User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 67

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

So I don't know how to handle this
Hey there, it's cymru.lass (again). I was wondering if I could pick your brain (again) because I ran into a copyright thing I don't know how to handle properly (again). The article in question is Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems. In the references section, there was a little note that says "The content of this article was adapted and expanded from the www.ccsds.org (public domain)." I took a look at the website, turns out that ccsds.org's content is not public domain (and is very clearly stated to be copyrighted, with all rights reserved). So I decided to go through the article and see how much of it was taken verbatim from ccsds.org. Turns out, it was a good chunk of the article, but not all of it. (I copied the article over to User:Cymru.lass/ccsds and then went link by link—each edit represents removal of content from a single link—if you want to take a look.)

I have a page size-counting script installed in my .js, so I ran it on the userspace version after the removal as well as the original article and it turns out over 2/3 of the original article was easily identifiable as copyrighted material. What do I do? The version with the copyvios removed isn't enough to stand on its own two legs as an article. Do I nominate it for deletion as a mostly-copyvio? Do I take out the copyvios and just leave it like that? Do I do something else entirely? Many thanks, — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my horrible tardiness, cymru.lass. Since the most part of the article was infringing on someone else's copyright and since what would have been left, had all copyrighted material been removed, I speedily deleted the article under WP:G12 (for the future, this is one possible approach; the alternative one is to remove all infringing material and then nominate the article for deletion under A3 or to send it to AfD). I have not touched your userspace draft, to allow you to rewrite the article, if you wish. If you want that gone as well, ping me or tag the page for speedy deletion under U1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries on the late reply! Thanks for taking care of the article. I wasn't quite sure whether or not it qualified for G12! I don't think I have the time right now to re-write it, so do you think you could U1 my userspace draft? Thank you so much! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Way too obvious
Deonis - 2012 Destroyer - 1812 Mylassa - 2000 Montesuma - 2012 Sopher99 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

if you want I'll delete the account Montesuma2012Montesuma2012 (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't bother, cause we know you'l just make new ones. Sopher99 (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please semi the two pages he edited. Sopher99 (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

and if I promise never to make changes without good reasons, and only using the correct source is possible for me to stay! And if I break my promise I can block and I shall not create new accountsMontesuma2012 (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't get to dictate terms in these cases. You are currently blocked and any and all socks you create are going to be blocked as well. If you want to be allowed back, you first have to appeal your block; to do so, I suggest you read WP:GAB and don't create any more socks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Just checking.

Sopher99 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They're both clean. One curious thing, however, is that both come from the same country (different ranges and different UAs, so there is no technical evidence linking the two accounts. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Future
Please go over my examples in the arbcom case about the not to be mentioned boxes and point what I should avoid in the future. You don't have to look at the "reverts" for me. I would always try to improve something in place in the article, for the readers to see it, instead of a complete revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "not get the point" - I got your point, I will leave projects opera and classical music alone. The other debate is not final. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Remind you of anyone?
Sopher99 (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes but... No. This guy seems clean... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Pretty alarming combination though :) Next there will be TruthPalestine or TruthTreeShaping or something. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

My appeal
Have you posted in the wrong place at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment? It looks as if you have taken a unilateral decision to decline my appeal. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have posted in the right section of the page, being an arbcom member; however, your appeal has not yet been declined. I have merely argued that it should be, but that's only the opinion of a single arb. My colleagues will certainly express their own opinions and, if they disagree with me your appeal may be granted in the end. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Sorry about that.  I have no experience in these matters and I had palpitations when your message appeared.  I better go back and edit my panic ridden submission. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-Protected References list of National Defense Force (Syria)
Hi there. I was trying to add a new figure of the man power of the National Defense Force (Syria) in this article. From this external source we can say that the Strength of this force is 60,000 - 80,000. I wanted to add this figure and reference to the article but I cannot since I am not yet auto-confirmed. Could the protection be removed so that I can add this figure or?

Thanks, Best Regards, Borislav Sabev (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC).
 * Hello, Borislav. Unfortunately, I cannot unprotect the article, because it has been frequently edited by a malicious editor who has created various accounts to evade the blocks which were placed to prevent him from editing that page (this is what we call a sock puppeteer). If you wish to make the edit you mention, you can use this template, : add it to the article's talk page and then explain the change you'd want made. Another editor will make it for you, until you are confirmed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Own
I like your Italian phrase in the infoboxes case, but don't want to add more there. You say: "if Andy was to ask another editor to add an infobox to an article on his behalf". - Of course he would not have to ask, because I would feel that an article by him without an infobox would not be complete and add one without being asked, which would add to a more subtle feeling of "gaming restrictions". Why not openly let him add infoboxes to his articles? How would the project suffer? I see authors who want their articles free from an infobox on one side, authors who want them with an infobox on the other. Why would arbcom not treat both sides equally? Do you think a restriction that seems unfair would be understood by the community? - Wether any of this - authors dictating the content of their article - is Wikipedia spirit is a different question for the future (unfortunately, I wish the case had dealt with it), but until then, I would vote for equal treatment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah; but what if others decided to play Andy at his own game and turn his own arguments against him and remove the infoboxes from "his" pages. You see Gerda, Andy played a dangerous strategy and lost. In my view, it woudl be best for the project to have a pro-longed rest from Andy, his very presence could be disruptive after the trouble he has caused. I would suggest that his friends quit these arguments and appeals while his continued presence still looks to be likely.  Giano   12:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Giano, I don't see. Why do you ask "but what if others decided to ... remove the infoboxes from "his" pages". They did that. We have Nikkimaria and others reverting the infoboxes in our articles, look at my evidence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerda, it's not a matter of fair treatment, in my opinion: we are not restricting Andy because of his opinions or because we think that the "other side" is right. We are restricting him because his behaviour has been disruptive. And, since the disruption he's been causing seems to be restricted to the infobox issue, my fellow arbs have come to the conclusion that a topic ban is enough. Your other question, the one regarding the spirit of Wikipedia, is not one that ArbCom can solve: we can only say that, under the current policies and guidelines, infoboxes are not mandatory. And urge the community to discuss the issue to come up with a better guideline. And, considering this, for the moment it would be better to table all individual discussions about infoboxes until said guideline has been adopted. Finally, my personal suggestion (made in my capacity as an editor and not as an arbitrator) would be to avoid adding infoboxes to Andy's articles, even if he doesn't ask you, because, otherwise, there may the appearance of gaming, even if no gaming has actually occurred and that may lead not to sanctions but rather to drama... Again, the best thing you all could do, right now, in my opinion, would be to stop discussing anything relating to infoboxes for a bit (a month, for instance) and, then, start a community discussion to develop a better guideline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not the only one feeling that the "remedy" as it stands is not improving the project, see 1 and 2. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerda, I really don't want to be unpleasant, but 7 arbs out of 10 disagree with you and think that restricting Andy from anything related to infoboxes will improve the project... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Salvio, I guess you are doing great. Since you are an administrator I would like if you could help me with something. Can you please transfer User:Tomica/Good Girl Gone Bad to the original article, Good Girl Gone Bad. I would be grateful. Cheers! — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tomica, how are you? I have tried to histmerge the two pages, but since I can't delete Good Girl Gone Bad because it has more than 5000 revisions and only stewards can delete those pages (it takes the "bigdelete" permission, which admins don't have), I can't perform that action, I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine thanks. Too bad :/. Ok then, I will do it manually. Thanks anyway. Cheers! — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent Comment
Hi! You have a message on my talk page. I would be grateful if you would respect that I am not in the friendliest of moods at the moment!! ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ( ♥ Talk ♥ ) 23:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your polite comment. I have replied :)♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ( ♥ Talk ♥ ) 23:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you. I have replied again.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ( ♥ Talk ♥ ) 00:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Terribly sorry for the edit conflict. I'll leave you to it now. ~ Charmlet -talk- 00:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, your reply was better than mine, so I just stole it.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Where's my attribution...? Do I need to take this to arbcom for lack-of-attribution from an arb?   Don't take this seriously    ~ Charmlet  -talk- 00:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys :) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ( ♥ Talk ♥ ) 00:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing personal attack
I disagree with the removal of this personal attack. Not because it isn't an inappropriate attack, but because I don't want to obfuscate Phil's far-out position on this, which is particularly relevant in a thread were he requests that you arbitrators [and others] take the opinions of his opponents with a grain of salt. --  tariq abjotu  14:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind; I addressed the matter in a different way. --  tariq abjotu  15:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was replying that I was minded to propose a finding of fact where I'd draw attention to Phil's comment as a good example of his battleground approach to the topic, but that I didn't think the comment itself should have been restored, but you beat me to it... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Bonkers the clown
You do realiase that what you refer to as "the latest edits" by Bonkers date from several weeks ago, and that Bonkers had already agreed to desist from such obviously provocative silliness before the AI thread began. IP 89.240.40.140 quoted Bonkers as saying "If anyone were to offer negative criticism of this hook, then the person would be deemed to have issues". In fact that referred to a completely different hook: the one that was actually used. And the "niggers, niggers" line is comment about 'rich vocabulary'. Is he being tiresome, yes, but it is in a context, and he had already agreed to stop days ago. Paul B (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to point out a technicality/ask a question - was this you implementing the consensus at AN or was this a block based on your own admin interpretation? Each one is viable and each one could be correct, neither more so than the other, but the reasoning behind the block affects the block itself. ~ Charmlet -talk- 21:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're old and yes he said he'd stop using the n word (which, by the way, he didn't); add on top of that his various replies during the AN thread and what you have is a person who enjoys being provocative. Now, I don't have anything against crass humour, but, here, that's disruptive behaviour; there are many other places where he can indulge in it: Wikipedia tries to be a serious encyclopaedia not a branch of 4chan. Regarding the nature of the block, it's a personal action not the enforcement of consensus at AN. I considered that Bonker's behaviour was disruptive, had been allowed to go on for too long and acted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I was just wondering if it was going to be a "community" thing or not. Thanks for the clarification. ~ Charmlet -talk- 21:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I for one applaud your bold action to stop this racist trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm just quite surprised to see what the community would defend. Meh. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Finding against me
I want to stress something, which I've said on the workshop, but that I want to say here, so that I know you see it, because your finding that I've said that people are transphobic is not only wrong, but wrong in a way that I feel misrepresents what I have said in this discussion.

Simply put, descriptions like "transphobic" and "hate speech" are not necessarily comments on intent, but on material outcome. To quote hate speech, "hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group." Note that this does not indicate that the speech is uttered maliciously, or that the speaker is hateful - it notes that the speech is incendiary and promotes violence and prejudice. Transgender people are often the subject of violence specifically because of the belief that they are in some way lying or deceiving people by claiming their identities. Misnaming reinforces the idea that their claimed identities are false, and thus normalizes the justification for violence.

I think this is a very important point to make, because it's crucial to understanding how systemic discrimination and bigotry happens. (And that is what I absolutely believe happened here.) It's not a matter of a small number of people with nefarious intent - it's a matter of a large number of people with good intent but who are ignorant and, for whatever reason, reluctant to listen to the voices of trans people and to treat them with the seriousness they deserve. To me that is the real and awful horror of bigotry and hate speech: it's usually not malicious. It's far more banal than that. It's usually well-intentioned, if not terribly well thought through. Hate speech is often caused by good people trying to do the right thing and failing.

Yes, I've been absolutely unwavering in condemning actions that I believe do real and material harm to trans people. Of course I have. Because that harm is being done to people I love. But I've never once impugned the motives of anyone supporting the "Bradley Manning" title. I've been unsparing in describing the consequences of that title, yes. I've condemned support for it because of the harm that it causes, and I've condemned that support in strong words. But not once have I accused anyone of doing anything hatefully, or of being transphobic themselves. Nor would I ever. I was wrong about a lot of these topics in the past - in fact, my first hostile dispute on Wikipedia was over trans issues, and I was on the other side of the issue from the one I'm taking now. I espoused transphobia. I espoused bigotry. I supported article wordings that were hate speech. I don't think I was a bad person then. I think I was just wrong, and my wrongness had dreadful consequences. And the same applies to the people I've criticized here. I believe that calling the article "Bradley Manning" is transphobic hate speech, yes. I in no way believe that every, or indeed more than a handful of people supporting that title are transphobic or hateful. And I think that distinction is absolutely essential to any serious and mature discussion of how bigotry and discrimination actually happen. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your argument is specious and has already been rebutted by another editor here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

richiesta
in italiano ci capiremo meglio: avevo abbozzato l'articolo Breil (company) ma un personaggio ha fatto il reindirizzo a Binda Group e sta intralciando la mia opera di traduttore perchè già esiste Breil (azienda) quindi chiedo il ripristino del mio stub che svilupperò quando avrò tempo. Quell'utente non ha capito che Breil è una società controllata da Binda ma trattasi di entità finanziarie differenti! Sono disponibile per ulteriore chiarimento; ciao e buona fortuna--Pagoprima (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Guarda, ti dico la verità, non conosco l'argomento sufficientemente bene da sapere se un articolo interamente dedicato a Breil sia opportuno, perché è una valutazione di merito che si basa sul fatto che la società sia un soggetto notable (ovverosia enciclopedico) e i criteri di enciclopedicità di it.wiki differiscono da quelli di en.wiki; quindi, ti posso dare solo dei suggerimenti generici. Innanzitutto, la cosa migliore che potresti fare, a mio avviso, sarebbe creare l'articolo in una sottopagina del tuo userspace, cosicché nessuno possa cancellare il tuo lavoro (per esempio, User:Pagoprima/Breil andrebbe benissimo). Poi raccogli tutte le reliable sources WP:RS che trovi, per dimostrare l'enciclopedicità di Breil (il criterio fondamentale di notability adottato da en.wiki è l'aver ricevuto substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources indipendenti dal soggetto di cui si tratta) e, quando hai finito, pubblica l'articolo. Questo non garantisce che l'articolo non sia cancellato, ma perché ciò accada sarà necessaria una discussione di una settimana, chiamata WP:AFD, dove avrai modo di difendere il tuo operato. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank You
I wanted to say I think your comments on the Manning RfAR have been sensible and balanced. It seems like some other generally-sensible arbitrators have taken a one-sided approach, perhaps letting their personal feelings cause them to try to authoritatively settle a content/policy-formation dispute. I appreciate your taking the time to act in a fair and even-handed way in this case. At the end of the day we can either be an encyclopedia first or an advocacy group first, but not both. Take care, 50.45.158.11 (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day we can either be an encyclopedia first or an advocacy group first, but not both I wholeheartedly agree with you. Thanks for your kind words. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

RM close description
I believe that Kirill's finding of fact 7 subtly misrepresents the close. The admins did analyse the arguments during the RFC that BLP required a move of the article, and rejected them as insufficient. That's a normal part of WP:CONSENSUS. Describing it as a "super-vote" is dismissive and cheapens the work that went into evaluating the discussion.

I've proposed an alternate finding of fact 7 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Proposed_decision#Analysis_of_change_of_article_title_by_closing_administrators. Multiple arbitrators have been pinged, but none have responded.

If you need Boz, BD2412 and I to explicitly insert the sentence "After carefully evaluating the comments about BLP in the discussion, we have concluded ..." into point 3, we certainly can, but that's a part of closing an RFC. I find it insulting that anyone thinks that we skipped it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've pilfered your FoF and have posted it on the PD page. I have removed the part about "there is no reason to doubt the correctness etc" because I feel it would be too close to an endorsement of your closure, which would be, in my opinion, a content decision. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

workshop talk page
I rather think my points on the Manning workshop talk page may be congruent with some of your opinions - specifically with regard of the primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to properly serve its users, and that where the sources which would be sought by readers use a specific name, that Wikipedia ill-serves them by providing a name for a person 'which will not yield any search results for the contemporary reports about that person. The New York Times did not make a redirect on all Chelsea Manning searches to show Bradley Manning articles, as far as I can tell. Where the notability is specific to one name, then that is what an encyclopedia ought to use, albeit including "preferred pronouns" in the body of the article, I suppose. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, having read what you've posted on the workshop talk page, I'd say that we generally agree, although I don't think that we should continue using Bradley as title after there has been a shift towards Chelsea in reliable sources, even though Manning's notability was gained under the name Bradley. But the fundamental idea that an encyclopaedia should serve its users is something I wholeheartedly agree with. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The NYT Public Editor addressed the issue -- saying that the former name should be used in cases where: "a former name is newsworthy or pertinent. The gist is that this is fundamentally a content dispute, and the ArbCom is meandering down to Dante's netherworld (see inscription above gate).  Had ArbCom delineated this early on, I would not have had to read a million character page . Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Charlie foxtrot
On the Cheslea Manning arbcom proposed decision you made the comment that "...the discussion became a charlie foxtrot". That's not an expression I'm at all familiar with and I can't work out quite what you mean by it? Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Took me a second too, but I guess the 'C' is probably "cluster", and the 'F' is something beginning with 'F'...  Begoon &thinsp; talk  14:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Charlie foxtrot is military slang for what Begoon has correctly guessed. I thought it was a somewhat common expression and I apologise for not being clear. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm familiar with the uncensored expression, but hadn't heard it rendered this way before. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tango Uniform is another good one.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, that's a new one. That's why I like Wikipedia: I learn something every day. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Typo
"Way too lenient. If we are voting to topic ban editors who have only made only offensive remark"

I believe you meant "one" instead of only.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, unfortunately for me to be making typos is a very common occurrence... Thanks for spotting it (fixed). Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Standards of Care" reasonably and neutrally applicable to the Manning case
The "Benjamin Standards of Care" appear to be useful in understanding some of the issues involved in GID (or GD depending on your sources). I believe it would be useful for the committee members to apprise themselves of the information therein, including the requirements for "real life test" in treatment of patients, and the requirement that the person show an ability to function in another gender in real life. Note that for a diagnosis of "transsexuality" (F64.0): The transsexual identity has been present persistently for at least two years.

I can not find any sourcing for Manning having this persistently for two years, but we do not have the records of his psychotherapist to work with. There is, unfortunately, a real possibility that F64.1 might eventually be applicable - although that still requires months of work by people skilled in the topic, not editors here who are either too intimately involved in the topic, or who are simply unaware of the complexity of the issue -- which is not "Is Manning a He or a She?" at all, and such oversimplification in the case is more harmful to thousands of "quiet transsexuals" than any possible harm to Manning. That "harm" should be weighed carefully - sideshows have generally had a negative impact on people who have GID (or GD depending on what you are reading).

The topic must be treated with sensitivity and care, but I strongly suspect that the lawyers who made a major issue of it are not doing Manning any great service in the long run, nor are the news media doing him any great favour - I am quite unsure that Manning can actually change genders under such a spotlight, especially with such a high percentage of people falling into F64.1 rather than F64.0 (and unable to live the role in real life).

For that reason, I suggest you propose to the members that they seek an opinion from a therapist recognized in the field for following the standards of care as to what opinions they might have -- ideally one well-acquainted with the background involved. The current "proposed decision" page is, frankly, beyond comprehension, and appears to show a lack of understanding of the salient background. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Aside from the procedural problem that I'm not sure we have the power to order the admission of expert report into evidence, I'm not really sure what familiarising ourselves with these standards of care would achieve: we are merely trying to pass a ruling on the conduct of the various involved parties, based on Wikipedia's policies and guideline. We are not there to make a content decision (which, by the way, could not be based on Manning's psychotherapist's record, because it would be original research). However, yes, I'll mention your post to my fellow arbs. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I fear at least one arb may actually be using "knowledge" of the topic for opinions already, and for that reason it makes sense that the other arbs seek proper knowledge of the topic. A great amount of the case appears to be a "content issue" since I trust no one would argue that "Bradley" is an improper redirect.  Oops -- some have made that argument .    Collect (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Deonis
Sopher99 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not Deonis and do not have to ascribe to it! I do recently created a page and do not intend to change anything just want to chit Wikipedia article and if something does not change what I have observed vovred Wikipedia Wikipedia rules. Now I'm not breaking the rules, and why I block if I do not break.Redaktor85 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just Wikipedia is very interesting to me and I want to make a constructive contribution to its development and not violate its rules! And it's not humane block party especially if it is at the moment not committed acts of vandalism and do not even think to do thatRedaktor85 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)