I noticed that the Campbell quote on the Reluctant Hero article is wrong. I checked the talk page on it and you said that you posted it to the article after you saw it in Hero With a Thousand Faces but you can't come up with a page number for it. I searched a PDF and my own physical copy of Hero With a Thousand Faces and can't find even the concept of reluctant hero in the book, let alone the quote in this article. Yes, refusal of the call is part of the hero's journey, but that doesn't make all heroes who refuse the call reluctant heroes any more than it makes all heroes belly of the whale heroes because they all end up in the belly of the whale at some point. To be honest, I don't think this concept of the reluctant hero is in Campbell's body of work at all. It might be a way that some others understand some of his concepts but I don't think he himself divided heroes into categories of either reluctant or adventuring at all.
I want to make sure I'm not missing something before I overhaul the article to fix the attribution error. I posted a message to the Joseph Campbell Foundation message boards asking for advice (free registration required to view the forum), since they know the subject matter better than I do. They published my edition of Hero With a Thousand Faces (it's a low traffic board though, they might not even respond).
Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I'm planning to remove the quote and try to clean up the article on Monday unless a proper citation for the reference can be found or unless somebody asks me to hold off or something.
Hi, I was wondering if you'd be interested in this topic? -- A Certain White Catchi? 00:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on the entry for Richard H. Sternedit
bd, thanks for keeping an eye so far on the Wiki entry <Richard H. Stern>. Please continue to keep an eye on it for undocumented (largely undocumentable) remarks by persistent detractor GS. I would have sent you this by email but I misplaced your address. (Would you pl. send it at your convenience.)
There are still some undocumented slurs (with no refs). The two last sentences of the second para. are w/o citation; the subject does not have a full time academic career as the entry now suggests, and I wouldn't call it all that successful--anyway it's all undocumented and at least in part undocumentable (how can you tell what somebody hopes?). (Subject is more or less a full time practitioner, considering that he is 82.) Also, the subject is still a Professorial Lecturer in Law at GW, as far as I know—-contrary to the suggestion at the end of para. 3 that he vanished in 2012. Computer Law was not taught at GW in the spring of 2013, because the prof was in a hosp and rehab home for a while due to some injuries. He got better by June 2013, and Computer Law should resume in spring 2014 with all the new sec. 101 cases. Another minor correction--the correct title of the U of Minn position is _Distinguished_ Visiting Prof of Law, a title sometimes also used at GW I think, and in any case is accurate, not a made up puff.
(This item can be deleted once read.)
PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
1) My thanks for your commitment to shepherd Chelsea Manning. Neutral eyes and level heads are invaluable.
2) I think if you review the edit history for Chelsea Manning, you'll note that immediately after the move from Bradley Manning was made to Chelsea Manning,User:David Gerard protected the move. Now, without considering whether the proper name for this article is Bradley or Chelsea I think we can all agree to two basic facts. A - The move to Chelsea was controversial (as evidenced by all the ensuing controversy), and B - There was little or no prior talkpage discussion supporting the move. I'd humbly suggest that instantly protecting obviously controversial moves is not wise. Any chance you could move back to Bradley Manning, then wait to see if consensus arises for a move to Chelsea?
I wouldn't usually badger someone to do this, but my feeling is that this is making WP look kinda silly, which disappoints me...... I worry that if we wait 7 days for consensus to develop, that will be 7 days of looking silly. NickCT (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has looked sillier than that for longer periods (and, frankly, it is not a wholly implausible title). In the long run, it will not matter where this article sits for the duration of the move discussion. bd2412T 22:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Not wholly implausible no.
Ah well. Can't blame me for trying. Well done practicing your adminly restraint. It doesn't strike me that User:David Gerard did the same. NickCT (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you should wait for a REAL consensus after longer than seven days. Seven days is not enough, even when amount of votes is humongous. Probably 14 or 20 days or until votes die down? --George Ho (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The matter is well-publicized. Editors should certainly be able to get around to expressing their opinions within the next seven days. bd2412T 11:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Why should the status of the matter be relevant? I believe that more voices shall be heard. How about ten days? --George Ho (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The standard period of time for a move request to remain open is seven days. However that determination came about, it reflects the consensus of the community that seven days is the right period of time to give the community a fair opportunity to comment on a proposal. I do note that it creates such an opportunity for editors who only edit one day a week, or only edit on the weekends. If there is a consensus in the community to extend this discussion beyond that point, I will be bound by that, but what editor will not be able to find this well-publicized discussion by next Thursday? bd2412T 17:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Then where to propose an extension? --George Ho (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
On the talk page, in the current RM discussion. It is awfully premature to propose that, in my opinion. For all we know, the discussion will fizzle out by Monday. bd2412T 17:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a note on tone, bd2312. No one put you in charge, you volunteered to keep an eye on developments. If you cannot do that without running away with yourself and a sense of authority, you should step away from the task.
It is not your place to "deny" anything. The question was directed towards the community. --RA (✍) 08:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The question was directed to ANI, after I had volunteered to take this matter on. I see no one else supporting the notion of an early close there. Of course, my decision on that point be overruled by a consensus of the community, or of administrators. Cheers! bd2412T 11:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, there's a at least one other in the same thread. Though, the discussion seems to have moved towards a technical revert for now and to continue discussion on the merits of each name. I hope you will be more observant when it comes to closing the RM.
In any case, I hope you accept it is not your place to "deny" anything, let alone community discussion. And I hope you will strike the word "denied" here. It gives a poor impression. --RA (✍) 11:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
If you believe that someone else in that same ANI thread supported early closure, please point that out to me, as I do not see it. I can assure you, however, that I will close this RM with the utmost observance, as I have done with many contentious discussions before. Cheers! bd2412T 12:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87 replied to you, at 02:13, 23 August 2013, saying "I think an early close would be the right thing to do, do you really want this mess to drag out for the next 7 days?" I'm surprised you missed it. You replied at 02:45, 23 August 2013 only one comment later in the same sub-thread of comments.
But the reason I posted here was about the word "denied". It stymies discussion. I'd appreciate it, if you'd strike it, or at least agree to avoid declaring something is "denied" (by who?) so early in a discussion. --RA (✍) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Closing the RM early would also stymie discussion, would it not? bd2412T 13:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Points I made in my rationale at the ANI thread was that (a) the RM discussion was very highly contributed to; (b) with high degree of homogeneity in !votes on both sides; and (c) that I don't foresee any new insights arriving. In that context I said I didn't see any benefit to continuing the discussion for a week and asked others for their opinion.
The purpose of discussion is to sample views and develop ideas and approaches. When discussion becomes repetitious, it can be wrapped up without it being stymied: it is already at a place where it is no longer progressing. You attempted to wrap up discussion without waiting for it to develop or see what direction it would go or how it would progress.
Do you see the difference? Your rationale was based on your diktat (wrapped up in the first-person-plural). My rationale was based on the likelihood any further benefit coming from the discussion. I also framed my post as a question ("...can the RM at the Manning page be wrapped up early per WP:IAR?"). I asked others if it should be wrapped up. You framed your post as a decree ("Denied."). You closed the discussion to input of others. I invited the input of others. You didn't wait for discussion to develop before closing it down. My question as to ask if discussion had already reached it's useful end.
Maybe in future you'll remember this conversation and be less quick to use words like "denied" so early in a discussion. Best of luck, --RA (✍) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your civility in discussing the topic, and your well wishes. Cheers! bd2412T 14:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
And you. Plus, whatever about the reason I posted here, you're doing a good job of holding a line in your approach to this case.
I don't expect you to move the article back. If I was playing your role in this discussion I couldn't. Wheel warring would be worse an outcome. There has been a touch of it already and another admin did a very good job of biting his tongue and keeping his cool in the face of it.
But, in the role I am adopting (without having put my admin hat on), I feel free to highlight that this RM should not be from the position the article is currently in. So, if I at times you find my finger in your face over the course of the next week, remember that doesn't necessarily mean I am pointing it at you. And again, good luck --RA (✍) 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
In case it's helpful, I've started a tally of comments from the survey section only. In almost all cases I've just copied the signature, which may or may not correspond with the user name, so if you want to find the account, you may have to go back into the page to click on the sig.
Please feel free to copy, edit, use, or ignore, and thanks again for stepping forward to oversee the close. SlimVirgin(talk) 17:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'd already started my own! I'm glad you've made one too, though, as we can check them against each other. (Note, I intentionally removed the struck !votes, as they were not replaced with !votes for the opposing position). Cheers! bd2412T 17:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yours looks good. I've also removed the struck votes; I placed those names in the unclear/undecided section. I've left a few comments after the accounts/IPs that have made only a few edits, or have been only sporadically used, but I only checked the obvious-looking ones, so there may be others. I'll probably keep my tally going (although it's a bit of a job so I won't promise), and as I said you're welcome to cross-reference or ignore completely. SlimVirgin(talk) 17:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yours has some that I missed, and I certainly appreciate it. Thanks! bd2412T 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Knowing that there's going to be a move review no matter how it's closed, don't you think a three-admin close would be ideal in this case? I don't doubt your credentials or sincerity, but this is bound to end in controversy. It's inevitable. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed - I have already asked two other uninvolved admins to assist in drafting and carrying out the close. bd2412T 21:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I just want to thank both of you for actually "doing it right". How it plays out I don't really care; I think both sides have good points. If we could harness this passion into improving or creating articles ... it will be interesting to look at the article and title a decade after Manning's release. To shorten, how about putting the closed sections behind show/hide bars, and the move request likewise, in (say) six hour segments (perhaps closing a segment after twenty-four hours? In any case, thank you (and your brave companions) for your part in resolving this. htom (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to mention that although it may not not affect the result to a large degree you should be aware that some voters are apparently confused about the direction of the move, writing "oppose" when their explanation clearly indicates that what they oppose is the move to "Chelsea Manning", meaning that their votes should perhaps be counted the other way. That said, I've only seen this 2 or 3 times (always mistakingly writing "oppose"), so perhaps it's not worth the additional effort required to read the explanations when tallying or the introduction of interpretation into the process. 24.16.96.146 (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I am aware of the problem - I will doublecheck my tallies, although at the end of the day this is a discussion, not merely a "vote". bd2412T 22:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey - just wondering why you didn't discount the WP:OFFICIALNAME-based !votes in your analysis. Two of the support !voters relied exclusively on that, with several others relying heavily on it. As you know, it's not a policy-based rationale for titles. Dohn joe (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It would not have changed the outcome. Also, which two? User:Casliber premised his vote on such a rationale; I see no other participant who did so. bd2412T 21:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Jacob Steven Smith could not have been more explicit. Also, Martinvl and Jeppiz both relied heavily on the "it's how they do it, so we should too" argument. Even bobrayner's "more accurate" !vote could be read that way - "Zurich" is an accurate spelling in many contexts, so calling the umlauted version "more accurate" may be an appeal to deferring to local usage as well. As for changing the outcome, if you knock off those first two, it's 7:4, which is now only 57% less than 2:1 in support - which would seem more of a "no consensus" result. And if you further discount any of the other three I mentioned - even if only partially - that support gets even weaker. Dohn joe (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I could have just as easily discounted the IP for being an IP. However, I am not interested in putting fingers on the scale to tip discussion outcomes in favor of one view or another. bd2412T 21:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no policy-based reason for discounting an IP just for being an IP. There is, though, a policy-based reason to discount !votes not based on policy. Isn't that part of the job of the closer? Dohn joe (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
If we are going to get to that level of granularity, the IP vote basically was to keep the page where it was because a previous decision had come out that way, also not policy. If I were to count everything that I could in favor of not moving, and discount everything favoring moving, then the move only prevails by a small landslide. bd2412T 23:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Why did you close the RM so quickly? There was no real consensus and the arguments where mainly based on biased statistics (I was waiting a response from In ictu oculi). Can you please reopen it for at least a few days so we can discuss it more deeply? mgeotalk 21:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
RMs run for seven days, and are one of the areas prone to backlogs. The time had run, and no editor suggested prior to that deadline that more time would be needed. bd2412T 21:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
But don't you think the discussion should be reopened now? do you really think the move followed the common name policy? mgeotalk 21:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. After you removed the disambiguation links from Mafia and moved them back to Mafia (disambiguation) all the redirects that were previously pointing correctly to Mafia (disambiguation) are now incorrect. E.g. Mafia (album), Mafia (film) etc. Would you mind completing the process by fixing them. Thanks! Tassedethe (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Blech. I mean, yes, I'm on it. Cheers! bd2412T 23:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Closure review request for Talk:Zürich#Requested move 4.edit
Wrong move? Maybe. Looks like many in support were based on the official name. Then there is a question of consensus. That is not clear at all. If you see this as overturning previous closes, you need a strong consensus which I think you said in the close is not there. Note well that whatever you do here will be wrong for many editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The tile has gone back and forth, meaning that this doesn't overturn the previous close any more than previous close overturned the close before. I am hesitant to restir the pot. However, I note that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Diacritics in Latin alphabet European names titles, the outcome of which could affect this article title. I will mention it there. bd2412T 02:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I started a Move review of Zürich. Sorry I had no choice... mgeotalk 06:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC) --> mgeotalk 06:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I completely understand. I would also recommend, however, that you participate in the discussion mentioned above about use of diacritics in article titles, if you have not already. Cheers! bd2412T 15:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Since Bradley got moved to Chelsea without any apparent demonstration of consensus for the move, which has obviously turned out to be rather contentious, a "no consensus" result on the current move proposal means we go back to the original title, right? Not doing so would seem to send a message to certain admins (*cough* User:David Gerard) that they can push their POV if the simply protect controversial moves until it can be shown that there is no consensus for either title. NickCT (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Your first claim is factually incorrect, as has been noted on said talk page multiple times.
You keep trying to make an end-run around WP:RM. Why is this? - David Gerard (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
This is the talk page at the time you protected the page. You seem to think that consensus for a move was apparent on the talk page at that time. Would you care to elaborate on which conversations you felt were a clear demonstration of consensus?
re "You keep trying to make an end-run around WP:RM. Why is this?" - That's a little rich coming from someone whose end-run around WP:RM started this issue. NickCT (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
My talk page is probably not the best venue for this discussion. The circumstances surrounding the genesis of the current situation have been discussed fairly exhaustively on the article's talk page. bd2412T 14:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Before you continue in your description of the recent history, I thought I should clarify to you (as it has been missed by many people, myself included) that Cls14's reversion of Morwen's first move was due to a misunderstanding, not an objection to the move itself. As noted in Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 4#Time to move the article to Chelsea Manning, Cls14 hadn't heard of the name change and Manning's new gender identity and thought the move was just vandalism. Apparently, Cls14 even gave Morwen permission to restore the move. -- tariqabjotu 18:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a significant detail, which I will add to the history. Mind you, what I am writing there is only a personal framework for me to review the issues, although I will probably end up proposing to the other two admins on the closing panel that much of it should be incorporated into the closing summary itself. bd2412T 18:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Meet up with local Wikipedians on September 14!edit
Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill[talk] 19:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Another link for your sandbox if wanted: BLPN discussion, May 2012, about the move from Bradley to Breanna. Also, you might want to note that the move protection added on 5 May 2012 expired 1 June 2012. I actually thought at the time that it had been permanently move protected. As always, though, just ignore if this is too detailed. SlimVirgin(talk) 19:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - the BLPN discussion is significant. I was aware that the move protection was temporary, but the import is that protection was considered necessary at all. I will clarify the situation. bd2412T 19:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget the "support" !votes stating they were conditional on media usage. And, more generally, tallies of common support/oppose rationales.
(Thanks for taking on this hairball, btw.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't thank me yet; I'm sure a substantial percentage of the participants in this discussion will have nothing good to say about me after the close, no matter how it goes. Cheers! bd2412T 22:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:BRD isn't policy, and shouldn't be referenced as such. It's a nit, but the kind of nit that can cause trouble.—Kww(talk) 16:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That does change the angle of reflection, for my thinking. bd2412T 16:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It isn't policy, but it's very much a "spirit of Wikipedia" sort of thing, where we encourage discussion instead of pointless back-and-forth and other disruptive activities. I think you handled that well in your revision. BOZ (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I take it you've seen this, but here it is again, in case not. SlimVirgin(talk) 18:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I have seen it, but since I am not participating in the discussion, the question is whether it will influence the participants. bd2412T 19:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if all of the participants could agree to not bring this to move review, no matter what outcome. Just seems like it would not be worth it, esp when you have a council of 3 reviewing the close. Couldn't we just all agree to accept the result? Perhaps this is wishful thinking. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I am writing this to you in order to inform you that some Turkish-related articles have for quite some time been hijacked by a group of editors whose only goal, it seems, is to negatively portray the Republic of Turkey, its predesseccors and its people as warmongerming murderers.
This has especially become a problem in the article of List of massacres in Turkey where they only allow information about Turks killing others, and delete all reliabely sourced information about massacres against Turks/Muslims. By doing WP:OR, discrediting sources and authors, source falsification, distortion and tag bombing.
Sources which state the number of Muslims casualties during the Greco-Turkish war is persistently being deleted.
Your help is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.77.28 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm kind of up to my neck right now. Try WP:ANI. Cheers! bd2412T 21:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
While I believe your intentions are good, I feel you've made a serious error in assigning extra weight to Jimbo's not-a-vote and I've raised the issue at his talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe your concern is premature. First, I have not assigned any weight to anything yet, I have simply noted the fact of Jimbo having an opinion on the matter. Second, when the time does come for 'assigning weight', I will be one member of a three-admin panel to consider the issue. bd2412T 11:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Propose extension of move discussion of Manning?edit
Although discussion is slowing down, I still think a few more days would be enough, like 10 days total. --George Ho (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason why any experienced editor who wishes to participate in the discussion would be unable to register their opinion by Thursday. Given the large amount of early participation, and the clear slowdown in new participation on the page, it is unlikely in the extreme that a few more days will do anything other than open the floodgates to inexperienced, newly registered SPAs. bd2412T 12:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Unable to post to discussion regarding Manning - any avenues for timely action?edit
Let me begin by apologising if this is not the right place to raise this question.
I was directed by the Wikipedia Information team to post any comments regarding the article on Private Manning to the Talk page for that article, which I see you are administering. I subsequently discovered that the discussion on that page was limited to established users. I sent a further email to the Wikipedia Information team requesting advice on what timely action I could take. 24 hours have passed without a response.
Would you be so kind as to advise what timely action, if any, I can take?
As a long-term user, donor and defender of Wikipedia's encyclopedic integrity, I would like to comment on the article as well as on the discussion on the article. It took me a few days to make the time to discover the behind the scenes machinery of Wikipedia and to establish an account. The four day waiting period will mean that I will may be too late to contribute.
Thank you.
Regards
Teamkric
Teamkric (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Update: I have sent my proposed post to the Information team and asked that they forward it to you in the hope that some pre-vetting process - by you or another - is possible. Again, apologies, but the locking of the Talk page and the absence of a response from the Information team leaves me at a bit of a loss. Feel free to email me if that would be helpful. Teamkric (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Occasionally, when we have a contentious discussion, we place a level of protection on the page which insures that participation is limited to experienced editors, who are most likely to have worked with the addition of content in conformance with Wikipedia's policies. However, you may be able to find an experienced editor who is willing to convey your comments in the discussion (there are a few comments on the page that are noted to have been placed there in such a manner). As I have volunteered to participate in the closure of the discussion, it would not be appropriate for me to do so. Cheers! bd2412T 12:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you BD2412. And thank you also for being patient with me as I take my baby steps here on Wikipedia. I have emailed SlimVirgin. Is it appropriate in due course to remove this from and thereby declutter your Talk page. I give my consent if it is required for you to do that. Please let me know if you need me to do something. Kind regards. Teamkric (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
No worries. When my talk page gets too long, I will archive it. Cheers! bd2412T 23:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Fullest most detailed rationale for original move postededit
I am aware of the arguments being raised on both sides. Aside from some additional precedents pointed out, this is basically a concise summation of arguments already raised throughout the discussion. However, the primary question being put on the plate of the closing panel is: what is the consensus of the community with respect to these arguments? bd2412T 15:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Your patience is to be commended. I see that my idea of splitting into two pages isn't going to fly, but something the second announcement from Manning might. Write the article portions from birth through the sentencing as Bradley with masculine pronouns, and the other portions (including the lead, announcement, appeals, ...) with Chelsea and feminine pronouns. htom (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
An article can only have one title; the dispute at hand is about the title, and is separate and distinct from the questions regarding use of pronouns and nomenclature within the body of the article. bd2412T 14:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Granted, and I should have noted that. I suspect that could actually be changed, allowing an article to have multiple titles; there are good reasons not to do that (especially where the world has edit and rename permission!)
I'm not understanding why you are tagging these dabs as incomplete. As far as I know, these are the only churches by those names in NYC, and the dab is about NYC, not about all churches by that name everywhere. That would be another dab page, which anyone interested is welcome to put together. What's your thinking here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
This is policy, per WP:INCOMPDAB. A disambiguation page can only be at a base page name with no parenthetical, or at a (disambiguation) parenthetical. Cheers! bd2412T 23:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, not policy, an editing guideline. Kind of a stupid rule, since the pages are helpful to the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The alternate parentheticals will still redirect to the properly titled disambig pages, or sections therein, once the merges and moves are done. Please note that if we don't limit disambiguation titles like this, it becomes much harder to separate out appropriately disambiguated pages from pages errantly tagged as disambiguation pages, and also makes it that much harder to find and fix all disambiguation links, particularly links that intentionally point to a disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412T 23:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
... some external sources indicate that "Bradley" can be a male name or a female name. However, "Bradley" as a male name is exceedingly rare.
I believe that your second "Bradley" was meant to be a "Chelsea". Cheers! -- 200.7.90.57 (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as it is very much a rough notepad. bd2412T 14:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding a BLP subject's preferred name and the title of their BLPedit
I've have just noticed your response in this thread at WT:AT
Right. But we follow usage in (recent) reliable sources, not the stated wishes of the individual. For example, we have Cat Stevens, not Yusuf Islam. --B2C 03:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree - giving more weight to more recent sources is still relying on the sources. bd2412T 03:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You appear to agree that we follow usage in (recent) reliable sources, not the stated wishes of the individual.
It is not a question of whether my mind is made up. That is what WP:COMMONNAME prefers. However, there are exceptions. With respect to the application of this principle to any given case, I am open to the evidence. If you are asking with respect to the current move request at Talk:Chelsea Manning, my views are irrelevant, as I am not participating in that discussion, and will only be (along with atwo other administrators) determining the consensus of the actual participants. bd2412T 15:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, your view is very relevant. I supported the contested move based on the BLP subject's wish to be called Chelsea. If you were of the view that the subject's choice of name has no bearing on what we name the article then, given that clear misunderstanding of WP:BLP, you would not be competent to judge the outcome.
Closers are expected to weigh the strength of the arguments against a good grasp of policy, and that includes a good grasp of WP:BLP. I've just searched for your name and the term "blp" and looked at the first 178 of 765 results and found virtually no involvement with discussions relating to or relying on WP:BLP; quite a bit relating to RM, XFD and DAB involving title discussions; no instance of you or your interlocutors invoking or mentioning BLP as bearing on a title choice. (Perhaps you do have such experience but I haven't seen any yet.) This isn't unusual - I'm sure it's a rare title discussion where BLP considerations come into play.
My concern is that an editor who has a lot of RM, XFD and DAB experience but none involving BLP, may not recognise when BLP needs to be considered, or may not even know that WP:BLP does apply to an article's title.
You mention that there are exceptions (where, I assume, other factors than the manual of style may influence our title choice). Is it your view that WP:BLP is one of those factors; may WP:BLP, under some circumstances, legitimately influence our choice of an article's title? I'm not asking whether BLP considerations should influence our title choice in the Manning case, of course, that will depend on the evidence and arguments.
I won't be following up with any more questions. But I'd very much appreciate an answer to this one. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker here) - I think it's awesome that BD2412 is making his notes open and taking commentary on them; however, I think questioning the evolving thinking and querying him on particular points (e.g. what is your opinion on this, is your mind made up on that, etc) goes too far. Let's focus our comments to the discussion, and/or provide minor corrections/clarifications to the closing notes as needed, but otherwise we should let the deliberation of our respected closers happen without meta-involvement by concerned editors. Once the close is complete, I'm sure there will be much discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
@Anthonyhcole, as it happens, I do have occasions to invoke BLP; I don't think it's the sort of thing that would be likely to come up in a search of Wikipedia's contents, as such invocation is likely to be restricted to edit summaries. With respect to BLP being a factor in the choice of an article title, of course it is. I agree that it would be rare for it to come up in a title dispute, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Simpson (obese), which is to me a fairly obvious case of it properly being applied. bd2412T 19:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, BD. That first link is a classic. And I hope poor Donna didn't have to wait too long for the name change to (Internet personality)! By the way, I feel I know you intimately after all that stalking, and I'm very comfortable with you closing this RfC. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)
In your sandbox on the Manning move case (which you have commendably agreed to close) I see that you claim that "[i]t is a longstanding practice to discount IP votes and single purpose votes". Firstly, IPs and SPAs are far from the same thing. Secondly, while discounting SPAs is understandable (especially suspected sock puppets), discounting IP !voters simply for not registering (as opposed to discounting them based on the weakness of their arguments) goes against most of what I've read on Wikipedia's consensus building process and the participation pillar. I note that I have not experienced problems in the ITN discussions. That said, and as I am unable to edit the talk page, I would like to oppose the move. Chelsea Manning appears to be the common name now. Otherwise I am in general agreement with Jimbo Wales's out-of-process oppose. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
"Discount" is not the same as "not counting at all". It merely means that admins frequently give less weight to IP votes based on the practical impossibility of knowing how much knowledge an IP editor has obtained through the experience of editing and dealing with issues. You may note that I have included IP votes in the sandbox to which you refer, including summaries of their arguments. Nothing is going unconsidered here. Cheers! bd2412T 20:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I did see you had included the few IPs who !voted before the warranted protection. However, according to my dictionary discount means "to think or say that sth. is not important or true" (with "dismiss" as a synonym), whereas Wiktionary says "to leave out of account; to take no notice of". To me these definitions seem to imply "not counting at all"; would rephrasing be possible to make your meaning clearer. Good luck with the close, and thank you for adding my !vote. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
"I just want to tell you good luck, we're all counting on you."edit
As I was thinking about the closing and consensus assessing you have to do soon, I couldn't help but think of these scenes from Airplane! Anyway, just wanted to say I appreciate all the legwork you've done, and for taking the time to put your evaluation out in the open. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 07:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. You're the dude BD2412.
Just as a random thought on this debate; I note with some interest that the common name argument (which was my primary motivator in this debate) seems weaker now than it did when this fiasco started 7 days ago as more and more RSs have come out in support of "Chelsea". I sorta suspected this would happen, but thought we'd have to wait months to see a substantial shift. Guess things moved faster than I'd expected (and faster than Mr. Wales expected for that matter).
The facts surrounding this debate literally seem to have shifted while we've been arguing. Good luck trying to explain that subtlety in your closing!! NickCT (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, as the above said. Not sure why I'm so eager to see the result of this. @NickCT: The COMMONNAME argument was always bound to get weaker; there certainly weren't going to be more sources using the name Bradley! I'd just be hesitant (not what you've suggested, but what others have suggested) to say the COMMONNAME argument should be discounted now, even though there still remain reliable sources using Bradley; there's subjectivity regarding what constitutes common. -- tariqabjotu 14:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
@tariqabjotu - re "I'd just be hesitant .... should be discounted now" - I too am hesitant. What makes me particularly hesitant is that those who were wrong to move the page 7 days ago will take a change in position as some kind of vindication and I'm guessing most others will see it that way. Grrrrr.... Ah well, sometimes I guess that's just how the cookie crumbles.
Regardless, we should probably try to avoid cluttering poor BD2412's talk page. He's received/will receive enough grief over this. NickCT (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Please note: I am aware of the shift in usage by some sources, and the arguments that have been made with respect to its effect in the RM discussion. I believe that most participants in the discussion are reasonable editors who are willing to adjust their views to conform with the changing field of evidence, and note that a number of editors switched positions on the basis of this trend, while others noted this trend, but argued for maintaining their positions - at least for the time being. bd2412T 14:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
bd2412 is aware! I never doubted it. I'd like it noted that I am not one of the reasonable editors willing to adjust their views with changing evidence. NickCT (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not mean to suggest that all reasonable editors will adjust their views (which suggests that editors who do not adjust their views are unreasonable). Many of the editors who noted the trend but decided to maintain their position did so because, in their view, the trend itself was not substantial enough to justify a change in position. This is also a reasonable position to take. bd2412T 15:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh I understand. I was really just trying to point out that I'm not a reasonable editor. Wasn't trying to suggest I'm a reasonable editor who won't change his position. NickCT (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I just want to echo the sentiments expressed above by thanking you for overseeing this debate. Regardless of the outcome, I appreciate your efforts to diligently oversee the debate and openly evaluate the merits of each argument. Best of luck to you and the rest of your committee! Edge3 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought but it may be best to move the RM discussion to an archive number of its own and then full protect it until you three have finished. This has been done on some previous mega RMs - Taiwan springs to mind - and will prevent any alterations to the discussion post close. If you want I can do this myself. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
@Timrollpickering - What's the benefit? Wouldn't we be able to see it if someone were trying to edit the discussion post the debate? Why would someone do that? If there was some kind of malicious intent, I'm sure it would be noted and the perpetrator dealt with accordingly. NickCT (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The immediate difference is that the discussion by itself is very, very large, which affects the page loading time. I have no objection if someone wants to set up a separate page and move the discussion there, so long as it is prominently linked so as to be readily found from the talk page. bd2412T 15:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Moving it to a sub page is good. Clears the air, at a minimum, and allow us to move on while BD2313 and co trawl through it. There were a very large number of related comments out-of-process both on the Manning page and in ANI that should probably be taken in to consideration too IMO.
Any thoughts on how many days (or weeks?) you'll need BD2412? Who else is closing the RM with you? --RA (✍) 16:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the discussion to Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request; I have also fully protected the page, to expire in three days. The other closers are User:BOZ and User:Kww. I imagine that we will finish what we need to do in a day or two at most, but as a precaution, note the word "imagine" there. bd2412T 16:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer that the page be at the more specific "requested move" title. It's not the usual archiving, and I don't want to give the impression that Wikipedia has decided to put it away without doing anything about it. Let's redirect the archive for now, and when the matter is finally done we can move the discussion there over the redirect. bd2412T 16:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No probs. Your computer seems to load faster than mine with that monster - can you perform that? Timrollpickering (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I am winding down my day now, so I will start reviewing your notes shortly. I hope to be able to make some comments in a few hours.
By the way, thanks for the quick pick on the night hag. TTN just came back from a nearly 4-year wikibreak and has been on quite a tear with AFDs. Many of them are longshots, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are hopeless – if you can add anything to any of them, hey, who knows what can happen. :) BOZ (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, this particular creature is discussed at greater length in A Practical Guide to Monsters, but I can't see the text. Other than than a really awful book on Christian Spiritual Warfare citing the night hag as proof that D&D = Satan, everything I have seen so far is from TSR. bd2412T 22:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hah, got you... actually, I was referring to the 20-ish other articles that TTN has nominated for AFD within the last few days... :o Egads! BOZ (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Really? I guess someone gave him a case of Red Bull. bd2412T 22:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess it gave him wings. ;) I don't know, if you get a chance to look at any of them to see if you can find some sources, that would be great, but it is a big task to take on! BOZ (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the better tactic is to suggest merge targets. At least if information from one of these is merged elsewhere, the work of putting it together is preserved and the page history is kept under the redirect. When more information is developed, the pages can be broken back out into freestanding articles. bd2412T 22:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's been my response for the most part. BOZ (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've forwarded you the email I received from Manning's lawyer so you can read for yourself what he said about the title. It was a little unclear, so I asked for clarification, but haven't received a response yet. However, as the RM has now closed, I've sent you what I have, and posted a summary on the talk page. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the information. I don't think it changes the analysis, insofar as we are already aware that the subject has a preference to be called Chelsea. I believe that this aspect of this dispute was thoroughly presented in the discussion, and weighed into the comments of the participants. I am a little bit worried that communication with Manning's attorney could potentially become part of the story - "On August 29, 2013, Wikipedia contacted Manning's attorney to clarify...". Not that we haven't handled that sort of thing before. bd2412T 22:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually I contacted the lawyer a couple of days ago, and it was more about the pronoun and the photograph in response to his blog post. But I asked about the title too, and that was the part of the response that was less clear. I wouldn't worry about anything the media might say; I'd be surprised if they're interested at this point in what WP does, except maybe for some bloggers. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure you had all the information. Best of luck with your decision either way. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. One thing that I have found to be really interesting about this process is the gathering of precedents. It seems that it is not until a dispute comes up that editors will dig up a large number of relevant examples of pages to which the policies and guidelines under review have been applied. It would be nice if we had a library of these indexed to the rule, so that it would be easier to point to proper past applications. bd2412T 23:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
12 hours passed since the closing. So far, I bet analyzing it would be completed for two days or less? --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I had hoped to get this done by tomorrow, but my colleagues are somewhat constrained in their schedules; I think it is likely to be resolved by Saturday. bd2412T 03:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
BD2412, I did review your notes yesterday evening and put down some thoughts of my own, although I was unable to get online at that time. If discussion has not already started somewhere without me, is there a place the three of us can begin discussing the close? BOZ (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I am open to any place - I can just create a new section at the top of my User:BD2412/sandbox2, and push the rest of the content down. How does that sound? Or should we just start a new page? bd2412T 15:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If I may be so bold (I know I've suggested that you don't need a backseat driver) but wanted to throw this out - keep the move discussion private (e.g. go to a private IRC room or a private google document or something else off-wiki) - I think having editors scrutinize your discussions as they are ongoing would not necessarily be conducive to a good close. Perhaps the judges should retire to their chambers, as it were. Again, just a friendly suggestion! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not opposed to that if the other closing admins prefer it, but neither do I feel any compulsion to shroud my deliberations in secrecy. I have been quite open in my sandbox in evaluating the various issues presented, and I think such openness is good for the community in the long run. bd2412T 15:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
E-mail is my preference, Skype a close second if you two are the kind that like to talk in real-time.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
E-mail is fine with me also. I am not set up for Skype. Give me a minute and I'll ping the both of you. bd2412T 15:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
BOZ, I don't see the email option for you. Send me an email if you can, or let me know if you can't. Cheers! bd2412T 15:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, that's weird. I will send you an e-mail. I am also not set up for Skype. BOZ (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Just making you aware of this section [1] on the Chelsea Manning page. There might be enough there to be useful. Not sure it's relevant to your guys close, but I thought I'd put it out there. Hobit (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there any policy or guideline that says that two or more move requests for the same page at once are discouraged? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Not that I know of, but it is common sense. How can you know whether you want a page moved if you don't know with certainty what title it is being moved from? It's the Schrödinger's cat of page move problems. Besides, it certainly will do no harm to wait a few days. bd2412T 04:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Been watching Big Bang theory or have a general interest in philosophy?--v/r - TP 13:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
In my mind, closing an extremely heavily discussed, contentious RM like the Manning move request is one of the most difficult and thankless tasks an administrator can do on Wikipedia. That whole thing has turned into quite a hotly debated topic, and I certainly wouldn't want the task of closing it for any reason, especially not as a volunteer editor. It's too often a thankless task so I just wanted to say thank you, that's all. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 08:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned about this sentence in your sandbox draft:
"the role of the closing administrators in this discussion, as with all discussions, is to determine what the consensus of the community is (or determine that a lack of consensus exists) and apply that determination accordingly."
I believe it is commonly accepted that those closing such debates also need to give equal consideration to policy, especially the BLP policy that cannot be overruled by a local talk page consensus. Opinions voiced by editors must be weighed according to their strenghts (whether they are policy based), and in relation to what policy ultimately supports. Numbers alone have no weight in itself. Josh Gorand (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The BLP policy cannot be overruled by a local talk page consensus. However, as the move requests shows, most people don't find a move to Bradley to be a violation of that policy. [2] should address your question. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
As I said, numbers are not the matter. Sufficiently convincing BLP arguments have been cited by a significant number of editors, many of whom very experienced in these issues (eg Sue Gardner), hence this is a main point to be considered regardless of how many people who says what. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLP was the basis given for the initial page move. The question put to the community was, basically, whether there is a consensus that BLP applies to a page title following a gender-based name change. I personally strongly agree with those who have said that Wikipedia should adopt an explicit policy favoring a change of name when a subject announces such a change as part of the disclosure of a new public gender identification. bd2412T 12:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think BD2412 is sufficiently experienced as to not need a backseat driver on this. Please wait for the decision, then discuss once done.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Josh, you've pushed your opinion enough. The closing administrator doesn't need your help. All your comments here show is that you are concerned that consensus leans against your position. Such a strong message from you, with the subliminal "Our side is losing", is not what you want to share with someone who has to determine consensus. When one side seems to admit that the other side has a stronger consensus, closing administrators generally will take that into consideration.--v/r - TP 13:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Please note, what I am taking into consideration is the content of the discussion at Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request, and the language of the policies and precedents referenced in that discussion. Cheers! bd2412T 13:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I was speaking very broadly.--v/r - TP 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the problem you see here. Old North Church's formal name is "Christ Church in the City of Boston", so there is a potential for confusion with the Christ Church in the Boston neighborhood of Hyde Park, hence the DAB. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem is WP:INCOMPDAB. Since parentheticals such as "(Boston, Massachusetts)" are normally used to disambiguate topics (i.e. to specify which "Christ Church" is under discussion), the parenthetical itself should be unambiguous. If it is ambiguous, then it is just another example that needs to be merged and redirected to the primary disambiguation page for the topic, "Christ Church". bd2412T 14:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
By reading this section, you agree that Wikipedia user talk pages exist for the purpose of contacting editors and encouraging communication between editors, and that merely posting to a user page cannot oblige an editor to buy you an ice cream (nor to anything else). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
You'd be surprised. The primary purpose of that notice is so that anyone who wishes to have cross words with me on my talk page will be notified that they can not then go and sue me in a court of law. Although you may not take this seriously, a judge versed in contract law would. bd2412T 14:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I very much doubt that, given that access to "your" talk page is not something you have legal control over to begin with. Also see my ice cream example (or substitute "give me US$ 1000000" or even "give the Wikimedia foundation US$ 1000000"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Context matters. My clause does not propose any material gain, is directed towards people who already have enough knowledge of Wikipedia to be posting on a talk page, and is intentionally structured very much like the arbitration agreements that you will find you have signed up for when you renew your credit card - and which courts are quick to enforce. bd2412T 14:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
"Signed up for" is the key here. Anyways, I suspect we will continue to disagree (which, according to your version, means we need to go to WP:DR. Luckily, I'm not bound by that. ;-). Have a good weekend! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Whatever the outcome of your decision, I've enjoyed reading your insightful draft in progress. Thank you for doing this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you and the team for making the not easy call with the move and comming to a decision. Yes there are going to be people who disagree I just hope we can all now put this matter behind us. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Interesting closure. I actually hadn't expected that. I think we'll be back to Chelsea Manning in a month or so, I expect that many of the supporters supported on procedural grounds and having fixed the process, the consensus may now lean back to Chelsea. No matter what the outcome was, though, you and the others did a very difficult job and I'm thankful for your efforts.--v/r - TP 04:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it would now be timely to request a move to "Private Manning", or am I supposed to wait until the pending merge request is decided?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
So far as merge discussions are concerned, I do not believe that these generally have any impact on the conduct of move discussions; merge discussions relate to the content of the articles involved, rather than their titles. I will remove the closure templates from your previous proposal. bd2412T 04:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I no longer see the previous proposal on the page. You are certainly free to reintroduce it at this time. Cheers! bd2412T 04:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the archiving went a bit overboard. Will reintroduce, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I re-did it. Looks like it's already going down in flames. Incidentally, it seems very weird that a momentous move request (the one you recently closed) was happening while the only advertisement at the top of the article was for a relatively trivial merge request. Anyway...cheers. :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
For taking on the task with the other two admins in resolving the RM issue at the Bradley/Chelsea Manning article. I know that this was a difficult task and applaud all three of you. GregJackPBoomer! 04:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
PS, I don't know who the other two admins are, or if they want to be known, but please let them know the community appreciates the work all of you did. GregJackPBoomer! 04:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The identity of the other two admins is a matter of public record: User:BOZ and User:Kww. Cheers! bd2412T 04:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I added the Barnstar to their talk pages also. GregJackPBoomer! 04:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Though I supported the other article name, I have no bad feelings. I think that you did an outstanding job summarizing both sides of an exceptionally contentious debate. I commend you for taking on a tough assignment, and doing it well. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
"new proposal to move the page to "Chelsea Manning" being initiated no less than thirty days" - Wow. That was the exact right thing to do. Not often that we see such exceptional judgement on WP. You touched on the crux of the argument and effectively found the middle ground. I have a terrible nagging suspicion you will receive some hatred for your moderate approach here. Should that happen, you will have at least one defender. Here's to you BD2412. All the best, NickCT (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Seconded. I was personally undecided (with a slight emotional preference for "Chelsea" only because a few of the "Bradley" cheerleaders used arguments and language I found deplorable). But your reasoning and summary are excellent and I think you hit community sentiment squarely on the head. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope you never have to experience anything as awful as what you have done in denying Chelsea Manning her basic self-identity on one of the largest websites in the world. I have never before seen Wikipedia used in such an actively hurtful and harmful way as what you have just done. I am ashamed of the project today. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
don't be an ass Phil, drop the stick. The closers are volunteers, like all of us, and spent many hours trying to come up what they judged to be, in this case, a no consensus close. Reasonable people can disagree, but you don't need to dramatize like that. Show some respect.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I want to be perfectly clear here. Referring to a transgender person by their birth name is hate speech. This close embraced hate speech. This is not an issue of consensus. This is an issue of Wikipedia actively embracing hate speech. It is shameful and horrifying in exactly the same way that a decision to refer to racial minorities with derogatory slurs would be. There is no difference whatsoever. None. This decision is morally abhorrent. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
allow me to be clear, then. Direct your rage at the community, as the community in the main did not agree. Lay off the closer. A no consensus to move finding was perfectly reasonable, and 3 uninvolved admins agreed.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The closer made the decision to embrace hate speech as policy. He had a choice. He chose hate speech. If you think my response was out of proportion with that, well... I don't think there's really anything I can say to that beyond that I extend my hope to you as well. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
@Phil Sandifer - You're being hyperbolic. If you feel strongly that this is hate speech, I would urge you to propose policy against it. BD2412 made a policy-based and consensus-based decision. Even if we disagree, failing to appreciate and acknowledge the nuances here makes you a bigot. NickCT (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Phil, you declared on your talk page two years ago that you were finished with Wikipedia, and told people not to try to converse with you there. But here you are, in 2013, actively editing. You have confused "policy" with a single article name, which the closing statement clearly said is open for review in 30+ days, based on coverage in the full range of reliable sources. Your redefinition of "hate speech" is truly astounding, and deeply disrespectful to the closing administrators, given the specific circumstances here. In addition, it ignores the way the body of the article is currently written, and your "take my ball and go home" attitude removes your voice from future consensus about the content (and future title) of the article. I hope that you are young, because only the impulsivity of youth could explain such poor judgment on your part. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. I came back for this issue specifically. Please understand - it is my sincere and unequivocal belief that any instance of referring to a transgender person by their birth name or the gender assigned at birth is hate speech. I really do not consider there to be any material difference between that and the use of the most vile ethnic or sexual slurs you can think of. The decision to do this on even one article, even for thirty days, is hate speech. It is hate speech against people I love and consider family. If you really think that my reaction is overstated given this, well, I really don't know what to say.
I'll try one more time before I go to bed; do you have any family members or loved ones who are members of a minority? Think of the absolute worst slur for that minority that you can imagine. Now imagine a Wikipedia article on someone belonging to that minority that casually, in the lead paragraph, referred to them by that slur. BD2412's decision has locked an article in that state for at least thirty days. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Phil, the lead paragraph had that "slur" all week. It will probably never be removed from the article. You're obviously exaggerating. -- tariqabjotu 07:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I think Phil Sandifer eloquently expressed how this page move will be considered by not only LGBT people, but by the mainstream outside of Wikipedia in general, especially now that other media have predominantly started using the name Chelsea.[3]Josh Gorand (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi BD, I strongly supported the move to Chelsea, and just wanted to add my voice to those thanking the 3 closers for their work. The topic is an intersection of deep faultlines in politics, nationality and gender, and in substance it divides Wikipedians more deeply than any I have seen for a long time. Little wonder that it also divided us in applying P policy and guidelines. Closing this debate was a very difficult task, in which any outcome would inevitably disappoint many editors, and offend some. So I am impressed by the way in which the closers set out their reasoning so clearly, which not only addresses the points in the debate but also points to some policy issues for the future. As it happens, I disagree with your reasoning, which I think attaches excessive weight to WP:COMMONNAME and too little weight to WP:BLP. I am disappointed by the outcome, and hope that it will be overturned in the future. However, while I would have called this decision differently, I accept that the substance of this closure was well-reasoned and lucidly communicated. I think that the wider question was always going to require a longer and more considered assessment by the community to provide more clarity for the future. Your reasoned close will be an important part of those discussions, and I hope that others who disagree with the closure can approach it on the same basis. Thanks again for your hard work. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I echo all of BrownHairedGirl's sentiments. It was a very hard call. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both. I believe that the root of this problem lies in the ambiguity of the relevant policies, which is something that I would be glad to help improve. Cheers! bd2412T 20:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
"this close is without prejudice to a new proposal to move the page to "Chelsea Manning" being initiated no less than thirty days* from the date of this determination,.." What gives you the authority to specify a 30 day moratorium? The next time there is a dispute about a move, or an AFD, or whatever, could you or any other administrator specify just as authoritatively 90 days, or 180 days, or a year, or 5 years? If not, why not? Edison (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The authority of an administrator on such a matter extends precisely as far as the community is willing to recognize the authority of an administrator on such a matter. If an administrator attempted to impose an excessively long moratorium on a new request to do something that the community had recently rejected, the community would likely reject that also. In this case, I think the specific moratorium imposed is common sense, and done for good reasons. Revisiting this issue after a relatively short period was contemplated by a number of editors who supported reverting the title. In this case, a thirty day moratorium is as much for the benefit of those who would like to see the page moved back to "Chelsea Manning" as it is for anyone else. Undoubtedly, many would like to immediately turn around and propose the move again, but such an attempt may prove to be disastrous for the proposer, as emotions from the previous discussion are still running raw. In thirty days, there is more likely to be substantial evidence with which the proposers can build a WP:COMMONNAME case sufficient to achieve a clear consensus in favor of the proposed move. There is also an opportunity in that time to seek adjustments to the relevant policies in order to clarify the appropriateness of a title change under these circumstances. Note also that if the panel had not included that thirty day provision, it is entirely possible that a move request made after that period of time would have been dismissed by detractors as being too soon. With the thirty day provision, it is clear that a new proposal brought at that point is permissible. bd2412T 01:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
A very well thought out close: about as well as anyone could have done on the matter in my opinion. While your close is probably only the first step in some policy discussion, I think given the input you had your close was remarkably apt. Thanks for taking on the responsibility. NativeForeignerTalk 05:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify my above comment: I think you were mistaken in your close - in your failure to discount votes based on the denial of the existence of trans people and votes based on the belief that BLP doesn't apply to titles, your acceptance that adhering to our internal style guide trumps accurately naming an article, and your assumption that BLP doesn't need to apply in this case because the subject has recognised that some media will continue to use "Bradley."
But you are working within an ethos here that habitually fails to respect our subjects' human dignity (ignoring the Foundation's directive to do so), and that takes our internal style guide as more important than veracity and respect. That is, you have come up with a close that superficially conforms to the letter of some of our policies and guidelines, while breaching BLP, V and NPOV egregiously, as many have done before you.
But you should be congratulated for your own very transparent process of collating ideas on a subpage, and your very clear explanation of the rationale behind the close. I do think your close needs to be examined by ArbCom and evaluated for its conformity with WP:CONSENSUS, but I also think that though you were clearly misguided as demonstrated in your close rationale, your intentions were good. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I would just like to clear up a few misconceptions. The primary reason that BLP does not apply in this case is that the original title of the article was information already widely known to the public (in fact, more widely known than the subject's new name), and verifiable in virtually all reliable sources to even mention the subject. BLP specifies, with respect to public figures, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". The subject's own statements on the topic were tertiary, an additional mitigating factor, as was the fact that the subject's original name will appear prominently in the lead, and elsewhere in the article, no matter what title the article is at. Furthermore, BLP is solely directed at the potential for harm to the subject, and not to the subject's community of interest. If others are offended by the title, this covered not by BLP, but by WP:CENSORED.
As to human dignity, writing an informative encyclopedia requires that we report the negative, the failings of the human spirit. Societal pressures clearly weighed very heavily on this subject's decision to continue using her former name throughout her highly-publicized trial, but many editors who expressed empathy with this situation still supported keeping the article at the better-known name. Finally, this leads to the counting of !votes. A contested move requires a consensus in favor of moving, which this title was very, very far from achieving in the discussion held at this stage of the proceedings. There were !votes on both sides that were based on misinterpretations of policy, or on no policy at all. Nevertheless, the only comments by regular editors that were wholly discounted were those about the biological or legal status of the subject. There is no formula that could have been fairly applied to this discussion to read this as consensus favoring a move.
You will note, I hope, that by providing for a new discussion thirty days after the close of the last one, we have allowed for a much faster turnaround of this situation than usually occurs in title disputes; and that I have been actively working at WP:TITLE to encourage some change in policy that will make it easier for subjects to be titled by their preferred name.
It looks like a dispute is starting as to how the lead and infobox of Bradley Manning should be worded viz-a-viz the name. I think there might be some confusion if the close of the RM impacts the body of the article.
(Although I supported reverting the move, I'd like to thank you as well for the professionalism you showed in closing the RM. OSbornarfcontribs. 05:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC))
I woulda been disappointed if the close had went the other way, but would not have pursued any action or aggression beyond that. So, thanks for stepping up to make tough calls, knowing the flak that is going to hit any second, is a sign of actual leadership ability. I echo the concern of the above btw, that we now have an article title that matches none of the body of the article itself, but I'm not sure if that's within the remit of the close committee. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
@OSborn, the discussion addressed the title of the article, not its contents; the closing admins specifically found that the potential appearance of incongruity between the title and the contents of the article could not counter the lack of consensus for the initial title move. @Tarc, thanks. bd2412T 14:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi BD, just a note to say thank you for the way you handled the close. The outcome is not what I would have preferred, but I think you did an excellent job summarizing the arguments and consensus in what was a difficult and unenviable task. Thanks again. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to second SlimVirgin's thanks. While I agree with the solution, the arguments were intense, it was clearly a difficult and contentious decision. Well done. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Thirded. Very professionally handled. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. I was a bit surprised, and then, as I read the summary, became delighted in the display of the process to that conclusion that you and the others had followed. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Thank you. I need to make a BarnStar that's a case of cookies for you to share with them. htom (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't followed the discussion too closely, because the move to Chelsea Manning was common courtesy, and afaik required by the policies of biographies of living persons (sic), so I'm trying to understand why you reversed this. Deliberately calling her "Bradley Manning" is an attack on her identity, and an attack on all trans people's identities. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. The reasons for which the reversion of that move were necessary are outlined at Talk:Bradley Manning/August 2013 move request. Please note that the subject of this article has had a unique opportunity to communicate, through the various statements made through her attorney, whether the use of the title in question constitutes "an attack on her identity". She has made no such assertion, instead expressing understanding of the fact that she will continue to be referenced in many places by the name under which she carried out activities for twenty-five years, including most of the activities discussed in this article. Cheers! bd2412T 23:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I disagreed that the Manning article should be restored to the previous name, but deeply appreciate your diplomatic and neutral involvement in this matter. Thanks for taking this burden on...it was above the call of duty. MONGO 15:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This decision made my list of Great RM decisions. Thank you for your efforts! --B2C 17:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Now that the move request has been closed, I wonder if it might be appropriate to (a) remove the bit about how "Today is 1 September 2013 (UTC); new comments belong to today's section on basis of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)" and "replies are still welcome in collapsed sections", since they're not, and (b) un-collapse the discussions that took place on August 22nd through 28th. What do you think? My thinking is that when the move discussion was on the main talk page, collapsing those sections helpfully reduced the time it took anyone wanting to get to other discussions to scroll down the page, and helpfully pushed people to the correct section for new comments, but now that the discussion has a page in the archives all to itself, it could be more helpful to leave everything expanded so that people can read through it all without having to click "show" seven times to get to anything other than the final day's debate (which isn't collapsed). -sche (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
That is an entirely reasonable suggestion. I'll take care of it. Cheers! bd2412T 14:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Wording a horrible decision in aloof and calm language doesn't make it any less dreadful. You're complicit in the systematic disadvantaging of trans people, and there's no way to do that nicely or while sustaining comity. Those praising you above have fallen into the typical trap of imagining you can formalise away politics, as if misgendering was left any kinder by being grafted with a veneer of formal courtesy. If you're not referring by someone as they wish you to, you're exerting social power against them. Word that however you like, that's the nub of it.
You have two options here. One is to sit and complain about the application and enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. The other is to actual do something by joining Wikipedia, making a few thousand good and level-headed edits across a variety of areas, and thereby earning the trust of the community, and the credibility to propose changes to the policies that led to this result. bd2412T 14:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Although this is well-intentioned, and factually true, it is likely to come across as patronising and tone-deaf - what is actually happening is that trans people are leaving because Wikipedia is now an actively hostile environment, and expecting that this will instead inspire them to dive in and participate at length comes across as a failure of empathy. The commenter appears to me to be alerting you that you have personally actively contributed to the problem, not demanding you change the decision per se or asking for advice on how to do this - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
If my analysis is both well-intentioned and factually true, then it is of value to those who give due consideration to it. To suggest that I have "personally actively contributed to the problem" is shooting the messenger, while failing to take any lessons from the message. bd2412T 15:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Please do show awareness that people are upset about something, not about nothing - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I am aware that people are upset about the consequences of the policies that were carried out here. I have never said that people were upset about nothing; to the contrary, I have advocated that those who are upset about something direct their concerns fruitfully. bd2412T 16:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has become part of the story - but a very small part, no more significant to the whole than any laundry list of sources adopting one usage or the other. bd2412T 14:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
