps being mangled to describe him as Anything-But-Male. I am aware of MOS:IDENTITY, and it is wrong. The standard a polite person might adopt for brief conversation is not the standard to use for encyclopedic coverage. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Strongly as there is no biological or legal rationale to refer to Manning as anything but male. If that ever changes, then change the page accordingly.198.161.2.241 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Support, he is definitely male. Oh my God, I don't believe this title move... --Norden1990 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. One does not become female just by saying one wants to be. If he (not she) said he wanted to be black now, would you describe him as African-American?? Wikipedia should follow the lead of external sources and wait until the majority of the media decides he has changed his gender. Dirac66 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Support As a political statement against wikipedia's identity policy and the idea that a person can demand which pronoun another person uses. I think a fair statement in society is that we'll tolerate you doing what you want in terms of body modification and unusual sexual practices, and in exchange you can tolerate our freedom to use language as we please, and not try to enforce political correctness and thought crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.230.213 (talk • contribs)
7. STRONGLY SUPPORT "The military medical system does not cover gender transformation procedures. It's not medically necessary," he said. "The military will say, 'You enlisted as a male. You're a male and you're going to be incarcerated as such.'" Source (S)He is a male, was through the entire trial, and will be throughout the entire prison sentence. (S)He has been and will be a male for everything that (s)he is notable for. Fightin' Phillie 21:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Strong support - No matter what he says, he is still himself. Also, the majority of sources have called him his actual name. We follow the sources unless they are biased. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 22:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
9. Support not only under NPOV, but further I think the politicization and ridiculous PC attitude on this website do a disservice to people hoping to get factual information. The fact is, this is a guy, legally and biologically, who has a male name legally. He is a woman only in his own head, and the collective imagination of the radical left. Whether you agree or not, this is not something that is widely accepted, even in the left-leaning media, and Wikipedia is a place for neutrality, not Righting Great Wrongs. Further, the 'musician' example that everyone brings up - 'Calvin Broadus' redirects to 'Snoop Dogg' despite the fact that he changed his performing name to Snoop Lion years ago, because the bulk of his mainstream success was as Snoop Dogg. Bradley Manning leaked documents to Wikileaks, not Chelsea Manning. Bradley Manning was tried in a military court, not Chelsea Manning, and without the leak and the trial, there would be no Notability. Clinton (talk)
10. Strong Support If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog, or a cat, would they change it to reflect such a non-sense? Biologically he is a man and will die a man (check his chromosomes XY), and legally he is a man (he even asks to be called by his male name in official stuff). It is stupid to change the wikipedia article... this deserves, at most, a brief section. Wikipedia is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda. Daniel32708 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
11. Support. Wikipedia is not a soap-box for trans people to play with, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should value quality over political correctness ten times out of ten. Coming into the page and seeing "her" and "she" all over the place while the picture is of a young soldier is laughable, and unthinkable in a Wikipedia just a short year ago. Josepharari (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Diffs and some editing down of the more ambiguous ones to come very soon. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current word length: 483; diff count: 10.

Timeline

timeline of relevant actions.

• 1218 - Morwen's original move to Chelsea [m1]
• 1222 - Cls14 moves the page back to Bradley [m2/r1]
• 1243 - Morwen moves again to C [m3/r2]
  • 1244 - Cls14 accepts Morwen's move [admits m2 was a mistake, negating m2 and 3/r1 and 2]
• 1331 - DG semi-protects and move locks at "Chelsea Manning", citing MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP ["Chelsea Manning" is now explicitly protected by BLP until consensus says otherwise]
• 1432 - Tariq moves to Bradley, citing request [m4/r3; later admits not having educated himself about the reasons cited]
• 1434 - DG moves page back to C, citing BLP [m5/r4; justified by BLP policy (restoring the BLP position)]

General policies

• BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia
• The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to [...] tak[e] human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information

Morwen did nothing wrong

• MOS:IDENTITY as stable [58] (quoted by Kurtis
  ).
• Morwen's second move was done in the confirmed belief that cls14 was not aware of the evidence. Even if it wasn't it was protected by the above policies and guidelines.
• I encourage the Committee to make an explicit finding to this effect.

David Gerard acted in accordance with BLP

• David Gerard semi-protected in accordance with BLP Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that inappropriate material may be added or restored, may protect or semi-protect pages. The comments in the subsequent discussions show that inapropriate material was likely to be added (see #Evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof).
• After Tariq reverted (see below), David's restoration was permitted by BLP. Although not explicitly stated in this context, the intent is clear:
  • When material [...] has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure [..] consensus [is] obtained first][59];
  • Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations [...] even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. [60]

Tariqabjotu deliberately abused his admin tools to violate BLP

see also:[61]

• Tariqabjotu reverted the move, through protection, and against explicit mention of BLP while claiming it was uncontroversial. [see timeline]
• Tariq states he saw the BLP notice but decided it didn't apply
• this makes it far worse: he knew it was controversial and decided that as he "couldn't fathom" why BLP applied he would ignore it instead of reading the explanations, asking or otherwise educating himself. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tariqabjotu

Tariq once again asserts, without evidence, that I claim "crying BLP" means that person gets to act as a "gatekeeper" for content on the article. I've explained many times this is incorrect - invoking BLP just means there needs to be consensus for any change. If someone invoking BLP doesn't provide an explanation then consensus will quickly establish it isn't justified and it'll be overturned. I edited the article in response to an edit request that had been open 19 hours and was sourced (talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 5#Middle initial). Thryduulf (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current word length: 1305 (limit: 1000); diff count: 29. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

WP:RM

: Discussion took place before the page move

At the time of Morwen's initial page move, the page moves discussion looked as follows: 12:18. It comprised three contributors over 19 minutes.

The initial page move was thus in accordance with community norms.

WP:RM

: Morwen reversed the move revert by Cls14 without consensus

The following is the timeline of Morwen's page moves:

• 12:18, Morwen moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect
• 12:22, Cls14 moved page Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning over redirect
• 12:43, Morwen moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect

Cls14 did later (12:44 and 12:46) give his/her OK Mowen to reverse the revert. However, as point of fact, Morwen reverted before receiving that persmission. No further input to the move discussion had taken place before Morwen's revert of Cls14 (link).

This was contrary to standard page move procedure and community norms.

Bradley Manning

At the time the article was move locked, the talk page looked like this: 14:29. Objections were raised to the page move, including a request to Morwen to move the page back. However, no physical attempt to move the page back was made taken.

StAnselm lodged a request for a technical move back to

at 13:31.

The request to move the page back to

Bradley Manning

was thus in accordance with community norms. In absence of move warring, or even the threat thereof, the decision to move protect the page was outside of community norms.

WP:BLP

: David Gerard locked the page unnecessarily or for no obvious reason

David defends Morwen's page move here citing

.

Two minutes later, David fully moved-locked the page:

• 13:31, 22 August 2013 David Gerard changed protection level of Chelsea Manning: Highly visible page: MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP [Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users]

This was done despite there having been no history of move warring on the page. And the article was at the title that conformed to what Morwen and David said was BLP compliant. So why lock it? And what was the pressing need?

Interestingly, at 14:49, David reversed Mark Arsten's full protection of the page saying: "Changed protection level of Chelsea Manning: the moves were all admins; actual vandalism to the text hasn't been a problem so far".

This was contrary to

Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents

.")

WP:RAAA

: David Gerard reversed an administrative action of Tariqabjotu

Tariqabjotu responded to a request for a technical move back to

.

• 14:32, Tariqabjotu moved page Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning
• 14:34, David Gerard moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning

This was contrary to

WP:RAAA

. David Gerard did not attempt to contact Tariqabjotu before reverting his action.

WP:RAAA

: David Gerard reversed an administrative action of Mark Arsten

• 14:41, 22 August 2013‎ Mark Arsten changed protection level of Chelsea Manning [Edit=Block all non-admin users]
• 14:49, 22 August 2013‎ David Gerard changed protection level of Chelsea Manning [Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users]

This was contrary to

WP:RAAA

. David Gerard did not attempt to contact Mark Arsten before reverting his action.

WP:ADMINACCT

: David Gerard did not explain his rationale for citing BLP

David was repeatedly asked to explain his rationale for citing BLP policy when protecting the page and insisting it must be at

when asked what his rationale was.

For example:

• "I've explained them ad nauseam. At this point, I don't think it's unfair to say 'go through the history, thanks'" (diff)

• "It's above in the section 'Wheel warring', on this very page. You don't like the answer, but your repeated claim that I haven't given an answer has been answered by me multiple times. At this point this is a prima facie case of
  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please stop claiming I haven't answered when the answer's right there" (diff, diff
  )

• "I think David [speaking in the third person] has answered this repeatedly, on this very page, including answering you personally, and as such your repeated assertions to the contrary appear to be a prima facie case of
  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Not liking the answer doesn't mean it didn't happen" (diff
  )

His first provision of a rationale was in response to my quizzing of him here:

• "Because claiming the wording of MOS:IDENTITY doesn't include titles comes across as wikilawyering to avoid the spirit of WP:BLP. Because gratuitously misgendering people is gratuitously offensive, and that violates WP:BLP. That was the reasoning. But I eagerly await the next round of
  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, because the fundamental problem is that you don't agree, so no amount of explanation as to the reasoning will be considered comprensible or sufficient." (diff, diff
  )

That was over three days after he locked the page at Chelsea Manning.

The eventual lengthy rationale for citing BLP policy was provided over five days later. It was provided by Morwen (diff) and David added his name to it (diff).

This was contrary to

WP:ADMINACCT

.

WP:INVOLVED

David and Morwen are known to each other via Mediawiki UK and go drinking together (example). David indicated here that they were in communication soon after the move. They wrote a joint explanation for their actions, beginning with the declaration, "It is our position that..." (diff). David used plural pronoun when speaking about his and Morwen's actions.

David was an active participant in the discussion. He was particularly active in advocating that a shift was happening in reliable sources (example, example, example, etc.). He agrued that the location of the article at

). The issue therefore is one that David feels strongly about and has a firm position on.

Whilst, administrators may invoke BLP policy in performing actions to protect against BLP issues, the case was not an obvious cause to cite BLP policy (and was resolved as not being a breach in BLP policy at all). Additionally, given that the article was at the "correct title" at the time of David's administrative action — and that there was no move warring taking place — there was no justification for such urgent action. Another (uninvolved) administrator could have been called upon if David thought the page needed to be move locked.

This was contrary to

Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents

.")

WP:NPA: Morwen sought to publicise the incident in the press and discredited

other Wikipedians in interview

Morwen actively sought to promote the incident in the press by contacting journalists and promoting her action via social media ([evidence with ArbCom]). In interviews, she cast aspersions on fellow Wikipedians and painted opposition to the title Chelsea Manning as being based on a culture of transphobia and/or recklessness among Wikipedians.

In one interview (link), she said of her fellow Wikipedians, "Yes, there's a background of transphobia to a lot of this, but I think a lot is people driving by and insisting on having their opinion on the raging topic of the day." In another (link), she said, "At worst they are using it as a platform for hate speech ... At best they are relatively clueless..."

These comments were visible to participants in the discussion and added to a sense of division and a perception of wiki-activism. As the attitude of the media to the name "Bradley Manning", as well as the public perception of Wikipedia should it revert from Chelsea Manning, formed a major part of the discussion, Morwen's interviews additionally further perverted the relationship between Wikipedia and secondary sources during the incident.

This was contrary to the spirit of

WP:NPA

. ("...personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it...")

Definition of "transphobia"

For avoidance of doubt, the dictionary definition of "transphobia" is:

"intense dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people"

This is from the Oxford dictionary.

Current word length: 1085; diff count: 63.

David Gerard was too involved to perform admin actions

• Before his protection, David had already opined in the discussion. When asked why no move request was filed, David referenced MOS:IDENTITY, not BLP.
• David admits he and Morwen (talk · contribs) know each other outside Wikipedia (raising questions about whether it was proper for him to protect the page in corroboration).
  • August 22: Before his moveback, David and Morwen were high-fiving each other on Twitter [62], [63]
  • August 25: "Down the @PemburyTavern with @abigailb [...] Conspiring, of course." <Link redacted from public-facing page. Still available to arbitrators in page history.> A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 27: First statement about why Bradley constituted a violation came through a joint statement with Morwen, repeatedly expressing what they did, rather than what they each did individually.
• By the time he reverted my move, David had made even more comments on the talk page: [64],[65],[66].
• David reversed the full edit protection applied by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs). He had already made another comment on the talk page.

David Gerard refused to explain BLP violation

I initially defended David against accusations of wheel warring, assuming he would explain his BLP invocation. Only when he repeatedly refused to did I rescind my defense of him:

• After David's admin actions, he was repeatedly asked to explain how and why he felt there was a BLP violation. He responded by saying he had already provided an explanation and labeling such inquiries as
  IDIDNTHEARTHAT. [67], [68], [69] (mod.), [70], [71], [72] (mod.), [73], [74]
  ,
• When an explanation came (the joint statement with Morwen), it said they didn't think "extensive clarification" was needed as it obvious to them as editors familiar with trans issues. He also added that he was "clearly right". Note Morwen wrote it and David just cosigned it: [75][76].
• This appears to acknowledge he didn't initially provide an explanation. Nevertheless, he has continued to argue he did explain how Bradley constituted a BLP violation ([77],[78]). He wrote that he was "sick of people lying about [his] actions".
• When asked to show where he explained earlier, he initially said he shouldn't have to. When he did begin providing diffs and links to discussions, there clearly was no such explanation (he points to this and points to
  this
  ). In neither diff is there an explanation of a BLP violation; he simply says there is one.
• More during arbitration: [79], [80] (also suggesting many of those asking for explanations were motivated by "scepticism that transgender exists")

Morwen moved the article to Chelsea Manning without acquiring consensus

Morwen (talk · contribs) seemed to recognize there was potential for controversy as she went to the talk page first. However...

• When Morwen moved the article, only one other experienced editor had commented: [81]. The move was so quick a reverting editor (Cls14 (talk · contribs)) hadn't even heard of the name.
• When Morwen moved the article again, there had been no response from Cls14 nor any additional comment in the talk page thread.

Objection to Thryduulf's evidence

Thryduulf (talk · contribs) alleged "Tariqabjotu deliberately abused his admin tools to violate BLP" with three points:

• Point 1: I reverted the move through protection; that is correct. The "uncontroversial" point is an auto-filled move reason (e.g. this). And the move is uncontroversial, in the sense it fulfilled a listed reason at
  WP:RMT
  (page moved without consensus).

• Point 2: This a mischaracterization of my comment. The was in a thread where an editor asked how there was an explanation in a diff David provided. Thryduulf responded with an explanation; the diff Thryduulf provided here was a response to that. This exchange and had nothing to do with what I saw at the time of my move.

• Point 3: I request the arbitrators, and anyone else interested, to read the diff Thryduulf cited here, rather than relying on his editorialization, as it is a lengthy explanation of what occurred.

The use of controversial to describe my move is misplaced. When someone performs a move without attaining consensus, they presume their action is uncontroversial. However, when someone objects, that proves that hypothesis incorrect, and the initial move is determined to be controversial.

What he is suggesting is a ridiculous obligation on incoming editors, forcing them to deduce what an admin considers a BLP violation. Thryduulf expects that editor, before performing any action on the article, to go up to the protecting admin and say Hey, I don't think this is a BLP violation, but does this proposed change constitute a BLP violation in your mind?. In other words, he believes an admin who cites "BLP" in a protecting reason is christened as gatekeeper of content. By this logic, every editor who made a change after David's protection, included Thryduulf, acted inappropriately unless they asked David for confirmation their edit wasn't something he thought was a BLP violation.

Of course, this is absurd; the protecting admin is obligated to explain what they see as the BLP violation.

Josh Gorand inappropriately attacked editors

Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) posted several comments inappropriately attacking editors as transphobic for supporting Bradley. Prominent examples include:

• "Any editor moving the article to Bradley Manning should be blocked instantly for BLP violation and sexual harassment": [82]

• "Especially not a "consensus" of virulently transphobic people...": [83]
• " Yes, it is libel, gross sexual harassment, ... a violation of human decency, and obv[i]ously motivated by transphobic hate..." [84]

Also [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90] and on de.wiki.

Phil Sandifer showed profound disrespect for process

After three admins closed the discussion with 300+ editors providing input,

:

• "I have never before seen Wikipedia used in such an actively hurtful and harmful way as what you have just done" [91]

See also: [92], [93], [94]

Baseball Bugs displayed inappropriate gusto

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) displayed an inappropriate passion surrounding the subject matter:

• Made several wild accusations without substantiating them, often at irrelevant times: [95], [96], [97]

  Suggesting sanctions against Morwen and David at clearly irrelevant times: [98]

• Soapboxed: [99], [100], [101]

With issues at Talk:Edward Snowden, he seems to harbor a passion inappropriate for articles related to U.S. political criminals.

Objection to David Gerard's evidence

I've responded to much of the evidence David Gerard (talk · contribs) has provided already. However...

• I don't see a diff from before my move that anyone could read and reasonably discern that David felt Bradley constituted a BLP violation and why. For all one could know, the BLP invocation could have referred to concerns of nasty vandalism (page-move or otherwise) about Manning. That some agreed with the Chelsea title is irrelevant to whether a BLP explanation was provided.

• It seems David thinks he can argue a particular action is supported by a guideline (in this case,
  MOS:IDENTITY) and then, oh, because it's being applied to a BLP, he can protect the article in that state. I comment on this idea here
  .

• I urge arbitrators to view the diffs and links provided by David, as he has mischaracterized most of them; I can't point out them all.

• Easy example: David calls this "removal of disagreeing editor's comment", when it's actually "removal of a comment added to a section twenty minutes after it was archived".

Opposition to Bradley/male pronoun not universal for past references

The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association apparently suggests using "Bradley" and the male pronoun for historical references. [102]

Morwen's off-wiki remarks suggest activism

As well as conflict of interest, seeking media attention:

• "De-lurked from Wikipedia to move a certain page to Chelsea Manning. Cluebats on standby" [103]
• "I'm probably going to be a dick to anyone who suggests moving it back." [104]
• "Anyone want a few hundred words...?" [105]

See also: [106], [107], and other contemporary tweets

(Posted 22:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC), last modified 20:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC))

Current word length: 355; diff count: 10.

Derogatory and deliberately presumptive statements inre: Manning and transgenderism by IFreedom1212

IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) adamantly refused to acknowledge Manning as a female based on factors varying from lack of reliable sources to personal opinions during the move discussion. Statements from the editor on this perspective have often been inappropriate or derogatory towards Manning or transgendered individuals more generally:

• "He is clearly mentally unstable and his latest remarks and desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit until the words are matched by some serious and tangible action", as though the editor has the authority to determine those actions.
• Calls Manning "treasonous scum". The editor emphasizes the unimportance of gender considerations given that Manning was convicted and imprisoned.
• Editor cites military regulations on addressing persons and disagrees "on a fundamental level" about using she in spite of
  WP:MOSIDENTITY
  .

The editor also engages in discourse in presumptive manner, assuming their opinion about the transgendered individual is the only correct one in spite of conflicting considerations:

• "Referring to him by his correct gender does not 'add fuel to the fire.'"
• "I will continue to refer to him as a male as long as he has a dick and a Y chromosome."
• "Well hell, then how do I go about formally suggesting that the page be reverted to the correct male pronouns?"
• Accuses others of forcing use of female pronouns based on making Manning "feel better about himself", others simply wanting IFreedom1212 to change, or an unsubstantiated disagreement about
  WP:MOSIDENTITY
  .
• Classifies the situation as a PR stunt and states that calling Manning male is a decision made on "basic logic and reasoning that says he is a male, has always been a male, and likely always will continue to be a male."
• Uses a quotation out of context, calling it "clear cut", that conforms to the editor's opinion.
• An editor advised them to consider the tone of their responses. Inre: their own responses to editors, "I wrote that in such a way so that it would come off as something to the effect of 'not only will I continue to refer to him by male pronouns, but how dare you ask me to do otherwise' or something like that."

Current word length: 520; diff count: 0.

I don't know if I'll be able to cleanly separate evidence from explanation and commentary. I think this involves structural problems, so that's what I'll focus on.

Contested definitions and calling out cissexism and transphobia

• (Seriously, why do we have to point out the obvious?)
• There needs to be some way to call out the cissexism/transphobia if Wikipedia is going to address its cissexism/transphobia. This is also an issue with racism, sexism, etc. When these become systemic problems, an insistence on only addressing specific actions by specific editors would keep anyone from addressing the systemic problems.
• There are different definitions of cissexism and transphobia, as even transphobia recognizes.

Julia Serano, in Whipping Girl, pp. 12-13, distinguishes transphobia from cissexism:

"Transphobia is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against people whose gendered identities, appearences, or behaviors deviate from societal norms."

"While all transgender people experience transphobia, transsexuals additionally experience a related (albiet distinct) form of prejudice: cissexism, which is the belief that transsexuals' identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than, those of cissexuals..."

Note that her definition of transphobia is not restricted to deliberate discrimination.

Kate Richmond, Theodore Burns, and Kate Carroll, in Lost in Trans-Lation: Interpreting Systems of Trauma for Transgender Clients, pp. 46-47.

"There is additional evidence that the cumulative effect of hegemonic norms can shape worldviews and increase the likelihood of developing symptoms associated with PTSD and complex PTSD (Espin & Gawelek, 1992). Insidious trauma, also referred to as microaggressions (Sue et al., 2007), consists of repetitive and enduring exposure to racism, classism, transphobia, sexism, and other forms of oppression (Espin & Gawelek, 1992). For transgender clients, an insidious traumatic experience may include having a doctor ask inappropriate or invasive questions during a routine check-up or hearing a talk show host discuss transissues in pathological or demeaning ways. In isolation, a single insidious event may not be considered traumatic; however, over the course of repetitive exposure, a transgender client may suddenly develop symptoms linked to PTSD and/or complex PTSD following an apparently minor stressor (Brown, 2008; Root, 1992)."

and p. 54.

"Transphobia—prejudice, discrimination, and gender-related violence due to negative attitudes toward transgender identity (Mizock & Lewis, 2008)"

Note that they use transphobia to refer to social structures, as well as personal hate and/or fear.

• The idea that transphobia can only refer to deliberate hate and/or fear is someone's special definition, contrary to both of the definitions above, and by no means a universal definition. The idea that describing cissexist/transphobic comments as transphobic is a "personal attack" appears to rest on this special definition.
• To follow up: most but not all written-out definitions of transphobia involve some combination of what Toni Dorsay refers to as "aversion, anxiety, or animus," which would match the more restrictive definitions some other users have cited. Julia Serano's can be read either way, depending on whether she means deliberate discrimination or any type of discrimination. Kate Richmond's, Theodore Burns', and Kate Carroll's is probably almost unique among written-out definitions. However their academic definition matches up with a good portion of non-academic use of the term, especially since cissexism is a relatively uncommon and sometimes unfamiliar term. It currently redirects to transphobia.

Josh Gorand caused a hostile environment by casting aspersions

Using User:BD2412's compilation of !votes and a count of "bio" plus one that called it laughable I count 18 editors making inappropriate comments. Phil Sandifer's list also shows about 22 comments, without usernames, that show insensetive if not hateful comments as well.

Now, while some people have made comments that are clearly unacceptable and inappropriate, there were 169 !voters in that discussion and the majority were based on policy. Despite this, User:Josh Gorand has been broad in his accusations of transphobia directed at all supports

• "Which other reason do you suggest exists for insisting on referring to someone using a male given name, that they have explicitly asked not to be used and said they do not identify with? I think you will find that according to the common definition in polite society, at least in the media world outside of Wikipedia, this is probably the most common form of transphobia."
• "Especially not a "consensus" of virulently transphobic people who completely ignore Wikipedia policy. We don't move articles because some people hate transgendered people, it's that simple."
• "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."
• Yes, it is libel, gross sexual harassment, a BLP violation, a violation of MOS:IDENTITY, a violation of human decency, and obvously motivated by transphobic hate,
• Any editor moving the article to Bradley Manning should be blocked instantly for BLP violation and sexual harassment of the subject.

His hostility toward others and toward

has hindered the ability of others to communicate freely and discuss openly to share ideas and compromises.

• Nope, that's out of the question. We are not going to move the article back
• There are no compromises made when it comes to factual accuracy
• No, because I said no
• The POV that he is a "convicted felon" is basically a fringe POV

During the debate, I

attempts to resolve this with him by his own supporters.

Even after the end of the discussion, he continues to disrupte the

WP:IDHT

behavior:

• "Apparently you admit to writing that particular sub section as a way to criticise me and promote your own disputed account of the last debate, and I'm not going to tolerate that"
• "No, many editors feel that your behaviour is disruptive and battlegrounding; specifically repeatedly telling other editors' that they cannot edit a proposed (unsigned) guideline and engaging in WP:OWN behaviour is disruptive."

The discussion as a whole is riddled with a battlefield attitude. Other editors are trying to collaborate and Josh Gorand has made a strong attempt to derail the conversation.

We cannot condone editors who cast wide nets to make accusations and treat them as if they are the same as respectable editors who use appropriate forums to point out specific poor behavior with clear evidence and have it sanctioned by the community. Editors who engage in hateful and discriminatory comments create a hostile environment. Editors who accuse others who are innocent of making those remarks also create a hostile environment. We expect every other member of the community to use the proper forums to address these issues. We do not condone accusations of racism or sexism or any other accusation without evidence, especially one cast in such a wide spectrum. Why would we create a special class that is allowed to ignore

WP:RFC/U

). Flinging accusations on a talk page during consensus building is not one of them.

Baseball Bugs made inflammatory comments that caused polarization of the discussion

Baseball Bugs wasn't any better. His comments are filled with language that polarizes the discussion and does not lead to productive consensus building.

• "Everyone who supports moving the page to "Chelsea" is abusing wikipedia."
• "The advocates, the zealots don't care. They're using it as an excuse to justify pushing their point of view
• "Manning is a convicted criminal, and I couldn't care less about him/her/it"
• "There is no BLP issue. You're abusing Wikipedia." (Changed in the next edit to "The promoters of this nonsense are abusing...")

BLP is a policy subject to consensus

A large portion of this dispute rests on whether consensus can overrule the BLP policy. I submit that

itself argues that it is open to interpretation. Per BLP:

• "After the deletion, any administrator may choose to protect it against re-creation. Even if the page is not protected against re-creation, it should not be re-created unless a consensus is demonstrated in support of re-creation."
• "Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete."
• " 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."

In fact, the template at the top of the page says clear as day that "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." If the policy can be changed by consensus, and

despite the (disputed) consensus of 300 people and a closing of 3 uninvolved administrators. In fact, since both sides could use the same argument, because it's dependent on the POV of the user invoking it and not interpretation by consensus, then we've essentially opened a loophole to allow page move wars.

Continuing effect

As recently as yesterday,

from the comment but left the accusation of transphobe which actually reenforces her earlier comment.

Sources on naming and potential for harm to living persons

• Transgender Law Center, problem 1, and fn 11
• Routine use of previous names, page 11.
• Part F, section 3.20, internal page 488, PDF p65, summary of testimony

Sources for such claims of harm were and are also readily available to any Wikipedia editor using standard research methods (for example, internet searches). The acceptance of such claims may well be a matter of consensus editorial judgement, but such claims of harm were not invented by Wikipedia editors. Moreover, the principals of informed editorial judgement make it incumbent on editors to inform themselves of such matters, should they choose to discuss them.

• NE ENT, in the submission below asserts that the harm is limited, by glossing over the sources above mentions of respect, ridicule, depression, suicide, etc. However, all editors are not required to take NE ENT's limited view. Moreover, under WP:Consensus editors are empowered to appeal to "common sense" (ie., common decency) in editing to -- and discussing -- the implications of such matters as disrespect, ridicule, depression, and suicide as it relates to WP:BLP "possibility of harm," "fair[ness]," and "human dignity."

Manning request

I am Chelsea

Even were there no sources regarding potential harm (see above), and there were no BLP policy (see below), it does not take much imagination beyond common sense that when publishing a biography, in real time, about the person who writes the "I am Chelsea" statement, there are considerable (as in, must be considered) issues of respect and personal dignity that are still implicated by such a statement. There was even a guideline addressing such issues. [108]

WP:BLP

Policy and handling of "doubt" about the potential for harm during a substantive editing dispute concerning the application of the policy

• "... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

• ..."biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."

• "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia.,'"

• 'When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version.

• "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified."

• ". . .the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material."

• "human dignity . . . [must be] taken into account"

It is axiomatic that article subject requests, or claims of harm to a living person subject must be treated with respect, dignity, and consideration, even where (perhaps, especially where) ultimately the request or claim is rejected.

Reaching consensus on BLP harm per WP:Consensus

• "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus. [¶]A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised."

• " . . .work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns."

It is axiomatic that overall consensus on BLP harm cannot be determined in the midst of the discussion, but only, if at all, at the close (and for the time being because consensus can change). But during the discussion, the live article needs to take into account such substantive BLP policy concerns (see BLP section above).

Current word length: 978; diff count: 99.

BLP action

It's claimed I did not explain the BLP action, and Morwen's original move was not discussed. Both of these are false.

Morwen's move came after this - short, but matching policy and precedent.

In the first two hours:

• August 22: 13:29 Edit noting MOS:IDENTITY
• 13:31 protection citing MOS:IDENTITY (naming issue) and WP:BLP (immediacy)
• 13:36 talk page explanation, call for proper discussion (within five minutes of move)
• 13:49, note BLP requires immediatism, not eventualism
• 14:34 reverted Tariqabjotu's (apparently knowing) move through BLP
• 14:35 noted on talk page (as MOS:IDENTITY/WP:BLP considerations still applied).
• 14:49 Removal of text protection

At 15:14 (under two hours later), CaseyPenk's formal move request.

There was no non-controversial option - Manning is extremely polarising. I considered MOS:IDENTITY read clearly that there was a potential serious BLP issue, on a widely-viewed BLP, so Wikipedia needed to get the BLP right urgently: a sincere BLP action in urgent circumstances, explained immediately, very quickly followed by requisite proper discussion.

My explanation at the time was accepted by several editors as valid concern at that stage: [109][110][111][112][113][114] - it's demonstrably incorrect to maintain the explanation was incomprehensible or generally unacceptable. Followed with detailed explanation (Morwen wrote it, I tweaked it) going through policy, guideline and precedent considerations in detail, and why names are a seriously big deal for transgender people.

The claims I did not explain myself seem disagreement with the explanation, not understanding the explanation (despite policy and guideline), claiming BLP actions require prior discussion, or scepticism that transgender exists and should be considered at all.

I realised it would be controversial, being about Manning; I didn't figure editors not believing the existence of transgender would be such a factor, and my explanation of an urgent BLP action would be expected to immediately prove the existence of transgender and that we should consider it, to people who didn't believe it at all.

My last admin action, my 14:49 removal of text protection undid

. I apologise to the community for my error.

Conspiracy claim

Much of the evidence presented against me is mudslinging and poisoning the well, bringing in unrelated matters. Mudslinging is what people do when they don't have evidence.

I ask arbcom to examine diff evidence in the present matter before non-diff evidence in other matters.

I am accused of conspiring beforehand with Morwen to move the article to Chelsea Manning. This did not happen. I cannot prove a negative, so I can only state this did not occur.

I do know Morwen - as I know many London Wikimedians and Wikimedia movement people to the same degree (see here). I don't believe this makes the initial BLP action too conflicted to have been made at all - which is the actual question here.

The root seems Tariqabjotu's repeated (false) statement that I refused to explain the BLP action, and it therefore could only have originated in conspiracy.

User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid

• RA's evidence cites late diffs, claims I refused to answer BLP concerns. This is provably false. RA should have known it was false by then.
• Attempt to silence discussion of transphobic comments. Particularly problematic: he attempted to silence person actually trying to deal with problem, thus increased hostility of discussion to transgender people. This is not the standard expected of an administrator. [116][117]
• Late misgendering of article subject [118]
• WP:TEAM. When asked who was in this group, (to avoid appearance of false consensus) [120], RA evaded.[121] Claims didn't advertised it widely, did advertise it selectively.[122]
  (I believe he should be asked to provide this list.)
• Attempt to hide detailed, cited response to unsubstantiated claims: [123] I ask him not to do this;[124] he hides it again.[125]
• Claims outrage at process violations, but repeated attempts at end-runs around WP:RM [126][127][128][129][130]
• Claim knowledge of transgender issues, rather than ignorance, violates
  WP:INVOLVED [131]

Tariqabjotu

Tariqabjotu claimed repeatedly that Morwen's original move was undiscussed, my BLP action was unexplained - despite both provably false and after pointed out to him personally several times. This developed into claim of conspiracy and repeated, escalating personal attacks on myself and others.

Claims Morwen's original move undiscussed: [132][133][134][135][136]

• Shifts claim to "insufficient discussion" (later back to "no discussion"): [137][138][139]

Claims BLP action not explained: [140][141][142][143][144] (that last answering me answering him directly) [145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157]

• Conspiracy claim: [158][159][160][161]

Personal attacks: [162][163][164][165][166][167][redoubles attack when asked to strike][168][169][170]

Furthering trans hostility in discussion:

• Supports penalising Josh Gorand for acting on transphobic commentary [171]
• Claims transphobic comments just "a different take on what is, ultimately, a social construct" [172]
• Claims openly gay editor speaking on the topic is therefore engaging in advocacy [173]

Removal of disagreeing editor's comment: [174]

Defective understanding of

:

• Considers "legal name" overrides BLP flag, for "In The News" link [175][176]
• Considers BLP action can be summarily reversed if it doesn't have "overwhelming support" [177]
• Considers personal failure to understand rationale warrants reversal [178]
• Misgendering article subject [179]
• Claims no evidence of name shift, despite uncontested declaration from subject's lawyer [180]
• Defends move through BLP, claims initial move was undiscussed [181]
• Asserts WP:RMT overrides BLP actions [182]
• Claim names not gendered nouns [183]
• Asserts local consensus can override BLP, "other stuff exists" argument against BLP action [184]
• "other stuff exists" argument against BLP action [185]
• Claim name move not sufficiently sourced [186]
• Claims MOS:IDENTITY deals only with "pronouns", not "gendered nouns" [187]
• Claims Manning has no Internet, so BLP doesn't apply [188]
• Extended statement of BLP understanding [189]
• Move through BLP was OK because Morwen's was "undiscussed" [190]
• Claims discussion was insufficient, therefore didn't count; claim I didn't explain; notes he saw BLP claim, moved anyway; claim right to reverse BLP action if not personally satisfied [191]
• Knowingly moved through BLP [192]

Current word length: 33; diff count: 0.

Pagemove warring

On August 22, 2013 User:David Gerard, User:Morwen [193], User:Cls14, and User:Tariqabjotu [194] engaged in pagemove warring on the Manning article, either by moving the article twice in rapid succession (Morwen), or quickly reversing a pagemove.

Current word length: 220; diff count: 4.

David Gerard engaged in "cherry-picking" of BLP policy

David Gerard justified his administrative enforcement of his preferred page title by referencing parts of the BLP policy. The wording and spirit of those policies did not support his actions.

• He made the argument ([195], [196], and [197]) that the immediacy provisions of BLP policy require enforcing that the page title complies with MOS:IDENTITY, specifically calling out "eventualism". The only section of BLP policy that references WP:Eventualism is "Balance", which is intended to cover NPOV violations. This was his only stated rationale for three days after the move protection and revert.
• He quoted a paragraph from the BLP policy and added emphasis to the the words “should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion” without noting that the sentence applies only to “Contentious material … that is unsourced or poorly sourced ...”. ([198])

BLPs can have titles which are not the subject's preferred name

• The article about Yusuf Islam is titled Cat Stevens. It was requested that the article be retitled in 2005 to "Yusuf Islam", with the result being no consensus to move.([199]) WP:BLP was not cited in the move discussion by either side. Islam has engaged in notable activities since his name change more than thirty years ago.
• The article about Jermaine Jacksun is titled Jermaine Jackson. An RfC was filed in March 2013 about whether the article should be moved to Jermaine Jacksun.([200]) The only editor supporting the move cited possible BLP issues.

Current word length: 678; diff count: 0.

I've honestly never understood how Arbcom cases work, and I don't care to, so if the following opinions are in the wrong place, feel free to move them or delete them entirely.

Policy update is required

The fundamental problem with this situation is that there is no clear policy on how to deal with article titles and content for transgendered individuals. There are two clear concepts to choose from: there is the individual's objective, biological sex (as determined scientifically by chromosome counts, genetic analysis, etc.), and there is the individual's subjective gender identity. What we need is a policy that clearly defines how to deal with this situation. Should the article be based on the actual sex of the person or the person's gender identity? If it's the gender identity, then we're basing the article on a subjective notion, and we need to determine the conditions under which a person's gender identity becomes "real" enough to require the article to be re-titled and have its pronouns modified. Should that happen at the moment someone publicly announces a change in their gender identity? Should it only happen when multiple sources refer to the person by their requested gender? Should it only happen once a clear majority of sources begin to refer to the person by their requested gender? Or some other criteria? This is what is needed in order to resolve future disputes, and Arbcom cannot help with this, because Arbcom doesn't make policy. Therefore, this case is largely an exercise in time-wasting (like most Arbcom cases), in my opinion, with the only potential exception being the investigation of wheel-warring or whatever else.

Accusation of transphobia are presumptive and insulting

It seems that there are certain people who are prone to a kneejerk reaction of labeling other editors as "transphobic" or just plain old "ignorant" if they disagree that the article should refer to Manning as a woman. This attitude is presumptive, unhelpful, and insulting. If someone argues that the article should use male pronouns when referring to Manning because Manning is male by all biological/genetic/scientific definitions, that is not transphobic. That is simply a preference for basing encyclopedia articles on objective facts rather than subjective feelings; it is an opinion that Wikipedia articles should be primarily based on the person's biological sex rather than their gender identity, with any gender identity announcements being noted and discussed (perhaps at great length) in the article. While some people are better at sensitively expressing that opinion than others, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person expressing this opinion hates transgendered people, thinks transgendered people are inferior in some way, has some kind of agenda to cause emotional pain to transgendered people, thinks transgenderism is not real, or otherwise doesn't respect an individual's gender identity. Gender identity and biological sex are two different things, and referring to someone's biological sex when it doesn't match their gender identity isn't necessarily transphobia. As Arbcom decides whether or not to punish those who have made actual transphobic comments, they should also consider equal punishments for those who have inappropriately labeled others as transphobic or ignorant.

BLP's directive to "avoid harm" doesn't apply to this situation

Some editors argued that since

tells us that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." In my experience, the definition of "harm" in this context does not include "hurting someone's feelings". Avoiding harm means not revealing potentially harmful information about an individual that is not already widely reported. Avoiding harm means not releasing the names of innocent victims if they're not being widely reported in the media. Avoiding harm does not imply that we should exclude content that might hurt someone's feelings or make them sad, nor does it imply that we should exclude content that the subject doesn't want us to include (assuming it has been widely reported in reliable sources). If that were the case, there would be a whole lot of information that would need to be removed from BLP articles. So, while many might argue that it is more "respectful" or "appropriate" to refer to a person by their gender identity, it is certainly not required by BLP.

Current word length: 183; diff count: 2.

Loaded questions and accusation of transphobia.

While commenting in the discussion I was asked by User:Anthonyhcole, "It's really simple, knowledgekid. Manning wants to be known as a woman and as Chelsea. So we call her Chelsea. To do otherwise would be disrespectful. It gains nobody anything to continue using "Bradley" and is disrespectful to Manning. If you want to disrespect her, well, I guess that's your choice, but can you tell me why?" I chose not to answer as I saw it as a loaded question. [201] and this is just one example of baiting. This edit [202] I consider a personal attack, with User:Timrollpickering (Who is an admin here) placing {{Citation needed}} after my username when referring to me when I tried to explain how BLP did not apply, it does not matter if I was right or wrong, this is evidence presented by me of an example of personal attacks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Current word length: 596; diff count: 0.

Views on gender, transgender, transsexual, sex and identity are varied even within the trans* community

The use of my contributions as an example of transphobic is ill-considered and incorrect.

1. Within the trans* community various views exist regarding when, specifically, when MTF transfemales are female. It is not monolithic view that it begins when they state their identity. Various distinctions exist between transgender and transsexual depending on the individual. It is a view by some that "trans" in this context is short for "transitioning" and not the antonym for "cis".
2. People who hold this view within the trans* community believe that men are re-defining what it means to be women. A view commonly expressed is that there three distinct groups. Men that identify as women but don't have any intention of surgical intervention, transexual females that are receiving hormones and are on the path for surgical intervention, and females that are post-SRS. They identify those three distinct groups as "men", "transsexual female" and "female."
3. Persons have expressed the view that simply accepting self-identification diminishes what it means to be transsexual and particularly what it means to be female. They reject the notion that men can define what it means to be female and such attempts are controlling and mysogynist and represent a long history of men defining the roles of women.
4. Whether these views are fringe, minority or widely held is debatable points of content. The expression of these views is not "transphobic" any more than differences between conservative and liberal Jewish groups can be labeled "anti-semitic." These are concerns and debates that occur not only on WP but within the trans* community and, more broadly, across the LGBT spectrum and gender studies. Self-identification and gender is therefore a content issue with a large range of views. Consensus should be the guiding principle, and using terms such as "transphobic" to stifle views that reflect even a minority viewpoint is not acceptable.

[203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211]

Article names and references to persons are generally by notability, not self-identification

1. . Mary Kay Letourneau, and Cat Stevens are examples. They no longer self-identify by those names. BLP concerns are certainly a factor for both main article titles and redirects.
2. . Wikipedia has deferred BLP concerns for titles and subjects to notability and reliable sources. For example, the
   Santorum is a redirect to Rick Santorum
   . For the "santorum" issue, the WP community debated much on how much inclusion, references, redirects, names, etc, should be included. People raised BLP concerns, undue weight, notability, NPOV, etc, etc. Much of the debate in the RFC contained material that could be considered offensive to many individuals, groups and interests. It is the nature of debate and consensus to present viewpoints in a manner consistent with policy. It is also inherent that controversial topics have controversial views. It is not possible to remove "offensive" or achieve consensus if the only view an editor has to a content dispute is "My view or it's offensive and a BLP violation."
3. . Per the "santorum" articles, often the most neutral and least offensive solution comes with consensus after the news cycle has ended. Today's version and redirects are much better than what we had when Rick Santorum was running for president and when he was subject to google bomb attacks but is still probably not without offense to some people. Nor would every editor agree it's not a BLP violation. It exists however through consensus and the normal WP process that took years to evolve.

Current word length: 185; diff count: 0.

Chelsea Manning and Activism

There have been ongoing suggestions that it is, or at least was, an activist position to argue in favour of titling our article 'Chelsea Manning'. As per evidence above on the harm it can do to force a masculine name on a transgender woman, the move was supported by policy even before the sources switched, most especially by WP:BLP. According to a source summarizing how the media handled her name change, the media had largely switched over to 'Chelsea' even back in August before our MR concluded. This includes media from all sections of the political spectrum, other than the extreme right. Hard right activists have been reminded of their irreversible defeat in the culture wars of the late 20th century. Wikipedia is not the place for those wishing to

.

Evidence presented by NE Ent

Current word length: 240; diff count: 0.

Current word length: 494; diff count: 0.

Yet another drama, launched by some "I know better than you" person

If we refer ourselves to a well-known and serious news media, like "The Korea Times" we obtain: 25 hits for "Chelsea Manning", all of them being irrelevant (they are about Shinsegae Chelsea --a department store-- or about football Chelsea). 24 hits for "Bradley Manning", quite all of them being relevant, with various tones. One of them quotes "new heroes and living exemplary cases of ethical conscience", one other is a great cartoon: [212].

And that's all. This simple fact reduces all the "Bradley/Chelsea" war to yet another wiki-war, after the Dakota, the aluminium, the n-dash and the shameful infoboxes. The mechanism is ever the same. Someone thinks "I know better than the others", initiates something, refuses any discussion and makes the best efforts to obtain a great ignited event. Fire-philia, may be.

The not so random passerbys

Two remarks nevertheless about the scenario.

• User:Adam Cuerden says: "praise for Wikipedia's actions by news outlets, including Slate, the Daily Dot, and the New Statesman". Instead of arguing about "praise" and "how many readers", better search the later and ask: http://www.newstatesman.com/search/google/chelsea%20manning?query=chelsea%20manning (click on the red Search button once the page is loaded). This gives an extraordinary insight into the drama. Two extracts, inter alia. We have 2013/08/22: "Private Manning’s announcement today that she is a trans woman came as no surprise to those of us who’d read the chat logs. Admittedly, the name she’s picked: Chelsea, was a bit of a turn-up: in the logs she’d previously identified as Breanna." and 2013/09/04: "I do agree that the real problem is how to get people who think of themselves as good people and of good will, but are at best horrendously ignorant of the issues (and outraged when we suggested they might not know everything they need to to make a decision on the issue), to understand and concur, and that in practical terms we can't skip this step".

• User:Sue Gardner describes the actions of User:Morwen and User:David Gerard as a duty of care exerted by random passer-by admins. This can be even more true than intended: the random law was deterministic, and the passer-by were ambushing Righteous Soldiers on duty for the Holy Church of their own. Discarding the objections of all these horrendous peasant/pagan people by a proud "God is on our side" hasn't worked well.

Pldx1 (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC), erased 2013/09/17[reply]

The Seddon erasement (later added section)

Honorable User:Seddon stated that:

1. surveying a Korean newspaper
2. mentionning fire-philia
3. showing evidences that Morwen&David were acting as an advocacy group, inter alia seeking the approval of the 'New Statesman'

were irrelevant. But:

1. May be wikipedia is mostly edited by the western-white-male-thirty... but the rest of the people exists nevertheless.
2. May be fire-philia is nevertheless the key point in that yet another letter-soup/soap-opera. The phenomenon is largely content-independent... and should be addressed accordingly.
3. May be Morwen&David evidences provide an additionnal explanation of the encountered fire-philia, and also show how wrong was User:Sue Gardner when trying to back-up from above that advocacy group.

Evidences remain evident whatever, so that keeping them is better. Pldx1 (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current word length: 254; diff count: 5.

Phil Sandifer, David Gerard, and the absolutism of the "transphobic" accusation

I laid out two very, very different quotes in the Workshop today;

1. Hitmonchan
2. Tarc.

The former is IMO a pointy body parts, purposefully graphic in an attempt to provoke. The latter is my

.

This is really what this whole thing boils down to; in this entire discussion, how is one expected to be able to offer a contrary opinion to the Chelsea/Bradley Manning naming debate if you allow editors to claim that the entirety of one's opposing side is rooted in the prejudice of transphobia? Sandifer's and Gerard's objections are not on the words used, nor the tone, there is no claim that it was aggressive or hostile...no, it was to the content, to the idea that I expressed. That just ain't right. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Sandifer now considers my comment "hate speech".

If in some strange twist y'all decide this case as the Sandifers, Gerards, and the Gorands want you to, then this project will need clear policy in place for any future transgender-related Move Request, that the article will just be renamed with no discussion or dissent, as just the act of opposing such a move will be actionable. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current word length: 472; diff count: 4.

No sanctions against first movers

I believe the users who made the original moves acted in good faith and should not face sanctions for taking or justifying those actions. This includes Morwen, David Gerard and Tariqabjotu.

Article title

I believe that 'Chelsea Manning' is the correct name of the subject, and the correct article title; that reliable sources support this position; and that David Gerard's recourse to

applies, and that its reference to nouns referring to the subject plainly includes proper nouns like the subject's own name. I view arguments reliant on separating proper nouns from pronouns to be unhelpful.

Misdirecting arguments

Arguments which depend Manning being at the mercy of a US military legal jurisdiction are spurious - eg about postal addresses. Arguments about 'legal names' have not been substantiated. Arguments about surgery are bogus; no-one credible working in the field believes SRS is the definitive form of transition. And a prisoner is at a disadvantage in acquiring HRT, never mind SRS. Arguments which disregard Manning's self-identification on the grounds that she's a convicted criminal deserve no credit; she is, but that's irrelevant.

Analogies with Cat Stevens are misleading - that article doesn't mention gender identity, and it isn't certain the title of that article is the 'right' one. Etymological arguments about 'transphobia' etc have no helpful bearing on the moral and practical realities of the case. It is not an unacceptable personal attack for someone to correctly identify hate speech for what it is.

Sanctions against editors with battleground attitudes

I endorse NorthBySouthBaranof about Tarc and Hitmonchan, and tariqabjotu about Josh Gorand and Baseball Bugs. Bugs has been at it a lot; see below. I regard sanctions as especially appropriate in his case.

Other areas affected

For example, some recent RD posts ask strange things about transgender identity - eg:

• Pass a Method asks about the brain patterns of people who reject trans people's name changes: [213]. Bugs responds by repeating his unfounded attack on the integrity of Manning's lawyer: [214]. I support tariqabjotu's view that this question looks like a thinly veiled attack on other users, and soapboxing.
• Wnt asks if doctors accept bribes for diagnosing GID: [215]. Wnt has graciously accepted the constructive responses of Sluzzelin and Katie R. Bugs accused Wnt of a different sort of poor faith to that which I had suspected myself: [216]

Policies must be ethical, not just popular

Trans people risk losing out badly if policy-making is treated as a pseudo-vote. The combination of widespread ignorance with a smaller core of people from privileged groups promoting actively transphobic positions puts this vulnerable group on its back foot. Wikipedia needs not merely to do the popular thing, but the right thing. I'm aware this is not the place to

, but we can at least avoid perpetuating such wrongs ourselves as a community. A decision to uphold the status quo ante could encourage mass changes to BLPs of trans people.

497 words - AlexTiefling (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.