Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 25 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 14 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 94 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 54 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 44 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 35 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 9 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	29	29
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	2	4	6
RfD	0	0	19	23	42
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 300 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hurricane Helene#Split out Florida?

(Initiated 12 days ago on 30 October 2024) Discussion seems to have run its course and needs closure.72.36.119.94 (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 12 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles

The motion on Syrian civil war articles (see [1]) concludes that a number of Syrian conflict-related articles, which had been 1RR sanctioned under ARBPIA from March until July 2013 (including 3 blockings and 1 warning), in general do not fit the general category of Arab-Israeli disputes. However, since there is a general agreement that 1RR sanctions are required on relevant Syrian civil war articles due to edit-warring and sock-puppeting, those articles shall continue to fall under ARBPIA restriction for 30 days and in the meanwhile a discussion would be opened at WP:AN (this discussion) in order to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form; also any notifications and sanctions are meanwhile to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log. I herewith propose the community to apply on alternative sanction tool (perhaps "Syrian civil war 1RR tool") on relevant Syrian civil war articles, in order to properly resolve the existing edit-warring problem, prevent confusion of editors and administrators regarding if and when the sanctions are relevant, and in a way to reduce automatic association of Syrian conflict with the generally unrelated Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Case summary

This request comes as a result of motion (see [2]), passed regarding Syrian civil war articles on 21 July, following an Arbcom request for amendment and clarification (see [3]). The issue was also previously discussed at Talk:Syrian civil war and recommended for Arbcom solution by an involved administrator (see [here]).

As an initiator of the original request for amendment and clarification, i would like to bring to community's attention the dilemma of problematic application of ARBPIA restriction on Syrian civil war articles, though acknowledging that 1RR restriction for some (or possibly all) Syrian civil war related articles is most probably required. As concluded by the Arbcom motion on July 21, there is no general relation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the expanded conflict between Israel and Arab League (ARBPIA sanctions) to the ongoing Syrian conflict, except perhaps some separate incidents. In addition:

• the several limited incidents (without fatalities) on Israeli-Syrian border during Quneitra Governorate fighting between rebels and government are a WP:UNDUE reason to extend 1RR over entire Syrian civil war topic area; moreover Syrian Ba'athist government is no longer a part of the Arab League, while its seat is supposed to be given to Syrian opposition, which is so far neutral to Israel.
• the use 1RR tool at Syrian civil war articles prior to the above described motion had not even distantly related in any way to the Israel-Palestine topic (see sanctioned cases [4], [5]). Some editors also pointed out that application of ARBPIA tool, while referring only to certain aspects of Syrian conflict, creates a great deal of confusion for both editors and administrators when and where 1RR application is relevant.
• the incidents of air or missile attacks, allegedly performed by Israel against Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian Ba'athist targets in Syria, may fall under the Iran-Israel proxy conflict and most probably not the generally preceding and different conflict between Israel and the Arab League.

It is hence required that ARBPIA sanctions would be replaced by other relevant sanctions tool on Syrian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please put further comments and opinions here.

• Proposed.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Syrian civil war is far from an Arab-Israeli conflict. Not even close. Currently, only the Syria article, the Syrian civil war article and its military infobox template are under ARBPIA restrictions. Most of the edit-warring in the Syria conflict topic has been fought over the military infobox and also the what the legitimate flag of Syria should be. Other articles related to the Syrian civil war are not under any sanctions, and it should stay that way. These other articles do not frequently experience edit wars. I support replacing ARBPIA with something more relevant, but oppose placing any more articles than the 3 I mentioned under 1RR restrictions.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Given the on-wiki conflict over the real-life conflict, I see no reason to get rid of the sanctions. Yes, it shouldn't be under ARBPIA restrictions, but maintaining the 1RR etc probation is helpful. Let's change nothing except for the reason behind the restrictions. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Nyttend: this is an area of considerable controversy among Wikipedia editors, and the 1RR restrictions are necessary in this subject area in their own right. As such, they should be maintained. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• As an editor that works in military history space in an (at the very least) equally contentious area (the Balkans in WWII), I thoroughly agree with Nyttend on this. Where 1RR has been applied under ARBMAC (for example), it has tended to reduce the amount of edit-warring and other nonsense. It encourages real contributors onto the talk page where these matters should be discussed, and deters trolls and other ne'er-do-well's. My point is that ARBMAC was originally only for Macedonia, but has now been applied to all Balkans-related articles, broadly defined. That, in my opinion, is a good thing, as it focuses editors on contributing, instead of edit-warring over minutiae. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not only do I completely agree with Nyttend, but I actually think the Syrian civil war should be placed under discretionary sanctions on its own merits. Do you know what will happen if there's nothing in place to prevent POV-pushing? There will be two distinctive groups trying to reshape the main article and all other related pages based on their perception of the confict:

1. Pro-Assad editors of every sort, whether they be patriotic Shiite Muslims or far-left conspiracy theorists. They will try to paint the dictator in an unduly positive light by mitigating the negative coverage of his regime, all the while emphasizing any and all incidents attributed to either the Free Syrian Army or the al-Nusra Front to make it seem as if the entire rebellion is an Islamist insurgency backed by Western governments.
2. Anti-Assad editors who reject the very notion that significant atrocities have also been committed by the rebels (particularly the al-Nusra Front), and will work to sweep any mention of terrorism against the regime under the rug.

There is general consensus among independent observers that both sides have committed war crimes, but that the Assad regime's offences far eclipse those of the rebels. Nevertheless, we must avoid giving undue weight to either side. It needs to be made clear that Assad loyalists are behind most of the abuses, but their opponents have also staged attacks against security and civilian targets. The last time I visited the article, this was already achieved. Allowing either of the aforementioned groups free reign over pages related to the civil war will jeopardize our efforts to cover the topic in an impartial manner. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fist, I'm opposed to shoehorning conduct into a policy that doesn't fit. Outside the Isreal related articles, its clearly outside ARBPIA, and the sanctions do not apply. As a practical matter, by the time we reach consensus on that, we could have already reached consensus on sanctions generally. The ARBPIA sanction regime is particularly aggressive, in that, in addition to the imposition of discretionary sanctions, it applies a blanket 1rr rule to the entire topic area, . I think standard community imposed discretionary sanctions would be more appropriate, which could of course involve revert restrictions on certain articles if required. Monty₈₄₅ 20:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• I support ongoing 1RR and discretionary sanctions as a community sanction in Syria-related articles, for the forseeable future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing

I would like to ask a closure for this amendment request, since involved parties have already expressed opinions and the 30 day-period of temporal sanctions (resulted by motion on July 21 [6]) is about to finish.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Temporary sanctions are due to be in tact until 20 August, an administrator is requested to close this case.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Future timestamp: Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for lift of topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

Some time ago, I was banned from the page Chelsea Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (né Bradley Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) due to tendentious editing regarding Manning's gender identity. In the light of current news, the ban, more than anything, looks rather foolish. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't happen to have a link to the discussion lying around, do you? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Here it is. To be honest, I'm still bitter over the way I was treated for presenting reliable sources regarding her gender identity that we now recognise, but I'm also willing to edit constructively. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I get that. But to be fair.... gosh, kind of a lot has happened since then. Would you have any objection to a 1RR restriction, at least temporarily, on anything relating to Chelsea Manning? Might help ease back into things, if there is consensus to lift the ban - and might also ease the concerns of other editors. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be amenable to that. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, then - Support. That said, what's past is past. Don't let people goad you into re-fighting old battles. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to oppose this simply because of the language used in the request. Stating "the ban, more than anything, looks rather foolish" does not persuade me that the ban should be lifted, regardless of any truth in the statement. After all, it's the kind of tendentious statement you appear to have been TBANNED for. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Now add the topic ban violation to the reason why I'm opposing this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting the topic ban. While it is correct that Manning had gender issues, there were no reliable sources to support the changes you made in 2012. So, nobody should feel foolish, rather the BLP issue was handled correctly back in 2012. You did last edit the article on May 5th 2012, the ban discussion was in June, and you promised not edit voluntarily, so I would have been inclined to give you another chance back then. It's also been over a year, so it seems reasonable to lift the ban with the condition specified by UltraExactZZ.I am One of Many (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  While I don't want to rehash arguments, I would like to put the record straight and clarify that: a) I did agree, rather quickly, that there weren't reliable sources on the issue of the name (especially as she has now chosen a much nicer name); and b) I also put forward sources for the existence of gender identity disorder, which are now wholly accepted as reliable (and are from generally reliable sources) and are currently used as such in the article (the Lamo chat logs and the Article 32 hearing in particular). I really would like to nip this "didn't present sources" thing in the bud, because, as a search of any discussion I took part in the talk page or project discussion boards shows, I actually did. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There were no sources put forward at that time that Manning had expressed a wish to be identified as female. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I said I didn't want to rehash arguments, so I'd prefer you not to either. But as to your point: neither were there weren't any sources put forward that Manning herself expressed a wish to be identified as male . As I pointed out multiple times, the only statements that came out were from Manning's family and supporters, which defence witness Lauren McNamara would later describe as "silence and denial". And, indeed, as you and many other people seem to be arguing, an individual's statement of gender identity is more important than whatever others say. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the acknowledged gender identity disorder that is debatable.[7][8][9] Some state Breanna even.[10][11][12] Though very few go as far as Scoops on March 22, 2012, "Manning identifies as a woman. She has not transitioned yet, but stated her preference for the name Breanna."[13] So I disagree about sources, as these were 2011 to 2012, but it was not widely reported or thought of highly. This is why I AGF about the issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - Given the narrow scope and the way in which Wikipedia works, there seems to be zero chance that the gender identity issue will present any future problem given recent events. While the wording used may not be the best, the issue concerning the topic ban has been ultimately resolved. A voluntary 1 RR would be a show of good-faith, but I do not see is a requirement for lifting a now moot dispute which lead to the topic-ban. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral, not good -- Sceptre is continuing to argue the previous decision rather than showing a willingness to move on. NE Ent 00:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Debating, and reversing the previous decision, of a 3-day decision to ban, is part of moving on. -Wikid77 11:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - Sceptre is one of our most experienced and knowledgeable transgender editors. I think our community really needs her input in articles relating to Private Manning if these articles are going to remain up to Wikipedia standards during this complex process of rewriting them. The behavior that Sceptre engaged in that other editors found objectionable happened over a year ago. I think the ban should be lifted completely, and Sceptre should be allowed 3 reverts on this topic like any other editor. In fact, I think in an ideal world, Sceptre would be made an administrator so that there is someone actually knowledgeable about transgender issues who can step in when vandals try to deface these articles, referring to people by old names, incorrect pronouns, and so on. Rebecca (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right. But the voluntary (and temporary!) 1RR will help Sceptre ease back into what seems to be a busy area of the project these days. First things first, no need to rush headlong into drama. (He said, posting on AN) UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Had Sceptre been content to merely ask for the topic ban to be lifted on the grounds that sufficient time had passed, and that circumstances had changed, I would have concurred. However, I have to suggest that Sceptre's attempts to justify her original behaviour - which was widely seen as a WP:BLP violation, given that Manning at the time had not only made no public statement regarding any wish to be identified as female, but had made clear to the Bradley Manning support group that at that time s/he wished to be addressed as 'Brad' or 'Bradley', and identified as male - removing the ban would be premature. Violations of WP:BLP policy need to be taken seriously, and attempts by Sceptre to suggest that she was somehow 'right all along' make me wonder whether she actually ever understood what the issue was in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, after lifting the topic ban, then Sceptre can explain what exactly was 'right all along' and no need to "wonder" endlessly. -Wikid77 11:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose It is evident in her current statement that Sceptre intends advocacy and already has chosen to view "reading the talk page at the moment it does get hard not to take all the blatant transphobia (from admins, even) personally." and "I desperately want to help with trans issues on Wikipedia (especially the abuse of COMMONNAME that comes up every time someone comes out), that I fear my topic ban would prevent me from doing." <== This is great...someone else to spout off "transphobe" accusations into the thread...yeah, that'll help. :/
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• "By all means he can have surgery, wear women's clothes or have himself transformed into a dolphin, but leave wikipedia out of it." I don't know what the encyclopedia gains from keeping one of its most prolific trans editors banned from a talk page whilst allowing a person whose entire knowledge of transsexuality comes from South Park to edit freely. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledging one's personal opinions, feelings, and biases is not the same as advocacy. Your own biases are practically oozing out of the computer screen, Berean Hunter, so it takes a lot of gall for you to accuse someone else of "advocacy." Rebecca Weaver (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll just note that your page says you are here because you are an activist. "I'm an activist who spends her time in real life (and on the internet) working for trans women's freedom, safety, and well-being. This is also why I'm an editor on Wikipedia. " (I added the highlight). You also make a blanket statement that most wikipedia editors are transphobic. These blanket accusations are part of the problem with this topic area. I am unsure what you think Berean Hunter's biases are, but it would be good if you would refrain from making unsubstantiated accusations, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I openly acknowledge my biases at all times. I think other editors would be wise to do this as well. . .rather than pretending they have perfect knowledge or maintain a god-like emotional detachment from everything they do on Wikipedia. In Berean Hunter's case, he appears to have a bias against radical trans political discourse, and you appear to have the same bias. It is necessary for trans folks' liberation for us to identify what oppresses us as being transphobic or cissexist. Our observation that we live in a cissexist society, and that this infects every aspect of life (including Wikipedia) is necessary for us if we are going to free ourselves. You apparently have a problem with this analysis and view it as personally attacking you. That is one of your (and Berean Hunter's) biases, and it is a bias that is harmful to trans people. I am not "accusing" anyone of anything here. I am calmly describing what I see as reality. I am unsure why the thought that you may be cissexist is so appalling to you. 95%+ of people in our society are cissexist; it would be understandable and normal if you (or anyone else at Wikipedia) also was. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no. You don't know me, we've never interacted so I don't know why you presume to know me or what biases I may have. I find your baseless accusations utterly distasteful and the equal of falsely accusing someone of racism. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Consider blocking since she just violated the ban and couldn't wait for a consensus to form here. That is why the ban is there to begin with.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that that sort of post is worth a block. Disturbing stuff. Probably doesn't help her case here, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - no reason to ban the editor from the topic now Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Now blocked as an ArbCom Enforcement.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• 12 hours is a slap on the wrist, but that's fine. That being said, given advocacy appears to be Sceptre's intent rather than improvement of the article, I am inclined to oppose lifting the topic ban. Resolute 03:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose -- I was thinking of appealing the block for Sceptre, but given the tone of discussion here, I'm not sure that would be a good thing. On the other hand, I'm not sure it would be a bad thing either. (Note: I closed the BLPBAN discussion last year.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sarek, being the now-wp:INVOLVED admin who imposed the ban, on 25 June 2012, I would think your comment should have been filed 'neutral' after 14 months. -Wikid77 11:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Berean Hunter. Shows no understanding why they were topic banned in the first place so no guarantee behavior would not re-occur. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Sceptre has situated knowledge due to her position as a trans* individual. The people above who want to penalize her for that sadden me deeply. I think it would be best to lift her topic ban and place her under mentorship. If her mentor finds that her editing has not changed since her topic ban began, that person can reinstate it. We get the best of both worlds here. She can edit and if she acts disruptively, the topic ban returns, ending the disruption. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Please clarify exactly who you mean by "people above who want to penalize her for that". As an administrator you should know better than to make ill-worded accusations of bigotry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I think Rebecca says it better than I could above. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • She hasn't called out people in this thread like you have (although her definition of vandalism is problematic) I'd still like to know who you're referring to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Guerillero, accusing other editors of seeking to sanction a Wikipedia editor based on bigotry is a serious accusation, and attempting to weasel out of it by saying another editor "said it better than I could" (when in fact by my reading no such thing was said; an accusation of bias =/= an accusation of bigotry) is...well, we'll call it disappointing. Please specify exactly who you are referring to when you state that people want to keep Sceptre sanctioned based on her being trans, and what leads you to that conclusion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support ending topic ban. Sceptre jumped the gun and the ban served its purposes at that time. Circumstances have changed, and it is time to move on. Sceptre is advised to be cautious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support lifting the topic ban; this is more than a year ago. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• In line with Sarek, a weak oppose. I would be supporting, had Sceptre stopped at Andy, I said I didn't want to rehash arguments, so I'd prefer you not to either. That would have been restrained, a sign of understanding, and respectful, all at once. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 05:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support lifting topic ban - has been over a year and a 1RR restriction should suffice to keep from escalating edit wars. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral As with others, I would have supported if Sceptre had not made it clear they still don't understand why they were topic banned. However I'm not opposing because although Sceptre's lack of understanding is a concern, I'm not convinced it's enough to require the continued imposition of a topic ban cnsidering the circumstances (I'm obviously not convinced it's not warranted either). Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Tendentious editing is still tendentious editing. Sceptre appears set to continue the same battle that she/he was engaged in (and that wasted a lot of community time), IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Editor is currently violating the topic ban at: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Transphobia_on_Wikipedia. It looks like the disruption is likely to continue if the ban is removed, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Sceptre caused serious disruption last time, and feels very strongly about the issue. To the point she is incapable of working collaboratively on it. Unbanning her at this time would not help in solving the situation. Perhaps in a couple more months when the key questions are resolved. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - the comments from this editor regaring the previous ban, and accusations of transphobia, do not fill me with hope that they will edit constructively on this article, and violating the topic ban was an incredibly stupid thing to do. GiantSnowman 10:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support with a self accepted 1RR condition which expires after showing good conduct for a period to be discussed (suggest 3 months). WIth regard to the recent violation, one can hardly expect anyone to remain silent in the midst of this enormous display of ignorance and bigotry. Fiddle Faddle 10:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose because Sceptre doesn't realize (or doesn't want to admit) that her previous actions that led to topic ban are clearly wrong. At that time, there were no reliable sources about Manning as a trans person. Situation is now different, because we have her statement--В и к и T 11:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral. I was going to support this but I'm a little concerned about the combative phrasing being used in this argument, and the accusations of transphobia. Incidentally, I noted that Rebecca's userpage states that the majority of Wikipedia editors are transphobic. I wonder how long that particular invective would have lasted if you replaced "cissexist" with "racist", for example? Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, we get a lot of racism as well. But it's a fair point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The majority of Wikipedia editors are cissexist. And the majority of Wikipedia editors are also racist. This is no negative comment on Wikipedia in particular. The majority of Wikipedia editors are cissexist, racist, sexist, etc. because the majority of people are cissexist, racist, sexist, etc. This is because we live in a white supremacist, patriarchal, cis-dominated society where such ways of thinking and acting are considered normal. That is not "invective;" it is political analysis. Or is this particular political perspective not allowed among Wikipedia editors? We have openly conservative editors, why can't we have editors who openly express far-left social views on their own user pages? Transphobia is not an "accusation," it is a daily reality for people like Sceptre and I, on Wikipedia not less than anywhere else. Stop trying to police us for calling our oppression what it is. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We do have (large) numbers of "far-left" editors actually, and I'd probably count myself among them. I just don't let my personal views affect my editing on Wikipedia; the same cannot be said for yourself or Sceptre, I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 20:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My political views affect every second of how I live my life. The same applies to you, GiantSnowman, whether you realize it or not. My hypothesis is that you hold a bunch of political views that DO affect your editing at Wikipedia, but that you choose to think of these political views as "apolitical," "objective," "fair-minded," or just "common-sense." But in truth, the very idea that one's political views could not influence a particular field of their behavior is ITSELF a political view. Politics is not just about voting in elections, it is about how one thinks power should be distributed throughout society. And every single thing any given individual does influences how power is distributed throughout society. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

...all I have to say is "wow". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being blown away. I was pretty impressed by what I said there, too! Rebecca Weaver (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think The Bushranger's "wow" was meant to express how impressed he was. Just saying. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow indeed. Of course there are racist, sexist, homophobic, and, yes, transphobic editors here (given society, it cannot be any other way), and of course you are quite welcome to hold the belief that the majority of people are racist, sexist, etc. However, personally, as someone who spends time here keeping an eye on such idiot-magnet articles as Homosexuality, I actually find it somewhat insulting that you believe you can judge whole swathes of society like that. Black Kite (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. What Sceptre is asking here is a license to resume POV soapboxing. Yet more soapboxing is the last thing we need on the Manning article right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - and make ban permanent. When an editor says one of its most prolific trans editors there are issues beyond repair. --Malerooster (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify the issues to which you refer? The "prolific trans editors..." bit was said by another editor, not Sceptre. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I happen to agree it's a poor reason to Oppose an unbanning (a very poor one, in fact). However, she did make that comment - in a 3:43 am reply to Berean above. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh! So she did. I was thinking of Rebecca's comments, above, along the same lines. Mea Culpa. That said, I agree with your analysis as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What I think User:Malerooster meant in their comment was that this editor appears to feel they are bigger/better than the project, and that that is a troublesome attitude to have on a collaborative encyclopedia... Malerooster, please can you clarify for us? GiantSnowman 14:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, along the lines of an editor that feels they are bigger or better, but it was more along the lines as one of the most prolific xxxx editors(feel free to replace with muslim, jewish, straight, gay, bi, large in stature, what have you, it creates a battlefield mentality of us vs them, and gives the appearance of promoting a certain POV, even if they aren't. It just didn't come across well imho, even if this editor is well ententioned. I'll back away from the ledge and try to assume good faith and say I hope this wasn't to harsh. --Malerooster (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with sentiment of Guillero and others above; the person has sensitivity and "situated knowledge" and it is important not to stifle this, and the person asked nicely, and the person was right in the past history and did discuss issues at the relevant Talk pages, and the person has behaved nicely since. The new post at Jimbo's talk page, for which the editor has now been bannedblocked, seems somewhat heroic and somewhat important to allow, in spirit of IAR and free speech. I thot that Jimbo's Talk page is a free speech zone, per Jimbo's wishes, where important statements like that can and should be allowed. So I am not sure if it was a fair Block or not, no matter what the stated terms of previous arbitration has been (i.e. can arbitrators rule that posts of a certain type to Jimbo's Talk page are not allowed, or is that an implied exception always? My personal experience there was that Jimbo stepped up to say posting there was always allowed, upon others making motions to punish me for posting.) As noted by someone at the editor's talk page, maybe risking a block was worth it for that post. I believe this should be regarded as done, dealt with by a 12-hour block, and the person will have soon served their time for that. And, back to the current request, support lifting the topic ban (either completely or with the 1RR modification or with the mentorship modification). --doncram 14:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Your characterisation is incorrect. She was properly topic banned at the time because she was unable to accept that we simply lacked any usable sources to make the changes she wanted. That some of those changes are now being implemented is not vindication for her behaviour. And indeed, the majority of the content she was pushing (i.e. a name) was (and still is) entirely incorrect. My reading of the situation is that Sceptre feels strongly about this topic and wishes to be unbanned for the purposes of combatting transphobic comments on the talk page (this view based on her recent behaviour and off-site comments), not for improving the article content (as this was her approach last time). She is singularly ill-suited to combatting such problems because of her strong personal affront at such comments, and so unbanning her at this time will, I predict, only add to the extended drama at that talk page - rather than improve the discourse. As I stated above; I'm not adverse to removing the topic ban, but I suggest now is an inappropriate time that would only result in disruption and the re-instatement of the ban (which would then be even harder to revoke!). I propose she comes back to us n a couple of months when the naming dispute has stabilised and there is less chance of her returning to the previous problematic behaviour. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, i mentioned this discussion at the Jimbo Talk page discussion. ErrantX, my saying the editor was right, was meant as the editor turned out to be correct in identifying there was a transgender issue, and I accept at face value the assertion that the editor did at the Talk page accept that there were not reliable-enough sources at the time. I'll grant I am not familiar with the details. --doncram 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not supposed to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND and based on this request, it sounds like Sceptre wants to get back into the thick of it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I take no very strong view on the wisdom of the original topic ban, nor on the wisdom of lifting it now. As a general principle, tendentious and speculative editing can be wrong, even if the editor is proven right in the long run about the underlying facts. But on the other hand, and also as a general principle, we ought to be kind and forgiving and always willing to give people a chance to learn and improve. It is up to the community to sift through the facts and come to an informed judgment call about particular cases. The main reason I'm posting here, then, is to suggest that blocking someone based on a post to my talk page raising the general issue of lifting a topic ban (and engaging in part with the topic itself) strikes me as unwise in the long run. One of the important principles of Wikipedia is that we ought to be open to thoughtful disagreement and dissent, and my talk page has by long tradition been somewhat of a haven for people to come and raise broader philosophical issues. There are limits to this, of course - it wouldn't be wise to allow my talk page to become a useless battleground for editors who have been excluded elsewhere! But the occasional post there, which would not be welcome elsewhere, strikes me as a useful safety valve, and also a good way for me to keep in touch with edge issues in the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I've the impression that the general editing climate on the relevant pages isn't so good, you have to look at the behavior of all editors in that context. Sceptre has had a time out from that area, I think Sceptre's return will improve the editing climate. Count Iblis (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly would unbanning someone who was topic banned for a large amount of disruption improve the editing climate? To me it looks like it would just add more fuel to the fire, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Being inside a group where there are tensions can over time cause someone to lose a reasonable sense of perspective, you can get dragged down into a mindset where you feel the need to prove your point in various unproductive ways (you don't see that it is unproductive yourself, of course). If you have left that group, it may well be the remaining editors whose behavior is now less than ideal (e.g. Baseball Buggs has been mentioned on Jimbo's page). So, the person returning will have regained a more resonable perspective and will be able to have a more positive impact on the group. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Seriously, just looking at their recent statement (as a trans editor, I cannot simply sit and watch as Talk:Chelsea Manning is used as a platform for transphobic statements), I do not think they are ready. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Making a WP:POINT by deliberately violating a topic ban before it has been lifted is clearly a violation of the "clean hands" principle. Sorry. Come back in six months. Collect (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: it's easy, when you're unlikely to face severe oppression due to your identity (you're male, white, cisgender, straight, Christian, whatever), to be able to be able to ignore or brush away the sort of comments that have been posted on the talk page, but as Rebecca points out, this is the daily reality for people like me. Black Kite brings up the idea of, what if Rebecca accused people of racism rather than cissexism? Well, let's look at it another way: as a predominantly white editor base, would it be appropriate for us to censure a person of color for making good faith observations of racism? I really don't think it would be, and nor do I think it's the province of cisgender people to define what transphobia is. While it's stated in terms more recognisable to activist communities, what she's saying ultimately reflects our own admission of systemic bias. This was why I made the post on User talk:Jimbo Wales: as a trans editor, I think that the attitudes that are evident on the Chelsea Manning talk page are creating a very unwelcoming and unsafe editing environment for me and other trans editors, and it's something that's a major and urgent problem. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment (I've already said that I'm in favor of lifting the restriction). I think that 0RR is a better voluntary restriction to stick to than 1RR. If you can't revert at all, you have to make sure your edits have enough consensus, otherwise it's rather pointless to edit or argue on the talk page at all. So, a voluntary 0RR will convice more people that a return in the topic area will not lead to problems. Count Iblis (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support and apologize while lifting topic ban, which did seem ~unwise~ in retrospect, as a violation of wp:NOTCENSORED when gender identity was a major issue to address. A new wp:1RR restriction is a separate issue to decide elsewhere. Regarding a topic ban to enforce wp:BATTLE, in a controversial talk-page, is simply punishment for "precrime" or "thought crimes" not yet committed. I advise to lift the topic ban, discuss conflicts as adults, and warn of any future problems, rather than pre-punish for precrimes. Addendum: I recommend to make a formal apology to Sceptre for the indef topic ban (could have been 3 months?), decided by a vote of 3 people (no opposes) in a 3-day discussion (dif005), not even discussing the terms of the ban. Perhaps the word "foolish" is appropriate. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:03/11:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh? She was disrupting the article for a long period of time. How on earth is that a thought crime? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Secondary comment: reading through this thread, I notice many people are saying that I would engage in POV-pushing. Since when was it a POV pushing to ensure that transgender article subjects are treated in an ethical way in concordance with BLP? It's like saying that an editor who works to combat pseudoscience POV pushing is guilty of pushing a pro-science POV. Answers on a postcard, please... Sceptre ^(talk) 02:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Violating a topic ban while a request for the same topic ban is under consideration seems unwise. As does calling the topic ban itself foolish.--Rockfang (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the topic ban. POV warrior. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think saying that "LGBT activists are almost as obnoxious as the ultra-Zionist crew in their manipulation of policies and content" is the best way to convince others you're not a POV warrior yourself. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wanna deconstruct how the Manual of Style got changed to read the way it does on this issue? Carrite (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, violating one's topic ban while a discussion is underway to lift the ban is the definition of showing disrespect to the community and an abundantly good reason for the ban not to be lifted. A topic ban means to stay away from that area, period, altogether, no matter how right you think you are. Sceptre's failure to do that and "I was right all along" attitude confirms the necessity of an enforceable remedy. That aside, Sceptre also seems not to understand (if the postcard answer is desired) that Wikipedia follows, never leads, and the fact that sufficient sourcing exists for a change now doesn't mean it did then. However noble Sceptre's original intentions, they resulted in disruption and a premature attempt to an unsupported change. Now those changes are properly supported and done, but just because they're appropriate now doesn't mean they would have been at the time. However noble Sceptre's current intentions, they were a violation of the ban and unacceptable. Sceptre must adhere fully and absolutely to the ban for some period of time prior to any consideration of lifting it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  I think you're confusing the past with now; there is no POV to push to state that Manning identifies as a woman called "Chelsea", it's a fact. And there is also no POV to push that BLP dictates that we should treat Manning as such (despite the fetishisation of WP:COMMONNAME that poisons nearly every move discussion on the project). As I said, it's like editing psuedoscience articles: there's no "pro-science POV" to push, because that point of view is already NPOV. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  Note that since Sceptre has chosen to ignore the topic ban again, with both this posting here and anyother similar one on Jimbo's page [14], immediately after coming back from the last block, despite several warnings against these kinds of actions during this discussion, I have blocked her again. I also find that her posting here is about the clearest expression of the "megalomaniac point of view" I've seen on Wikipedia in a while, and strengthens my conviction that the restriction should not be lifted any time soon. This kind of POV grandstanding is exactly not what we need more of in the Manning discussion right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  This is the key point. Someone does need to address problems on that talk page (please!!!!!). But Sceptre is not that person because she will simply clash with those editors again, as she did before, and the problem will get no better. Sceptre is not a good advocate for these issues because she feels so strongly she was never able to calmly discuss problematic statements. So I say again; she is not here for an unban so she can contribute to that article, she is here for an unban so she can combat the talk page comments. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre has requested to lift the topic ban to reduce anti-transgender comments on the talk-page which might be scaring other transgender editors, even if by simply alerting others to the bias, but also discuss the Manning case in other venues (beyond the talk-page). -Wikid77 11:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Posting here is explicitly not a violation of the topic ban per ban appeal and given the Founder's statement above, this in an inappropriate block and should be reversed forwith. NE Ent 14:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  I don't buy that argument. Posting an appeal to ANI is explicitly not a violation of the topic ban, and Scetpre was not blocked for such. ANI is not a free for all zone, and the comments that FPaS blocked her for exhibited the exact same battleground mentality that resulted in the topic ban in the first place. The very fact that she is already neck deep into the same behaviours argues very strongly that Sceptre would only be a disruptive influence were the topic ban lifted. That she is already showing the same disruptive mentality before the block is even lifted argues for the validity of the block. Resolute 15:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Another comment. If the topic ban is not going to be lifted, then perhaps modify it to make it less broadly construed so that comments on e.g. Jimbo's talk page are not a violation of the topic ban as Jimbo himself has pointed out is a problem in this discussion here. Thing is that there is problem on the Manning talk page and many editors including Jimbo only found out because she posted about it on Jimbo's page. Count Iblis (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd oppose that as well, based on the attitude presented here, and the POV pushing shown in this thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. When I read the old topic ban discussion, good editors like Wikidemon, Hobit, and Roux spoke convincingly against it. People above admit she could have gotten this single-topic ban revoked at any time; the fact that she didn't reflects that she had no plan of violating it. Her comments on Jimbo's page have nothing to do with Bradley Manning; they are related to her perception of transphobia, which some people can say is a "soapbox" or whatever (I suppose efforts to make Wikipedia inclusive are soapboxing by definition) - she wasn't under any special sanction against soapboxing. If you could have used the topic ban responsibly, without interpreting it to prohibit her from speaking out under Jimbo's "open door policy" or on administrative topics, maybe it wouldn't matter so much, but you don't seem to be able to, so it should be overturned right away. I say this although I am, not trans-phobic, but pretty "trans-skeptical", and got an honest chuckle out of some of the comments on her list. Wnt (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and since action against AndyTheGrump apparently was the main event from which the Sceptre topic ban forked, I don't think you should count his oppose vote - it can't be impartial. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• So we should just start discarding votes on your whims? Whether her comments at Jimbo's page are soapboxing is actually kinda irrelevant - she's soapboxed very, very clearly here, and violated her topic ban by spouting off things about the case involved, in addition to showing a very poor attitude from the opening statement! And there are several people throwing around the "trans-phobic" comments on both sides without any kind of evidence. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The topic ban was not imposed because Sceptre was wrong about the subject's gender identity but because he failed to follow BLP policies. Since the very issue for which he is banned has now become news, there is even more concern that he will continue the same behavior. TFD (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor seems to be demonstrating the same behavior. I think we can wait a little longer before lifting this ban.--Mark 18:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support More sinned against than sinning. Agree with Rebecca Weaver that editors with this sort of courage and integrity should be promoted, not blocked. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Some might see courage as an important part of editing Wikipedia, but that is strictly a personal issue. What is more important is the way the editor follows our guidelines and procedures. Not sure they are ready for a topic ban lift as yet.--Mark 20:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting ban – Sceptre has been blocked twice for pointing out bigotry and prejudice (claims which are evidence-based) on Jimbo's talk page, and I am grateful for her courage in doing so. The discussions relating to Manning include a distressing number of statements illustrating ignorance (at best) and blatant bigotry, prejudice and transphobia (at worst) and I am disappointed that there have not been more editors calling out unacceptable behaviour. That is not to say that all editors opposing the recent page move fall into these categories, but certainly some do. Advocacy for tolerance and mutual respect amongst editors is both appropriate and a net positive and I believe that Sceptre understands that neutral writing is necessary in article space, so the ban is not necessary for prevention. It is true that the appeal could have been worded more tactically and less provocatively, however I do not see that as a reason to oppose lifting the ban in this case. EdChem (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That's not fair really. As someone who had to deal with her last time; Sceptre does point out problematic stuff. But also manages to cause endless disruption and throws around a lot of unpleasantness in the process. I am not hopeful this has changed because it is a major pressure point for her. As you say advocacy for mutual respect is what we should aim for; her original topic ban was because she totally failed to do that. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose  Claiming that the original ban was "foolish" sounds like a request to return to POV editing.  However, it is not practical to maintain an indefinite topic ban, so I would prefer to see this changed to a fixed-length ban.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment – Being an AN gadfly is largely useless, but opposers should note that Sceptre is not discussing some errant point regarding political correctness. That talk page really is shocking, and it's hardly the only example of Wikipedians throwing up a storm of acronyms and ridiculousness that look very much like phobia, even if it's well-intentioned. While I make no comment regarding the topic ban, given that I'm willing to believe Sceptre really was too disruptive to be allowed back on the page, I largely agree with EdChem: advocacy for tolerance and respect is not something Wikipedia should be punishing. Archaeo (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Even when on a topic ban about a subject, pointing out a serious problem with RW implications in that subject on Jimbo's talk p. should be protected. Not protecting it is using the letter of the rule in an unfair, unreasonable, and unconstructive manner. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. For a topic ban to be removed, a user needs to understand why it was imposed in the first place – little to no evidence of which I can see in Sceptre's two-line request. That recent events may have "vindicated" the reasoning behind past actions does not excuse the disruption that was caused. I oppose based on the statements of Berean Hunter and others above. SuperMarioMan 08:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asaram Bapu and WP:BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just locked the above article pursuant to WP:BLP. I consider my involvement in the article to be minimal and arguably acting only as an administrator. However, some might see it differently, so I brought this here for review by other admins.

Brief summary. The article has three problematic sections in it. Two of the sections should not be included per WP:BLPCRIME. In one, the subject is accused of attempted murder and sexual offenses (from apparently 2009). There is no assertion that he was convicted of anything since. In another section, he was much more recently accused of sexual assault of a minor. The third section doesn't even mention the subject by name but implies that he or colleagues of his were involved in the deaths of students in 2008.

In my view the BLP violations are egregious, enough to warrant full protection of the article and selecting a policy-compliant version.

For those of you who look at the article, don't be confused by the fact that some editors want to remove all of the negative sections, not just the three I've noted. As one person remarked on the talk page, the article has more attacks on the subject than anything else. Never a good sign.

I've "notified" editors on the article talk page, but I'm not notifying anyone individually because this isn't directed at any particular editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Good protect-and-revert by Bbb23. The removed text is run-of-the-mill "X was alleged/charged with bad thing, and here's the gossip...". It is very unlikely that any explanation of why that is unsuitable at Wikipedia would be persuasive to editors wanting to right great wrongs. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with the revert and protection. The sources were all allegations and some crazy at that. The text reverted actually exaggerated the allegations. I am One of Many (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ANI

 – NE Ent 23:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Appropriate actions by Bbb23. NE Ent 09:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see a problem with the action. GregJackP Boomer! 11:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin User:Bbb23's actions on Asaram Bapu

The admin has reverted to his own version of the article and fully protected the article, which conflicts with WP:INVOLVED. The admin has twice removing reliable references to Indian news agencies reports [15][16]. I am also told "Don't unredact that again, or you risk being blocked. If you can't find a way to discuss the BLP issues here without repeating the allegations for which the article was locked, then don't discuss them at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)." How can the discussion continue if the sections should be removed or not? If allegations and their current status is not discussed on the talk? The raison d'etre of Talk:Asaram_Bapu#Removed_sections discussion is should the allegations be included and their coverage in WP:RS. IMO, WP:BLPCRIME has Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN exception where there is coverage in RS, accusations can be included. But since, RS are removed on the talk, I can't prove the RS coverage in Indian media about these scandals and controversies. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I opened a topic at WP:AN on this issue a couple of day ago and gave notice at the article talk page. Despite that, everyone seems to want to attack me in other forums. I don't mind the attacks, but it would make sense for them to be in just one place. I'm not going to move this, but it would make sense to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

1. In that article, his edit was challenged and reverted, which, I think makes him WP:INVOLVED. But, he fully protected his own version.
2. An IP made an edit request here and posted a draft of what he wanted to see in the article. I totally agree it was unsourced, the prose style was very poor. He could reject the edit request with some details on WP:RS,WP:NPOV etc. But, he completely reverted the edit request.
3. Redtigerxyz's reliable references were required to establish his points. When I told similar things without sources, I was told, I didn't suggest what could be done and why. And when Redtigerxyz suggested those with references, they were redacted and he was warned when he re-inserted those.

@ Bbb23, which other forums and who are attacking you? You have been mentioned in NPOV forum only (and that was only after when another editor discussed it). And I have told the same thing at your talk page and here in "this" ANI thread too. Frankly, it is a completely unexpected dispute which should solved as soon as possible. I think you are aware that I am more worried with other editors' edits, not you. --Tito☸Dutta 15:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Despair Redtigerxyz posted "There have been allegations of sex scandals...[link to gossip]" at Talk:Asaram Bapu (diff), then reposted (diff) the link after Bbb23 had redacted it. And other similarly policy-challenged editors have joined the discussion—clearly they are waiting for the full protection to expire so righting great wrongs can begin in earnest. I'm watching the page, but having failed to communicate at NPOVN I suspect no amount of discussion will work. Community input is needed: Is it ok to post commentary with allegations of sexual misconduct and murder on a BLP? What if the BLP subject really deserves the criticism? Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: 1. What you are calling gossip are sub-judicial cases in India, which good media coverage backed by WP:RS. 2. I am assuming you guys understand Hindi too. One of them was in Hindi which was also removed. If my assumption was wrong, then you guys did not really go through all of them. 3. I reposted WP:BOLDly as WP:RS (cites) were redacted. Very unusual. After I was reverted again, as editor I came to ANI. 4. The non-policy-challenged admins should understand that WP:BLPCRIME has Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN exception, what "policy-challenged" editor interpreted. No admin has still not explained how Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN can be established on talk if RSs are redacted. 4. If you carefully read my first post on the talk, I talk about adding info about his life, charitable activities and scandals. "they are waiting..." is a clear violation of WP:AGF and also WP:PERSONALATTACK. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That isn't really how it works though. As an editor contributing to the page, per ourBLP policy, you have a duty of care for the individual whose article you are writing. Now, if your only presence there is to add negative, controversial information, then you probably shouldn't as that is inappropriate. What you should do is pull together the sources to write up those things you are suggesting others do for you. As to BLPCRIME; it has been upheld numerous times that we take a very cautious approach to legal cases. Much of the material I see on that page doesn't directly relate to the individual, so needs to be reduced or removed to somewhere more appropriate. The problem these sorts of articles have is that they migrate from being a biography into being a dumping ground for anything about these individuals and their followers. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• That is almost a personal attack (from Johnuniq). I mean, his comment: they are waiting for the full protection to expire so righting great wrongs can begin in earnest. That is a poor example of not assuming good faith. How does he know we are waiting for the full protection to expire? If you see my edits there, I have added nothing (not a single controversy or biographical detail) in the article. My first edit in these days was fixing a named ref (i.e. WikiFormatting), and then 2 reverts and simultaneously I moved to talk pages. The other two editors in the discussion have not made any reverts/edits in the article. I have been editing here for 2 years or so, this is not the first time I am facing a content dispute (there were and are many worse and even unsolvable disputes), browse all my contribution to show a single instance where I waited for full protection to expire. A nice allegation against an editor who has just received "Editor of the week title". Anyway, I am asking for an explanation. --Tito☸Dutta 09:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I would be delighted if my comment is found to be incorrect. Perhaps I jumped to some incorrect conclusions on seeing the comments at Talk:Asaram Bapu#Removed sections, and I have been unable to understand what outcome you favor. Your comments seem to object to Bbb23's removal of what Bbb23 described as a BLP violation (diff of removal)—do you think that text should be restored? In response to Bbb23, what did you mean by "Arrogant reply and admin act" (diff)? Why did you write "Finally, a helpful and well-thought post. BIG thanks." (diff) in response to the post which contained the external links that Bbb23 redacted? Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply

You are strongly requested to accept the request made at the bottom of the post.

• This is a classic example of comment manipulation and/or incomplete observation. There are multiple possibilities like a) you are not reading b) you are reading but not understanding c) you are (both) reading and understanding, but not applying your understanding in your posts. I know, this comment certainly needs an explanation. You have not either not read, or ignored these comments. Please don't disappoint me once again, so read:

1. My comment was: And, I was not talking about edit warring between Bbb and me. Both of us have been editing here for a long time and know how to deal with such situation. (source: NPOV noticeboard)
2. You question was If you want to challenge Bbb23's administrative actions, the place to do so is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Asaram Bapu and WP:BLP........ and I clearly told you: I am neither worried nor annoyed with Bbb's reversion (source: NPOV Noticeboard)
3. You have (somehow, anyhow and I don't know how) concluded that they are waiting for the full protection to expire so righting great wrongs can begin in earnest, but, note right after the protection, I posted at Bbb's talk page Actually your WP:FULL has helped. I was going to request it soon... (source: Bbb23's talk page). One one hand an editor is feeling happy for the full protection and on the other hand you are feeling he is waiting for the full protection to expire?

Why did you write "Finally, a helpful and well-thought post. BIG thanks." — your this question clearly shows you have not understood anything. See there, in my post I told, "the article has too much controversy details" and he posted to add more details which was directly opposite of what I suggested. But, I thanked him because at least his post touched the main subject of discussion and that too in a very well manner with good arguments. I am not worried about Bbb's edits. Though we are debating against each other, his edits are no doubt good faith edits and undoubtedly he is attempting to help here. And I feel, he also knows I am also trying to do the same thing. The problem is his and my good faiths conflicted only ONCE. This is not a major issue and can be solved easily without any noticeboard or third party help (I am mentioning User:Bbb23, so that he can read it and solve misunderstanding, if any, the sooner the better) END. Once again, I am mainly and only interested in the article content. I hope you have noticed but, I posted at WT:INB and NPOV noticeboard much before this dispute and protection (so I did not post about these). Here is what I said at NPOV noticeboard: I was talking about that other editor User:Pee and a bunch of other editors (User:Naveen etc, there might be few socks too). (source: NPOV Noticeboard).

Content, the article— that should be the main topic of discussion. No one, simple no one is concentrating there.

Finally, you have predicted an edit war after the full protection expiration. There will be, yes, there will be edit warrings, reverts etc (as it has been happening for last many months). But, neither me nor the editors who are participating in this discussion will be responsible for it. Wait for the group of "new account" editors and their edits. Want to experience the things which we have been tackling so far? please adopt the Asaram Bapu article and revert unnecessary changes/vandalism for next few months. Then only, you will be able to understand my points, what I have been asking here. --Tito☸Dutta 18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Tito, I am replying because of all the trouble you've taken to post the above and because I can see how frustrated you are, but, frankly, I'm at a loss because I don't understand most of what you've said. So, I'll just say what I have to say, which is mostly a repeat of what I've said before. I removed the sections from the article pursuant to policy. I locked the article because of the dispute that had been going on and because I was concerned that the offending sections would be restored. I have not changed my position on either of those two actions. I came here (and notified editors on the talk page I was doing so) because and only because I could see an argument that I was WP:INVOLVED, even though in my view I'm not. Therefore, I wanted others to review my actions. For reasons that are totally mysterious to me, editors challenged me on the article talk page, on my talk page, and at ANI, even though the logical thing to do was to challenge me here. Thus far, three editors (non-admins) have supported my actions here. One admin has commented without supporting or objecting (at least that's my interpretation of Errant's remarks).

The lock will remain in place beyond the August 28 expiration if I don't see any progress toward a resolution of the policy issues. Thus far, I see little if any progress. If I may offer some counsel, I think you (collectively) are going about this the wrong way. You need to address policy first and foremost. Until you do that, you will be unable to even think about what content is includable. The principal policy is BLPCRIME, but there are subsidiary policies having to do with negative information generally, weight, relevance, etc. Let me give you an example of what I perceive as a misunderstanding of policy. As you know, I redacted another editor's material on the talk page because it violated BLP (BLP, as I'm sure you know, applies to all pages at Wikipedia, not just article pages). The response was how can we discuss BLPCRIME if we don't repeat the allegations and cite reliable sources in support of them. That misses the point. If the issue were reliable sources, we wouldn't even need to get to BLPCRIME because you can't include negative material generally in a BLP unless the material is reliably sourced, regarless of whether it has to do with criminal allegations.

To sum up, there needs to be policy discussion that comes to a clear consensus that certain material is includable and why. One method of doing that is to raise the issue at WP:BLPN. Another approach is an RfC. Or both, meaning notify editors at BLPN that the RfC has begun. Ideally, you need enough input from experienced editors to reach a well-supported consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

To be clear; your original removal was 100% correct per the BLP policy :) In fact, that it was correct seems to be so obvious it never occurred to me to mention that in my response :D --Errant ^(chat!) 13:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Tito☸Dutta: Do you think that the text Bbb23 removed should be restored? The problem is that the WP:BLP policy is enforced vigorously to ensure that biographical articles of living people do not become dumping grounds for claims. Text about "attempted murder" and "deaths of students" would only be suitable if reporting the outcome of a legal process regarding the subject of the article. It is not relevant whether there is a source to show that people have made claims because such claims are not suitable for a BLP article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• That is not a big issue. That can be discussed at talk page. And if they want they will keep recent controversies, else they will not. The more important point is NPoV and political/CoI bias/gaming in the article. Bbb23, I am trying to give you to few quick examples.

Please read all 6 points if possible

1. A quick search in Google Books shows the person has written many books on religion, society etc. But, the article mentions nothing, no mention of anything. Can't we write at least one two lines on his literary works? RS will not be an issue.
2. there are many news articles where Asaram Bapu's activities, popularity, social works etc have been discussed Example, again we are silent and our article has almost no info.
3. actually Asaram Bapu's website has a page where they have stored many (if not "all") newspaper articles on Asaram Babu with positive remarks. I personally like the websites which have such a "Media coverage" section, these highly help me/us to find RS quickly. Please see the Media Coverage page The Newspapers there are reliable and notable (I have not checked all articles). But, once again we are silent.
4. the article mentions almost nothing on "why that person is notable, religious life".
5. His Satsangs (public lectures) have been covered in many newspaper articles, but, as always, we have mentioned almost nothing.
6. we (not "I") have created few more articles like Asaram Bapu Ashram (on his hermitage), Parents' Worship Day but have not cared a bit to write these in the Asaram Bapu article in summary style and then link those other articles using {{Main}}.

Wikipedia should not be used as a tool or place to defame, insult, caricature a person OR for political gaming, and if such things happen, those should be strictly handled. There are the points where I have been attempting to draw attention. Now,PLEASE read my very first post in this dispute at the Asaram Bapu talk page where my concern was: in Wikipedia, knowingly or unknowingly, the article is defaming Asaram Bapu and trying to pull him down. I have been concentrating and talking on ONLY this point. Who cares??? Disclaimer: I am NOT a follower of Asaram Bapu. Actually just above it was told, I was attempting to restore "controversies". --Tito☸Dutta 01:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Tito, I have to go off-wiki (it's dinner time and I'm hungry), so I can reply only briefly. Are you saying you want the ability to add positive, reliably sourced material to the article? If so, you need only make an edit request on the talk page and follow the instructions. BTW, I'm not accusing you of anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, please see the six points above. Actually I don't have much knowledge on Asaram Bapu (detailed explanation), I'll avoid editing here if a better editor comes forward (and that's why I posted at article talk page, NPoV, India noticeboard etc). --Tito☸Dutta 02:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm more puzzled than ever—how are the six points above related to this discussion? Naturally good edits should be made, and anyone working in that direction should be thanked. However, I do not see any acknowledgement that WP:BLP requires removal of the removed text—that is the substantive issue: was the removed text a BLP violation? Any regular at WP:BLPN will confirm that the answer to the last question is yes, and it is perplexing that someone wanting to improve the article does not start by agreeing on that point. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Actually only these are my points. Read my first post and the last post here, and compare, I started with it and still talking only on it. Other things (discussion on protection etc) are wastage of time. --Tito☸Dutta 02:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This post doesn't really belong here because it's a content comment that is unrelated to the policy issues, but I thought I'd throw it in anyway FWIW. The article has a lead, a section called Personal life and a section called Controversies (with subsections). You would think that the sections other than the Controversies section would give you an idea of who this person is and why he is notable. You would be wrong.

I've read the lead and Personal life, and I have virtually no clue. First, the lead has material in it that isn't even covered in the body. Second, the lead has no sources for it, which might not be necessary if the material were in the body and sourced, but, as I said, it's not. The lead says he preaches One Supreme Conscious (apparently that's supposed to be Consciousness), but nowhere does it define what that means. In the Personal life section it gives some very badly written background about his birth and his parents. Then, it says he went to the ashram "of saint Lilashah." Uh, why is Lilashah a "saint" and what does saint mean in this context? I looked at the Lilashah article, and as far as I could tell, he was well-known for being the guru of Bapu. Seems kind of incestuous if Bapu is well-known because of Lilashah and Lilashah is well-known because of Bapu.

Back to the Bapu article. It says he gives spiritual discourses and that 20,000 students visited his satsang (I had to look that up because I have no idea what it is - what's the difference between an ashram and a satsang?) in 2001. The only remaining thing in the section is some material about a helicopter crash, which he survived - obviously not related to his notability.

So, what am I left with? The guy is a spiritual leader. I guess he has his own ashram (there's a link in the infobox), although the article never actually says that. He gives spiritual lectures, and one time he drew 20K people. Really isn't much, is it?

However, the Controversies section is another story. Although still badly written, it's got far more detail. I feel like I'm reading an attack page. Now I'm not going to get into the content issues except as they pertain to BLP, but it's pretty poor article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb23 a) "Satsang" means "spiritual discourses or special religious events" and "ashram" is a place where they live. If you are interested to learn more, please consider reading these two Wikipedia articles: Ashram and Satsang. b) no, 20,000 is not a huge number. His discourses draw/drew more people c) not one, most probably he has many Ashrams in many Indian states ——— But in Wikipedia article we have almost no details. d) I am delighted that you have found it an "attack page", that's the thing I was attempting to say indirectly. Don't you think, if it is found we have (undeliberately) created an attack page and that too of a BLP which is being indexed as the first search result by Google Yahoo and thus influencing many readers— that should handled immediately and carefully? Asaram Bapu's team and few media have reported there have been planned attempts to defame the leader for political and other benefits. I won't be surprised if I see Asaram Bapu or someone reports/tells somewhere that the Wikipedia article is attacking him and this article gets included in Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. For last one year or so, tens of editors are attempting to "modify" the article by removing all controversies and adding PoV pushing "Oh my Lord", "He is God" type comments. At least twice these editors have confessed that they had conflict of interest. Disclaimer: I am not an Asaram Bapu follower. --Tito☸Dutta 12:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Tito, the lock has expired. My primary objective is to ensure that neither the article nor the talk page violates WP:BLP. I just removed BLP violations from the talk page. I will continue to police both pages with that objective in mind and will take whatever actions I believe are appropriate to protect the pages. That said, it would be great if you (and others) would improve the article so it is more balanced and understandable. I don't intend to interject myself in any content disputes that don't involve blatant policy violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chelsea and IRC

Is there a discussion about the issues surrounding Chelsea Manning happening on the admins IRC channel? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure, but there was at least some discussion on the regular IRC channel ##wikipedia-en ^connect. —Soap— 17:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Post the discussion here. Count Iblis (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not permitted. Most Wikimedia channels, including #wikipedia-en and -admins do not allow public release of logs. See Meta for channel guidelines. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a rule for the channel, it's not a rule on wikipedia. I see no policy based reason why the logs could not be shown here. Channels can have their rules, doesn't mean we have to follow the arbitrary rules here, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Send the log to me, or a Wikipediocracy staff member, it'll get posted there where there's no qualms with silly no-logging rules. The only thing the IRC ops can do is boot the logger out of the channel, if the identity can be discovered. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking me? Sorry I'm much too obedient to do something like that. If you all love IRC so much why don't you actually join the chat instead of keeping on asking for logs? Maybe if you joined you'd realize it's not the hotbed of controversy you imagine and you'd get bored and lose interest. —Soap— 04:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Victor0209/Archive

First of all, please note that I don't have any particular opinion on this issue, and am merely a messenger. Victor0209 (zhwiki userpage) has left a message on my Chinese Wikipedia talkpage requesting for assistance. He states that his proficiency in the English language is not too good, and is unable to defend himself from sockpuppet allegations. I am here to pass on a message; it is up to whoever is interested in intervening to make a decision.

This user states that he has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry, that he has been accused of being User:Haodilolo and a few IP users, and that he believes that he is being wrongly accused. According to this user, he has only used one user account on Wikipedia, and that due to the nature of his ISP, he claims that he might have been assigned a rotating IP address that may have coincidentally been that of User:Haodilolo, and states that all of this is beyond his control. Note that due to the nature of ISPs in China, one IP address may have been used by over 5 million different people within the same year. Most IP addresses assigned in China are dynamic IP addresses.

If anyone has any messages or replies that they would like passed on to this user, I can translate it and pass it on to him on the Chinese Wikipedia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's an interesting one. The edits of the two named accounts that led to the block don't match; they're similar, but have some very obvious differences within them. In addition, they were made well over a month apart. The IP edits also differ from the two named accounts (at least, some of them do) and those are also spread over quite a wide timeframe. I, personally, think that the accounts shouldn't have been blocked, or certainly not Victor0209; the evidence isn't solid enough to have blocked the account indefinitely, particularly as this was the account's first sockpuppetry-based block. Give some WP:ROPE, and let them edit again, but keep an eye on them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm even more concerned now that I've found this, which basically confirms that Victor0209's edits, and that of the IPs and the other account, were fairly accurate. It's quite possible that they were acting in good faith all along, with access to Chinese language sources that predate that one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Just having a closer look at the IPs, two are from Chongqing, one from Shanghai and one from Changchun, Jilin. There is no possible way that these are all the same person. Plus, on Victor0209's Chinese Wikipedia userpage at zh:User:Victor0209, he self-identifies as a resident of Shenyang in Liaoning Province ("该用户现在或曾经居住于沈阳市"). This mix-up should be cleared up as soon as possible. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I posted a message on the talk page of the admin who declined Victor's unblock request last night. Hopefully someone will respond soon - it's a travesty to leave Victor hanging like this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• And I've tried another admin as well. Posting this to stop it archiving without action. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a tough call. I don't know much about dynamic IPs in China and just how dynamic they are, so I can't render an opinion on that.

If the common denominator is User:TVFAN24, then I see similarities TVFan and some IPs, but not with User:TVFAN24 and Haodilolo and Victor. Some IPs, in common with TVfan, use wikimark up the same way: br with a no / and sometimes a space before using br or small.

It's very possible Victor and User:TVFAN24 are unrelated because: This, his only comment at enwp. He used two different commas and made seemingly genuine English mistakes. User:TVFAN24's English is very good. Victor is over at cnwp asking for help because his English isn't good enough to defend himself here, which is a bit too elaborate a ruse. Since the beginning, TVFAN24's formatting was nearly flawless, all the way back to his first edits. With only two edits for Haodilolo, it's hard to conclude anything. But, with Victor, I see sloppy mistakes like forgetting to put a space after a comma. TVfan never does that, I think.

Haodilolo and Victor are both blocked why? Because they edited the same articles and added stuff like episodes or dates. Well, what else is there to add to those articles (which are broadcast in China)? Content in paragraphs? Not likely for most Chinese users. That's hard English. It's more likely they just would add simple things. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is it your opinion that Victor should be unblocked then, Anna? I'm not quite sure whether you're suggesting he should, or that he shouldn't. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Has anyone made any attempt to contact the blocking administrator? --Rschen7754 07:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've notified them of the thread now, thanks for reminding me. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I'm inclined to unblock Victor0209 now myself but I think it's best to wait for some more input from Admins. Basalisk did the blocks procedurally in goof faith based on the evidence at SPI, but this request sheds a whole new light on the situation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock - just to certify my position 100%, as per my original comments. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock I'd be happy to monitor. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock of Victor0209. Should the other users be unblocked as well, for the same reasons? I'll also help monitor. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• TVFAN24 shouldn't, the other account, I'm not so sure about. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have unblocked Victor0209 per the discussion above. Looking back on this, I agree that I was acting on evidence too thin to justify the block, despite the similar edits. Sorry to all for the trouble caused. Thanks to Luke and Kudpung for the heads up. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for sorting this Basalisk :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Unban request by User:TreasuryTag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above-noted editor has requested unblock, which would formally be an unban. As the ban itself is community-based, as have been the past discussions related to their unblock, I am advising the community here so that the unban request may be discussed and consensus reached. A reminder, due to the ban and previously-declined community unblock discussions, individual admins should not be unblocking single-handedly ES&L 13:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• support per my comments at talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Before I could support unbanning this long-term disruptive editor, I think we would need to see a plan from him about how he's going to go about editing, and, specifically, how this unblock is going to be different from all his other unblocks, each of which came with assurances of good behavior. How is he going to avoid the interpersonal conflicts which were his primary problem, and control his propensity for escalating minor differences into personal attacks? Toolserver appears to be down right not, so I can't see his history of editing in other projects since being banned here, but I gather from his talk page that there hasn't been a lot of it. That's not an insurmountable problem, but it does eliminate the most obvious avenue for providing evidence of renewed collegiality and collaboration.

  In short, what assurances can TT give us that things will be different, and how can he back up those assurances? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment for the sake of anyone who doesn't remember. TT was indefinitely blocked a good while ago, and the ban was the result of WP:CBAN — he requested an unblock, which was rejected by community consensus, and the closing admin determined that the community's refusal should be deemed a ban because of WP:CBAN. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure what the major issue is here, given that TT can be instantly re-blocked (and re-banned if required) should he fail to meet any conditions of his unblock. To be fair, for someone to stick around for two years waiting for an opportunity to come back and edit using his account rather than sock-puppet or edit anonymously seems incredibly patient. If there are concerns, perhaps editors can work together to come up with a brief "one-strike" charter and then we can see how it goes? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• important point of order to all considering this request: please note that TT was renamed several times, and each individual name has it's own extensive block log. On the whole we are talking about a user whose logs indicate they have been validly blocked nearly forty times. other names were
• Porcupine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rambutan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Circuit Judge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And, that being the case, I oppose unblocking without some clear acknowledgement of the errors of the past and a much more specific plan of how he intends to behave if unblocked. "I stayed away that proves I can behave" doesn't cut it from someone who has been blocked dozens of times and made similar promises again and again. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Those other three accounts are five or more years old. How does dragging them up really benefit anyone? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it shows just how long this user disrupted the project before being banned. Although TTs block log alone shows nearly twenty valid blocks over a period of three years, with many being lifted after he promised to behave. It's called a pattern, and it is repeating itself right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Question: Regarding his statement "I've not socked....", do we take the lack of any accusations or SPI as proof enough? Or does a checkuser need to confirm that? --64.85.215.140 (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am personally willing to take him at his word on that, partially because it doesn't really matter. I don't consider WP:OFFER to be relevant here, and socking was not involved in the reasons for the community ban. TT's behavior has always been the issue and there is nothing specific in his current request indicating what he would do differently. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock/unban, if the existing topic ban remains in force: "a full topic ban on initiating all CSD's, PROD's, and XfD discussions for any page in Wikipedia." Will take effect when/if TreasuryTag is unblocked. I believe that people can change and improve over time, but I also believe asking TT to ease back into editing gradually by staying away from previously contentious aspects of editing would be wise. 28bytes (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock/unban, if per 28bytes. Ye gods, has it been two years? Anyway, people do grow up, mature, mellow - whatever you like to call it. If it turns out he hasn't, it'll soon show up and can be dealt with. It's better to see what he does than to get him to draw up a list of what he won't do. And to put some restrictions on the most troublesome areas at first. Peridon (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock/unban, if per 28bytes. At my (admittedly brief) look-see over the editing history of these accounts, I see two problem areas: xfDs and edit summaries. The former can be dealt with by the topic ban, which could in the future be reconsidered if TT proves productive; the latter can be dealt with by watching like a hawk, which TT should be advised will happen as part of the unblock. As noted above, the block log of this editor, under their various accounts, is not pretty, but there has been ~2 years with no socking, and I believe there's little danger to offering an olive branch with a...er...41st chance; if it works out, then we regain a producitve editor, if it doesn't, a reblock is ~four clicks away. (As a note, I find it curious that User:Porcupine is currently not blocked?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm intrigued that Porcupine doesn't seem to have edited, but got blocked for incivility, and Rambutan is credited with only one edit. (I might be missing something there...) Peridon (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Something is screwy there, considering each of those accounts was blocked multiple times over an extended period of time. I'm guessing it has something to do with the renames, maybe a crat could clarify... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, User:Porcupine, at least, was renamed to User:TreasuryTag (AFAICT), but I'd have assumed it'd have been blocked, just to be sure, when TT was. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support unban - I did not support the original ban although I'll acknowledge TT's conduct was becoming impossible to support. It is also true that some of the conduct was of provocation. People do change; per 28bytes and Peridon. I also hope any old acquaintances of TT's, having also grown, will reserve themselves from provocation. :) John Cline (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock/unban. Danger of further disruption is minimal because it is so easy to reblock, and TT has been away without trouble for long enough. I also note there's been a bit of shifting the goalposts in previous unblock discussions,which TT has taken with considerable patience. Reyk _YO! 21:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock/unban - Unblocking is simple, keep the leash short at first, but they've been away long enough for a second chance to be justifiable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have asked TT for input what restrictions he still sees as valid if this discussion ends without explicitly stating restrictions. But I strongly suggest that there should be a definete statement here one way or another to avoid the recent ScienceApologist situation. Agathoclea (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not seeing any explanation at User talk:TreasuryTag of how he or she will avoid the problems which led to this ban or what they want to work on if the ban was lifted. That's not satisfactory for someone with such a long history of disruptive behaviour given that there appears to a significant likelihood of them causing further disruption. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support They said they're going to contribute constructively. They will, or they will not. Forcing the editors to spout magic words to get unblocked isn't meaningful, is condescending, and ultimately means nothing; what matters is the content of their character, unknowable except through observation of their post-block edits, not the quality of their wordsmithing an unblock request. NE Ent 09:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see anything that even tries to address the concerns that led to the block being imposed. Mere passage of time is not sufficient to unblock a banned editor, especially one who has been through several chances already. It is true that the block could be reimposed if disruptive editing resumed, but in practice things are not so simple and a reblock would involve, at minimum, a drama-filled thread on some noticeboard. Hut 8.5 10:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In the circumstances that a reblock is deserved, it's likely that consensus would be reached quickly. A drama-filled thread would be more of a risk from an editor proposing a reblock unnecessarily. Peter James (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support per The Rambling Man and 28bytes. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• In agreement with Beyond My Ken I would like to see a statement from TT about what his editing intentions are. If this looks OK I would offer support. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per TRM and 28bytes, with some reservations. I recall an earlier request, which I thought was too early, but that's no longer the case. I'd be happier with a clear plan, but willing to support. I trust TT understands that with such a block log, the community won't be inclined to much AGF, so ought to stay away form borderline situations which might not get a block for others. When in doubt, ask.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Beeblebrox. Blocked 40 time?! Enough is enough, this user clearly cannot be trusted to edit constructively. GiantSnowman 15:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - for those who are commenting on the number of blocks, I suggest you read a little more carefully, and at all 3 related accounts. Some of the blocks, for example, are just to notify about the account changes; some were removed as being inappropriate blocks, or being valid blocks on potentially genuine mistakes. Others were extensions to blocks, changes to the conditions, or shortened blocks. This is not condoning the editor's valid, independent blocks, of which there are still a large amount of - but I just wanted to inform you that it's not a blanket figure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That is why I qualified my remarks with words like valid blocks and "about" forty times. If we counted invalid blocks and blocks made solely for the purpose of log entries I think it is closer to fifty. Somebody did all the math at one of the previous conversations about this but there are so many threads about TT in the archives that searching for specific discussions without knowing the exact date is ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, for now. I'd like to see some detail about how his behaviour will be different, before I would consider changing my vote. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per 28bytes, it's been long enough. Peter James (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support unban, keeping topic ban I was never happy with the way an ANI discussion about a simple unblock request somehow morphed into a community ban, and am tempted to simply support an outright unblock because of that (In fact, I may have done so in a previous unban discussion). However, 28bytes' approach is probably more nuanced, and more likely to lead to a positive outcome, so I'll support that instead. Plus it's a good compromise between the two extremes of "unblock now" and "never unblock", and compromise is a neglected aspect of reaching consensus. The topic ban could be revisited after, what, a few months of unproblematic editing. TT had some problems, but he was also a very productive editor, let's give it another try now that we're all theoretically older and wiser. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the "older" part is really theoretical. ;) Rockfang (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC) NE Ent 01:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support on the understanding that the Tobic ban will be in place. TT knows that his every move will be watched. Agathoclea (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support, if per 28bytes. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

and, noting for Floquenbeam's benefit, i'm pretty sure i at least am no wiser than two years ago. Lindsay

• Conditional support (with continuing topic ban) - per 28Bytes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support a probationary unblock, meaning that the topic ban is still in place for now and that he's "on a short leash" otherwise. An altercation with me was one of his last acts before being blocked, so I don't remember him fondly, but I think it's time to give him a chance to demonstrate that he truly has matured over the last 20+ months. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Just for the sake of formality, since it seems as if the trend is towards unbanning TT. I've been monitoring his talk page, and I've seen absolutely nothing there to reassure me that his 40th unblock will bring about anything different than the 39 before it did. I'd also like to contradict those posts above which claim that TT's problem is confined to specific subject areas, and that a topic ban would be useful - that's really not the case. TT's problem is much more general than that: he's just got a bad attitude when he gets into disputes with other editors, which is often; he's uncollegial, he displays battleground behavior, and deploys near-personal attacks regularly. That's why he was community banned, and those are the things I was looking for some sign from TT that he had developed some self-awareness and self-control about. Nothing like that has happened, so I really have no choice but to strongly oppose the unbanning. Yes, of course, he can be re-blocked at any time, but I can almost guarantee that when those disruptive incidents arise, as they are likely to, people will be complaining that TT is being treated unfairly -- it's never as easy to get a reblock as is claimed in these unbanning discussions, especially when the editor has been around as long as TT and has as high a profile as he does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from TreasuryTag copied here at his request by JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

General response to comments such as this—deeply unreasonable, though to be fair probably also unthinking. I had a bad attitude, I was uncollegial, I did battleground behavior and I did deploy near-personal attacks. But I resent the present tense, because, though it pains me to repeat this point endlessly, people can change over the course of two years. Everyone sees this change in themselves, I imagine. How come it's completely beyond the realm of possibility that I've changed too?
The thrust of most of the 'oppose' votes in this discussion seems to be that I should never ever ever be allowed back onto Wikipedia because it's completely impossible for me ever to be a constructive editor.
And I was expecting that from some quarters, and I could live with that, but what incentive does that create for banned editors to go away and contemplate and mature and reform? By that logic I may as well [and this isn't a threat because I have no intention of doing this] just create a sock and start editing straight away.
Sorry if this appears to be a bit of a rant. But I want people to think sensibly about their reasoning here. If the logic behind your !vote is that my personality is exactly the same as it was in October 2011, please think again, because that clearly isn't plausible. I've changed, I've become a more civilsed person, and I'd like the chance to edit here again and once more make a contribution. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 21:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If TT expects to find reason and logic here on Wikipedia, they are probably not ready to return. Wikipedia is not reason, not logic, not stupidity, not democracy, not anarchy, not a dictatorship. It's -- Wikipedia. That stuff about "not punitive"? It's neither entirely true nor entirely untrue. If TT is going to proceed they will have to go way beyond the forbearance of a regular editor -- any perceived misstep will result in the pitchfork crowd crowing they were correct and demanding a pound of flesh. The question is thus: is TT ready to both contribute positively and other duck a heapload aggravation for an interval? NE Ent 23:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

TT's "general response" above is a perfectly example of the problem with this editor. He admits that his editing was uncollegial, that he edited with a battleground attitude, and employed near-personal attacks, all the elements of my description of his editing -- and yet, despite confirming everything I said, somehow my comment was "unreasonable" and ("to be fair", TT says, couching an insult as if it was amelioration) "unthinking". I suppose that TT feels that I should assume that he has grown and changed, but what I asked for was some kind of statement for him about how he had grown and changed, and how his editing behavior would be different, to which he never responded. Still, according to TT, the problem is really mine, and not his. That's in line with his behavior pattern throughout the years, the problems was always that the other guy was wrong, never that TT was out of line. I can't see anything in TT's response to make me believe that he's changed one whit since he was banned.

As for TT's straw-man argument about banned editors never being allowed back, it's hogwash. I asked for assurances and that he had changed, and he gave nothing. He didn't even try to convince anyone that he's different, he simply asserts it (in an aggressive and attacking manner, no less). What a banned editor has to do is not to grovel (another straw man), but to own up to their errors, and show with as mcuh honesty and frankness as they can muster that they've changed, to convince the community to take another chance. I believe in second chances, but not in 41st chances, unless I can be convinced that the project will benefit from it. That has not happened in this instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I do not see how TT could have learned anything new that he obviously failed to learn after the first almost 100 blocks over the years since 2007 on several user names. For me personally I find it strange that one user can get 30-40 chances while others are blocked indef after 2 chances. I say, if you have not learned how to behave on Wiki after even the first 10 blocks how can we trust that you have learned now. I also noticed that TT used several user named which has long lists of blocks also apparently. I Oppose a unban on this grounds firmly. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Indef does not equal infinite. Any indef may be appealed - and TT is currently indeffed. Law courts in many countries can forbid appeals. We don't. Think of this as a parole request if you like - I know and he knows that many people will be watching him like shite hawks. Some hoping to catch him, others to try to patch things over. WP:AGF People DO change. And how do we find out if he has? Only one way since the 'edit somewhere else while banned here' form of transportation to Van Diemen's Land ended. Peridon (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I have a hard time AGF when people have obviously AGF 30-40 times before and TT has broken that trust everytime.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I don't get about the argument to unban. Has it ever proven to be good for Wikipedia to unblock someone who has more than thirty valid blocks in their log? I seriously doubt it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Hence the words "assume" and "faith" in AGF. NE Ent 23:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

AGF was never intended to go on forever in the face of obvious evidence of continuing problems. It's not a blindfold. TO my way of thinking, TT ran out of AGF a long time ago, the ball is now in his corner to show that we should give him a chance. He clearly feels that it should be there for the taking. It isn't, or, rather, it shouldn't be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - That said don't believe it will make a difference as seen by so many blocks for evasion the editor will editing anyways. We are looking for people with basic conduct skills. -- Moxy (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Moxy, do you have any evidence for that or have you just made it up? Unlike certain editors, TreasuryTag has no history of sockpuppeting of which I'm aware. – iridescent 22:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry it looks like the 3 names he/she has used are not all blocked. My mistake....still as per block log not someone we need here. -- Moxy (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support if TT starts behaving like the previous TT again, a block is a matter of one click, and I don't think it'll be controversial. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at his above statement. "The thrust of most of the 'oppose' votes in this discussion seems to be that I should never ever ever be allowed back onto Wikipedia because it's completely impossible for me ever to be a constructive editor." Do you see that in the oppose votes? I don't. In all the oppose votes I see a reasonable expectation that TT will acknowledge his past behaviour problem and indicate how his behaviour will change.

Rather than "Oh, haven't I made that clear?" and an explanation, he turns his requested acknowledgement of past problems into an attack on those who asked for it: he describes comments such as BMK's, which simply echo's all opposers' concerns, as "deeply unreasonable, though to be fair probably also unthinking." Can't you see what is coming at us here? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

To be fair though, many of the oppose votes are along the lines of "OMG, he has X number of entries in his block log, no way Jose". Since that that number cannot ever decrease, these votes do amount to "not ever". Reyk _YO! 01:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Um, I'm a little confused looking at the closing statement - how can the community ban be lifted but a "full site ban" remain in effect? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I read it as saying "excepting the full site ban" - that is, topic bans stay but he's not site banned. Peridon (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's also how I read it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That was my interpretation as well, and I think it's confirmed by this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

...ahhhhhhh, thanks, for some reason my brain read "including" rather than "excepting", I have no idea where that came from but I think some additional product of the glorious bean might help me figure it out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range block

We have an IP vandal hopping across numerous ranges - latest IP is 31.115.46.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), all of the address they have used can be found at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 178.106.87.157 - is there anything we can do with a rangeblock? As soon as an article they target is protected they simply move on to a new article... GiantSnowman 09:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Now back at 31.114.188.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 17:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Now at 31.114.143.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - some help would be appreciated... GiantSnowman 19:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a rangeblock would be /15 if the 115 is included, /16 if it isn't - that's getting into serious collateral-damage-potential territory. Are there any constructive edits coming from this range? (I can't figure out how to get a range contributions). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing useful from either 31.114.0.0/16 or 31.115.0.0/16 for the last year - rangeblocks would have little collateral if applied. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite for taking a look at that. (How do you do a range-contribs search anyway, if you don't mind my asking, for the next time?) Anyway, given the lack of anything productive long-term from either range, I've rangeblocked 31.114.0.0/16 and 31.115.0.0/16 each for a month - as this is the first time I've dared a rangeblock I won't at all mind checkups to make sure I didn't screw something up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Go to Preferences > Gadgets and tick the "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms" option at the bottom of the page. You can then look at ranges on the Special:Contributions page in the same way as you would a user's contribs. Note that: as it says, you can only search for /16, /24 and /27 and smaller ranges, and that doing a search on a busy /16 might take a while. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Much thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You can also get range contributions at http://toolserver.org/~tparis/rangecontribs/. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

What is the correct procedure if a discussion is being swayed by off-wiki means? At Talk:Paris#Changing_the_photo_at_the_start_of_article, the !vote after being slightly against changing the infobox photo has suddenly gained another 5 !votes for it, explained by Talk:Paris#.27Parachute.27_revisionists..--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 16:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've poked in that page the odd time, and it might be helpful if someone with a lot of patience were to help mediate the overall dispute. There definitely are factions pushing for control of various aspects of the article, which certainly is unfair to Dr. Blofeld's efforts to bring it to GA status. Resolute 23:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] . All non editors, most with new accounts all turn up within a few hours to try to sway an argument. Isn't that sort of organized canvassing of non editors to try to sway an argument on wikipedia considered disruptive and blockable anyway? Not that those "votes" have an ounce of credibility anyway, but it is very concerning that Der Statistiker has no respect for other editors and seems intent on pushing his opinions whatever the cost. And yes, I've heard little but whining and sniping about my edits to the article which passed it as a GA. At one point they were proposing to revert back to the April version, which if you compare it to now it sums up what I've had to deal with.. I think if Der Statistiker continues to cause disruption and making derogatory remarks then a topic ban from Paris related articles might be the best thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

 Note: Following comment moved from separate section below. — Scott • talk 15:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A long and heated discussion over which picture to use to represent Paris has taken place. Some want to show famous Parisian sights, others want to show skyscrapers outside the city. Both arguments have merits. Unfortunately the discussion has turned ugly. Minato ku suggested that those who don't share his opinion want to show a city where "everybody is white" [22]. Completely beside the point, and a thinly disguised attempt at calling other users racists. Then, when the consensus seemed to go against his preferences for skyscrapers, the same user decided to go on a WP:MEAT-campaign. At the website skyscrapercity.com (hardly a neutral place), the user repeatedly encouraged members to go to English Wikipedia to comment and vote in favor of Minato Ku's preferred picture [23], [24], [25]. He even went on to instruct them how they should modify their profiles to appear more credible [26], [27].
His meatpuppetry did have the desired effects, a number of new users turned up, their only edits consisted of being in favor of Minato Ku's desired photo change [28], [29], [30], [31].Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned above, Wikipedia:An#Off-wiki_canvassing. Might want to merge the sections so that all the discussion is in the same place... Ansh666 02:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. — Scott • talk 15:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Spam mail IP?

Can someone please look at the last few talk page posts by Special:Contributions/96.238.61.120 and deal with as they see fit. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what he's going on about. I left him a message inviting him to discuss any issues he has on my talk page. The AFC submission of his biography doesn't explain his behavior, nor can I find any actual articles about him, deleted or otherwise. Until he does something new, I think he can be safely ignored. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a legal threat though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who he is. Never heard of him. Random occurrence as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for the quick clean-up. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Also this AfD happened 2 years ago and was recently courtesy blanked.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryulong. Now it makes sense. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see now that I voted Delete for some clearly shitty promo-article that I don't even remember – I mean, after 2 years, who would? – and (Personal attack removed) is now on a campaign to spam legal threats... after 2 years? Wow.. someone needs to get a life and move on! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's amazing how comments about real living people can come back to haunt you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well that's what astonishes me. Look at the AfD linked carefully.. there were only 5 votes, all for delete, but not one of them comments on the person it surrounds in any great detail, they focus on the notability – or lack of – the article's content. I don't understand why it was deemed necessary for the AfD to be hidden, given the lack of controversial or hostile remarks.. seems very odd that we're bowing down to the whim of some obsessional egotistical who wants to kick up a stink after 2 years, using an anon-IP of all things. What's the matter, did the page interfere with anyone Googling his "good name" and hinder his profits? Personally, I think we have nothing more than a troll here, and he's making our admins run round in circles, making demands, posting spam and legal rhetoric. Just tell him it's old news and to piss off, we have better things to do than exhume past issues. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the subject doesn't understand or see a difference between "The article isn't notable" and "I'm not notable." There is nothing lost by doing a courtesy blank, it's still in the history and hasn't been deleted. It doesn't hurt us any and it makes the subject feel better. Most of all, it saves the WMF legal team the trouble (even if they'd win any sort of case, it'd still be a burden on them.) So, that's why we do it.--v/r - TP 15:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So in other words, it's a pre-emptive reaction.. if he does take up genuine legal motions with WMF they can show that action has been taken to reduce collateral damage and it reduces Wiki's liability (despite there being no remarks of legal significance)? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Meh, you could say it that way or about a dozen other ways. I just say that it took almost no effort, it didn't require admin action, and it makes the guy happy and he goes away.--v/r - TP 15:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, alright, fair enough. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a few more of his spams to attend to: here. I brought this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_legal_threat and I'm glad to see this being taken care of. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

109.169.0.0/18 rangeblock

Would an admin please change the block reason for 109.169.0.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to {{webhostblock}} so that users on the range have a better idea why they are blocked and the reason for it. Also it should probably be hardblocked given it is a webhost (the range is owned by Rapidswitch Ltd which advertises itself as the "home of hosting" confirms that it is). I'd ask the blocking admin but they haven't edited for a month or so. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If and when to link an article to the pornography portal.

There is currently a discussion, here, on whether Keeley Hazell ought to have a link to the pornography portal.

The case for the link - her BLP (and that of all Page 3 glamour models) is of interest to that portal.

The case against the link - a pornography portal amounts to calling that person a porn star, and is therefore unfair labelling of that person.

I would appreciate some senior heads on this as there seems to be some slightly over-zealous chivalry taking place. "Oh no, you can't possibly call these lovely girls such terrible names." --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You might not have been aware of this but the Administrator Noticeboards aren't the place where content decisions are made. These boards deal mostly with editor behavior and things of that nature. The kind of content dispute you're describing should be handled with a WP:RFC, in my opinion, or one of the other options listed at WP:DR. Zad68 13:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Although I will point out, its unlikely to get anywhere with an RFC unless you get very specific. The BLP policy is one of the strongest we have, and even if there should be consensus at an RFC that adding a pornography portal to page 3 glamour models is okay, it will likely be ignored in the face of the BLP policy. To add pornography tags or catagories or project portals to a BLP (without risking them being removed straight away) would need (in order): Reliable sources describing her work as/in 'pornography', consensus on wikipedia that glamour modelling is pornographic (a starting point if you want to go the RFC route), consensus at the article talkpage to add them. Usually 'project' portals are not an issue, but the BLP policy applies absolutely everywhere. So while it may be of interest to the project, that does not overrule BLP concerns. The BLP noticeboard is where issues such as this are discussed, and there are plenty of people watching that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not exactly accurate. What you're saying is that 1 person's interpretation of WP:BLP can overrule a consensus on the interpretation of WP:BLP. It cannot. WP:BLP is as subject to WP:CONSENSUS as much as any other policy. It's interpretations can range from extreme, as in yours, to mild and everywhere in between. Consensus determines it's applicability.--v/r - TP 13:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hardly extreme. But in practice one persons BLP interpretation quite often over-rules consensus, there is a reason the BLP is exempt from 3rr - the BLP is not a pick and choose when to apply it. 'Is this info/link/addition poorly sourced and contentious? Yes.' then it stays out. You could get 50 people to agree it should go in at an RFC, but unless it gets better sources, or consensus agrees that the sourcing is reliable it will stay out. Given that the place where editwars over potential BLP info is discussed is the BLP noticeboard, and that almost universally errs on the side of caution, you would need a very strong policy-backed argument for adding something like that, consensus that it doesnt have any BLP concerns. Adding pornography links/portals/categories to a page 3 glamour model is contentious. That the source supporting its addition is the (unresolved) argument that page 3 'might' be softcore porn.... On to a loser with that one. The 'interest to wikiproject pornography' is more problematic, wikiprojects have remit over deciding what is of interest to them - page 3 girls/glamour modelling? No problem. Individual models? Without consensus that page 3/glamour is 'pornography' - any link by association is a BLP issue, even on the talk page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat my same argument, so I'll just point above what I already wrote. The 3RR exemption has nothing to do with WP:CONSENSUS. WP:BLP is not a blank check to make any ridiculous claim you want.--v/r - TP 15:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of people like to think it is, and when you try to point out the fact that it's not, they assume that they have the high ground and treat you like a policy violator. It's basically like WP:FRINGE: both policies are consistently taken way too far, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Someone who invokes BLP as a trump card to overturn consensus is being disruptive and needs to be sanctioned (up to blocks, if necessary) if they refuse to stop. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Rampant WP:MEAT violations

Moved to #Off-wiki canvassing above. — Scott • talk 15:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a notice

Just would like to drop a notice here, that the WP:RFPP is currently highly backlogged. This is resulting in continued significant vandalism to various articles, and other reports becoming stale. If any Administrator that is not too busy would stop over there, and put in work fulfilling/denying the plethora of requests there, I would appreciate it. Thank you! STATic message me! 05:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --- The board is caught up as of now. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Help with Template move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

Could I have some help moving Template:Paris Metropolitan Area to its correct namespace, Template: Paris urban area? There is already a redirect there. This template was created to reflect a 'North American' vision on the French city, but the term 'Metropolitan area' as a translation of aire urbain is pure WP:OR. The official translation provided by the quite official statistics institution that created the aire urbain statistical area is 'urban area'. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 08:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You can use {{db-move}} inside <noinclude> tags, but I would be hesitant to make a move like that before checking with the appropriate wikiprojects. It may be that "Metropolitan Area" is a standard name for all of these types of templates. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. This template is used by quite a few articles, but a redirect from Template: Paris Metropolitan Area to Template: Paris urban area would take care of that. As its present name is WP:OR, this template is the only template in any French wikiproject using the term 'Metropolitan Area'. THEPROMENADER 09:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirects are not necessarily transparent to all processes, like bots. It may have a specific name format for maintenance reasons. Since the template name is seen nowhere but in wikicode, and isn't actually article content, there actually aren't any issues of OR in the template name. Something like Wikiproject Cities or Wikiproject France may maintain this template with a bunch of others that are similarly named; so post a message on their talk page and ask if there's a reason why it has that name, and if there's any reason why it shouldn't be moved. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

True that the template name isn't visible to any user. FYI, this template is not maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject_France (inactive since around 2010), there are no other similarily-named templates, this template was not named for any bots or maintenance purposes; this template is only used by select French articles (French towns in the Paris suburbs - it is far from being wiki-wide), this template is not included in any other template, and the template is included in the abovementioned articles through a simple direct link. The French-language Wikipedia uses this template in exactly the same way as English wiki, but fortunately they gave it a correct name before deploying it. I notice that only a few other-language Wikipedias are also using this template, but it would be good to name it correctly before it spreads to others. Thanks again. THEPROMENADER 10:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: I've added a 'db-g6' template to the redirect page - it has no links to it (other than two links to here, one of those from six years ago) - and I may try putting a '{{db-move}}' on the template itself as suggested above - I'll post a 'done' message here if the move is completed. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 12:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to what The Promenader is saying, an aire urbaine is a metropolitan area in English. What's called urban area in English is called urban unit in French. This needs to be discussed on the talk page of the template before any move is done. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

INSEE: France's official census bureau. From their official website: French: 'aire urbaine'. English: 'urban area'. Thanks. I suppose now that this template will be considered 'contested' - thanks again. THEPROMENADER 13:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the 'move' requests from the templates in question because of one particularily disruptive contributor - any admin inspecting the pages will think them contested now. Due to the same contributor's hurried reverts and 'on-redirect-page' edits, the redirect in question is not only useless, it is no longer functioning. I think we're going to need arbitration here - the same is involved in two other threads here. THEPROMENADER 13:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

'Any admin inspecting the pages will think them contested now..' Since the two of you disagree, that would be an obvious conclusion. If you want this template moved to a new title, put {{subst:Requested move|New title|Reason}} on the template talk page and wait seven days to see what the consensus is. There is no need for language such as 'disruptive contributor'. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I lost it for a minute there. Will do, thanks for the input. THEPROMENADER 14:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dougal Butler and Main Page

Could an admin please remove the DYK entry for Dougal Butler sitting on the main page. It contains a serious BLP error resulting from incorrectly transcribing a source. See discussion here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Domenico Rancadore and the main page

Could an admin please remove the DYK hook to Domenico Rancadore fromt he main page? It focuses on a negative aspect of a living individual, in clear contravention of the DYK rules. This was mentioned at WP:BLPN and Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, but evidently not in time to stop it being added to the main page. StAnselm (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see User:Fram has done this. StAnselm (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't seen this section yet. The BLP issues need to be further discussed before (and if) this can return to the main page. Not only shouldn't we have negative BLP DYKs, but we shouldn't accuse criminals of even worse things than what they are convicted for anyway. Fram (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Input from more people at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Hooks pulled for BLP reasons, both about the general aspects and about specific issues, are always welcome. Fram (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Nicholas Alahverdian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin check if the newly created Nicholas Alahverdian matches the version deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Alahverdian and speedy if appropriate? Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Its the same as far as the "Lawsuit" section, which has been greatly expanded and the "Ohio accusations" section added. He still doesn't look notable to me, and the new section looks a bit suspect as regards BLP. I'm just going out now, but I'll look at it more closely later (though if anyone wants to edit it and/or send it to AfD in the meantime, feel free). Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This page should not be speedily deleted because the article has citations from The Boston Globe, Associated Press, The Providence Journal, NBC and CBS affiliates, and other national sources.Sarot23 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wording of edit warning

I was wondering if the warning that appears when trying to edit Mirrors (Justin Timberlake song) is a standard wording. It seems a little bitey to me, although I see the history of poorly sourced additions by IPs. Andrew³²⁷ 20:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Pinging User:Kww for his input, as he created the warning template. 28bytes (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

When we have a history of problems with a website, such a warning is appropriate. We need to prevent good-faith editors from using it, and such a big warning is impossible to overlook. Moreover, because the warning specifically says that adding the website will be considered vandalism, it ensures that people won't add the website unless they want to vandalise or unless they don't care — either way, someone adding the website has both the mens rea and the actus reus, so sanctions are justified. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's standard in the sense that it's the same edit notice that I put in all articles that are plagued by additions of that bogus chart (it's this notice for those that want to look at it). I don't see why you think it's particularly bitey. The warning about vandalism is addressed only for those that proceed to insert the false position after being warned. The chart is a major source of confusion because of its similarity in naming to a reliable chart. I've even added the Portuguese translation so that the people that are most likely to be adding it out of innocent confusion are warned.—Kww(talk) 22:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Go to Special:WhatLinksHere/Billboard Brasil and tell it to give you nothing but template links; except for the first three, all the entries are editnotices of this sort. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that due to one of the many bugs (or at least missing features) in VisualEditor, such edit notices are not shown to users using VE! Fram (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, strange. At first it didn't appear, now it does. I'll have to check this further... Please disregard my above post for the time being. Fram (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Recreation of thrice-CSDed page

I have created Tyus Jones, which was CSDed three times in 2012. I assume it is the same subject. I'd be interested in knowing if I left anything important from the original versions of the page out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Except for the mindless litany of every scraped knee he's gotten since he was twelve, no, not really. I thought there was a general consensus that high school sports didn't qualify people for articles.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] You left out a ton, but inadvertently. The first two editions are identical (the second time, it was created with the db-bio template copied from the first time!), but the third is radically different, 38KB and equipped with eighty-two references. Making a request at WP:REFUND or in this thread is probably your best route. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Or blanking the article so it's eligible for CSD:U1. Just sayin'.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Anything with 82 references should have passed WP:GNG. I am assuming versions 1 & 2 were garbage. Can someone userfy version 3 so I can see what was there before. High school athletes can be WP:N. I have had WP:GAs for both Jabari Parker and Jahlil Okafor while they were juniors in high school.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Version 3 was a copy of Jahlil Okafor, which (I assume) the author was going to use as a template to create Tyus Jones. But then they blanked the page. So Version 3 has nothing about [Tyus Jones]] in it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume something was messed up about each of the priors if they were CSDed. My question is was there anything meritorious? I love taking credit for great work and will do great work on this subject, but I want to make sure I am not ignoring any prior editors that should be credited for any encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the previous versions of the page to the article history, so you can look through them to see if there's anything useful. I didn't restore the version that contained the copy of the article on Jahlil Okafor. Restoring the old versions does not mean I take a position on whether this passes the GNG. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The current history is nonsensical. shouldn't the deletion blanking edits appear. It seems odd for an edit to show (2,749 bytes) (+2,749)‎ when the prior edit shows that the page had a larger amount of content than 2749. That deleted page is probably a copyvio as written if I had to take a guess. Some of the flavor of that content will make it into the current article. However, since the deleted page had no WP:ICs, it is difficult to incorporate anything now until I can track down the proper sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume "The current history is nonsensical" is just your way of saying "Thank you, Floquenbeam". So, you're welcome. And there's no such thing as a "deletion blanking edit". It doesn't look like a copyvio to me, but if you discover it is, let someone know and the old versions can be re-deleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate your effort. Yes "Thank you, Floquenbeam". but shouldn't the diffs match up so that a (2,749 bytes) (+2,749) diff follows a point in the edit history where the page was blank. What I mean is could you restore the following two diffs to the edit history:

20:51, 29 January 2012 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted page Tyus Jones (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

20:50, 29 January 2012 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted page Tyus Jones (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, those aren't diffs, they're log entries. They don't show up in the page history, they show up in the deletion log. I can't re-add them because they aren't deleted versions of the page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

O.K., but if I am not mistaken prior admins have been able to restore histories that preserved the clarity of each creation and recreation. It currently seems muddled. I have seen many page histories with edits taking the page size down to 0 before a recreation. Am I asking you for something mysterious. If so, is it possible to redelete the problematic history.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Right now, nothing is deleted except Version 3, the copy of Jahlil Okafor. Nothing more can be undeleted as far as the early creations go. Our only options are to leave things as they are or to re-delete the history, but I'd advise against that because it's not problematic. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Deleting is bad, but the history now is not making sense without anything between the deleted version and the recreated version. I have never had this problem before in a recreated page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case, please provide a link to a recreated page that's not had this problem. Without seeing one, I can't understand how better to help you, especially since I can't previously remember someone finding fault with this kind of disjointed page history. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger and Nyttend: The byte count differences in the history were a bit weird because MediaWiki calculates the differences in bytes incorrectly after revisions have been undeleted or imported – this problem is covered under bug 36976. Re-deleting then undeleting the page resets the byte count differences, which I did in this case – I moved it to a /Temp page to make sure I cleanly restored the page. The reason why I don't advocate this method more widely (besides the fact that the byte count differences are pretty trivial IMO) is that it also resets an article's page ID, which is used to order the "what links here list"; this doesn't really matter in this case. The delete/undelete method will also not completely solve the byte difference problem in all cases, especially where very old revisions or page imports are involved. Graham87 07:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, you might think that anything with 82 references should pass GNG, but there's always the possibility of WP:BOMBARDMENT having taken place (as it did at NASRAC, which had 23 footnotes at the time of deletion...every one of which went to the club's own website, usually as a link to the root domain). Caveat emptor! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So...I totally missed the fact that Version 3 was about a different guy. I noticed that someone A10-tagged it, but I didn't see why. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Graham87 has attempted to sort things out to resolve the byte counts. It is good that the byte count changes are correct. However, that action makes one issue cleaner and totally messes up another. Now the T:AH indicates three CSDs but the page history indicates no CSDs. What was needed was some type of edit between the CSD deletions and the recreations that match the T:AH. Typically the edit summary would be very similar to the one that Graham87 used (moved page Tyus Jones/Temp to Tyus Jones over a redirect without leaving a redirect: revert). Is there a way to insert the zeroing page move edits between the CSDs and the recreations so that the page history is not so discrepant from the T:AH.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all I have to say is ... whaaaaat? I have not modified the actual page history (besides my page moves). Graham87 07:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that the byte counts of the newly created versions should indicate that they're newly created (as they did before)? I can't do anything about that ... well, I can, but I won't, because it would mess things up even more. Graham87 07:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No what I am saying is very simple. Look at the talk page. It indicates 3 CSDs. Now, look at the article page history. It indicates that there were no CSDs. Why? because between the versions that were deleted and the the versions that were recreated there are no edits. In this case, the only really problematic one is between my first edit and the prior edit that got deleted. Can you move this into whatever temp space you work in and put some sort of marker edit between these two edits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not in the business of falsifying page histories by making up edits out of thin air. The logs make things perfectly clear. Graham87 07:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

As I look back at my creations of CSDed things, I am now seeing that it is fairly unusual to have the prior history restored at all. Since a lot of the prior version was a copyvio of this page why don't we just delete all the prior history.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, done. Graham87 08:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Re: unusual to have prior history restored: indeed, and not required either (as you don't build on what was already deleted) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony, perhaps you could ask for admin status at one of these wikis? That would give you a chance to try out history merges etc., and should make it easier to understand what goes on when admins delete and restore pages on Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Restriction appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A bit more than a year ago I agreed to two editing restrictions in order to be unblocked, with the possibility of those restrictions being lifted after a year. I would now appreciate that being done.--John Foxe (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Support NE Ent 01:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support with understanding that further problems in the Mormon area could lead to a topic or site ban. I'm all for giving him a second chance, especially since I haven't seen a problem involving him during the past year. GregJackP Boomer! 01:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support given his complete lack of presence on ANI or AN. Blackmane (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment For those of us not familiar with the past issues, perhaps someone would like to briefly recap why Foxe was put under restrictions? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The 1RR restriction was made "everywhere on Wikipedia, on all material Mormon or not". However, he has been recently engaged in edit warring, for example here: [32], [33], [34] and so on. In two last diffs he claims "consensus" (edit summary) as a reason for his reverts. However, there was no consensus about this, according to closing of the RfC by an uninvolved administrator: [35]. Here he coordinates his reverts in this article with another user [36]. He has been also engaged in sockpuppetry [37]. Recent personal attack [38] (claim that I somehow "enjoy" an infamous dictator, although I did not edit anything about him for years). Not a good sign.My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The socking was in 2011 (2 yrs ago). -- Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed; this is only related to the reasons for receiving his initial restriction (question by IRWolfie). In addition, he received later two blocks for violating his restriction in 2012, did not he? My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood. Since the mention of socking was intermixed with your reasons why you think the restrictions should not be lifted, I assumed you felt this is still relevant today. I don't think it is, as there's been no evidence of further socking. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It's been a year without obvious problems. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to be fair, I did not see him violating 1RR restriction during last year. Accordingly, I would expect him to make only three reverts per article per day in Mormonism-related articles if the restriction is lifted. That however will bring him a trouble. Therefore, I do not change my vote.My very best wishes (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note that this discussion had gotten itself archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive252#Restriction appeal and User:NE Ent brought it back and closed it. Looks good to me. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. NE Ent was the first to support the appeal, he shouldn't have been the one to close it. Bringing it back and asking for a close was the way to go here. Four supports and one oppose may be a consensus, but it's hardly WP:SNOW territory. It would be best if User:NE Ent reopened the discussion and let someone uninvolved close it. Fram (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning incident: sanctions/actions against parties?

I've been contacted off-wiki by a number of editors expressing dissatisfaction with the conduct of one or two administrators regarding the recent Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning incident. This is supplemental to concerns raised on wiki across various talk pages.

The on-wiki actions immediately preceding were that Morwen moved the article following a brief discusion. This was reversed almost immediately by Cls14, through a misunderstanding, and moved back by Morwen with Cls14's blessing. David Gerard then fully (admin) locked the article at Chelsea Manning.

The move was contested on the talk page (e.g. example) and formal objection was raised at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests by StAnselm with a request to move it back. This was answered by Tariqabjotu who moved it back to Bradley Manning. David Gerard then moved it back to Chelsea Manning citing immediate BLP concerns.

The following is the relevant sub-section of the article history:

• 15:34, 22 August 2013‎ David Gerard: (David Gerard moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect: Reverting move per WP:BLP)
• 15:32, 22 August 2013‎ Tariqabjotu: (Tariqabjotu moved page Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning: Requested at WP:RM as uncontroversial (permalink) [reversing undiscussed move])
• ...
• 14:31, 22 August 2013‎ David Gerard: (Changed protection level of Chelsea Manning: Highly visible page: MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 00:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (expires 00:23, 1 September 2013 (UT)
• ...
• 13:43, 22 August 2013‎ Morwen: (Morwen moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect: let's try this again. Manning has announced transition quite publically via TODAY: [39])
• ...
• 13:22, 22 August 2013‎ Cls14: (Cls14 moved page Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning over redirect: This is a bloke called Bradley Manning)
• 13:18, 22 August 2013‎ Morwen: (Morwen moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect: per [40], we need to do a bit of a copyedit on this!)

However, the thrust of concerns with administrator conduct occur after the fact. Without commenting on the merits of each of these individually, among the concerns raised are:

• WP:INVOLVED: administrator(s) taking action had pre-existing and strong feelings related issues
• WP:RAAA: the actions of another administrator by were reversed without sufficient cause
• WP:WHEEL: administrator actions were reversed by the administrator(s) who performed the original action
• WP:ADMINACCT: administrator(s) failed to communicate or explain their actions sufficiently or promtly enough
• WP:ADMINABUSE: administrator(s) were abusive and threatening to editors who questioned their action
• WP:TOOLMISUSE: administrator tools were used where a conflict of interest existed
• WP:SOAP: the move, lock and subsequent discussions were a form of advocacy
• WP:TITLECHANGES: improper process was followed
• WP:TEAM: the issueance of joint statements and use of the plural pronoun to explain individual actions has raised concerns about team action
• WP:ATTACK: the use of press interviews to cast aspersions on the motives of on-wiki opponents
• WP:MEAT: the use of social media to publicise actions
• WP:CON: administrator actions were taken without sufficient cause in policy or consensus
• WP:GAME: the citing of BLP policy to justify immediate action without sufficient credibility
• WP:BLP: insufficient responsibly, caution and dispassion were shown in actions affecting a biography of a living person

The question is what what actions can/should be taken against the administrators involved. This includes the possibility of seeking that the administrators involved by de-sysoped.

There was a consensus among those who contacted me to wait until the RM discussion closed before raising the questions here. This was so that as to be clear that the questions here are separate to the question of which title the article should be at. I believe that now, in the interim between the discussion closing but before the result of the discussion is announced, is the optimum time to raise the concerns.

I have raised them here (and have not advertised it widely) rather than at any other forum because this is usually among one of the least drama-filled forums.

I have strong feelings on the subject. I feel that action should be taken against at lest one of the administrators involved. That sense became stronger as the issue developed over the course of the week and I saw more of the conduct of party's involved.

Do other have comments on the matter or feel similarly minded?

--RA (✍) 09:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not entirely honest of you not to link to what was actually posted explaining the actions.

Morwen and I acted individually at the time, in good faith and according to policy and precedent, but after much (individual) response to individual questions (often repeatedly, e.g. in response to you), we wrote a response together (Morwen wrote it, I tweaked it), explaining the policy we had each applied in minute detail. (We each considered it obvious enough that one person could write it, the other tweak it and both sign it.) This is not WP:TEAM.

The rest is largely looking for things to complain about on a decision that they fundamentally didn't like, and alluding to any mud you think might stick. I don't question there's people who didn't like it, but that's not the same as it being the wrong thing to do. Here's the original explanation, copied from Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_request#Supplementary_.21vote_rationale (to which you responded already at Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_request#Supplementary_.21vote_rationale ):

Supplementary !vote rationale

by User:Morwen and User:David Gerard. Please comment at bottom.

It is our position that Wikipedia policies and guidelines (particularly WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY), and precedent of previous similar page moves, mandates the correct location of the article as being Chelsea Manning; that this was true at the time of the article move and true at the time of the BLP action to keep it there, and remains true now. As editors who are familiar with trans issues this seemed sufficiently obvious to us that we did not think it required extensive clarification; but some editors, who are unfamiliar with the topic (as many people in the wider world are), have challenged this.

There have also been repeated claims that we have not explained our rationales in sufficient detail for the questioners to understand; this is an attempt to supply said detail, at length, in the hope of clearing up matters.

MOS:IDENTITY

Firstly, let us look at the specific guidance that MOS:IDENTITY has regarding trans people. At the time of writing, this was:

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.

If we look back in the history of the page we can see it has been stable for a long time. By the end of 2009 it had achieved nearly its current form:

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies when referring to any phase of that person's life. [41]

We don't think there's any serious dispute that Manning's "latest expressed gender self-identification" is female. Questions of Manning's inferred legal name or medical transition status are irrelevant to this.

Although none of the examples (and we note the examples were added later) are personal names here, "Bradley Manning" is a gendered (proper) noun on the plain meanings of words. If we refer to Wikipedia's own page on the name Bradley, we see that all the people listed who bear it as a first name identify as male, and our infobox asserts that the name is male. There is apparently some marginal evidence it might be coming into use as a neutral name for children born today, but this is not terribly relevant when applied to Private Manning - its usage 25 years ago (among Manning's peer group) is what counts. It is clear from the chat logs (see below) that Manning believes it to be strongly gendered.

MOS:IDENTITY demands that Manning not be "referred to" with gendered nouns that are contrary to expressed preference. So, Manning should not be referred to as "Bradley Manning", under any text covered by the Manual of Style. (This allows mention of the fact that Manning used to be known as Bradley Manning, because that it itself is not a use of the term as a reference per se)

It has been claimed by various editors that this section of the Manual of Style does not apply to article titles, and is limited to the actual article text. This is unfounded. The MoS section "Article titles" explicitly notes:

The guidance contained elsewhere in the MoS, particularly in the section below on punctuation, applies to all parts of an article, including the title. (our emphasis)

WP:COMMONNAME is being used as a justification for the article to be moved back to "Bradley Manning". The situation is developing rapidly, but we have a good number of press sources now using "Chelsea Manning" consistently, with some hold-outs still using "Bradley Manning". The British press, following Leveson Inquiry guidance (see below), moved quickly (even right-wing outlets, e.g. the Daily Mail, changing within hours), and the US press has been moving over the course of the past few days. Although MOS:IDENTITY is already sufficient, it is increasingly clear that "Chelsea Manning" now is the "common" name, regardless of whether this was the case on the 22nd.

WP:COMMONNAME contains several caveats:

Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.

Using a former name of a trans person who has met the criteria for MOS:IDENTITY seems to meet the definition of "inaccurate" here. The general point of WP:COMMONNAME is where there is a pool of titles that it would be acceptable for the article to be at, you pick the common name; it does not rule things in when they would otherwise not be acceptable.

It also states that

more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change.

Throughout the project, it is generally understood that WP:COMMONNAME is a default principle, to apply when no other good practice can be found or developed. Far from being straightforward, it is supplemented by a vast number of subpages which either clarify what is meant by "common name", or override it in specific fields where a more technical name is considered helpful, in the way that MOS:IDENTITY does.

We therefore consider it clear that the correct title of this article, under the Manual of Style, is Chelsea Manning.

Precedent

The earliest article about a trans person on Wikipedia we have been able to find is Wendy Carlos. The history shows that there was some debate about pronouns and wording of the article, but there has never been any question that the article should be anywhere else. Carlos, despite having achieved notability under her old name, had been transitioned for several decades by the time her Wikipedia article was created, however, so this does not present a useful precedent for how Wikipedia handles recent transitions.

We can think of three particularly famous people to have transitioned in the public eye in recent years: Chaz Bono, Laura Jane Grace, and Lana Wachowski. Let's have a look at the naming of these articles:

Chaz Bono

The article "Chastity Bono" was created on March 4, 2002. It was moved to "Chaz Bono" on June 11, 2009 [42], the same day the news that Bono had transitioned broke. Although discussed on the talk page, the article has remained in the same place since, and no WP:RM was filed.

Laura Jane Grace

The article "Tom Gabel" was originally created as a redirect to the band "Against Me" on March 24, 2006. It became a stub about the lead singer of the band on May 21, 2008. The news that the singer would transition and take the name "Laura Jane Grace" was reported on May 9, 2012, and resulted in an immediate flurry of activity on the article. If we examine the wording in the Rolling Stone article at the time more closely, we see that it was announced as a future intent (it was also not entirely clear whether the subject was dropping the "Gabel"), specifically that "Gabel will eventually take the name Laura Jane Grace" [43].

There was an inconclusive discussion on the talk page, and a move to Laura Jane Grace on May 28, 2012 was reverted later that day. The article was moved again to Laura Jane Grace on June 6, 2012, after more evidence had arisen regarding an actual change of name. This caused a small amount of protest on the talk page, but the dispute was not escalated, and the article has remained there to this day.

The Wachowskis

The article about the Wachowskis (directors of The Matrix) was created on May 5, 2001, under the name "Wachowski brothers". They invariably work together, and have never had separate articles. Unlike the other cases, there had been rumours regarding Lana's transition for a long time before the subject officially went public with it. The first edit regarding this was made on May 4, 2004. [44] For a long time the consensus was that sources like this were not sufficiently reliable to report on, and there was certainly no evidence that the elder sibling had publically transitioned. The films they worked on continued to have the "Wachowski Brothers" as their screen credit, including Speed Racer (2008). In 2011 it was noticed that the name "Lana" was being used in press for "Cloud Atlas", and a requests for comment started regarding whether the article should be moved. This met broad popular acclaim, and it was moved.

The common element to all three cases is that Wikipedia changed the article name promptly once sufficiently good sources were available, including personal statements of transitioning.

WP:BLP

We have also invoked WP:BLP. The BLP policy is a set of general principles rather than a detailed guide to implementation, so it might not be immediately apparent to people unfamiliar with trans issues how this should work.

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.

Due regard for trans people's privacy usually includes not mentioning birth names. Birth names are considered highly sensitive information, not to be shared lightly, and we expect most trans people would be highly distressed to see their old name prominently in the article - deliberate use of an old name when a person has expressed a strong wish for the use of their new name being a common mode of personal attack upon transsexuals in the wider world, in the same manner as deliberate misgendering (as can be seen on the wiki itself, where a common tactic for anti-transgender vandals is "outing" someone with their old name and/or changing pronouns. This includes a recent attempted "doxxing" of one of us in the present case by a banned user.). For example, in a recent report into the practices of the British press, Lord Justice Leveson found that [45]

The use of 'before' names as well as photographs of the individuals in question not only causes obvious distress but can place them at risk.

In cases where the subject achieved fame or notoriety before a name change the transition is part of the narrative. For Chelsea Manning we accept it would be impossible to suppress her birth name entirely (and Manning's latest statement concedes that in practical terms, it is unlikely, despite Manning's sincerely expressed preferences). But inability to protect the subject's privacy completely does not mean we should not make our best effort: we should go to the closest thing that is possible, and give Chelsea Manning primacy.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist,

Tabloid, sensationalist, journalism is far more likely to be presenting old names as "real" names and self-chosen names as some kind of nickname; tabloids are not a role model for Wikipedia to emulate.

or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

As User:Sue Gardner has pointed out, one of most compelling points is the prospect of harm. We quote her here:

I will take a crack at the question about harm. Recapping: BLP says the possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This matters because BLP trumps COMMONNAME. (I am setting aside the question of MOS:IDENTITY for the purposes of this comment.)

It is reasonable to believe there's a possibility Manning could be harmed by Wikipedia retitling the article Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning, because she made a formal announcement explicitly asking that "starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun." Wikipedia is an important site: the #5 most-popular in the world, read by a half-billion people every month, more widely-read than any other news or information site. If Wikipedia were to call its article Bradley Manning, Manning might believe that Wikipedia is rejecting her requested name and/or gender characterization. It is not uncommon for people who feel dissonance between their experienced gender identity and the gender they were assigned at birth to feel significant emotional distress, at least some of which is due to how they're treated by society. (See this article.) And indeed, in Manning's May 2010 chat logs she describes herself as having GID (gender identity disorder), as having had three breakdowns, as being "in an awkward state," "uncomfortable with my role in society," "scared of being misunderstood" and "isolated as fuck." She says: "i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as boy…" I think it's clear that Chelsea Manning hopes and expects that people will use the name and pronoun she asked them to, and that to the extent people do not, they risk causing further trauma to someone who is clearly already significantly distressed. Sue Gardner (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant that, although commenting on the article talk page in her capacity as an ordinary user, Sue Gardner deals at length with BLP issues at Wikipedia's interface with the wider world in her role as WMF Executive Director, and so has relevant expertise in and insight into such issues that should be considered.

Furthermore,

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone [...] biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

It is neither cautious, dispassionate nor fair to ignore someone's express stated wishes about how they should be known, when that sort of change is hardly unprecedented and is a result of a condition recognised by the scientific-medical-legal-social-consensus. It is not an area that compromise is possible on - we have to pick one.

Keeping the page at Chelsea Manning is consistent with the style guide, BLP and the usage of sources. Going against all three to move it back to Bradley Manning would be seen as a political statement that they are wrong: that trans people are mentally ill, and/or are delusional. It constitutes gratuitous offence: offence that is easily avoidable, significantly harmful and adds nothing to coverage of the subject, and that therefore should be avoided. Wikipedia should not do that, and policy and precedent strongly support that it should not.

Morwen (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC); David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The only thing it left out was that WP:BLP mandates immediacy right there in the intro:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (my emphasis)

I don't expect people to like a BLP decision they disagree with, but it was a BLP action, in good faith, in an immediate situation. Your post here looks like an attempt at forum shopping. In fact, it's bringing it back to the same forum a second time.

I'll note also that Morwen didn't use any admin powers whatsoever, and acted after a quick discussion on the talk page - and Cls14 acknowledged this. And hasn't touched the article since. And you know this already, and still bring a claim of more. - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would nite that the good-faith efforts of administrators attempting to uphold BLP, despite the suggestion of WP:GAME, deserve more leeway than RA's providing. I do not see it as hugely irresponsible to read BLP and the MOS:IDENTITY guideline in the way Morwen and David Gerard did, and with that reading, their actions seemed perfectly justified, as seen in David's response above. Nor do I see anything in the aftermath of the decision more damning than a slightly terse style of response from David Gerard, who later attempted to better explain his reasoning alongside Morwen in a manner that hardly seems to rise to the level of WP:TEAM.

But that doesn't much matter. Are you questioning Morwen's and David Gerard's fitness as editors? If so, AN might be able to help, though I have difficulty believing that a topic ban or block would be merited for good-faith, if bold, move actions that aren't part of any kind of pattern of abuse. If you're discussing the tools, why write this up here at all? Why not take it to Arbcom, given that no other dispute resolution forum can make decisions regarding the misuse of tools or the fitness of administrators? This dispute is inevitably headed in that direction anyway, and beginning another endless conversation about it on AN seems counterproductive. Archaeo (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I probably did get terse, and my apologies - though that would be from answering the same questions from editors (including RA), or refuting the same statements from editors that were factually wrong, over and over - hence seeing a need to write up something tedious and detailed.

I'll note also that the intro pissed a lot of people off by seeming to presume all opposed were simply ignorant of trans issues, for which I also apologise; the intent was to come across as speaking in good faith. And in any case, editors (and there were lots of them, including objecting admins) who fundamentally question that transgender is even a thing, and deny the scientific, medical, legal and social consensus, would be unlikely to listen to anything we said on the subject anyway - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@Archaeo: "Why not take it to Arbcom..." I wanted to invite other people's comment in a central location. With the RM discussion behind us, we can reflect on the admin decisions (including conduct) undistracted from the question of article title.

I don't want to proceed with anything formal (even anything as formal as a RfC/U) without a discussion first. At a very minimum that wouldn't be fair to David/Morwen. They were under pressure during the RM and now that that's past they may be able to express themselves better (and may even express regret at some of their actions in hindsight). I also think too much has been done too hastily already. We can discuss the issues this incident has raised without hasty action, whatever our feelings are.

I don't think that every issue raised against David/Morwen is of equal merit. I listed them all above with the caveat that I was doing so "without commenting on the merits of each of these individually". David's conduct (in particular) has raised a lot of questions. Some will just underline that we are all WP:NOTPERFECT. Others, I believe, raise questions about (1) his judgment and (2) his conduct that need answering.

But before we go running off to ArbCom, let's talk and reflect on what could have been done better. Including, asking how serious it was and if sanctions should be taken. --RA (✍) 11:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)