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

Do NOT remove other users' evidence from this page. If you do, you will be blocked without further warning.

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. 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 page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide 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.

Evidence presented by Kurtis

Clarity of the BLP policy

The biographies of living persons policy mentions absolutely nothing about gender identity and how it should be handled. Since Manning's self-identification as transsexual, there have been only four revisions 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 Manuel of Style. According to MOS:IDENTITY as of August 20,[1] 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 this 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 Morwen initiated the first move shortly after becoming aware of Manning's announcement. This was done without discussion with very little discussion (presumably with respect to BLP).

• Cls14, a reviewer with the 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 StAnselm at 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 nine-day move request on the article's talk page, administrator BD2412 closed it on August 31 in conjunction with a volunteer "three-administrator panel" consisting of himself, Kww, and BOZ. The consensus, as interpreted by these three editors, The decision was to retain the article's original title — Bradley Manning — largely per WP:COMMONNAME and confusion over the remits of 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).

Evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof

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]

Comment @ Carrite: I wasn't aware that any particular expertise is required to understand that rejecting a transgender person's gender identity is insensitive, offensive and derogatory toward that person. All that is required is human decency. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Psychonaut

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.

Evidence presented by Josh Gorand

Interpretation of BLP

It is true that WP:BLP, while requiring "a high degree of sensitivity" and consideration for the "possibility of harm to living subjects", does not specifically mention transgendered people, but BLP only includes the most basic principles and needs to be interpreted in light of more specific guidelines, in this case particularly MOS:IDENTITY. Furthermore, interpretation of BLP has evolved over the years, to include, as User:Sue Gardner (commenting as an editor) eloquently put it, the consideration for "the ethical implications of our actions, to respect the basic human dignity of subjects, to not mock or disparage, and to hold as our guiding principle the desire to do no harm."[35]

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

The overwhelming majority of English language media have started using the name Chelsea Manning in response to the request by that person to be referred to as such (more here). Manning's lawyer has referred to these media as the "responsible media" that have "elected to respect her wishes and refer to her by her new name."[39]

Addendum

I have not focused on WP:COMMONNAME because the arbitration case primarily is concerned with the events surrounding the original move and interpretations of BLP invoked when it was moved at that time, and not the content decision to be made from 30 September onwards. However, as has been demonstrated, COMMONNAME now supports the title Chelsea Manning because most sources now use that name, per the evidence collected by different users on the page mentioned above.

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). Some editors also made more traditional personal attacks, like Tariqabjotu. I don't recall any editors favouring Chelsea making any personal attacks, only appropriate comments in response to unacceptable BLP violations with sometimes strong but reasonable words in regard to what was going on on that talk page and the complete lack of any administrative action taken to prevent it and remove dozens of clear BLP violations. I don't remember any of the comments by various editors that discussed the problem of hate speech being directed at specific editors, but rather appropriately and reasonably addressing the overall situation. It was clearly a good thing for Wikipedia's reputation that some editors called out on the talk page itself and outside of Wikipedia (eg. administrator PhilSandifer's article here[40]) the outrageous commentary made against transgendered people. 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[41][42], 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).

Evidence presented by thehistorian10

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 Wikipedia:MOS is in dispute here. However, MOS:IDENTITY doesn't technically apply. 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)

Clarification presented by MONGO

Just to clarify that Thehistorian10 is incorrect...BLP is a policy, not a guideline, and it IS enforceable.--MONGO 22:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate

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)

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)

Evidence presented by Carrite

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: [43] The same simple Google search for "Chelsea Manning" returns 2.5 million hits — only 18.9% the number for the previous name. [44]

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. [45] [46] Carrite (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

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)
• @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)

Evidence presented by mostly-uninvolved Adam Cuerden

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

I would like to direct the Arbitrators to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-09-04/In_the_media. We have so far been criticised by, amongst others, the New Statesman, Sue Gardner, The Daily Dot, and Slate (all quoted in Signpost linked). Checking News.google.co.uk (search terms "Wikipedia Chelsea Manning"), I don't see any evidence of anyone coming to the defense of Wikipedia's decision here. Even the Christian Science Monitor refers to her using female pronouns. [47] 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 [48].

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 assume good faith on other users being more misguided than malicious. However, as someone who has seen the effects of transphobia - a friend kicked out of her parent's house after she came out as transgender - insistance that people be forced into their birth gender, whether out of malice or just not understanding the issues, is abhorrent, and Wikipedia should never attempt to insist on policy that encourages prejudice, even if I do accept that, for many people, that was not the intent. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@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 [49] - 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)

Evidence presented by Thryduulf

Timeline

This is the timeline of the actions I discuss below.

• 1218 - Morwen's original move to Chelsea [move 1]
• 1222 - Cls14 moves the page back to Bradley [move 2/revert 1]
• 1243 - Morwen moves again to C [move 3/revert 2]
  • 1244 - Cls14 accepts Morwen's move [admits move 2 was a mistake, negating the relevance of moves 2 and 3/reverts 1 and 2]
• 1331 - DG semi-protects and move locks the page at the "Chelsea" title, citing MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP [The "Chelsea" title is now explicitly protected by BLP until consensus says otherwise]
• 1432 - Tariq moves to Bradley, citing request [move 4/revert 3; later admits to not having educated himself about the reasons cited]
• 1434 - DG moves page back to C, citing BLP [move 5/revert 4; justified by the BLP policy as 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 &#5b;...&#5d; tak&#5b;e&#5d; human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information

Morwen did nothing wrong

• Morwen's first move was done in accordance with the discussion at the time (see #Corrigendum to Kurtis's timeline), the BLP as it stood at the time [50] and MOS:IDENTITY as was stable at the time [51] (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 implicitly protected by the above policies and guidelines.
• I would encourage the Committee to make an explicit finding to this effect.

David Gerard acted in accordance with BLP

• David Gerard semi-protected the article in accordance with the 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 the BLP policy. Although not explicitly stated in this context several statements make the intent clear, particularly:
  • 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][52]; and
  • 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. [53]

Tariqabjotu deliberately abused his admin tools to violate BLP

see also:[54]

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

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 lost count of the number of places I've explained that this is incorrect - invoking BLP just means that there needs to be consensus for any change. If the person invoking BLP doesn't provide an explanation for it then consensus will quickly establish that it is not justified and it will be overturned. The edit I made to the article was in response to an edit request on the talk page that had been open 19 hours and was sourced (see talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 5#Middle initial). Thryduulf (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Rannpháirtí anaithnid

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.

WP:RM: the page was not warred back to 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 Bradley Manning by an administrator at 13:30. David Gerard protected the page 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:PP / WP:BLP: David Gerard locked the page unnecessarily or for no obvious reason

David defends Morwen's page move here citing MOS:IDENTITY (not WP:BLP) at 13:29. The only person to have mentioned "BLP" before David locked the page was Morwen.

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 WP:MOVP, WP:PREFER and the spirit of WP:BLP ("In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at 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 Bradley Manning.

• 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 Chelsea Manning. David did not provide a rationale. He repeatedly stated that he had done and accused others of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 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 / WP:BLP: David Gerard was 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 Bradley Manning was offensive and paramount to "violence" (example, example, example). He cited a greater knowledge (or experience) in trans* issues compared to other editors as a rationale for his actions (diff). 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 WP:INVOLVED and the spirit of WP:BLP. ("In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.")

Evidence presented by Tariqabjotu

David Gerard was too involved to perform admin actions

• Two minutes prior to David Gerard's protection, he had already opined in the developing discussion. When asked why no move request was filed, David referenced MOS:IDENTITY, not BLP.
• David admits that 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). His first statement about why Bradley Manning 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: [55],[56],[57].
• On August 22, at 14:49 (UTC), David reversed the full edit protection applied by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) eight minutes earlier. By this point he had made an additional 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.[58], [59], [60] (mod.), [61], [62], [63] (mod.), [64], [65],
• 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 that Morwen wrote it and David just cosigned it: [66][67].
• This appearances to acknowledge that he didn't initially provide an explanation. Nevertheless, he has continued to argue that he did explain how Bradley Manning constituted a BLP violation ([68],[69]). 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 that there is one.
• This denial has continued during arbitration: [70], and also suggested 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 that 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: [71]. 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 that 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 page 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.

As for the end of Thryduulf's accusation here, what he is suggesting is an extremely ridiculous obligation on incoming editors, forcing them to deduce what a protecting 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. (Note the thinly veiled insult in using the phrase "without educating themselves".) By this logic, every editor who made a change after David's protection, included Thryduulf, acted inappropriately unless they asked David for confirmation that 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.

(Preceding sections posted 22:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC), modified 15:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC))

In response to Thryduulf's reply, despite the existence of the discussion (which I knew about), there is no acknowledgement from David that he didn't perceive your change as a BLP violation. That you, and those supporting the edit, guessed correctly doesn't invalidate my point. -- tariqabjotu 15:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Josh Gorand inappropriately attacked editors

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

• "Any editor moving the article to Bradley Manning should be blocked instantly for BLP violation and sexual harassment": [72]

• "Especially not a "consensus" of virulently transphobic people...": [73]
• " Yes, it is libel, gross sexual harassment, ... a violation of human decency, and obv[i]ously motivated by transphobic hate..." [74]

Also [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80] and on de.wiki.

Phil Sandifer showed profound disrespect for process

After three admins closed the discussion with 300+ editors providing input, Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) made several inappropriate comments at User talk:BD2412:

• "I have never before seen Wikipedia used in such an actively hurtful and harmful way as what you have just done" [81]
• "The decision is morally abhorrent" [82]
• "He had a choice. He chose hate speech." [83].

See also: [84].

Baseball Bugs displayed inappropriate gusto

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

• He made a number of wild accusations without substantiating them, often at irrelevant times: [85], [86], [87]

  Suggesting sanctions against Morwen and David at clearly irrelevant times: [88]

• He soapboxed: [89], [90], [91],

In the context of issues at Talk:Edward Snowden, Baseball Bugs seems to harbor a passion inappropriate for articles related to against U.S. political criminals.

(Preceding three sections posted 17:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC))

Evidence presented by I JethroBT

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

IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) adamantly refused to acknowledge Manning as a female based 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."

Evidence presented by Ananiujitha

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.

A hostile environment for some editors is bad for Wikipedia

• A hostile environment may drive editors away.
• A hostile environment may screw with editors' judgment and encourage edit wars.
• Among other things, a hostile environment will create extreme stereotype threat.
• The effects of stereotype threat are well documented:

"When people consider stereotypes that target their groups, their performance tends to suffer in the stereotyped domain. What’s more, performance is hurt by a broader category of events—it can occur whenever environmental cues hint that one’s social identity makes one vulnerable to devaluation, when one feels like the victim of a social identity threat (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002; see also, Tajfel & Turner, 1986)."

"Whether discussing stereotype or social identity threat, almost all researchers have focused on consequences for performance in stereotyped dimensions. For example, according to research, stereotypes seem to affect the academic test performance of African Americans (Steele & Aronson, 1995), math performance of women (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999), athletic performance of Caucasians (Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999), driving performance of women (Yeung & von Hippel, 2008), and intellectual performance of Latinos (Gonzales, Blanton, & Williams, 2002) and children of low socioeconomic status (Croizet & Claire, 1998)."

from Michael Inzlicht and Sonia K. Kang, "Stereotype Threat Spillover: How Coping With Threats to Social Identity Affects Aggression, Eating, Decision Making, and Attention"

• The effects of hostile environments:

"Similar research on the environment has yielded a similar result: Oswald and Harvey (2001) found that a hostile environment (created by using a cartoon mocking the performance of females in math) was able to induce an effect of stereotype threat and hindered performance on a subsequent exam of mathematics ability."

from Daniel R. Hammond, "An Investigation of the Factors Related to Maintaining High Achievement Levels in Gifted African-American Females."

Evidence presented by Pldx1

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: [92].

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. But it happens that 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)

Evidence presented by TParis

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 WP:CONSENSUS 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 brought this up at WP:ANI. It seems a consensus developed but it wasn't closed in time to have any effect. Despite this, Josh Gorand has played down the discussion even going as far to accuse others of personal attacks who try to discuss it with him. He even accused me of personal attacks in the original ANI thread. He has completely ignored attempts to resolve this with him by his own supporters.

Even after the end of the discussion, he continues to disrupte the effort of editors to structure an October RFC on the subject. The discussion is riddled with 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.

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 WP:BLP 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 over 300 people participated then a wide enough consensus has been established here to interpret WP:BLP. The proposal that WP:BLP trumps consensus would allow any single editor to page move Bradley Manning back to Chelsea Manning 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.

Evidence presented by {Your User Name}

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.