User:Josh Gorand
You trouble making faggot. Suck a cock.
— Hate mail sent to me through Wikipedia
See what happens when you defend a homosexual traitor. The two of you are monsters
— Hate mail sent to me through Wikipedia
This is dedicated to you, and Bradley Manning's cock and balls
— Hate mail sent to me through Wikipedia
Something I'm immensely proud of is my work to get the article on Chelsea Manning moved to Chelsea Manning following her request that she be referred to as such. I'm rather familiar with transgender issues, but had never previously edited in that topic area here until weighing in in the first move discussion, pointing out extremely discriminatory commentary that the discussion was rife with—including editors comparing transgendered people to people claiming to be various animals—and criticising the fact that Wikipedia held a vote on whether to recognise someone's gender identity. Disturbingly, the editors arguing in favour of respecting Manning's gender identity lost that vote, and the article was moved back to "Bradley Manning," a decision criticised even by the Wikimedia Foundation's executive director. On 30 September 2013, I initiated the second and successful proposal to move the article to Chelsea Manning (after a month of evidence collection by myself and other editors). For my efforts to move the article, I have endured rather aggressive abuse both here on Wikipedia and outside of Wikipedia by individuals who insist Manning should be referred to as "he" and "Bradley" or that she can be compared to someone claiming to be a pig, with streams of insults and hate mail over a period spanning August, September and October 2013. Some members of the anti-Chelsea crowd even called for the editors who had pointed out hateful commentary to be excluded from editing Wikipedia—instead of stopping the editors who mockingly compared Manning's gender identity to various absurd concepts.
This case has highlighted how Wikipedia is at odds with what is considered acceptable in society regarding how transgender, and more broadly, LGBT people, are treated, and how individuals whose views are not comme il faut in mainstream media are allowed to significantly influence decisions on such questions here. I believe it is the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation, the owners of the website, to ensure that living subjects of bigraphies are treated with basic human dignity and respect. On 8 October 2013 I issued an open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation asking them to address the problems the Manning case highlighted.
I used to contribute to Wikipedia in other topic areas for a number of years, but have stopped contributing in response to the Manning case and the currently unresolved flaws of this website that it highlighted, including the tolerance for aggressive hostility to LGBT people and extremist agendas generally, and the lack of procedures to ensure that LGBT people are treated with decency and respect. My interests include politics, media ethics, journalism and LGBT issues.
During my time as a Wikipedian, I have received a couple of "barnstars" from other editors.
Afterword
Curiously, in a decision resembling what has been going on elsewhere on Wikipedia in regard to both LGBT topics and other topics, I have allegedly1 been "topic banned" by the site owners from articles on transgender topics (which I hardly edited anyway), in retaliation for having "argued that Wikipedia’s requirement for consensus isn’t the only one on the site, and that the rules governing biographies of living persons, one of which is to use their preferred name, should also be taken into account", for having critisised the Wikimedia Foundation over their procedures regarding biographies, and especially for having initiated the (successful) proposal to move Chelsea Manning's article to Chelsea Manning (I had also quite rightly pointed out that the Chelsea Manning talk page was rife with transphobic commentary back in August, but I hardly find it credible that this was a primary reason for an action taken by the owners of the website in October(!).)
This was seemingly the response taken by the Wikimedia Foundation to my an open letter to them asking them to address the problems pointed out by many editors and external commentators regarding its treatment of LGBT issues. The decision, which sanctioned a number of the editors who had contributed most productively in a mainstream way and argued for treating LGBT people with common decency, while hardly sanctioning anyone at all for making hate commentary directed at trans people, was quite correctly critisised by Trans Media Watch as extremely one-sided.
Here is a list of some of the comments that the Wikimedia Foundation thinks is acceptable commentary regarding transgender individuals (as opposed to pointing out that they are unacceptable). In the normal world, any serious publication would stop editors from making comments comparing LGBT people to dogs or other animals. However, in Bizarro World, the Wikimedia Foundation has apparently taken the opposite action by endorsing such commentary and instead sanctioning those who said such comparisons were unacceptable, in an apparent attempt to silence editors who offered a mainstream perspective on LGBT issues and who critisised the Wikimedia Foundation over the issue. Editors who compared transgender people to dogs or declared that they rejected their gender identity and chosen name entirely are, shockingly, invited by the site owners to contribute to future discussions on transgender issues, while editors who objected to such commentary are forbidden. This absurd position places the website on par with websites like Conservapedia and Metapedia on LGBT issues, and—as it has been pointed out—even on other issues as well.
With such an extreme political stance taken by the Wikimedia Foundation as site owners, I can no longer be associated with this website, and I wouldn't recommend anyone using any of its articles as sources as they may contain politically extreme content with the full endorsement and support of the site owners. I would strongly encourage all those who belong to the political mainstream to reject its aggressive funding campaigns and inhibit its funding as much as possible.
14:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Notes
1 I have not yet received a confirmation of this from a legal representative of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation's executive director previously stated that "use of the word transphobic to describe another editor’s arguments or views does not constitute a personal attack, and is within the realm of acceptable discourse" and "editors who labeled other people's comments as transphobic are not admonished." If the Wikimedia Foundation has now taken the opposite position and action, it would be in blatant disregard of clear, previous statements by its own executive director. Therefore, until I receive confirmation from the Wikimedia Foundation itself rather than claims by anonymous editors, I treat this as an unverified claim