User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Transphobia on Wikipedia

Hello,

I realise that this may be construed as a violation of my current (and hopefully to be rescinded) topic ban, but as a trans editor, I cannot simply sit and watch as Talk:Chelsea Manning is used as a platform for transphobic statements. On my twitter, I've collected several quotes from Wikipedia editors, including one administrator. This sort of behaviour, and the current systemic bias against trans people, has to stop. Selected quotes include:

• "By all means he can have surgery, wear women's clothes or have himself transformed into a dolphin, but leave wikipedia out of it."
• "Manning is a convicted criminal, and I couldn't care less about him/her/it."
• "If he (not she) said he wanted to be black now, would you describe him as African-American??"
• "And he could say he wants to be called Minnie Mouse, for all we care, but that don't make it so."
• "I don't think this project should be running around willy-nilly just because someone woke up this morning and said "today I am a girl!"."
• "I could declare myself as the King of England, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia will suddenly refer to me as His Majesty."
• "It is not an "opinion" that men have XY sex chromosomes and women have XX sex chromosomes — it is a biological fact."
• "Wikipedia is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda."
• "Why not use "it" until gender has been legally established?"
• "What would you do if s/he self-identified as a dog, cat, broomstick, or banana then? Self-identification is not the same as legal identity"
• "If I wake up in the morning and decide I am a woman, it doesn't make it so. This absolutely reeks of political correctness."
• "This dude is named Bradley Manning until officially recognized by the courts. Chelsea is what we would call a nickname."

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to anti-transgender editing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology allowed a tendentious fringe theorist who subscribes to the theory that lesbian trans women are men who are attracted to the thought of themselves as woman to continue editing. This is an encyclopedia which has had similar problems before, on Chaz Bono and Laura Jane Grace. We desperately need to do something about it, as the net result will drive prospective trans editors off. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I can't defend every quote, but bear in mind that I was astonished to see people saying that our policy is to change the entire article, beginning to end, to reference "she" in every regard, even using "sister" in descriptions of early childhood. If we are to be enlightened and not transphobic, we should respect there may be people who choose to change genders a couple of times every month. But would that respect extend to rewriting their Wikipedia articles, beginning to end, each time? There is a principle here, opposed to "WP:Recentism", that a fact that is true, or a historical perspective that is accurate, should continue to be so in the future. Wnt (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see an example or three before thinking this apparent hypothetical was in fact likely to be a serious problem - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Right at the beginning of Wendy Carlos there is a passage which uses "she" in reference to that person's early childhood. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think David was talking about examples of "people who choose to change genders a couple of times every month". Diego Moya (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Almost every comment of user User:Baseball Bugs on Talk:Chelsea Manning is blatant example of intentional and disruptive trolling.--В и к и T 07:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It really has been. Practically every comment he's made there (and in several other places where there are discussions going on) has been incredibly offensive. Silverseren^C 08:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of these comments are quite funny when presented in an appropriate way (which he often doesn't). With a bit more work User:Baseball Bugs could become our resident Comedian. Count Iblis (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The project is not a practice field for comedian want a bees. We don't want or need a freaking resident comedian. Wasn't Bugs banned from ANI for his constant jokes and commentary? He has been doing this crap for years. If you want a good laugh, go to a comedy club, this isn't that. --Malerooster (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right, but we could use a bit more fun. The problem is fundamentally caused by BB presenting his comments in a way that makes people to take them seriously when they shouldn't (i.e. even if Wikipedia had different rules that would allow people making jokes at AN/I, BB's behavior would still be a problem). Count Iblis (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want more fun, you could say Julian Assange has a reputation for meeting "new young girls" (just kidding), but BB's many jokes at wp:ANI were more like wp:DE disruptive editing of a talk-page, as too much distraction. -Wikid77 23:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• The thing is, Wikipedia:Article titles trumps a style guide or a particular wikiproject's desires. We can certainly make mention in the article that "Bradley Manning" wishes to be a girl and wants to be addressed as "Chelsea", as it is quite the notable topic. But being notable for wanting to be a girl doesn't actually make it so, and it sure as hell should not have led to a knee-jerk page move and a find-and-replace of "he" to "she" throughout the article. That's not reality; that's activism. Tarc (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I support the move and change, but having said that it's worth acknowledging that "transphobia" (which clearly present in some comments, sadly) isn't the only possible grounds for opposing the change, or opposing some particular details of the change. By the nature of our language, it's tricky to figure out how to correctly refer to someone who identifies as female now, but who identified as male at the time of notable activity. That's just a hard editorial problem, and no cause for high levels of emotion.

As a supporter of the move, I'll also note that it is interesting, and not in a good way, that this move was accomplished almost immediately while other 'name' issues are resolved incorrectly for great lengths of time. We ought to very strongly defer to how people identify themselves, but for various pedantic reasons, some editors insist on calling people by names that they very strongly reject. I consider that a BLP issue of some seriousness.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate, Jimmy, that you recognize that disagreeing with someone is not enough to slap labels on them such as "transphobic." I have my reservations with the change, especially its speed, but if Manning keeps the identity long enough, it will probably lose its controversial nature. However, the discussion was/is valid because of conflicting policies.Thelmadatter (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Has the name change been done legally? I can't see how we can change the name if it isn't done in an official capacity off Wikipedia.--MONGO 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No it hasn't, but that's irrelevant - Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME, not the legal name. See, for example, Cat Stevens or Peter Sutcliffe. GiantSnowman 14:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There's clearly a discrepancy between WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:IDENTITY in this case, which should probably be looked at when all this has died down. I suppose you could meet both by having the article at Bradley Manning, including that they self-identify as Chelsea Manning, and using female pronouns. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Black Kite - re "WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:IDENTITY" - Just as a point of order, I think MOS:IDENT says we should use the pronoun "she" if that's what the subject wants. I don't think MOS:IDENT says we have to change the article title. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that editor Sceptic was blocked (apparently for 12 hours) for making the post that opened this thread, and that there is discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_lift_of_topic_ban. I had the impression that posts like this, here, are sort of protected speech (and said so, there). Not meaning to change the topic of this discussion / comments about the topic ban should be made at the wp:AN thread. --doncram 14:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, as the person who made the move request back to Bradley Manning so a proper discussion and consensus could ensue, I am frustrated you assume requests such as mine were made for "various pedantic reasons." Policy is absolutely essential; it is not "pedantic." The controversial move to Chelsea, with which many people disagreed for various reasons (some transphobic but many policy-based; personally I support the ultimate move to Chelsea so as to respect her wishes) was a clear violation of the need to seek consensus before making a controversial move. If you think a call to follow policy on controversial moves is "pedantic" that would make most of our other policies "pedantic" as well. We do not have the luxury of picking and choosing when to apply our policies and to what extent. Controversial move request need to be discussed, period. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, Jimbo's statement supporting the move seems to be supporting the return of the article to "Bradley", from "Chelsea", where it had been moved. Maybe everyone understood this. --doncram 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Only for values of "seems" that are very similar to "can be misread as". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay i guess i was completely wrong. There is a current RM ongoing, but I gather now that Jimbo's statement about "I support the move and change" was about the previous move from Bradley to Chelsea. Sorry for my confusion. --doncram 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries! I highly commend you for being one of the few (the only?) persons in this mess who changes his or her opinion based on facts ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your confusion is understandable because of the obtuse way a few admins handled the situation. The irony is that we should have had this kind of deliberate and thorough discussion the first time -- before a few admins took it in their hands to make the move despite overwhelming evidence that it would be controversial. I wish we didn't have to parse this situation after the fact. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Only focussing on official name changes is problematic. It would mean that while we have to move Shaparova to Sugarpova during the US open if the Florida Supreme Court gives the green light for that, we can't call Manning the way she wants herself to be called. Count Iblis (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents here, this issue has got too hopeless wrapped up in the "trans" debate for anyone to think rationally about it. My feeling is that we should try our best to treat trans BLPs exactly the same as we treat every darn other BLP. We should be careful not to give less deference to Manning than we normally would, but we should also be careful not to give him any more deference than usual. WP:COMMONNAME strikes me as the obvious policy to follow here. The core principle surrounding WP:V is that my opinion about what Manning should be called does not matter. Neither does Jimbo's or anyone else's. All that matters is what the sources are calling Manning. WP should try to reflect the majority of verifiable reliable sources (period). If that ends up "offending" anybody, tough cookies. That's life. NickCT (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

NickCT, while I'm very much sympathetic with the notion that what I/we (personally, as a matter of personal ethics) think someone should be called isn't a primary determinant, I think the issue is more complex than the simplistic mantras that often surround WP:V. One of the many reasons that I, and others, campaigned against the simple formulation of "verifiability, not truth" is that very often real editorial judgment calls have to be made by us, when the sources are unclear or in flux. While of course it is important to take into consideration that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball it seems very likely that for the next few weeks there will be confusion and conflict in reliable sources. My guess is that some more socially conservative reliable sources may well refuse to ever recognize the name change, and some more socially liberal ones will recognize it and carry it into force completely with immediate effect. Our article should in some useful fashion convey to the reader the full context of that state of affairs, but ultimately by the design of the software, the article has to ultimately be at one particular name, with the other made into a redirect. When do we make the change? That's a judgment call where WP:V is going to offer very very little guidance.

Here's my ultimate philosophical point - we deliberately constrain ourselves to some extent with policies like WP:V. But we can also WP:IAR when in our thoughtful editorial judgment it is wise to do so. Since WP:V is going to give little guidance for the next couple of weeks, we can and should and must make a judgment (which may well end up mistaken) about how things will shake out. I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call him Chelsea, which is why I support the change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, Sir. Very much appreciate the response. The care, consideration and personal attention you pay to these matters is a light and inspiration to us all.

re "I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call him Chelsea" - I think you might very well be correct. So why not change the name to Chelsea in six months time? Changing it now just makes it look like WP is soapboxing.

You must forgive me sir, but I think at the end of the day, I am a "verifiability, not truth"er. Despite that, I am, and will remain, your most humble and obedient servant, NickCT (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"One of the many reasons that I, and others, campaigned against the simple formulation of "verifiability, not truth" is that very often real editorial judgment calls have to be made by us, when the sources are unclear or in flux." I hadn't thought of it in these terms, but very much like we have an "ignore the rules if it improves the article" guideline, we changed WP:V for the very reason that it had been suggesting that truth is not important. Some things can only be verified through the subject themselves and we cannot be so wrapped up in our own policies, guidelines and procedures that we forget the fact that not all information that is accurate will be found documented in reliable sources, especially BLP information. The old way of thinking had always been: "If it isn't in a reliable source it cannot be mentioned". That is simply no longer the case and I'm not even sure if it was really ever the case. Some information should ignore the documentation, especially if the documentation is wrong. And we know documentation is wrong very often or just missing/destroyed. If we have an outright statement from the subject that we know is them, yes, we should add the information. Also, Baseball Bugs should reign in the humor if it is getting offensive to other editors. No offense to BB, but he shouldn't let all these discussion of this topic make them become insensitive to others. I know BB does not do anything intentionally. At least in discussions of this topic in the past, they have never demonstrated a clear lack of civility of the issue.--Mark 18:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As a supporter of the move, I'll also note that it is interesting, and not in a good way, that this move was accomplished almost immediately while other 'name' issues are resolved incorrectly for great lengths of time. This is, unfortunately, a systemic problem and has little to do with transsexuals in particular. Often the easiest way to win an argument is to have a couple of dedicated editors ready to make the change and to prevent anyone from rolling it back. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably the underlying problem is that WP intends to be an encyclopaedia (timeless), but it is written at the pace of a newspaper (on the hour). Yes, in six months, or a year, or a couple weeks, it will be clear whether it should be "him", "her", or a given mix of both; in the mean time it is likely that mast amounts of energy will be spent (wasted?) discussing it... I have no idea for a reasonable and widely acceptable solution, though, and maybe many don't even agree there is a problem there. - Nabla (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Google News often links to Wikipedia articles, so we have been promoted to a real news site. Count Iblis (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Another news site linking to us does not make us a news site. I can't wait for someone like Colbert to take advantage of this fiasco. What a joke. --Onorem (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Iblis, your suggestion that they link here out of a sense of journalistic recognition is either subtle sarcasm or charmingly naive. Google News links to the Wikipedia due to a much-documented close business relationship. Tarc (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, I wonder if you might clarify your remark here. You seem to be suggesting, although I may well be misunderstanding you, that Google News links to Wikipedia due to a business relationship between Google and Wikipedia - although there is absolutely no business relationship between Google and Wikipedia that led to their decision to link to us from Google News. You give a link, as if to substantiate the claim, but the link appears to perhaps be an accidental cut/paste error, as it has nothing to do with the matter at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• The idea that being accused of bigotry is worse than the bigotry itself isn't a new thing. Certainly, British editors will remember the Julie Bindel saga back in January, where she made horrifically transphobic comments in The Observer in response to her friend Suzanne Moore being criticised for LGBT activists for prejudiced language in one of her columns. It all comes down to the idea of privilege, really; as the majority of editors are white, male, straight, cisgender, etc, they have a privilege to look at things in this sort of dispassionate, by-the-book discussion that other people on this Earth don't have; indeed, that's why CSB exists in the first place. It's easier to leave your points of view at the door when the opposite point of view isn't "morally mandate them out of existence".

  Indeed, the simultaneous proposed topic bans of Baseball Bugs and Josh Gorand are very worrying. On one hand, Baseball Bugs made statements that were almost certainly intended to provoke anger and, yes, were transphobic (there's no other way to see calling a trans person "it"). He seems to be about to let off the hook for this behaviour. On the other hand, Josh has been pointing out transphobic commentary on the talk page (the mandatory worship of COMMONNAME aside, there is a lot of resistance to the idea of gendering Manning correctly in article text too) and is facing a topic ban for it. We're even seeing Morwen (talk · contribs) receiving threats of blackmail from (since-banned) editors, and David Gerard (talk · contribs) is probably getting similar harassment. The end result is that it is creating a very hostile and unwelcoming environment for trans editors, and is definitely against the Foundation's aims. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Julie Bindel's comments have a rationale to them, and I don't think Wikipedians should be expected to all be to the left of a lesbian rights activist on the issue. Doctors may agree that trans surgeries are a necessary and useful intervention, but medical ethics is strictly synonymous with profit. Why can't the same emotional end be accomplished through simple societal recognition of a third sex? Why are trans surgeries highest in Iran, and what would the doctors say about their necessity? There is definitely a need for society to retain its skeptics of the need for cosmetic surgeries. If there is a sense of privilege here, there are a lot of people who feel that it also extends to prisoners who sue for extensive surgeries; of course, if the U.S. had universal health coverage much of that resentment would be removed, and if wishes were horses... Wnt (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI: it was actually Julie Burchill, not Julie Bindel, who wrote the controversial Observer article User:Sceptre refers to. An understandable mistake (both are British feminist writers, with the same first name, who have both at times been accused of transphobia), but let's try to avoid violating BLP on Jimbo's talk page. Robofish (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• OP was blocked again, for 60 hours: Unfortunately, the OP of this thread, User:Sceptre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been blocked again for "topic ban violation" (this time by User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise: dif526) and not able to reply directly here for 60 hours (~3 days) from "09:17, 24 August 2013‎". However, comments can be read at bottom of User_talk:Sceptre. Dozens of users are discussing the issues at "wp:AN#Request for lift of topic ban" and Talk:Chelsea_Manning. -Wikid77 14:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, I don't think your judgement on this article-title issue is reliable and I'll explain why.

You wrote, "We ought to very strongly defer to how people identify themselves, but for various pedantic reasons, some editors insist on calling people by names that they very strongly reject. — With the use of the term "pedantic" you have unfairly stereotyped those who disagree with you.

You wrote, "I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call him Chelsea, which is why I support the change. — You are basing your judgement on speculation instead of facts.

But hey, this just demonstrates that when it comes to discussions like this, you are just another Wikipedia editor with regard to personal strengths and weaknesses. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course I am. But I do think you're missing my key point. Either choice is completely speculative at this point in time. There is no way, today, to settle the issue definitively by simply pointing to "what reliable sources say" - they say different things, and are likely to continue to do so for some time. If someone said "I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call her Bradley" that'd be equally as speculative. (And, I think, false, given a look at the history of such things.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Re "Either choice is completely speculative at this point in time." — There is no speculation that the vast majority of sources have used the name Bradley Manning. There is only speculation that the vast majority of sources will be using Chelsea Manning six months from now. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources throughout all of history say that Pluto is a planet. The moment a celebrity dies, the vast majority of sources will say that the person is alive. The day a famous person (usually, a woman) changes her name due to marriage, the vast majority of sources will give her previous name. The point is that when something new happens, we update Wikipedia. We often have to make judgment calls about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, that's a really persuasive point about the married name -- but (even if there is a ring of higher truth to it) we don't write that the celebrity's parents gave birth to a corpse. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just curious, because the pronoun shift is different from a name change in some important ways, so I don't think this proves anyone definitively one way or the other. How do we usually refer to women during the time in their life when they went by their maiden name? Here's one example: Margaret Thatcher in which we refer to her as 'Roberts' several times. Does this provide us with any guidance as to whether we ought to refer to Manning as 'he' when talking about a period in his life when he identified as male, and 'she' when talking about the present day? (Addendum: as a counter-example, I note we refer to Cheryl Cole as 'Cole' when she was 4 years old - even though Cole was not a name she or her parents would have recognized at that time.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That is an excellent point, because I think the Manning article, now with "she", needs to specify Manning was in the U.S. Army as a man, lest people imagine military service as a woman. This issue is akin to not omitting facts which would lead people to "original conclusions" (as in non-true conclusion of woman in army). -Wikid77 16:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

We change sentences about the person from the present tense to the past, though. Diego Moya (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, Re "The point is that when something new happens, we update Wikipedia." — When Manning expressed the desire to be called Chelsea, this new info was included in the article, presumably without dispute. But regarding the title, the new thing to happen would need to be a change to a prevalent use of Chelsea instead of Bradley in the sources that have come out since the announcement, which I don't think has happened so far. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it has. But in any event, time will tell.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The UK press shifted entirely over in mere hours after the announcement, the US press has been shifting at an increasing rate over the past few days - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, Re "I think it has. " — To find out, you can google Bradley Manning, and then google Chelsea Manning, and see for yourself. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Making google searches does not prove anything and using these search results is a bad way of building an encyclopedia. There is overhwelming evidence that many reliable sources are using Chelsea so it is already a common usage term, we dont need google to tell us this. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The googling was just to find current articles to read to see how they use the two names. I suggested separate searches using each name to avoid any keyword-related bias in the result. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Subject to some natural caveats, I don't agree with Squeakbox. A naive and blind use of Google search counts is a bad idea, of course. But it can be a useful first tool for understanding the preponderance of the evidence. And a quick look at the relevant Google search (i.e. Google news) shows that I'm absolutely right. The vast majority of sources are using "Chelsea" in the headlines. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did a google news search here in Australia, just searching for "Manning". Of the top ten results, two articles had "Bradley" in the headline ([1][2]) and two had "Chelsea" ([3][4]). StAnselm (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

One teeny problem -- the "name qua name" is the topic of many articles - and that is not proof that the newspaper style guide now says to use that name -- vide the NYT [5] which carefully uses "Bradley" and "he" in its most recent article. "Google counts" which include articles primarily about the name are not sufficient to make much of a case for anything. As Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and there is no deadline, I suggest that the NYT be considered as a reputable MOS guide here. Collect (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I went to the google news site after reading Jimbo's message but I didn't see how to search just google news and not google in general, and I didn't know what keywords Jimbo used. In any case, Jimbo's criteria of "using 'Chelsea' in the headlines" is not useful because it includes cases where both Bradley and Chelsea are in the same headline and does not exclude cases where Manning is referred to as Bradley in the text of the article. The correct criterion for this discussion is how Manning is referred to in the text of the article, Chelsea or Bradley.

I also went to repeat the search that StAnselm did, but in the process I found an interesting article from The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) about how the media was affected. Here's an excerpt about Wikipedia from that CSM article.[6]

For now, at least, and until instructed otherwise by my editors, I’ll do what that source of all undergraduate wisdom – Wikipedia – has done: Refer to Manning as female.

Ms. Manning had barely finished his – oops, her – announcement last week when Wikipedia immediately redirected “Bradley Manning” searches to “Chelsea Manning” in an article peppered with feminine pronouns. One example:

“She was sentenced to 35 years in prison and dishonorably discharged. She will be eligible for parole after serving one third of her sentence, and together with credits for time served and good behavior could be released eight years after sentencing.”

It’s not been so quick or easy for others in the media, where what to call Manning is being hotly debated.

From what I've seen at the Wikipedia article, the issue is being hotly debated in Wikipedia too but the change in the title did not come from a consensus from the debate, but instead was the result of aggressive editing and maneuvering. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gotta say, I'm not a particularly big fan of the sarcasm used in that article. Nor the way the post above seems to have some things a bit...tilted. Was the media really "effected" or was a single reporter from one source just agreeing with us...one that just happens to be one of, if not the top story coming up in Google news.

When you make a Google search there is an option below to choose "news". Just click it after you hit search. Bradley Manning Google News [7]. Chelsea manning google news [8].

Also, no this was not just something that popped up last week. This is an issue that has been simmering now for a month or two, at least. The decision was not a consensus edit. It was a bold edit. We still form consensus on Wikipedia through actual editing as well as discussion. It isn't a sin. I do resent the implication that editors who support this change have done so with "aggressive editing and maneuvering". No, they didn't. It got changed because it was finally confirmed to be accurate and real. Now that the bold edit has been made the community must decide if that is the right editorial judgment. I think it is. Strongly.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Re "The decision was not a consensus edit. It was a bold edit." — It was a series of edits that restored the move to Chelsea Manning after it was reverted twice.[9][10][11][12][13] The series of edits occurred over just 2 hours. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the first revert was an error according to the reverting editor. So it wasn't the situation that I had thought. Sorry about that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

However, the second revert back to Bradley Manning was not an error according to that reverting administrator. Since Bradley Manning had been the stable article title, I don't think it should have been reverted back to Chelsea Manning without consensus. I think that the following two talk page messages succinctly convey each administrator's view at the time.[14]

Regarding revert to Chelsea Manning, which was final revert:

"Reverted move per WP:BLP. Note that BLP considerations override pretty much everything except the fundamental content policies and are absolutely what admin powers are for - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)"

Regarding revert to Bradley Manning, which was just before the final revert to Chelsea Manning:

"How on Earth is it a BLP violation to refer to someone by their legal name in an article title? -- tariqabjotu 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)"

--Bob K31416 (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The talk page for the MOS has this very problematic comment by the administrator Toddst1 (talk · contribs):

*Oppose: If I decided to declare my gender as vegetable it wouldn't make it true nor would reporting such here be encyclopedic. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this conduct, which arguably breaks the Foundation's NDP, what we should expect or even tolerate from a sysop? Sceptre ^(talk) 12:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

For reference, I think that this is the Foundation's NDP that Sceptre is referring to.[15]

"The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, Re your comment "which arguably breaks the Foundation's NDP" — Would you care to explain? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Gender identity is explicitly legally protected in California, and implicitly protected federally as gender-based discrimination (Macy v. Holder). Todd's comments are clearly discriminatory speech against transgender persons, of which current and prospective users are a subset. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, In your response, I didn't see anything about how the Foundation's NDP quoted above applies to Todd's comment.

Jimbo, If you're following any of this, feel free to jump in if you would like to add anything regarding the Foundation's NDP and whether it applies to Todd's comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, It looks like Macy v. Holder has to do with discrimination in hiring.[16] So it doesn't apply to Todd's remark. Since you weren't specific about what California laws you were referring to, it's difficult for me to address that remark. I think that laws which limit freedom of speech are very narrow, and I expect they don't apply to Todd's remark. Perhaps a calm dialogue with your fellow Wikipedia editor on his Talk page might help you understand each other better. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, Regarding understanding each other, I think that what you object to in Todd's remark is that it sounds to you like a joke about something that is too serious to joke about. Is that about it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a clearly discriminatory remark, and I don't see how anyone can interpret it otherwise. When statements such as these are made by administrators, they bring disrepute to the project, and a Foundation that prides itself on equal opportunity. What do you think would happen in a different California company if a supervisor said what Toddst1 said to a trans employee they supervise? Sceptre ^(talk) 08:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone has the same ...if not morality, perhaps the term scruples could be used, in determining a slight against another, but most clear thinking people understand mockery. We see it often enough here to recognize it. When you fight for equality, sometimes you have to be a part of a community whether they like it or not but you don't have to be in battle mode on Wikipedia. We all have different backgrounds, experiences and a unique understanding of the world. You can further a cause by helping build encyclopedic value or you can try to set it back by comparing it to an unthinking food item. I think that some people will never see the seriousness of the subject and if they don't want to be serious they probably wont be counted. Did Toddst1 say this as part of his administrative duties or actions, or was this something said while just contributing as an editor? I don't think its going unnoticed. But we still have to accept each other and some of the things we will have to accept is that not everyone will understand us, not every one will agree with us and not everyone will take us seriously. LGBT issues are not even easy for those within the community and part of the history is that the "t" in LGBT was added. It used to be LGB. I think the 'b" was even added. Everything takes time, but here we are. Talking about the name change of an LGBT person. And when I remember how it was when even mentioning gay rights was shocking and gay marriage.....almost a laughable a dream. Things take time, but they do change.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons to famous name changes

The most-obvious example I remembered was the name change of world-famous boxer Cassius Clay, as a rising star in the sports world, and then Clay defeated Sonny Liston in a major upset, so the "whole world" then knew the name "Cassius Clay" was the greatest boxer of the time, at a time when boxing was not widely considered such a "politically questionable" violent sport. Then Clay joined the Nation of Islam, and changed his name to "Muhammad Ali" and to my shock, within weeks, the "whole world" started continually referring to Clay as "Ali", I mean it was like the world just did not understand he was the great "Cassius Clay" and everyone kept saying "Ali" (or for a short while some added "formerly Clay"). Hence, it is important to understand the way the world has really worked during the past 50 years, and remember how a famous person who changes names for a crucial reason is almost instantly renamed in reporting future famous events. Perhaps the key issues are the public announcement of the name change, plus the impact of the underlying reasons. And the world media immediately responds. It is amazing how quickly people around the world can react, learn and adapt. Update: Even though polite TV might have accepted "Ali" there is a report that other reporters and TV commentators "openly mocked his new name, treating it as a bizarre affectation" which perhaps was not broadcast as much (see: Salon.com, "What's in a name? Chelsea Manning and Muhammad Ali", Aug. 24, 2013), and Clay had secretly become a member of the Nation of Islam before the Liston fight, but promoters suppressed the story, and Clay did not announce name "Ali" until after he won the fight. Hence, the behind-the-scenes bickering might have been similar, with the Times deciding to use historic name "Cassius Clay" as tied to pre-Ali notability. There were related issues of racism or fear about Black Muslim activities. -Wikid77 16:59, 25 August, 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

So why does Wikipedia still have an article on Cat Stevens, who hasn't used that name for 35 years? Mogism (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You're both right, and you're both wrong. WP:COMMONNAME already has it covered. Muhammad Ali is the most common name for Cassius Clay and Cat Stevens is the most common name for Yusuf. There is no need to argue or change policy. WP:COMMONNAME is already correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor comes to mind as well. Albacore (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a direct comparison, though. The majority of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's notable achievements were under that name, the majority of Margaret Thatcher's achievements were as Margaret Thatcher, not Margaret Roberts or Baroness Grantham, and Talk:Cat Stevens is full of explanations that the page hasn't been moved as most of his notable activity was under that name. Everything for which Manning is notable was done under the name Bradley. While I personally agree that Wikipedia should respect the subject's wishes and use whatever name they want to be known by, we should at least admit that Cat Stevens, Alan Sugar and hundreds of other pages are at "subject's former name" on the grounds that that is the name by which their most notable activity took place, even though that's not the name the subject currently goes by. Mogism (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Not so, Manning is unquestionably notable for her statement that she is now a female called Chelsea, indeed that is arguably the most notable thing this notable human being has done. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You think the primary reason for her being notable is her gender identity? I don't just find that ridiculous, I find it insulting that you appear to be saying that people with gender identity issues are so unusual that they're automatically of public interest. (I really can't see any other way to parse your comment.) Mogism (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I didnt say it was the primary reason for her being notable, that was clearly the wikileaks episode, I said it was the most notable (just as Gary Glitter was primarily notable as a pop star but the most notable things he has done are his pedophile activities). Are you claiming Chelsea's recent statement isnt notable? In which case why are you here discussing it at all?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, nobody would care that Manning considers themselves female if it wasn't for the security breach. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The term "transphobic" should not be used in these discussions, in my opinion. A phobia is a mental illness, an irrational fear. It is uncivil name-calling and an attempt to shut down discussion by applying a label to those who do not agree with you. I don't see all of those comments at the start of this thread as being evidence of a phobia, some of them are just discussing the question from a different point of view than the OP.Smeat75 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

See etymological fallacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As our article puts it, "usually these kinds of "phobias" are described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the 'phobia'." It's not a nice thing to say, regardless of whether the etymology is accurate. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I formerly thought the word was a "-phobia" mental condition, but it has been defined as a "strong dislike" or use of discrimination, as a statement of fact rather than a direct personal insult, or an attempt to ascribe a medical diagnosis to another user. Comparisons to mental phobias are a source of conflicts, as someone imagines being called crazy, rather than stating a dislike of trangender. -Wikid77 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

.......or a polemic structure used in an effort to capture the moral high ground and to shift the focus of debate in a politically advantageous manner. It's a way to demean those with whom one disagrees. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

NYT/AP switch to Chelsea

Now 4 days later, "New York Times to Call Chelsea Manning by Her Preferred Name" at Huffingtonpost.com, 26 August 2013. There have been reports that the New York Times (NYT) refused to use the name "Muhammad Ali" when world-famous boxer Cassius Clay changed his name after 1964. Also, Associated Press (AP) has announced intent to use "Chelsea" and will immediately affect hundreds/thousands of sources, as news feed to influence each newspaper or broadcaster (within days, the vast majority of recent sources will have: Chelsea). Keeping the WP title as "Chelsea Manning" allows that to appear in "Category:Transgender and transsexual women" as a female name. The first 7 other-language wikipedias which also renamed, for title with Chelsea, are: Swedish Wikipedia, Persian Wikipedia, Turkish WP, Dutch WP, Danish WP, Catalan WP and Finnish Wikipedia, all renamed on 22/23 August 2013. -Wikid77 06:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Big picture on the Manning incident

I apologize for creating a new thread on this. As a quasi-retired editor am still seeing a lot of the same behavior that made me reassess my participation in the project. There were regrettable actions for this incident, and these kinds of mistakes will happen and can be fixed. The ultimate problem, however, is that many editors have turned the discussion page for the article into a WP:BATTLE situation and there has been very little attempt to fix that problem. This scares away editors interested in writing encyclopedias and attracts editors interested in fighting wars. This will not be the last heated discussion, and I encourage the project to evaluate what can be done to further discourage WP:BATTLE situations. One possibility would be an "admin boot camp" for training admins on effective methods for handling the situations. I do not expect a response or an immediate plan, nor would I suggest wading into the ongoing battle on this particular page. It is, however, something that concerns me as a long-time watcher, infrequent editor (~5k edits over 6 years), and frequent user of Wikipedia articles. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Riding the crest of trans culture 3 months: A major part of the turmoil, leading to wp:BATTLE conflicts, is due to the emerging terminology in trans culture. For example, the world "transphobia" was only added to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Microsoft Office software within the past 3 months (see: "Transphobia Is in the Dictionary", 25 July 2013) although the word has been used as slang for many years. Many people did not know about the major insult to refer to a trans female as "he/him" or "Mr." or using the former masculine name. This has been a learning experience for numerous people, as a case of "When in Rome" and probably few even knew the words "cisgender" or "cissexist". Consequently, WP needs to update policies or guidelines to properly encompass the trans terminology, even with radical changes to policy. As aerospace personnel might say, we are "pushing the envelope" to adjust the naming guidelines and inform other Wikipedians quickly. Hence, there have been numerous recent debates after the Manning name/gender announcement. The crucial need to respect a person's chosen name has been well-known since "Norman Maine" in A Star Is Born (1937 film) or after 1964 when world-famous Cassius Clay chose the unusual new name "Muhammad Ali". As Jimbo has noted earlier, in his busy new-father life, the need to quickly recognize people's new names and update the BLP status details (new profession, marriage) has been overlooked in many cases (beyond The artist formerly known as Prince). However, thank you for noting the intensity of the debate conflicts about Manning, where others talking with Jimbo might have been unaware. -Wikid77 08:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing the point, though - my concern is not the specific details of the Manning case, but the fact that the situation was badly handled. It took days to bring the discussion to anything approaching civil, comments seen as highly offensive went unaddressed, and so on. Given Wikipedia's long experience with these kinds of disputes, it would seem that we could help admins by putting together a list of best practices on how to calm the storm, what thresholds and tools should be used for short-term disruptive behavior, and so on, because the admin corps came across as completely lost in handling the situation. I'm not concerned about the details of articles, we'll figure those out, I'm concerned that we're recruiting time drains like SPAs and scaring away productive editors when we encourage this kind of battleground behavior by looking the other way. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed to "miss the point" when describing fundamental problems where the groundrules of the discussion were in utter turmoil. It was like noting arguments about people constructing a house on a hillside, BUT the groundfloor of the house slid when "The Storm of the Century" flooded the area with a mudslide never seen in the region. Remember, this is the first time in the history of the world to have OED give a formal definition to "transphobia" while people discuss how to properly structure a wp:BLP article about trans people. Consider if admins even knew 4 months ago the word "transphobic" was not formally defined in Oxford. Meanwhile, there were massive problems in the wiki-groundfloor, including the instant renaming of "Kate Middleton" away from the 99%-used wp:COMMONNAME to "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" while people insisted "Chelsea" had no significant basis in the title, even when announced in a legal notice on a U.S. nation-wide TV broadcast (NBC's morning Today show), reported by other sources. -Wikid77 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Wikid. With all due respect, we're not here to "push the envelope," we're here to write an encyclopedia, based upon published secondary sources. The reason this exploded isn't because of "transphobia," its because the logic of the encyclopedia based on published sources (reflected in the standard WP:COMMONNAME) was set aside in favor of "pushing the envelope." We should not be "pushing the envelope" at all... Carrite (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Progress came by wp:IAR when wp:COMMONNAME failed. Other people here see the need to continually "push the envelope" for better quality of articles, including data coverage which is broader and faster, or editing which is quicker or semi-automatic: "{{fixcaps|GOnE WiTH tHE /wIND}}" for "Template:Fixcaps". The instant renaming of "Kate Middleton" away from the 95%-used wp:COMMONNAME to "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" can seem like a double-standard, when rejecting another person's formal announcement of name change on a U.S. nation-wide television broadcast. This isn't "Royalpedia" where only royalty is treated to instant updates of status or name. Similarly, there is no requirement to mandate the rejection of edit-conflicts, so I have been pushing strongly to auto-merge simple edit-conflicts and stack multiple replies at the same line, into LIFO ("last-in, first-out") order. Overall, no one is insisting for everyone to "push the envelope" for faster or broader updates, but yes some are actively expanding and quickening those capabilities. I welcome others to join us. -Wikid77 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"We did it for Kate Middleton" is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is an argument to be avoided. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, it's worth nothing that WP:COMMONNAME is not the only relevant policy for article titles. This is certainly true with respect to royalty and nobility, where for a great many reasons there are special naming conventions. I think for that reason, royalty makes a poor "for instance". Name changes of celebrities upon marriage is a more interesting and useful comparison I think.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd hoped for a conversation about editor retention, but it appears that it's just becoming another question about content. Oh well. Feel free to close this topic, there's nothing being said under this heading that can't be said elsewhere. Yes, same human different IP. 166.147.88.30 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it can be frustrating to discuss limits to conflicts, but "form is content" when words are debated about whether they are insults, as "xenophobic" seems an insult about a mental phobia, but "transphobic" often means a dislike of transgender. Perhaps discuss at wp:WikiProject Editor Retention. In general, many words are borderline insults, such as the phrase, "editors are slow to update a page" has been interpreted at wp:ANI as meaning, "slow-witted". Hence, beyond concern that a talk-page is full of uncontrolled insults, there is the reverse danger of censoring a person for years who used the word "slow" when referring to other editors. So, a talk-page full of intense phrases might be better than having numerous editors blocked and censored for years. -Wikid77 12:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Child protection policy

Legitimate debate on Wikipedia, especially when it begins to harm the "seekrit" nature of Wikipediots, needs to be suppressed. Power players need to be encouraged and one needs to observe standards of "civility" and "proper decorum" in their presence, even when one is not entitled to nearly the same set of rules. Breaches of these rules against common editors, as well as large-scale, long-term disruption and trolling of the encyclopedia, need to be ignored in favor of punishing content editors, who are easily removed. Nothing should threaten the status of power players, the IRC channels should remain unlogged, inappropriate e-mails need to be glossed over, and above all, the safety of children and accuracy of content on Wikipedia (as long as that content is not related to popular culture or video games) must be ignored in favor of meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta disputes on "teh rulez."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am a strong supporter of our child protection policy, which is strictly enforced. The blog post I'm asked about is utterly dishonest it its portrayal of the facts. There is no truth at all to the claim that someone was silenced for being a whistleblower. Rather, a user was blocked after a long string of outrageous insulting and otherwise bad behavior having nothing at all to do with child protection. His long block log tells the story better than I can. He should have been permanently banned a very long time ago for disruption. To suddenly cast him as a hero in the service of children is beyond mistaken.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Hi Jimbo, Have you read this blog yet? What is your opinion about the problems described there? Thanks. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Jimbo, on the case page you can see what prompted the case and the result. The "whistle-blowing" referred to in the blog post (one should use that term lightly here) concerns an unrelated editor and is not what prompted the case, nor was it the primary driver of the decision.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Of course the whistle-blowing was the primary driver of the decision. Just a few days before the decision was made Kiefer.Wolfowitz was blocked for 48 hours over this comment. Of course Kiefer.Wolfowitz is blocked for the whistle-blowing. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Actually it was the block for this comment (admins only) that immediately preceded the case. Then again, there's so much to choose from in KW's block log (including two more blocks for unrelated matters during the case!) that your line of argument would support his ban being for just about anything. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC) That comment is more nasty innuendo than whistle-blowing and there is a great deal of dishonesty in Kiefer's framing of those situations. Also, while such an incident may have influenced the decision (there was talk of a site-ban well before that incident) it was just one of many things he did over the duration of the case. Several comments about the actual opposing party in that case, where there were no real issues of child protection, likely played just as much of a role in how Arbitrators acted and there were many egregious comments he made about other people during the case with some additional taunting of the Arbs on the case talk page. Kiefer regrettably decided to go out shooting. For people to then whimper and whine that he is just being silenced for raising legitimate issues about da childrens is dishonest and exploitative. I expressed my opposition to a site ban several times, as well as expressing opposition to the very idea of a case, but I am not so foolish as to suggest there was not very good reason given for the ban.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipediocracy spam, check! Posted by someone lacking the courage to use their regular account, check! (Curious also that the blog criticizes anon editing, yet this person won't put their name - either real life or regular account - to it). Attempts to pass an editor who exhibited serious, extreme and unrepentant behavioural issues off as a martyr, check! Nicely done! Resolute 01:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Spam? Okay, then maybe you could provide a legitimate reason why an adult user would want to contact at least three young boys off-wiki? I mean he wants to mentor them, fine, but why to do it off-wiki? Please tell me, I'm all ears.50.174.76.70 (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Also worthy of note is this blog putting forward the child protection policies of the Boy Scouts of America as a model for us. The core of that program was homophobia, and the program was a catastrophic failure that didn't prevent thousands of cases of child molestation but instead tried to minimize public knowledge of them. Check! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Please give me a break. What it has to do with homophobia? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) You seem to be adept at trying to knock down strawmen while avoiding the key point. Perhaps this might help: This is the organization whose child protection policies you trumpet. Stellar journalism, guys. Really. The kind of stuff that will land you a job with Fox News or the Daily Mail. Resolute 02:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC) You will get no break from me, so I will be more succinct: The BSA is a deeply homophobic organization with a long record of covering up child abuse. Why do you promote their failed "child protection policy"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I do not not promote anybody's child protection policy. This post isn't about the Boy Scouts of America, and this post isn't about homophobia. This post is about kids who edit Wikipedia, and I still haven't gotten a response to my question which is: could you please provide a legitimate reason why an adult user would want to contact at least three young boys off-wiki? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Neither your question nor the blog post provide reliable information that would enable any of us to answer that question. Perhaps this hypothetical adult user is a pedophile, and perhaps they are someone sincerely mentoring younger editors. Just like pre-1985 scout leaders. But innuendo is an addictive drug to many. Several things are certain, though, regarding this blog post. No broad context is provided regarding the edit history of the "hero" of the tale, since that would take air out of the balloon. And also, the blog post promotes the failed child protection policies of a homophobic organization. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC) you mean the one where the adults are never supposed to be one-on-one with any youth, at least 2 adults must be present, all adults go through background checks, etcetera? -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC) We are not talking about whether a one paragraph summary of their standards "sounds good", but whether it is actually effective. Lawsuits have forced them to release old records which show their old failures. They refuse to release newer records, though lawsuits are bearing down on them. Until those records are released, I am extremely skeptical that they have solved their problems. Until this year, they routinely ousted innocent gay Scouts. They continue to oust innocent gay Scout leaders. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC) the homophobia is an entirely different matter, or, at least, it should be. anyways, this discussion is wandering away from whatever focus it should have. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Putting homophobia aside boy-scouts are entirely different kettle of fish than wikipedia editors. Boy-scouts have direct physical contact with their adult supervisors, the adults are often in position of authority to the children, etc. Underaged wikipedians are forbidden to identify themselves as such, their physical whereabouts are hidden, all on-wiki activities are constantly monitored and opened for scrutiny. The different risks dictates diffeent level of precautions Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Are you really claiming that either the blog post or the original question had "focus"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I dunno, if not, then maybe WP:NOTFORUM applies here... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Jimbo has repeatedly made it clear that this talk page is a forum, a place to blow off steam and a place to discuss "edge" issues. So this is probably the page where that link applies least. If Jimmy Wales wants to end this discussion, I will comply. I think Wikipedia needs responsible criticism. I think Wikipedia needs to address contact and conduct between minors who edit and adults who edit. That being said, the hidden story behind this blog post is really the story of a talented editor going off the rails very catastrophically, and the post fails to contribute, in my opinion, to that necessary conversation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC) If my post fails to contribute, it's only because the kids' privacy is involved, but I could provide some specifics. After off-wiki email exchange with his "mentor" one of the boys came to a strange conclusion. The boy said that his mentor "enjoys caning naughty boys". Do you believe it is a matter to be concerned about? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Well, thanks for at least admitting you are Peter, Mr. Anon. That being said, given your history, you'll have to forgive me if I put zero stock in your good word. If you have actual evidence of actual wrongdoing, take it to the police. Otherwise, I have found that "Won't someone please think of the children?" is often a phrase used to try and mask ulterior motives. Resolute 04:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC) problem sherlock PD is in London, this IP is near San Fransico. It is more likely to be a WMF employee than PD. 62.49.31.176 (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Don't really care either way, but the IP could be a proxy and the above exchange does read like an acknowledgment of authorship. Of course, the IP user could also be lying. Again, don't really care.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC) typical of this site bitching about the messenger rather than the message. Oops that is what the WO post was about, so no surprises that the wiki cultists would all do the same here. 62.49.31.176 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC) If we consider IRC not to be a part of Wikipedia then it is way safer for children than play on public playground, walk down the streets, attend schools or borrow books from a library (there might be an offensive graffiti or an indecent letter in the book. I do not have much of a positive experience with the Wiki-IRC and other Wikipedia-related internet forums like wikipediocracy but I am under impression that they are not ruled by Jimbo or Wikimedia. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your opinion, but my questions were not answered. Let's forget about the blog and about the whistle-blower. I'd like to ask you to respond my own "yes" or "no" question please. After off-wiki email exchange with his "mentor" one of the boys makes a post on his mentor's user page stating that his mentor "enjoys caning naughty boys". "The mentor" quietly removes the post, but fails to issue a warning to the boy. Do you, Mr. Wales, believe it is something to be concerned about? Thank you. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I am talking about kids, and simply ignoring my question doesn't look good I'm afraid. Maybe more information will help you to respond. "The mentor" has edited almost every article connected to corporal punishment, caning, spanking and so on. In particular "the mentor" has edited the following articles: Birching;Cane;Caning;Caning in Malaysia;Child discipline;Corporal punishment;Corporal punishment in the home;List of methods of torture;Murga punishment;Paddle (spanking);School corporal punishment;School discipline; School punishment ;Slippering;Spanking;Switch (corporal punishment).50.174.76.70 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than accusing me of ignoring you (after less than 2 hours) and perhaps rather than snarky innuendo, you could post links to things that I could actually assess. I'm sure you'll understand that I'm reluctant to trust vague reports from someone who doesn't even have the courage to log in and use a name of some sort. But to be clear: if your description is honest (which is impossible for me to determine) then yes, that's a matter of serious concern. Evidence please, rather than innuendo. I just checked the editor history of one of the articles you link to, and there are dozens of editors. Who are we talking about and what have they done and what proof do you have of it? Vague philosophical questions are useless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

you could post links to things that I could actually assess. Whilst you did seem to know enough first thing this morning to label it as "a long string of outrageous insulting", you could ask ArbCom just how sure they are about that this evening. John lilburne (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't conflate two separate issues. The blocked editor was very much guilty of "a long string of outrageous insulting and otherwise bad behavior having nothing at all to do with child protection". So I'm not lamenting his block, as I think he should have been permanently blocked a long time ago. (Check his block log.) The entirely separate issue of another editor's behavior is an entirely separate issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the block log. All of this year has been various episodes related to the "spanker/caner" and the boys. Around xmas last year there was an issue concerning "inappropriate/creepy" comments made by someone towards women on IRC. You're an intelligent fellow does it not seem to you a "blame the messenger" ethos that has developed here which needs addressing? John lilburne (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, how do you feel about the fact that the editor who offered to "mentor" these underage WP participants and communicated with them privately is still allowed to edit Wikipedia with no restrictions and has posted here to your talk page numerous times? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know any details about it, and other than dripping with innuendo, your description doesn't tell me anything useful. Why do you put the word 'mentor' in scare quotes? In general, I think it can be perfectly appropriate for people to help teenagers learn to edit Wikipedia, and that's often going to take place via email. So if you are asking an abstract question is it ok for someone to mentor teens and communicate with them by email, well, yes of course, there's nothing inherently problematic about that. I assume though, that you're (as usual) trying to catch me in some kind of "gotcha" and you're withholding something you think is damaging. What is it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, thank you for your response! My description is absolutely honest, and there are on-wiki links to prove my words, and I haven't told you everything yet, but I cannot post the links to your talk page because the 14-years old privacy is at stake. The boy provided his first and his last name on wiki, as well as the city he lives in. He has also uploaded an image of himself.50.174.76.70 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Then use email instead of a very public forum.--MONGO 11:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Attention whores don't like email because it doesn't give them the ego hit that using a very public forum does. Resolute 19:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

See what happens when someone uses a public forum to highlight another WP governance failing? Some WP hero hiding behind an anonymous account name insults them. No Jimbo, I wasn't trying to "gotcha", just trying to remind you that you're making it very obvious that you and the WMF aren't doing anything more than paying lip service to the child protection policy. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolute, you have no moral authority to talk here. You have relished in protracted incivility against many users, and are one of the main opponents of urgently needed Wikipedia governance reform. It is only your membership in the right cabals and your being a lapdog to the right power players that has stopped the case against Demigurge from going to the Arbitration Committee. If you and your ilk were banned from the encyclopedia, it would immediately give breathing space to whistleblowers like Kiefer Wolfowitz.

You foul the encyclopedia, and appear to be extremely resolute in your goal of diminishing it while you accrue status. Like Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) and the respected and exalted Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) himself, you should just leave the encyclopedia. Wer900 • talk 23:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, check your email. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, you mean you wouldn't have minded if your kid was getting emails from an anonymous stranger, especially if this stranger states something like that on his user page: "This user observed, received, and administered corporal punishment while he was a schoolboy"? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you think about this

The admin who will be closing the Manning page-title debate has listed you as voting to support the current title, even though you never actually voted. This is fine in and of itself, as everyone's opinions should count in discussions like these. The problem is that while 3 other users have voiced support for moving the page back, the same admin who counted your user-talk-page opinion as a full-fledged vote has listed these other 3 as "out of process supports" and said that since they didn't actually vote, they will not be taken into consideration when it comes to the final result of the page-name. It seems clear to me that you wish your opinion to be given equal, rather than extra, weight here. Do you find this fair? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Because !voting is, well, not voting, I think it's fine to include my views - the actual count doesn't really determine the answer. I don't know what the other 3 users said, so I'm not sure how their comments should be treated. I suppose it would make more sense to me to move me to "out of process oppose" since I didn't really join the process. But it doesn't seem like it really matters all that much, so I'd mostly like there to be more focus on the content of the debate rather than proceduralism.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have commented in response to this concern on my talk page, it is premature. I have not assigned any weight to anything yet, and when the time does come for 'assigning weight', I will be one member of a three-admin panel to consider the issue. bd2412 T 11:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Who are the other two administrators? --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BOZ and User:Kww. Their names were presented to me as options when a three-admin panel was suggest on the WP:ANI closure page; so I asked, and they agreed to help. bd2412 T 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, In that discussion that you linked to, you wrote "I interpret WP:BRD as requiring a consensus in favor of a title different than the one that existed yesterday, in order for such a change to be effected." — Which title is "the one that existed yesterday"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Kww is quite experienced at closing RfC's, and judging consensus, and the three-admin panel is really the way to go with large RfC's... it's pretty much standard actually... as far as the title goes, the status quo is whatever the title was before the editor boldly changed it. I feel the system of BRD is working as intended, an editor boldly changed something, and now, we are discussing whether or not to keep the change, thereby preventing any possible edit warring or other disputes over it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, Please note that I would still like to hear from you regarding my last message since you are a closing administrator. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My sandbox is just that, a sandbox; it is a collection of notes sketching out issues that I have not fully thought through. If I fail to immediately notice an editor having switched their !vote, it is helpful to bring that to my attention (although I will certainly review the count very closely once the discussion closes), but otherwise the contents of that page are of no moment to the discussion. Bear in mind, in most instances, the closing administrator does not even look at the discussion being closed until the discussion is complete. In this case, the number of participants and the number of issues being raised makes it worth taking some broad notes in advance of the more intense deliberation which will occur after closure. bd2412 T 15:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, Since your above message doesn't seem to fit here, did you mistakenly post it here instead of somewhere else? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My above message is in answer to your question. I'm afraid it's all the answer I can give you. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps BD2412 has misunderstood Bob K31416's question. It's clear from the timestamps that "the one that existed yesterday" is "Bradley Manning". – Smyth\^talk 20:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, This is starting to look like there's going to be a closing fiasco like the one that occurred with the "verifiability, not truth" RfC. I hope not. As you pointed out back then, there was a super majority consensus for removing "verifiability, not truth" that the three closers interpreted as no consensus. In this case, it would be a matter of the closers deciding what title should be kept if there is no consensus, the new one Chelsea Manning, or the previous long-standing one Bradley Manning. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the trick, though - the term majority, in this context, has no relevance. The number of editors on one side of the issue or another is relevant, certainly, but the side with fewer editors will prevail if the strength of their arguments is the greater. And that's why we have three admins, experienced and respected all, who will read the comments and the discussions, judge their merit, and determine where consensus lies. As for a no consensus close - obviously, a no consensus close will default to the wrong title. And editors will shout from the hills that there was indeed consensus for their preferred version, and lots of good people will have their feelings hurt, and then we will move on. If we can't trust these admins to close, then who? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a "no consensus" would default to "Bradley Manning", rather than the wrong title. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia generation

Imagine a world in which "the sum of all human knowledge" affects the way The New York Times or the Associated Press (AP) handles the names of transgender people. Some commentators even noted the importance of the talk-page as a historical document for 2013 ("Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move"). For some time, various people have stated, "WP should not lead world changes" but we are in the "Wikpedia generation" with teenagers who never knew the pre-WP world, teenagers who do not depend on buying numerous books to learn some background about 30 million articles (in whatever language). I am reminded of comments speculating if Cleopatra VII had lived longer, for ancient Egypt to better influence world affairs, beyond our 365/366-day calendar or eye makeup or "lost languages", then technology today might be 200 years more advanced. Think: "no wp:edit_conflicts" when paragraphs are moved (just kidding), but others have noted quicker medical advances, such as knowing bee's honey was an antibiotic treatment, etc. We need to consider the impact of WP on "epistemic feedback" because WP is fast becoming a major factor in the world's current knowledge. What I mean is: we cannot pretend WP does not affect world events. Too late for that. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is true that we do, and true that it is too late for it to be otherwise. It is true as well that this poses some puzzling philosophical dilemmas for us, as well as some practical research dilemmas. (For example, there are cases of errors originating in Wikipedia being then repeated in reliable sources - we need to have the wisdom to back things up to the time before the error and discount sources that appear to have gotten misinformation from us.)

I don't think there is any valid argument that says "Because we inevitably affect the world, we should try to affect the world through systematic deviations from neutrality that serve our agendas." As soon as we start to play that game, we lose a lot of hard-earned credibility - and introduce impossible and horrible arguments into the community that we'll be much happier avoiding.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Of course compiling "the sum of all human knowledge" will affect how the world behaves. Isn't that the whole point of making knowledge accessible? What good would it be to register all the world's history if that wouldn't influence future human action? That still doesn't mean that we're creating that knowledge; just sharing it in the most efficient way. (When we *do* create new knowledge, that's against our original research policy and should be treated as something to fix, of course).

In the Manning debate, our style guideline was not merely developed in-house; it's primarily based on published guidelines from expert sources like GLAAD's recommendations for journalists and writers, and thus based upon direct wisdom and analysis of the topic at hand. This only means that we're assimilating essential knowledge faster than other media, which are specialized in providing updates on the latest news instead of distributing basic knowledge. I see that as a good thing, not something to avoid. Diego Moya (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In the words of one old song 'This old world keeps spinning round. Its a wonder tall trees ain't laying down.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: errors originating in Wikipedia and then being repeated in reliable sources, it's called citogenesis. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps Wikipedia does create new knowledge by organizing information that exists at a lower level and creating information at a higher level as a result. It's analogous to how a community of cells forming a brain can take in information about the environment and react to that by applying certain rules. At the level of these cells, no new information is created, but at the level of the collection of cells (the brain), you can have new "knowledge" as a result of this processing. Count Iblis (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps have essay on Wikipedia generation:' One path would be to have a new essay "wp:The Wikipedia Generation" to address some issues, of the now 13-year timespan, and link related essays about mirror-sites and sources actually based on older WP data. Plus, the dangers of advocacy as a top website. -Wikid77 12:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we ready for Yusuf Islam?

With the decision to rename looking like a lock for Chelsea Manning, are we ready to unravel the issue of stage names, performer names, and religious name changes? The article presently titled Cat Stevens has a vote from April saying to keep the name, but compared to Manning it is a very small vote. The comparison was made to other performers like Lady Gaga. But I'm thinking perhaps it is time for the gnomes and trolls to make some room for the hobgoblins...

The consistent solution I'd suggest is that we first recognize that there could sometimes be two different articles about a stage performer - one about the famous persona, one about the human performer of it. It seems clear to me that the persona "Cat Stevens" is notable and worth covering, and that the person "Yusuf Islam", entirely apart from any performance as Cat Stevens, is also notable and worth covering. In this case, we could merge the two articles into one, with some cramming, and have what we have now. But the united content of a general article about Yusuf Islam and a specific article about one of his personas must surely be named after the general category it covers, i.e. Yusuf Islam.

In some cases (perhaps with Gaga, but I didn't read very carefully) it is possible that in every notable appearance, a celebrity has appeared under her stage name, and that as a human with a human name she does not have the notability to create an article. Then we could have an article only about the persona, not about the person.

Sometimes we could also have both articles and keep them separate.

Before barging into the Cat Stevens article and raising trouble, I think this could be voted and agreed on under some relevant policy or guideline; I'm not sure which. Wnt (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Stupid. Just plain stupid... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wnt, sometimes consistency is impossible when you are trying to respect a living person and the consensus of editors. Consensus can always change. Just start there and work your way up. Don't proclaim a logical leap when one doesn't exist. You can't lump everyone together and say we treat them all exactly the same. Everything needs to be handles on a case by case basis.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I'd like you to strike that remark. Insults aren't a very helpful response to policy proposals. I do not think it would be desirable (except in a few cases where there is a clear "character" played throughout a career, see Dame Edna Everage and Barry Humphries) to have separate articles under a stage name and personal name. I don't think Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam is a very compelling example for the simple reason that, as far as I know, reliable sources still very strongly tend to call him Cat Stevens. Unless I'm mistaken he made his name change in 1978, long before Wikipedia existed, so we didn't ever face the same kind of complex environment in which reliable sources were in flux and confused temporarily themselves.

I agree with Mark here that "everything needs to be handled on a case by case basis" but would add "in a principled manner". That is to say, we have to weigh up various competing concerns and factors and come to decisions, not willy-nilly, but with a comprehensive look at all the facts. That's sometimes going to be straightforward, and sometimes going to be quite complex. My main advice to everyone is to relax a notch or two. Not every editorial dispute in Wikipedia is the final clash in a war to save the culture. I think there is significant common ground for all sensible people here. My own view is that we should change the name in the article when reliable sources tend to do so, and my further view is that this means now. I think fewer people will agree with me on that second point, than on the first. But the first is the more important one, and even there, if people have slightly different views on it or ways of expressing it, those are still reasonable disagreements that shouldn't make us emotionally troubled. Do completely unreasonable views exist? Sure, but such is the human condition.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Closer sources say both Yusuf/Stevens so no rush: A quick look shows YusufIslam.com with, "Official web site for Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), acclaimed singer-songwriter, humanitarian and philanthropist" so that tends to support either name. Plus, Al Jazeera English has article of 18 April 2012, "Q&A: Yusuf Islam on music and faith - Features" which notes both names when stating, "Artist once known as Cat Stevens explains why he left music, why he returned and why his latest project tops the rest." Also, the related Twitter and Facebook accounts have both names, whether self-run or by fan clubs. In contrast, we have a legal notice by Manning stating her wish to be known by the new name Chelsea, and so it is a matter of self-identification. If I ruled the wiki-world, I would instantly have articles allow sub-titles, such as "(aka Cat Stevens)" and categories could be displayed with the sub-titles either shown/hidden, but only after/during the fixing of wp:edit_conflicts to stack multiple replies at the same line into LIFO ("last-in, first-out") order and allow edits to separate parts of the same line (separated at one word). Anyway, a search for "Cat Stevens" as allintitle could match either the title or subtitle. If there were a legal notice to prefer only "Yusuf" then renaming would be clearer. -Wikid77 20:47, 27 August, 12:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Jimbo Wales on German Wikipedia are with no response / I will not give any more comments

Dear Jimbo Wales, for reasons explained above, with full respect to you, it is apparent that you can not protect people and institutions from all kinds of brutal attacks on Wikipedia. As I stated, Wikipedia is not a reliable and serious source of any personal information. For this I will not use it, particularly since German Wikipedia was used by group of irresponsible people to discredit highest institutions of Republic of Macedonia. I will not comment on this issue any more, but I am deeply disappointed. I hope that all this will finish here. Sincerely yours. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambassador.MFA.RM (talk • contribs) 23:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. All photos in Wikimedia Commons Category:Igor Janev are nominated for deletion. How democratic way of conduct of business in Wikipedia!

Unanswered questions from the archives

Hi Jimmy, is it okay to bring back unanswered questions from the archives here? I have been reverted twice for trying to do so. I see others doing it occasionally. I hope you don't consider it abuse of your talk page. How do you feel about other editors deleting such questions? 192.81.0.147 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's too bad WP:BADGERING is a redlink. Looie496 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Because we have this. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with either of these responses. It can sometimes be ok to bring back threads that have been archived, but it's a judgment call as it might be regarded as badgering or trolling. I sometimes don't answer threads because I think other people have answered the question well enough, or because I don't have enough information to say anything useful, etc. Simply reposting isn't always going to change that, but asking again in a different way (perhaps giving me more information to work with) can be useful.

To answer briefly each of the specific threads that the ip address is inquiring about.

1. Webcite - I have no strong view on this. I think it is a valuable service and I hope it is saved. I hope that they will get in touch with the Foundation in a direct professional capacity to inquire about the possibility of a grant. I don't think the Foundation should take over or try to provide such a service, since the software is completely different and we have no experience in that area. However, I am not the decision maker on such things, and it would be wrong for me to push my own mostly uninformed views on staff on a question like that.
2. Readership statistics by organization - I'm opposed to this. My view is that when you edit Wikipedia, you are taking a public action and so of course we publish edit histories and so on. But reading is a private matter and everyone - even people who work for organizations - has a fundamental human right to read what they wish to read in Wikipedia. I suppose it would be fine to have some research on reading patterns from different groups of people, but even there, specific organizations aren't really the interesting research questions. I'd like to know what women tend to read more of relative to men, or what people tend to read during "lunch time" wherever they happen to live versus "dinner time".
3. My talk at Wikimania - I see nothing in this that I could respond to. I could, I suppose, respond to Kumioko's trolling, but I see no purpose in it.
4. Two threads relating to Monsanto - looks like an ordinary editing dispute with COI allegations with no new implications. This is the sort of thing that I take a keen interest in, of course, but as my wife has just had a baby, I'm unlikely to have the time to directly look into this one unless I'm persuaded that it's a bigger and more interesting issue that most.
5. Gulf war syndrome - even more than the Monsanto one, this doesn't look like something that rises to the level that it would need my attention. The question is better asked at the talk page and if more eyes are needed, then posting in a relevant board would make sense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Even a small response is a great help to make progress. The two threads are about Monsanto and Bayer. I hope you will ask about any such medical issues which may seem fishy at WT:MED please. Best, 192.81.0.147 (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Secret RFCs?

I was wondering if one could avoid long protracted discussions (like e.g. now about Manning) if instead of a big RFC one were to hold a RFC where editors are asked to email the closing Admin(s) with their arguments. One could consider doing this if an initial RFC points to not enough consensus on the issue. Typically what you see in such cases is that any formation of consensus one way or the other is pushed back against by the other side coming out more. Also, you usually get a large number of separate discussion threads that the closing Admins will have a difficult time reading.

Those discussions may be useful for individual editors to form their opinions, so it wouldn't be a problem for this to happen in an initial RFC. If that RFC would have a clear consensus, the closing Admins don't really have to read all that has been said in every thread. But if there is no consensus, then I think it's better for a secret RFC to be held via email. In that case, it could be helpful to post the number of people who have responded so far every day and to close it at a certain date, unless not enough people have responded by that date. Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a truly dumb idea. Since noone could see the evidence, it would make every decision the whim of the admin chosen to close it. ('From now on, Chelsea/Bradley Manning is only to be referred to as "The Perilous Poozer of Pamplemousse Pass". I can assure you there was an overwhelming consensus for it. Sorry, I can't tell you who supported it, that's secret.') Mogism (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that can be dealt with by appointing a panel of Admins, one can be a sitting ArbCom member and all the emails can be published after the closing of the RFC. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC's should continue to be open discussions. I do think that they (or at least the more controversial ones) should be closed only by an elected panel of multiple editors. Otherwise the results depend too much on who steps up to be the closer. It is somewhat encouraging that in the Manning situation, there will be three closers, but I don't think that's enough. By the way, Mogism, I believe you have misspelled Pomplemoose. (I never realized it before, but that book is a pretty good analogy for Wikipedia itself at times.) Neutron (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think people are surpassingly unlikely to be swayed by the results of secret RFCs. They barely accept the results of public ones if they're not 95:5 or more - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltarpedia. Again.

[17] Attempting to get rid of DYK restrictions. I think you might want to weigh in here before the semi-secret vote closes. AwarenessNow! (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling an RfC a semi-secret vote is funny. Agathoclea (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Even with these restrictions, there have apparently been 20 Gibraltar-related DYKs this year. Twenty seems like a lot for such a small place, but whatever is driving this shows no signs of stopping so why keep fighting it? Let's open the floodgates and see what happens. There should be another X-pedia project along soon to replace Gibraltar anyway. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question you posed in your edit summary: I, for one, am very unlikely to care when an "OMG SCANDAL" thread is started by an anonymous coward. In fact, I am half tempted to go in and support the lifting of restrictions, simply because of this thread. Resolute 19:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I mean, who wants to evaluate the merits of a given situation and weigh the pros & cons of the differing points of view? That there's just crazy talk, when voting out of spite is so much easier. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. But to be perfectly honest, when I see socks starting threads like this, my thought process going in to review the merits of something like this would likely become one of "why should the restriction not be lifted?" as opposed to "why should the restriction be lifted?". Or to put it simply, these little panic threads aren't likely to elicit the kind of response the OP is looking for from me, especially when our anonymous coward has to rely on deliberate misrepresentations like calling an RFC "semi-secret". Resolute 22:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)