User talk:Fluffernutter/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fluffernutter. 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.

Haven't reverted, but don't think you should have removed the evidence. Awien (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If anyone requires his comment as evidence for something, it's still viewable in the page history (I opted not to revision delete it, since so much attention had already been brought to it); however, I strongly feel that it is inappropriate to have such a comment remain in a current page revision. We owe it to our readers to challenge and remove gratuitously insulting material from our public-facing pages. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully support your action of removing the insulting prose and the entirety of your rationale in reaching the decision! I had similar thoughts to do the same myself and regret my subsequent inaction. Also my thanks are included, for today it was you who redeemed; for all of us.—John Cline (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

So now can we do the same thing to the article? Awien (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The key word here is "gratuitous". Wikipedia is not censored, which means that at times and in places, it will host content that is offensive to some (or all) people in pursuit of its encyclopedic purpose. For example, we have Wikipedia articles about sex acts, about hate crimes, about discrimination, and about images of religious figures where those religions find such images heretical. When we cover those things, they are recorded in encyclopedic terms and discussed to the extent necessary for a reader to understand the topic. In contrast, gratuitously offensive material has no encyclopedic purpose and serves no educational goal; it is simply there to be offensive, provocative, or upsetting. Wikipedia doesn't host that kind of content. In this case, the NitWH poem itself is an encyclopedic topic (though its notability and suitability for Wikipedia are currently being debated), and to describe it, it is necessary to name it; however, gleeful non-encyclopedic repetition of a word known to be offensive is not necessary for understanding of the topic and in fact impedes our encyclopedic purpose by purposely provoking those who read it. It's a bit like the difference between having an article about coprophagia and someone running around shouting "shit eater! shit eater!" at people. One helps you understand a topic (even if people find that topic icky or cringe-inducing); the other serves only to offend. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Except that what BtC's comment indicates is that his agenda in creating this article about a totally non-notable scrap of racist doggerel was probably to get the word nigger itself into WP and onto the main page. And with that comment out of sight, references to it in discussion make no sense to people who didn't see it. You're in danger of having biased the discussion in favour of retention, and of helping BtC escape the consequences of their actions. You should not have altered the record while the case was ongoing. Awien (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand what "case" you're referring to. Is there a discussion somewhere regarding Bonkers's behavior? That's something to which the comment I removed would be relevant; it is much less relevant to the deletion discussion for the article, because people will generally consider the article on its own merits rather than on the personal opinions of its author - even in cases where the personal opinions of the author are (marginally or more so) relevant. Viewing the AfD as a referendum on Bonkers himself is unlikely to work out for you, because that's not what AFDs are for, and you won't find yourself satisfied. If you feel the community needs to discuss Bonkers's behavior itself further, there are dispute resolution and administrative processes that are more suited to that.

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 - TP 16:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll count myself happy if the back-and-forth on Sue's talk page calms down, whether because people are newly aware of DS or because they take my point about her intended question. My point about you and Sceptre was intended in that vein: no matter what else is going on about transgender issues on other pages, I noticed you and she both being heavily involved in the debating on Sue's talk. I'm not addressing whether you or she is particularly "problematic" with regard to gender issues in general, because that's not what caused me to step in on Sue's talk; I'm simply saying that you two (and yes, you in particular) seem to be driving much of the back-and-forth that Sue didn't ask for but is getting anyway. As you acknowledge, you've been engaging with people in multiple places about the overarching dispute, so I'm asking that you let Sue's talk, in particular, be a place where people can share their experiences without being questioned or refuted (or, for that matter, "hear, hear!"ed. She asked people to share their own experiences, not support or oppose others' experiences). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I'll keep it off Sue's page, thanks.--v/r - TP 17:33, 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 Hammersoft. As you note, this was a suppression action, and I carried it out in my capacity as a member of the oversight team. We are empowered to carry out oversights on enwp where they are needed, even on Arbcom pages (though I'll admit that it felt very weird to do so for the first time!). Arbcom clerks are generally not oversighters, so they're not able to suppress edits if it's needed on a case page, and since the arbitrators themselves are busy actually handling the cases, they usually aren't available to handle suppressions that need to be done on case pages. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still a bit puzzled by this, honestly, as the redaction was to a post of Tariqabjotu's with an edit summary of+ off-wiki (Twitter) evidence, after receiving permission from ArbCom. If Arbcom agrees to hear evidence on-wiki about an off-wiki activity, Oversighters have the authority to intercept that and remove it? Tarc (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't discuss the details of oversight actions on-wiki or with unrelated parties, since things that get oversighted usually involve legal or privacy issues. So while I understand that people are curious, other than saying that Arbcom is aware of the action I took and its circumstances (and are capable of reversing it should it be deemed necessary), the best I can do is refer you to WP:AUSC if you think the issue of the action itself needs further investigation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:11, 26 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)

• (forgive the intrusion Fluffernutter!) For some reason, this makes me think of this xkcd strip :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

omg that is so true!Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It certainly looks better than the two copyright violating versions I deleted yesterday, Two kinds! I do see a couple typos and language issues in the current version, but those aren't deal-breakers. Good working on saving the article (and oh man, Hammersoft, that xkcd article makes me laugh in complete understanding every time I see it)! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:41, 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)

@8.28.150.77: The problem here is that your edit made no mention of the truth or falsity of the accusation. You added something that basically said "and also, he's accused of killing hookers". Whether or not there's a source link associated with the text, that's simply not something we can allow in an article about a living, breathing person who can be harmed by people reading Wikipedia and thinking "wow, so he killed hookers?" Now, if you were to have added something more like, "his campaign for blah was subjected to a google bomb making false accusations of criminal behavior against him," with a reliable source, the edit might be usable in an encyclopedia article if the incident itself was notable enough. At that point it would depend on how notable within the person's career the event was, and whether it was important enough to spend article space discussing it. But in a form like "people accused him of killing people", it's just never going to be ok. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:51, 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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

I'll try to keep an eye on it, but my availability for this sort of thing is variable, so I can't promise to stay on top of everything. You may want to see if there's another admin or two who can chip in on the watching. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You might want to recruit the other watchers, as I don' t know who would have the temperament to encourage a calming influence. Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:29, 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)

You don't need to take any action on this. Apparently Greatness Bites was discovered to be a sock puppet by Formerip and redacted. Ping 7daysahead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaqueate (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

[3]. Please confirm receipt. OSTheRobot (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there something amiss with that user's comment? Is there a reason why you are obviously avoiding scrutiny by using an alternate account? I find it hard to believe that a legit "new" user is hovering around the periphery pining admins about the latest Wikipedia hot-button topic. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not really sure what's up with the throwaway account here. OS, there is no need to ping me about things on that RM; rest assured I am keeping an eye on it (though I do occasionally do things like sleep, that take me away from the computer). I would also suggest that if you are an active editor with another account, that you use that account and that account only to contribute to the Manning discussions (and to talk pages regarding issues to do with that discussion). There is an ideological divide among the community already; we don't need to inflame the situation further with "this one tattled on that one, and that one sent a sock to say this about the other one". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's assume that I'm an individual with rational self interest (not the Randian construction thereof). Let's also assume that I believe that transgender individuals deserve compassion and respect, and that I place value on them receiving said compassion and respect. Let's also assume that my "real" account has no connection to this issue. In fact, for the purposes of this gedankenexperiment, let's assume it's an account that hasn't edited for over a year and left in bad sorts over a very similar wronging of an unprivileged group. Why should I use my "real" account under these structures? What benefit do I get from doing so? OSTheRobot (talk) 15:06, 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)

Since you took this step, I hope you will consider redacting similar claims of Manning being a "woman". Otherwise, we will find a position where side X can say "Manning is a woman, name it Chelsea" but the other side can't say "Manning is a man, name it Bradley". Both arguments are useless in any case and have no relation to article titling policy, and we have plenty of "female" bios with "male" titles and vice versa.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

For example, the following comments:

• "Support. Chelsea Manning is a woman, and must be treated like one. Christine Jorgensen similarly has an article titled as such, not as George :*Jorgensen, which is just a re-direct. Georgia guy (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)"
• "If she identifies herself as a woman and wishes to undergo hormone treatment tand surgery to legitimately become one, she is a woman."
• "because Chelsea Manning is a woman, her article should be appropriately renamed."

It was considered "transphobic" by some in the last discussion to claim Manning was a man, but the consensus guidelines we developed stated that we should not be claiming Manning is a man or a woman. I'd appreciate if you'd strike, or ask those eds to strike, those comments. Fair is fair...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Obi makes a valid point. Though I don't relish the thought of the poop-storm that would follow if you (FN) actually took that action.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Fluffernutter, unfortunately, I can't revert you as I'm under a voluntary restriction (0rr restriction), however, I consider your revert to be a violation of WP:TPO and will ask you to revert. There are no restiction on that page that say anything about my mentioning Bradley Manning's gender, nor is mentioning his gender inflamatory. Therefore, there was no reason for that invalid TPO violation.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   14:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines in question are here: Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request#Discussion_guidelines: "Do not share your opinion on whether or not Manning is really a woman, or needs to have surgery, hormone treatment, or a legal name change to become one. This is a debate about an article title, not a forum to discuss Manning's "true" gender or sex." - but this does apply both ways. I think we should relish the poopstorm, or allow both sides to dive into the mess of debating Manning's true "gender". I really think the poopstorm is a better option.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You can't blanket restrict discussion because SOME editors might be offended. Your guidelines are biased and ridiculous. Although I believe that gender is probably important to what name we use, some people disagree with that and think that sex is what matters and they shouldn't be silenced because you disagree. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with such discussions nor claims that Manning is a man or Manning is a woman, and am not offended by either. The guideline in question was developed by a consensus of editors working on the move request, and is intended to direct discussion towards policy-based arguments that actually matter. Manning's "true" gender, or what Manning has between their legs, is irrelevant to the actual title of the article, which is determined by WP:AT policy. Given that many editors were offended and such discussions contributed to a difficult atmosphere, we felt it was better to advise against such comments by *all* sides - I'm now asking Fluff to enforce these guidelines evenly. You are free to ignore the guidelines, but you have to accept the consequences meted out by the community as a result.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 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)

Easy tiger. Read what I wrote. "It was considered "transphobic" by some in the last discussion to claim Manning was a man". That is purely true - some people DID indeed consider such statements transphobic. Whether I *agree* with it is a different, and much more complex, issue, that I'm not going to get into. But the statement itself is true, in spades.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:09, 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)

I don't think it's what you meant, Wombat, but your point has made me realize that I probably could have phrased my comment there better. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you fixed, but it is always good to be as precise and as accurate with language as possible, so my guess is I owe you thanks for fixing whatever you fixed. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:47, 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)

Hi Mz. I'm a bit surprised at your behavior, given that I noted in multiple places (though admittedly not in my edit summary itself) that the redaction was done pursuant to the active discretionary sanctions in this topic area. I'm sure you're aware that discretionary sanction-based administrative actions are not intended to be reversed by anyone except the implementing admin, arbcom, or a community consensus. If you read up a few lines, you will see my rationale explained quite clearly. I'm open to other ideas as to how to handle inflammatory commentary that the speaker refuses to remove without redacting it, but in my judgment, redacting while leaving the vote is the least harsh measure available to me at this time. As far as selective enforcement, that's not the case (except inasmuch as, explained above, one style of commentary is more problematic to the health of the conversation and our BLP policy). Kosh's statement was the first one I attended to of the day, but I doubt it will be the last; I'm keeping an active eye on things and am catching up progressively on what happened on the overnight shift. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can create a list on this talk page of all of the comments throughout the relevant page that you feel are inflammatory and we can discuss them as a group. It's difficult to look at your singular redaction as more than selective enforcement, but if, as you say, it was the first you intend to do of many, perhaps you can share which other comments you find inflammatory and we can gauge the overall tone and your proposed reaction(s) together. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Some people take *strong* exception to claims that Manning is a woman. We had many of these last time, and there are plenty to be found out in the wider world. Ultimately, the reason for this guideline is that no-one is clearly 'right', as woman and man are just words that have societal definitions attached to them, there isn't a clear societal consensus on, to what extent, a transgendered woman is fully a woman. (see Womyn born womyn and other such spaces where transwomen are rejected as being fully "women", due to the fact that growing up male has given then a different life experience than those born women) These debates can be endless, are currently ongoing, and only lead to accusations of transphobia or excessive trans-advocacy and forcing a redefinition of the terms "women". (just google cotton ceiling for some eye-opening debates on to what extent trans* women with functioning male sexual organs should be accepted by cis-lesbians). Nonetheless, such debates are totally useless for a discussion here, especially those about the title of an article. We don't have such discussions around the title of George Sands article for example, nor Dame Edna. I think a firm statement that claims from either side about the "true" gender should be dropped (people can feel free to say "She identifies as a woman", but stating the GRAND TRUTH that Manning IS INDEED A WOMAN, without the other side being able to argue the opposite, will just cause problems.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think some people would take strong exception to claims such as "because Chelsea Manning is a woman" (in italics in the original), "gender identity is not defined by one's sexual organs", and an apparent suggestion that those who disagree with moving the article are transphobic (which is being discussed elsewhere). As I said, this specific redaction was selective enforcement of a questionable discussion guideline. If someone wants to police all comments on the page in an even-handed manner, that would still be questionable, but would at least be fair. At the moment, one particular person's comments were redacted while there is plenty of inflammatory rhetoric in the opposing section. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Obi, I agree with you that these kinds of arguments are a bad idea, but silencing people, in my opinion is worse. Instead of silcencing people, how about asking them to clarfy what they are talking about? My guess is a lot of people when they say "Manning is a man" mean "Manning is geneticaly male" and they beleive that since genetice are the only scientificly verifiable thing they are what important. However wrong you may belive this arguemt to be, silenceing it is not the right option. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wombat, just to note in case it's become obscured: I am not editing people's comments out of the blue. Each time I have come across a problematic comment, I have reached out to the editor to ask them to rephrase what they said to make it less problematic. Unfortunately, so far people have been refusing to rephrase themselves. I have been doing my best to leave the substance of each vote untouched, removing only excessively inflammatory commentary.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How exactly would you scientifically verify that someone is "genetically male"? There are lots of chromosomal variations at the edge - for all we know Manning was born intersex, or ...? Or, even barring that, how are we supposed to verify whether Manning has a penis or not? It's an interesting subject for debate about gender identity, but it's ultimately irrelevant to the title of the article - I have no idea what Kristin Beck has in her pants, nor whether her chromosomes are XY, XXY, XYY, XX, YY, or any of the other possible variants (some of those I made up :) ), but we wouldn't move that article to "Chris Beck" because in the public's eye, there is no Chris Beck, only Kristin. This is not a forum, and claims that Manning is not a real "woman" piss off trans* allies, while claim that Manning is now 100% a woman piss off other people, and ultimately, neither side contributes ANYTHING to the discussion. Even if one side is right, e.g. if one side proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Manning has a penis and Manning is XY with normal male karyotype, and they even prove that Manning doesn't have GID after all, it was just a mistake, and Manning's internal gender is still male - even with all that, "Chelsea" may still be the best article title if a vast majority of sources use it!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Obi, that is an argumet for the talk page, not here. I am simply saying censorship of opinions is wrong and trying to clarify why I think that. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No, my point is, such arguments have NO BEARING on the proper title, so the last place they belong is at the talk page. re: censorship, I agree, and if I had my druthers, anyone could say anything, but last time it was a mess, so we were hoping people would self-censor to some degree. The bottom line is, some people will never agree that a trans* woman is fully 100% a woman. some trans* advocates will never accept that a trans* woman is anything less than 100% fully a woman, and entitled to all rights and privileges thereof. This has not yet been sorted out by society, and we aren't going to sort it out here - as such, the easier path is, leave it out, as it doesn't impact what we're doing, which is building an encyclopedia. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Asking the user to clarify is both appropreate and OK, but in the case of Kosh's comment, and please take this as the constructive critisim that it is, you did a poor job. I would have put the whole comment in one of those collapse boxes with the title "Potentally inflamitory statment of oposition" or some such thing. I hope that idea helps. Serously, you are in a crappy spot and I don't mean to make your job any harder, just censorship of opinions "really grinds my gears" CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Wombat, that's a useful option to consider. And thank you for understanding that I'm trying to do the best I can. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:07, 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)

Keep in mind this is currently being discussed at Arbcom and you might want to keep an eye on that discussion.--v/r - TP 15:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "people who showed up to my talk page specifically to complain about an action I took" isn't exactly a neutral cohort with regard to whether the action I took was appropriate, Kosh. At any rate, however, I don't intend to get into a standoff about this. I have put out the call multiple places asking for uninvolved editors both to critique my actions and to help keep a handle on the RM; in the meantime I encourage you to give some thought to the way in which you phrase your thoughts and how that phrasing can affect other people and the direction a conversation takes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

My comment about watching Arbcom was toward Kosh.--v/r - TP 16:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember, I didn't call them here, nor did I say anything about our discussion here. They came of their own will, so yes, it was indeed neutral. Listen, I realize you didn't vote, you've only commented on the talk page, so your a neutral admin, and you're trying to keep the page flame free, trust me, I get it, but you're barking up the wrong tree. As proof, look at the crapstorm that hit your page after you reverted me.......  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably 'neutral' is the wrong thing to discuss here. Fluffernutter's point I think is, that it's a self selected group of people, as people are only likely to comment if they feel strongly (you get the same problem e.g. with user reviews of products). To some extent this applies to all discussions yet the nature of a discussion like this is it's not really something that's advertised or noticed or for that matter particularly inviting to the wider community so it may not be much of a guide of community consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 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)

Thank you for the notification, GRuban. I have posted a statement at AE. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please review it.--v/r - TP 15:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, the attacks continue on Sue's page.--v/r - TP 15:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm slammed between trying to get real-life stuff done and trying to catch up on the RM's needs. At first glance, it looks like a few of you all actively butting heads with each other; the situation could probably be improved by any one of you dropping the bone. I'll try to take a closer look later today if some time opens up, however. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:05, 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)

Well, I settled on 1 week for two reasons. First, his behavior on the RM today has been extremely disruptive, and I wanted to keep him away from disrupting the RM further while it's open. I might have nevertheless given a shorter block if it weren't for the fact that he's been repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing in the past, and is in fact under a 0RR restriction already from an episode in January of this year. Besides disrupting the RM and violating discretionary sanctions policy with his editing today, he also violated that restriction. In short, Kosh has a history of losing his temper in heated situations and my sense is that it's best to keep him entirely away from the project a) while his behavior indicates that he intends to continue violating policy in general and b) while the potential for him to disrupt the current RM with edit warring continues to exist. The intersection of those two things is, or at least should be if the RM goes according to the usual schedule, one week. I'd be open to reconsidering the length if he were showing any indication of understanding, but instead so far all he's done is call me names and accused me of all manner of malfeasance, which doesn't really give me any feeling that he understands how his behavior was disruptive or intends to stop it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with Kosh is that he never, ever, ever drops the stick until someone finally comes along and does it for him, i.e. blocks or threats of blocks. Look at the history of my talkpage notice, where he flipped out over my cartoonish flipping-of-the-bird. Tarc (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I posted my request before seeing the long thread above, sorry for contributing to your challenges. I have to run, will read more of the history later.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that I've seen the Kosh response, I withdraw my request for a consideration for a shortened block.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:49, 2 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)

I didn't actually mean that snarkily at all, so yikes if it came across that way. I guess I'm about people-skills-ed out for the day. What I was trying to communicate was that I know it can feel satisfying to demand answers/action, especially if you think a great wrong has been done, but it's ultimately useless to do it on ANI for this, because even if that thread is kept open to discuss whether or not I'm a terrible admin, it can't fix the what they think I did wrong. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Good block, good work, and thanks for stepping up. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:07, 2 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)

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)

@Elaqueate: I can see how you could read it that way, but the dispute seems to have died down once I redacted the comment itself. I don't have the impression that either Coffee Crumbs or Arkady Rose feels further action needs to be taken (or would even be desirable). I think at this point the best thing is for both of them to keep doing what they've been doing, which is to let that particular dispute drop. Coffee Crumbs is free to remove their comment, but given that the discussion has stopped, I'm not inclined to step in and redact, collapse, or remove anything farther in that thread, since that would risk re-igniting things. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. But having seen the original comment, I think it should be on record that there was no direct reference to any comment by Coffee Crumbs before his claim and I took the personalizing of the accusation as an aspersion that there was. I don't want any drama, but I think it would be germane if there was an attempt to move it up the DR chain, as warned by Coffee crumbs. Thanks for looking at it and keeping things cool.... __Elaqueate (talk) 15:47, 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Just doin' my job, Antique! Happy to help :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:47, 9 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)

Thank you, -sche. It was a bumpy ride for all of us, but we got through it and hopefully the encyclopedia is all the better for our efforts. Me, I'm off on a well-timed vacation! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:49, 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)

Due to multiple-human-error (the best kind of error!) the Office Hours meeting was announced with the wrong month. The logs for today's (quiet) meeting, can be seen at m:IRC office hours#Office hour logs.

The updated time and date of our next IRC office hours meeting is: 18:00 UTC on 24 October. Thanks, and sorry about the mixup. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 17 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)

I'm sorry, CM, but (as you can probably tell from the amount of time it took me to respond), I'm short on time lately and I don't think I can be relied on to help you out with this. Maybe one of my friendly talk page stalkers has some time to donate, but otherwise I guess I'd have to refer you back to COIN or (if things are really bad) ANI. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I posted it at ANI here. I think that was the right place to go at this point. CorporateM (Talk) 19:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The September 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the October blitz! – 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)

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)

It's theoretically possible to unprotect it, yes. I'm not up-to-date on the article's situation, or the current state of the situation that led to its protection. Can you explain why you think the reason no longer exists? The last time I checked it was a long-term issue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You didn't mention a reason when you protected it last year (I assume edit warring), but it seems like while it was originally semi'd, there was only 1 edit-warrior, and he's now blocked. Maybe since IPs were such a problem in the past, you could downgrade it to semi, but I don't see a need to keep it admin-only forever. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I thought maybe you knew something I didn't. No, edit warring wasn't the issue. There are long-term BLP issues with that article, having to do with socking and harassment. I'm afraid that unless there's a solid reason to believe that situation no longer exists, this is one of those unfortunate articles that can't in good conscience be unprotected. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia for the kitten pictures. It's really the only reason I still show up occasionally.

GraemeL ^(talk) 20:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)