![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Haven't reverted, but don't think you should have removed the evidence. Awien ( talk) 02:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
At any rate, though, I will point out again that the removed comment remains accessible in the talk page's history, which means it can be cited (as a diff or just in prose) if necessary in reference to Bonkers's behavior or to the article's status. I also posted a comment on the talk page noting that I had removed content from Bonker's edit and indicating the nature of the removed content, so readers who see that section will be fully aware that he said something that is no longer immediately visible. I think you're underestimating Wikipedians by assuming that his exact words not being visible in the current version of the talk page means that they are inaccessible or forgotten - anyone who is sufficiently interested in the article or in Bonkers is likely to be an experienced enough Wikipedian to know how to use page histories.
I can tell that you are upset and offended by this whole situation, and believe me, I sympathize with that, but please try to remember while from the inside it may feel like a good idea to force a "badge of shame" to stay visible so you can use it as proof against someone, in the larger world that means our readers would see gratuitous racial slurs that seem to have Wikipedia's approval, since no one has removed them. Everything that is said on Wikipedia, especially in our articles and their talk pages, can and will be taken by the public as us tacitly approving of it if it's not removed - that's why even if it's politically expedient to keep offensive commentary so we can point to it, we remove it anyway so our readers (who don't know that we might only be keeping it so we can point to it as an example of what NOT to do) don't think we support it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 20:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to AlexTiefling's rhetoric, but it's because of your point about Sue's talk page and not because of the threat of discretionary sanctions. If you check my edits, you'll see that I've been one of the only editors reaching across the line to try to push this thing toward resolution through open discussion. My talk page, for example, where Adam and I discuss some of the diffs. DHeyward's talk page where I suggest he ease up on Phil. Sue's talk page where I try to politely reason with 7. Two kinds of pork's talk page where I discuss not going after April Arcus because she already apologized. The workshop page where I've tried to get polarized editors on both sides to find middle ground. I understand that my frustrated comments to Alex were a concern to you, but I think you need to take a look at the wider picture before calling me especially problematic.--v/r - T P 16:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fluffernutter. Please understand I am not questioning your judgment or offering any sort of disrespect. Rather, I seek abstract clarification. You apparently suppressed [1] some information posted to this evidence page, after it had been fully protected. Subsequently, you apparently informed the poster of your action [2]. You are not a member of ArbCom nor are you a clerk, so I'm curious as to why this was done. I am not looking for particular details, but the abstract rationale behind doing this. It is a highly unusual circumstance. Your clarification would be most welcome. Thanks, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I found you (and this article) because I linked-stepped through the Manning case. For whatever reason, I thought the oldest continuous law-firm in the US was interesting so I found some newspaper articles and added some information to Rawle & Henderson. Is it ok now? Thanks. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 18:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
NE Ent 02:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I included a link to source discussing it the Google bombing of Craig James' campaign. Note also that the Google bomb of his campaign is an example listed on the Google bomb entry. It's not negative toward him, since he did not, in fact, murder five hookers. The Google bombing of his campaign with the false accusation is something that occurred, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.77 ( talk) 16:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
It didn't basically say "and also, he's accused of killing hookers," because "Google bomb" is a distinct term with a distinct meaning. And since it's one of the most famous Google bombs, it's very notable. The source (and the source linked in the Google bomb entry on Wikipedia) are reliable. The truth is that you could've added a single word if you felt it was necessary to reiterate his innocence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.77 ( talk) 19:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Since I noticed you warned people on Sue Garnder's page to calm it down, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind monitoring the discussion to have another move?
/info/en/?search=Talk:Bradley_Manning#Postpone_move_discussion
CoffeeCrumbs has correctly noticed that people are already starting to snipe at each other over a possibly delay, and when the move discussion does occur, it has a high likelihood of getting nasty. While others have already started to look for an admin to decide the outcome of the discussion, it would be very helpful to have another one to crack the whip. Thanks. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 14:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Might I ask you to gently comment on this edit by Greatness Bites? I read it as dismissive of Manning's disorder ("gender bending excitement", "With the novelty wearing off, his feminine side is already receiving noticeably less attention."), and... well, currently the conversation is quite polite and orderly. Their comment is a perfectly reasonable !vote but also introduces an unproductive note to the discussion. 7daysahead ( talk) 15:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
[3]. Please confirm receipt. OSTheRobot ( talk) 11:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing inflammatory about my vote. I gave my reasons for my vote,that's not disa-allowed for any vote. I've re-checked that page, and I see no restrictions on referencing Bradley Manning's gender either. You haven't voted, only commented, so I realize your comment is neutral, but honestly, I see no problem with my comments, as they reference both policy and common sense. I would hope you would refactor, as this would be a violation of WP:TPO. As you know, there are only a few reasons to refactor comments on a talk page, my comment doesn't fall into those exemptions. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 14:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@OBI - Your comment that it's transphobic is bullshit. It's not transphobic to say Bradley Manning's a man. Wikipedia doesn't give care what gender your or I say someone is , it's what their name is , reliably sourced. Bradley Manning is well-known as Bradley Manning. Further any reference to Chelsea is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Chelsea Manning is not notable, the event in question hasn't even happened yet, so no, my reasons are pure policy. This "transphobia" bullshit is purse smoke screen, sorry, but it is. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 15:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@Fluffernutter this is not OK, it is an opinion, it could have been phrased better, but removing it because you disagree with is it NOT OK. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 15:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@ Obiwankenobi: I removed Kosh's commentary because it was inflammatory to the conversation and a borderline BLP violation. I am attending to the RM solely in an administrative capacity, and my goal is to keep the conversation from running off the rails into BLP violations and personal attacks. In light of that, "[person who identifies as a woman] is a woman" is neither inflammatory (you'll notice that no one from any side of the dispute has objected to comments of that type prior to this) nor a potential BLP violation (a significant portion of the community feels that denying a transperson's gender identity is problematic on BLP grounds, but no one feels that affirming it or not addressing it is a BLP violation). So comments affirming Manning's gender identity may be contrary to the guidelines, but they are benign in comparison to comments refuting it, which have been shown to cause ill will and disruptive derails, and I am trying to use the lightest touch possible in adminning the RM. I took (and will take) the step of redacting someone's comment only in the case of things that are likely to cause serious issue.
@ KoshVorlon: As I noted on your talk page, this topic area is under discretionary sanctions. That means that administrators are given wide latitude to take what actions they believe necessary to keep the topic area under control. I redacted your comment under that provision, based on the reasoning I just explained to Obiwan; discretionary sanctions would also empower me to topic-ban you or restrict your ability to participate in the RM, but I felt that the issue could be dealt with with a lighter touch by simply redacting the inflammatory parts of your comment and asking you not to restore them. I realize this makes you feel hard-done-by, but again, I did this with an eye toward keeping the RM from derailing, not due to any personal animus toward you or your opinions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 15:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict, of course) Hi. I've undone your edit here. I don't really have more to say than what was in my edit summary. I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments you have that your redaction was appropriate (I briefly scanned through your recent contributions looking for a rationale for your edit), but currently it appears to be selective enforcement of a questionable discussion guideline. That's neither fair nor acceptable. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 15:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Note to talk page stalkers and watchers: I appear to be attempting to admin Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request singlehandedly at the moment; this means that I'm doing things on the fly according to my best judgment. Going by only one person's judgment is never a great idea in a case like this, and I would very much appreciate if any uninvolved admins or experienced editors could a) sanity check my administrative choices and let me know what they think here, and b) join in with trying to keep things flowing smoothly at the RM. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 15:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@Obi - I wasn't yelling at you at all... sorry it came across that way. I really was stating all the claims of transphobia are bullshit, because they really are. They're being thrown around to silence anyone that wants state the obvious, Bradley Manning's a guy. And @Fluffernutter, saying that isn't a BLP violation. You now have consensus on a 3 to 1 basis showing your revert is incorrect. Don't revert back please. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@ MZMcBride: I'm not supportive of your reversion. While I am sympathetic to your argument, and would not have remove the comment myself, admins have a tough enough time trying to impose DS, without having close calls reverted. (It may be ironic that I'm asking for a modification of the block in the next section, but not really. I didn't change the block length myself, I started a discussion.) Admins do not get a pass for any edit done under the umbrella of DS, but I think the process should be, absent egregious violations, which this isn't, to open a separate discussion. Herding the cats in this long argument is tough enough. There's a process for discussing a questionable DS and BRD is not the right process.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to strongly endorse what Obi-Wan Kenobi is saying here. Unlike many of the comments in the previous move debate, this one was not inflammatory nor grossly offensive. You won't help consensus by eliminating contrary comments which are made in good faith, even if they're based on a premise that you reject and that you expect the closing admin to ignore. Kosh's opinion is not a rare one. It was my own opinion too until this whole thing kicked off. But if I'd been the target of heavy-handed admin actions for expressing it, perhaps I might not have stuck around and learned enough about the subject to change my opinion to a more accepting one. – Smyth\ talk 22:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm appealing this block at Arbitration Enforcement. I recognize that this is a high pressure area, and that you were under stress, and that Kosh behaved heatedly after your !vote reasoning deletion, and even that TParis, whom I respect highly, supports your action ... but your basic reasoning for the !vote reasoning deletion and subsequent block was unsound, given that you didn't do the same to mirror arguments on the other side of the move proposal. Multiple people have pointed this out to you, here and on WP:ANI, where you requested they take the appeal to the proper channels, so I'm guessing my adding to them will not have any different effect. Doing so. -- GRuban ( talk) 15:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Please review it.--v/r - T P 15:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the block of KoshVorlon is too long. I do realize the subject is intense, and that's why DS are in place, and they are intended to help make sure things do not get out of hand. However, the statements by Kosh, unless I missed some, would not normally have resulted in a block in other circumstances. I did look at the block log, which looks long, but it isn't as long as it appears. The first three entries should be one - as Jennavecia issued a block, but made two more entries to tweak the rationale. The 2012 entries were simply an error, and in my opinion support the rationale for excision (but that's a subject for another day). That still leaves three other entries, but no blocks in over two years. Given the nature of the discussion, which may yet be SNOW closed, I'd be happier with a return to a 31 hour block (24 if first offense, but not a first offense).-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Please join the
Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. -- Pharos ( talk) 22:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
Re [4] -- cleansing to you?? That's not gonna help. When I saw the block earlier I was thinking of posting some sort of "Barnstar of stupidity" thing here on your page -- 'cause you just gotta know that trying to ride herd over yet another Manning fracas -- while undoubtedly the right thing to do and good for the encyclopedia -- is just going to bring a heap of undeserved grief. Best just to quack like the other duck and, as you correctly did, point folks to WP:AE. You can even think "good luck with that" but obviously we don't type that out loud. NE Ent 23:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
[[To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite; To forgive wrongs darker than death or night; To defy Power, which seems omnipotent; To love, and bear; to hope till Hope creates From its own wreck the thing it contemplates; Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent; This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free; This is alone Life, Joy, Empire, and Victory|Alex (parrot)]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember our Fallen ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New features
VisualEditor news
Future
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I have a concern about the accusation by Coffee Crumbs underneath the redacted vote by Arkady Rose. It contains a claim that Coffee Crumbs was being singled out or directly referenced ("this characterization of my comments"). As the redacted bit of Arkady Rose was general in scope, there's no way for any one to know that she never mentioned a specific editor or specific editor's claim in them, and that you only removed it (I think) to avoid drama in general. As it stands it looks like his claim that he was specifically singled out is uncontested and proven. I am not speaking to your decision to redact in the first place, I just think letting the accusation stand beside an unreadable comment could be seen as an explicit endorsement of the claim. And I don't want to stir anything up, so I chose to ask you for your thoughts here instead of directly addressing the comment on the page itself. I know it's sticky and you are using a light touch, but I hope you see how it could be read as it is now. Thanks for all your work here, in any case. I appreciate your bravery and sensitivity here. __ Elaqueate ( talk) 14:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You may want to review this one as well. I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
SportsFan5000 is deleting comments on /info/en/?search=Talk:Patrick_Califia. I reverted him, and he deleted the comments again. Can you please look into this? Thanks. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 04:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You sorted something out for me much earlier today and I wanted to say thank you.-- Antiqueight confer 18:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for working to keep
this recent move request civil and on-topic. Your actions to remove only those portions of comments (from people on both sides of the issue) that were egregiously inappropriate and irrelevant to the move request, while not removing the underlying !votes or many other questionable comments, showed balance and restraint. If admins had done during the previous move request what you did for this move request, rather than doing nothing at all, the previous request would not have become the mess that it became. -sche ( talk) 02:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC) |
Hey Fluffernutter. I'm dropping you a note to let you know (or remind you) about Flow, the structured discussion system for Wikipedia that we're building. You may have heard about some of the longer-term vision for Flow in the past, but in the last two months we've been moving quickly to narrow down the short-term scope of the project, and we're keen to get feedback.
First: we've written up an explanation of the " minimum viable product" – the set of features that will be in the first, on-wiki deployment. Because discussions on Wikipedia are complex and varied, we're approaching Flow development as an incremental process of uncovering user needs for different types of discussion. The first release will be limited to a few WikiProject talkpages only, with the goal of testing out our first stab at peer-to-peer discussion functionality and improving it based on feedback from the WikiProject members who use it. If you've got any thoughts on the MVP, or on the philosophy we're trying to follow with this software, let us know on the Flow talkpage. If you know of a WikiProject that might be interested in testing this out, let Maryana know on her talkpage :)
Second: we're having a set of discussions around some experimental features we'll be trying in the first release. These include indenting and nesting of comments and comment editing. If you've got any practical thoughts on these, we'd appreciate hearing them. For background and feedback on the design, there are the ongoing set of design iteration notes, a Design FAQ, and a page for design feedback.
The software prototype is still in early development, and changing daily in small ways, with major goals updating every 2 weeks. If you've got comments about other bits of the software, we'll be holding an
IRC office hours session in #wikimedia-office at
18:00 UTC on 17 November to talk about Flow as a whole, and fielding questions on the talkpage before and after then.
Third: this is a pre-newsletter announcement of a new WP:Flow/Newsletter signup page! If you'd like further updates, details, and requests for input, please add your name there.
Thanks, Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 19:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fluffernutter. I don't know if you remember me, but we talked a long time ago after I saw a presentation you did at an old Wikimania. I changed my username since then, since my old username had identifiable information.
I've sort of exhausted my patience on this article and I don't feel the Talk page discussion is going in a productive direction. I was wondering if you would take a look at whether the article is fair.
I do not have a COI, but an editor at COIN asked me to participate on a volunteer basis; a PR rep from Bell Pottinger (I think it was Pottinger?) brought the article to our attention. CorporateM ( Talk) 17:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
05:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New features
[[
File:Gerrit_patchset_25838_test.svg|lang=de]]
for the German layer of
File:Gerrit patchset 25838 test.svg.VisualEditor news
Future
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
09:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you unprotect Stephanie Adams if the reason for its full-protection no longer applies? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 22:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia for the kitten pictures. It's really the only reason I still show up occasionally.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Haven't reverted, but don't think you should have removed the evidence. Awien ( talk) 02:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
At any rate, though, I will point out again that the removed comment remains accessible in the talk page's history, which means it can be cited (as a diff or just in prose) if necessary in reference to Bonkers's behavior or to the article's status. I also posted a comment on the talk page noting that I had removed content from Bonker's edit and indicating the nature of the removed content, so readers who see that section will be fully aware that he said something that is no longer immediately visible. I think you're underestimating Wikipedians by assuming that his exact words not being visible in the current version of the talk page means that they are inaccessible or forgotten - anyone who is sufficiently interested in the article or in Bonkers is likely to be an experienced enough Wikipedian to know how to use page histories.
I can tell that you are upset and offended by this whole situation, and believe me, I sympathize with that, but please try to remember while from the inside it may feel like a good idea to force a "badge of shame" to stay visible so you can use it as proof against someone, in the larger world that means our readers would see gratuitous racial slurs that seem to have Wikipedia's approval, since no one has removed them. Everything that is said on Wikipedia, especially in our articles and their talk pages, can and will be taken by the public as us tacitly approving of it if it's not removed - that's why even if it's politically expedient to keep offensive commentary so we can point to it, we remove it anyway so our readers (who don't know that we might only be keeping it so we can point to it as an example of what NOT to do) don't think we support it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 20:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to AlexTiefling's rhetoric, but it's because of your point about Sue's talk page and not because of the threat of discretionary sanctions. If you check my edits, you'll see that I've been one of the only editors reaching across the line to try to push this thing toward resolution through open discussion. My talk page, for example, where Adam and I discuss some of the diffs. DHeyward's talk page where I suggest he ease up on Phil. Sue's talk page where I try to politely reason with 7. Two kinds of pork's talk page where I discuss not going after April Arcus because she already apologized. The workshop page where I've tried to get polarized editors on both sides to find middle ground. I understand that my frustrated comments to Alex were a concern to you, but I think you need to take a look at the wider picture before calling me especially problematic.--v/r - T P 16:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fluffernutter. Please understand I am not questioning your judgment or offering any sort of disrespect. Rather, I seek abstract clarification. You apparently suppressed [1] some information posted to this evidence page, after it had been fully protected. Subsequently, you apparently informed the poster of your action [2]. You are not a member of ArbCom nor are you a clerk, so I'm curious as to why this was done. I am not looking for particular details, but the abstract rationale behind doing this. It is a highly unusual circumstance. Your clarification would be most welcome. Thanks, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I found you (and this article) because I linked-stepped through the Manning case. For whatever reason, I thought the oldest continuous law-firm in the US was interesting so I found some newspaper articles and added some information to Rawle & Henderson. Is it ok now? Thanks. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 18:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
NE Ent 02:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I included a link to source discussing it the Google bombing of Craig James' campaign. Note also that the Google bomb of his campaign is an example listed on the Google bomb entry. It's not negative toward him, since he did not, in fact, murder five hookers. The Google bombing of his campaign with the false accusation is something that occurred, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.77 ( talk) 16:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
It didn't basically say "and also, he's accused of killing hookers," because "Google bomb" is a distinct term with a distinct meaning. And since it's one of the most famous Google bombs, it's very notable. The source (and the source linked in the Google bomb entry on Wikipedia) are reliable. The truth is that you could've added a single word if you felt it was necessary to reiterate his innocence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.77 ( talk) 19:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Since I noticed you warned people on Sue Garnder's page to calm it down, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind monitoring the discussion to have another move?
/info/en/?search=Talk:Bradley_Manning#Postpone_move_discussion
CoffeeCrumbs has correctly noticed that people are already starting to snipe at each other over a possibly delay, and when the move discussion does occur, it has a high likelihood of getting nasty. While others have already started to look for an admin to decide the outcome of the discussion, it would be very helpful to have another one to crack the whip. Thanks. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 14:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Might I ask you to gently comment on this edit by Greatness Bites? I read it as dismissive of Manning's disorder ("gender bending excitement", "With the novelty wearing off, his feminine side is already receiving noticeably less attention."), and... well, currently the conversation is quite polite and orderly. Their comment is a perfectly reasonable !vote but also introduces an unproductive note to the discussion. 7daysahead ( talk) 15:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
[3]. Please confirm receipt. OSTheRobot ( talk) 11:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing inflammatory about my vote. I gave my reasons for my vote,that's not disa-allowed for any vote. I've re-checked that page, and I see no restrictions on referencing Bradley Manning's gender either. You haven't voted, only commented, so I realize your comment is neutral, but honestly, I see no problem with my comments, as they reference both policy and common sense. I would hope you would refactor, as this would be a violation of WP:TPO. As you know, there are only a few reasons to refactor comments on a talk page, my comment doesn't fall into those exemptions. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 14:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@OBI - Your comment that it's transphobic is bullshit. It's not transphobic to say Bradley Manning's a man. Wikipedia doesn't give care what gender your or I say someone is , it's what their name is , reliably sourced. Bradley Manning is well-known as Bradley Manning. Further any reference to Chelsea is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Chelsea Manning is not notable, the event in question hasn't even happened yet, so no, my reasons are pure policy. This "transphobia" bullshit is purse smoke screen, sorry, but it is. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 15:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@Fluffernutter this is not OK, it is an opinion, it could have been phrased better, but removing it because you disagree with is it NOT OK. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 15:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@ Obiwankenobi: I removed Kosh's commentary because it was inflammatory to the conversation and a borderline BLP violation. I am attending to the RM solely in an administrative capacity, and my goal is to keep the conversation from running off the rails into BLP violations and personal attacks. In light of that, "[person who identifies as a woman] is a woman" is neither inflammatory (you'll notice that no one from any side of the dispute has objected to comments of that type prior to this) nor a potential BLP violation (a significant portion of the community feels that denying a transperson's gender identity is problematic on BLP grounds, but no one feels that affirming it or not addressing it is a BLP violation). So comments affirming Manning's gender identity may be contrary to the guidelines, but they are benign in comparison to comments refuting it, which have been shown to cause ill will and disruptive derails, and I am trying to use the lightest touch possible in adminning the RM. I took (and will take) the step of redacting someone's comment only in the case of things that are likely to cause serious issue.
@ KoshVorlon: As I noted on your talk page, this topic area is under discretionary sanctions. That means that administrators are given wide latitude to take what actions they believe necessary to keep the topic area under control. I redacted your comment under that provision, based on the reasoning I just explained to Obiwan; discretionary sanctions would also empower me to topic-ban you or restrict your ability to participate in the RM, but I felt that the issue could be dealt with with a lighter touch by simply redacting the inflammatory parts of your comment and asking you not to restore them. I realize this makes you feel hard-done-by, but again, I did this with an eye toward keeping the RM from derailing, not due to any personal animus toward you or your opinions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 15:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict, of course) Hi. I've undone your edit here. I don't really have more to say than what was in my edit summary. I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments you have that your redaction was appropriate (I briefly scanned through your recent contributions looking for a rationale for your edit), but currently it appears to be selective enforcement of a questionable discussion guideline. That's neither fair nor acceptable. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 15:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Note to talk page stalkers and watchers: I appear to be attempting to admin Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request singlehandedly at the moment; this means that I'm doing things on the fly according to my best judgment. Going by only one person's judgment is never a great idea in a case like this, and I would very much appreciate if any uninvolved admins or experienced editors could a) sanity check my administrative choices and let me know what they think here, and b) join in with trying to keep things flowing smoothly at the RM. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 15:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@Obi - I wasn't yelling at you at all... sorry it came across that way. I really was stating all the claims of transphobia are bullshit, because they really are. They're being thrown around to silence anyone that wants state the obvious, Bradley Manning's a guy. And @Fluffernutter, saying that isn't a BLP violation. You now have consensus on a 3 to 1 basis showing your revert is incorrect. Don't revert back please. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@ MZMcBride: I'm not supportive of your reversion. While I am sympathetic to your argument, and would not have remove the comment myself, admins have a tough enough time trying to impose DS, without having close calls reverted. (It may be ironic that I'm asking for a modification of the block in the next section, but not really. I didn't change the block length myself, I started a discussion.) Admins do not get a pass for any edit done under the umbrella of DS, but I think the process should be, absent egregious violations, which this isn't, to open a separate discussion. Herding the cats in this long argument is tough enough. There's a process for discussing a questionable DS and BRD is not the right process.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to strongly endorse what Obi-Wan Kenobi is saying here. Unlike many of the comments in the previous move debate, this one was not inflammatory nor grossly offensive. You won't help consensus by eliminating contrary comments which are made in good faith, even if they're based on a premise that you reject and that you expect the closing admin to ignore. Kosh's opinion is not a rare one. It was my own opinion too until this whole thing kicked off. But if I'd been the target of heavy-handed admin actions for expressing it, perhaps I might not have stuck around and learned enough about the subject to change my opinion to a more accepting one. – Smyth\ talk 22:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm appealing this block at Arbitration Enforcement. I recognize that this is a high pressure area, and that you were under stress, and that Kosh behaved heatedly after your !vote reasoning deletion, and even that TParis, whom I respect highly, supports your action ... but your basic reasoning for the !vote reasoning deletion and subsequent block was unsound, given that you didn't do the same to mirror arguments on the other side of the move proposal. Multiple people have pointed this out to you, here and on WP:ANI, where you requested they take the appeal to the proper channels, so I'm guessing my adding to them will not have any different effect. Doing so. -- GRuban ( talk) 15:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Please review it.--v/r - T P 15:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the block of KoshVorlon is too long. I do realize the subject is intense, and that's why DS are in place, and they are intended to help make sure things do not get out of hand. However, the statements by Kosh, unless I missed some, would not normally have resulted in a block in other circumstances. I did look at the block log, which looks long, but it isn't as long as it appears. The first three entries should be one - as Jennavecia issued a block, but made two more entries to tweak the rationale. The 2012 entries were simply an error, and in my opinion support the rationale for excision (but that's a subject for another day). That still leaves three other entries, but no blocks in over two years. Given the nature of the discussion, which may yet be SNOW closed, I'd be happier with a return to a 31 hour block (24 if first offense, but not a first offense).-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Please join the
Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. -- Pharos ( talk) 22:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
Re [4] -- cleansing to you?? That's not gonna help. When I saw the block earlier I was thinking of posting some sort of "Barnstar of stupidity" thing here on your page -- 'cause you just gotta know that trying to ride herd over yet another Manning fracas -- while undoubtedly the right thing to do and good for the encyclopedia -- is just going to bring a heap of undeserved grief. Best just to quack like the other duck and, as you correctly did, point folks to WP:AE. You can even think "good luck with that" but obviously we don't type that out loud. NE Ent 23:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
[[To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite; To forgive wrongs darker than death or night; To defy Power, which seems omnipotent; To love, and bear; to hope till Hope creates From its own wreck the thing it contemplates; Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent; This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free; This is alone Life, Joy, Empire, and Victory|Alex (parrot)]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember our Fallen ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New features
VisualEditor news
Future
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I have a concern about the accusation by Coffee Crumbs underneath the redacted vote by Arkady Rose. It contains a claim that Coffee Crumbs was being singled out or directly referenced ("this characterization of my comments"). As the redacted bit of Arkady Rose was general in scope, there's no way for any one to know that she never mentioned a specific editor or specific editor's claim in them, and that you only removed it (I think) to avoid drama in general. As it stands it looks like his claim that he was specifically singled out is uncontested and proven. I am not speaking to your decision to redact in the first place, I just think letting the accusation stand beside an unreadable comment could be seen as an explicit endorsement of the claim. And I don't want to stir anything up, so I chose to ask you for your thoughts here instead of directly addressing the comment on the page itself. I know it's sticky and you are using a light touch, but I hope you see how it could be read as it is now. Thanks for all your work here, in any case. I appreciate your bravery and sensitivity here. __ Elaqueate ( talk) 14:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You may want to review this one as well. I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
SportsFan5000 is deleting comments on /info/en/?search=Talk:Patrick_Califia. I reverted him, and he deleted the comments again. Can you please look into this? Thanks. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 04:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You sorted something out for me much earlier today and I wanted to say thank you.-- Antiqueight confer 18:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for working to keep
this recent move request civil and on-topic. Your actions to remove only those portions of comments (from people on both sides of the issue) that were egregiously inappropriate and irrelevant to the move request, while not removing the underlying !votes or many other questionable comments, showed balance and restraint. If admins had done during the previous move request what you did for this move request, rather than doing nothing at all, the previous request would not have become the mess that it became. -sche ( talk) 02:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC) |
Hey Fluffernutter. I'm dropping you a note to let you know (or remind you) about Flow, the structured discussion system for Wikipedia that we're building. You may have heard about some of the longer-term vision for Flow in the past, but in the last two months we've been moving quickly to narrow down the short-term scope of the project, and we're keen to get feedback.
First: we've written up an explanation of the " minimum viable product" – the set of features that will be in the first, on-wiki deployment. Because discussions on Wikipedia are complex and varied, we're approaching Flow development as an incremental process of uncovering user needs for different types of discussion. The first release will be limited to a few WikiProject talkpages only, with the goal of testing out our first stab at peer-to-peer discussion functionality and improving it based on feedback from the WikiProject members who use it. If you've got any thoughts on the MVP, or on the philosophy we're trying to follow with this software, let us know on the Flow talkpage. If you know of a WikiProject that might be interested in testing this out, let Maryana know on her talkpage :)
Second: we're having a set of discussions around some experimental features we'll be trying in the first release. These include indenting and nesting of comments and comment editing. If you've got any practical thoughts on these, we'd appreciate hearing them. For background and feedback on the design, there are the ongoing set of design iteration notes, a Design FAQ, and a page for design feedback.
The software prototype is still in early development, and changing daily in small ways, with major goals updating every 2 weeks. If you've got comments about other bits of the software, we'll be holding an
IRC office hours session in #wikimedia-office at
18:00 UTC on 17 November to talk about Flow as a whole, and fielding questions on the talkpage before and after then.
Third: this is a pre-newsletter announcement of a new WP:Flow/Newsletter signup page! If you'd like further updates, details, and requests for input, please add your name there.
Thanks, Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 19:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fluffernutter. I don't know if you remember me, but we talked a long time ago after I saw a presentation you did at an old Wikimania. I changed my username since then, since my old username had identifiable information.
I've sort of exhausted my patience on this article and I don't feel the Talk page discussion is going in a productive direction. I was wondering if you would take a look at whether the article is fair.
I do not have a COI, but an editor at COIN asked me to participate on a volunteer basis; a PR rep from Bell Pottinger (I think it was Pottinger?) brought the article to our attention. CorporateM ( Talk) 17:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
05:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New features
[[
File:Gerrit_patchset_25838_test.svg|lang=de]]
for the German layer of
File:Gerrit patchset 25838 test.svg.VisualEditor news
Future
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
09:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you unprotect Stephanie Adams if the reason for its full-protection no longer applies? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 22:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia for the kitten pictures. It's really the only reason I still show up occasionally.