Status: Intermittently active. bd2412 T

Dispute resolution clause: By posting on my user talk page, you agree to resolve all disputes that may arise from your interactions with me through the dispute resolution processes offered within the Wikipedia Community. BD2412

Note: If you are visiting to express concerns because I have edited your user page to fix a disambiguation link, please bear in mind:

1. I assume that you have the link there because you wish to point readers to the proper term (e.g "I speak Greek" or "I am Greek").
2. It makes it much easier for those of us who are cleaning up disambiguation links from articles if there are fewer user pages cluttering up the "What links here" page.

Cheers! BD2412

Archives

By topic (prior to June 1, 2009):

Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th

Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism

Dated (beginning June 1, 2009):

001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015

016-017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025-026-027-028-029-030

031-032-033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045

046-047-048-049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057-058

Thanks

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking on the task with the other two admins in resolving the RM issue at the Bradley/Chelsea Manning article. I know that this was a difficult task and applaud all three of you. GregJackP Boomer! 04:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

PS, I don't know who the other two admins are, or if they want to be known, but please let them know the community appreciates the work all of you did. GregJackP Boomer! 04:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The identity of the other two admins is a matter of public record: User:BOZ and User:Kww. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the Barnstar to their talk pages also. GregJackP Boomer! 04:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your Manning close

Though I supported the other article name, I have no bad feelings. I think that you did an outstanding job summarizing both sides of an exceptionally contentious debate. I commend you for taking on a tough assignment, and doing it well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"new proposal to move the page to "Chelsea Manning" being initiated no less than thirty days" - Wow. That was the exact right thing to do. Not often that we see such exceptional judgement on WP. You touched on the crux of the argument and effectively found the middle ground. I have a terrible nagging suspicion you will receive some hatred for your moderate approach here. Should that happen, you will have at least one defender. Here's to you BD2412. All the best, NickCT (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. I was personally undecided (with a slight emotional preference for "Chelsea" only because a few of the "Bradley" cheerleaders used arguments and language I found deplorable). But your reasoning and summary are excellent and I think you hit community sentiment squarely on the head. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope you never have to experience anything as awful as what you have done in denying Chelsea Manning her basic self-identity on one of the largest websites in the world. I have never before seen Wikipedia used in such an actively hurtful and harmful way as what you have just done. I am ashamed of the project today. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

don't be an ass Phil, drop the stick. The closers are volunteers, like all of us, and spent many hours trying to come up what they judged to be, in this case, a no consensus close. Reasonable people can disagree, but you don't need to dramatize like that. Show some respect.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to be perfectly clear here. Referring to a transgender person by their birth name is hate speech. This close embraced hate speech. This is not an issue of consensus. This is an issue of Wikipedia actively embracing hate speech. It is shameful and horrifying in exactly the same way that a decision to refer to racial minorities with derogatory slurs would be. There is no difference whatsoever. None. This decision is morally abhorrent. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

allow me to be clear, then. Direct your rage at the community, as the community in the main did not agree. Lay off the closer. A no consensus to move finding was perfectly reasonable, and 3 uninvolved admins agreed.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The closer made the decision to embrace hate speech as policy. He had a choice. He chose hate speech. If you think my response was out of proportion with that, well... I don't think there's really anything I can say to that beyond that I extend my hope to you as well. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@Phil Sandifer - You're being hyperbolic. If you feel strongly that this is hate speech, I would urge you to propose policy against it. BD2412 made a policy-based and consensus-based decision. Even if we disagree, failing to appreciate and acknowledge the nuances here makes you a bigot. NickCT (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Phil, you declared on your talk page two years ago that you were finished with Wikipedia, and told people not to try to converse with you there. But here you are, in 2013, actively editing. You have confused "policy" with a single article name, which the closing statement clearly said is open for review in 30+ days, based on coverage in the full range of reliable sources. Your redefinition of "hate speech" is truly astounding, and deeply disrespectful to the closing administrators, given the specific circumstances here. In addition, it ignores the way the body of the article is currently written, and your "take my ball and go home" attitude removes your voice from future consensus about the content (and future title) of the article. I hope that you are young, because only the impulsivity of youth could explain such poor judgment on your part. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I came back for this issue specifically. Please understand - it is my sincere and unequivocal belief that any instance of referring to a transgender person by their birth name or the gender assigned at birth is hate speech. I really do not consider there to be any material difference between that and the use of the most vile ethnic or sexual slurs you can think of. The decision to do this on even one article, even for thirty days, is hate speech. It is hate speech against people I love and consider family. If you really think that my reaction is overstated given this, well, I really don't know what to say.

I'll try one more time before I go to bed; do you have any family members or loved ones who are members of a minority? Think of the absolute worst slur for that minority that you can imagine. Now imagine a Wikipedia article on someone belonging to that minority that casually, in the lead paragraph, referred to them by that slur. BD2412's decision has locked an article in that state for at least thirty days. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Phil, the lead paragraph had that "slur" all week. It will probably never be removed from the article. You're obviously exaggerating. -- tariqabjotu 07:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Phil Sandifer eloquently expressed how this page move will be considered by not only LGBT people, but by the mainstream outside of Wikipedia in general, especially now that other media have predominantly started using the name Chelsea.[1] Josh Gorand (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi BD, I strongly supported the move to Chelsea, and just wanted to add my voice to those thanking the 3 closers for their work.
The topic is an intersection of deep faultlines in politics, nationality and gender, and in substance it divides Wikipedians more deeply than any I have seen for a long time. Little wonder that it also divided us in applying P policy and guidelines.
Closing this debate was a very difficult task, in which any outcome would inevitably disappoint many editors, and offend some. So I am impressed by the way in which the closers set out their reasoning so clearly, which not only addresses the points in the debate but also points to some policy issues for the future.
As it happens, I disagree with your reasoning, which I think attaches excessive weight to WP:COMMONNAME and too little weight to WP:BLP. I am disappointed by the outcome, and hope that it will be overturned in the future. However, while I would have called this decision differently, I accept that the substance of this closure was well-reasoned and lucidly communicated.
I think that the wider question was always going to require a longer and more considered assessment by the community to provide more clarity for the future. Your reasoned close will be an important part of those discussions, and I hope that others who disagree with the closure can approach it on the same basis.
Thanks again for your hard work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I echo all of BrownHairedGirl's sentiments. It was a very hard call. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. I believe that the root of this problem lies in the ambiguity of the relevant policies, which is something that I would be glad to help improve. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"this close is without prejudice to a new proposal to move the page to "Chelsea Manning" being initiated no less than thirty days* from the date of this determination,.." What gives you the authority to specify a 30 day moratorium? The next time there is a dispute about a move, or an AFD, or whatever, could you or any other administrator specify just as authoritatively 90 days, or 180 days, or a year, or 5 years? If not, why not? Edison (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The authority of an administrator on such a matter extends precisely as far as the community is willing to recognize the authority of an administrator on such a matter. If an administrator attempted to impose an excessively long moratorium on a new request to do something that the community had recently rejected, the community would likely reject that also. In this case, I think the specific moratorium imposed is common sense, and done for good reasons. Revisiting this issue after a relatively short period was contemplated by a number of editors who supported reverting the title. In this case, a thirty day moratorium is as much for the benefit of those who would like to see the page moved back to "Chelsea Manning" as it is for anyone else. Undoubtedly, many would like to immediately turn around and propose the move again, but such an attempt may prove to be disastrous for the proposer, as emotions from the previous discussion are still running raw. In thirty days, there is more likely to be substantial evidence with which the proposers can build a WP:COMMONNAME case sufficient to achieve a clear consensus in favor of the proposed move. There is also an opportunity in that time to seek adjustments to the relevant policies in order to clarify the appropriateness of a title change under these circumstances. Note also that if the panel had not included that thirty day provision, it is entirely possible that a move request made after that period of time would have been dismissed by detractors as being too soon. With the thirty day provision, it is clear that a new proposal brought at that point is permissible. bd2412 T 01:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• A very well thought out close: about as well as anyone could have done on the matter in my opinion. While your close is probably only the first step in some policy discussion, I think given the input you had your close was remarkably apt. Thanks for taking on the responsibility. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Just to clarify my above comment: I think you were mistaken in your close - in your failure to discount votes based on the denial of the existence of trans people and votes based on the belief that BLP doesn't apply to titles, your acceptance that adhering to our internal style guide trumps accurately naming an article, and your assumption that BLP doesn't need to apply in this case because the subject has recognised that some media will continue to use "Bradley."

But you are working within an ethos here that habitually fails to respect our subjects' human dignity (ignoring the Foundation's directive to do so), and that takes our internal style guide as more important than veracity and respect. That is, you have come up with a close that superficially conforms to the letter of some of our policies and guidelines, while breaching BLP, V and NPOV egregiously, as many have done before you.

But you should be congratulated for your own very transparent process of collating ideas on a subpage, and your very clear explanation of the rationale behind the close. I do think your close needs to be examined by ArbCom and evaluated for its conformity with WP:CONSENSUS, but I also think that though you were clearly misguided as demonstrated in your close rationale, your intentions were good. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to clear up a few misconceptions. The primary reason that BLP does not apply in this case is that the original title of the article was information already widely known to the public (in fact, more widely known than the subject's new name), and verifiable in virtually all reliable sources to even mention the subject. BLP specifies, with respect to public figures, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". The subject's own statements on the topic were tertiary, an additional mitigating factor, as was the fact that the subject's original name will appear prominently in the lead, and elsewhere in the article, no matter what title the article is at. Furthermore, BLP is solely directed at the potential for harm to the subject, and not to the subject's community of interest. If others are offended by the title, this covered not by BLP, but by WP:CENSORED.

As to human dignity, writing an informative encyclopedia requires that we report the negative, the failings of the human spirit. Societal pressures clearly weighed very heavily on this subject's decision to continue using her former name throughout her highly-publicized trial, but many editors who expressed empathy with this situation still supported keeping the article at the better-known name. Finally, this leads to the counting of !votes. A contested move requires a consensus in favor of moving, which this title was very, very far from achieving in the discussion held at this stage of the proceedings. There were !votes on both sides that were based on misinterpretations of policy, or on no policy at all. Nevertheless, the only comments by regular editors that were wholly discounted were those about the biological or legal status of the subject. There is no formula that could have been fairly applied to this discussion to read this as consensus favoring a move.

You will note, I hope, that by providing for a new discussion thirty days after the close of the last one, we have allowed for a much faster turnaround of this situation than usually occurs in title disputes; and that I have been actively working at WP:TITLE to encourage some change in policy that will make it easier for subjects to be titled by their preferred name.

Cheers! bd2412 T 12:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead to Bradley Manning

Hi,

It looks like a dispute is starting as to how the lead and infobox of Bradley Manning should be worded viz-a-viz the name. I think there might be some confusion if the close of the RM impacts the body of the article.

OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(Although I supported reverting the move, I'd like to thank you as well for the professionalism you showed in closing the RM. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 05:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC))

• I woulda been disappointed if the close had went the other way, but would not have pursued any action or aggression beyond that. So, thanks for stepping up to make tough calls, knowing the flak that is going to hit any second, is a sign of actual leadership ability. I echo the concern of the above btw, that we now have an article title that matches none of the body of the article itself, but I'm not sure if that's within the remit of the close committee. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • @OSborn, the discussion addressed the title of the article, not its contents; the closing admins specifically found that the potential appearance of incongruity between the title and the contents of the article could not counter the lack of consensus for the initial title move.
    @Tarc, thanks. bd2412 T 14:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning close

Hi BD, just a note to say thank you for the way you handled the close. The outcome is not what I would have preferred, but I think you did an excellent job summarizing the arguments and consensus in what was a difficult and unenviable task. Thanks again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to second SlimVirgin's thanks. While I agree with the solution, the arguments were intense, it was clearly a difficult and contentious decision. Well done. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thirded. Very professionally handled. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I was a bit surprised, and then, as I read the summary, became delighted in the display of the process to that conclusion that you and the others had followed. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Thank you. I need to make a BarnStar that's a case of cookies for you to share with them. htom (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Move of Chelsea Manning to "Bradley Manning"

I hadn't followed the discussion too closely, because the move to Chelsea Manning was common courtesy, and afaik required by the policies of biographies of living persons (sic), so I'm trying to understand why you reversed this. Deliberately calling her "Bradley Manning" is an attack on her identity, and an attack on all trans people's identities. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. The reasons for which the reversion of that move were necessary are outlined at Talk:Bradley Manning/August 2013 move request. Please note that the subject of this article has had a unique opportunity to communicate, through the various statements made through her attorney, whether the use of the title in question constitutes "an attack on her identity". She has made no such assertion, instead expressing understanding of the fact that she will continue to be referenced in many places by the name under which she carried out activities for twenty-five years, including most of the activities discussed in this article. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I disagreed that the Manning article should be restored to the previous name, but deeply appreciate your diplomatic and neutral involvement in this matter. Thanks for taking this burden on...it was above the call of duty. MONGO 15:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This decision made my list of Great RM decisions. Thank you for your efforts! --B2C 17:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed sections in archives

Now that the move request has been closed, I wonder if it might be appropriate to (a) remove the bit about how "Today is 1 September 2013 (UTC); new comments belong to today's section on basis of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)" and "replies are still welcome in collapsed sections", since they're not, and (b) un-collapse the discussions that took place on August 22nd through 28th. What do you think? My thinking is that when the move discussion was on the main talk page, collapsing those sections helpfully reduced the time it took anyone wanting to get to other discussions to scroll down the page, and helpfully pushed people to the correct section for new comments, but now that the discussion has a page in the archives all to itself, it could be more helpful to leave everything expanded so that people can read through it all without having to click "show" seven times to get to anything other than the final day's debate (which isn't collapsed). -sche (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That is an entirely reasonable suggestion. I'll take care of it. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Shame on You

Wording a horrible decision in aloof and calm language doesn't make it any less dreadful. You're complicit in the systematic disadvantaging of trans people, and there's no way to do that nicely or while sustaining comity. Those praising you above have fallen into the typical trap of imagining you can formalise away politics, as if misgendering was left any kinder by being grafted with a veneer of formal courtesy. If you're not referring by someone as they wish you to, you're exerting social power against them. Word that however you like, that's the nub of it.

2.27.86.121 (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You have two options here. One is to sit and complain about the application and enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. The other is to actual do something by joining Wikipedia, making a few thousand good and level-headed edits across a variety of areas, and thereby earning the trust of the community, and the credibility to propose changes to the policies that led to this result. bd2412 T 14:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Although this is well-intentioned, and factually true, it is likely to come across as patronising and tone-deaf - what is actually happening is that trans people are leaving because Wikipedia is now an actively hostile environment, and expecting that this will instead inspire them to dive in and participate at length comes across as a failure of empathy. The commenter appears to me to be alerting you that you have personally actively contributed to the problem, not demanding you change the decision per se or asking for advice on how to do this - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If my analysis is both well-intentioned and factually true, then it is of value to those who give due consideration to it. To suggest that I have "personally actively contributed to the problem" is shooting the messenger, while failing to take any lessons from the message. bd2412 T 15:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do show awareness that people are upset about something, not about nothing - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that people are upset about the consequences of the policies that were carried out here. I have never said that people were upset about nothing; to the contrary, I have advocated that those who are upset about something direct their concerns fruitfully. bd2412 T 16:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:SUBJECT

Please don't see this as canvassing, but as the closing admin at Talk:Bradley Manning#Requested move, I wondered if you had any opinion on the inclusion of a "Wikipedia" section at Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage. I have removed it per WP:SUBJECT, but it keeps being added in. Discussion is at Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage#Wikipedia?. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become part of the story - but a very small part, no more significant to the whole than any laundry list of sources adopting one usage or the other. bd2412 T 14:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Catch 22 holes in California Law

Hi BD2412

You've done some amazing work, especially in the area of law.

I found you through a disambiguation you did on a page I worked on, and read your user page.

This may be something you are interested in examining:

I was involved with a real estate lawsuit. I was the defendant, and a realtor was suing me for going around our agreement to sell to someone who had looked at my house while it was under a listing agreement. But, the buyer didn't buy, and the listing ran out.

About six months later, the buyer approached me to buy the house directly, without realtors. After some price negotiation, I sold it to her.

A year later, the realtor sued me saying that the buyer and me conspired to make a deal during the term of the listing agreement and he was owed the commission.

The contract called for non-binding arbitration, which found decisively in my favor and ordered the realtor to pay for my legal expenses.

As was his right, the realtor asked for a "trial de novo" (I think that's the right spelling), which set aside the arbitration ruling and we proceeded to trial.

As the actual trial date approached, the realtor withdrew from the case. My lawyer said that the arbitration ruling would then be enforced. The realtor objected and actually won a ruling on the matter in a local court, saying that since the arbitration was dropped, the ruling could not be enforced, and the matter was settled.

I had to appeal to a higher court, which ruled in my favor and ordered the lower court judge to reinstate the arbitration ruling.

Even though I won, there was no law on the California books that stated that if you withdraw from a trial de novo, the arbitration ruling would then be enforced - I guess I was just lucky that the higher court relied on common sense.

Is this interesting to you? I never knew how to go about bringing it to legislator's attention, but think it should be addressed.

Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a good setup for a law school exam, but frankly I have no particular interest in real estate law. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Southeast (disambiguation)

So, I have come to you to talk about a contentious move request where you made a decision that was impossible to make the right choice in, where emotions ran high and the right decision to make seemed hard to find... yes, of course I am referring to your move close at Talk:Southeast (disambiguation). I don't think that there was any consensus to move at all--we didn't ever get any information from the nominator about what to do with those pages. I'm not sure it's the right call--someone looking for, say, Northeast (film) isn't just one or two clicks away, they actually can't get to the film from Northeast any more. If someone is looking for, say, Southwest Airlines, they have the same problem. I'm thinking of taking it to move review--I do so with no bitterness or discontent or criticism at all, I just don't think the request was clear enough to have any consensus at all from it. Red Slash 02:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The only "consensus" that I took away from the discussion was that the four links should have the same treatment, i.e., they didn't have to go home, but they couldn't stay in the bar (or, in this case, two in and two out). An alternative that might resolve the problem you raise here is to have them redirect to Boxing the compass instead of to a section of that page, and to have redirect templates for the four redirects on the top of the page.

I see what you did there. Your suggestion here would be an improvement... we'll see. I may do that and then just put in a separate move request for Southwest--because of the airline, I don't think there's a primary topic. Red Slash 03:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to be a bit creative about it, putting the hatnotes in the target section, and using a separate one for Southwest Airlines. I have no opinion on whether there is a primary topic for Southwest, but it seems to me that all other uses are named for the compass direction. bd2412 T 03:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

After thinking it over, I think I will file a move review. You continue to have my full respect. Red Slash 00:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Move review for Southeast

An editor has asked for a Move review of Southeast. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Red Slash 00:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning

Regarding Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested_move, where, exactly, did this discussion take place, and who were the admins involved? I am an admin myself, but I am fully aware that I am not Arbcom, and that admins have no more authority than any other editor regarding community consensus. We don't make decisions behind closed doors. Unless the discussion is made public, the move should be reverted pending consensus from a wider community discussion. If that discussion leads to no consensus, then so be it. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disregard - Kww informed me it's in a subpage, Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request. I needed to know for the purpose of answering an OTRS ticket that suggests a back-room decision was made, and it wasn't clear from the talk page where the discussion took place. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note that my thought process with respect to this matter is written out at User:BD2412/Chelsea Manning move request archive. The edit history of that page basically contains the entire evolution of my thinking on the matter, which I believe is clearly and directly reflected in the closure explanation. There is also some discussion on the talk page of that subpage. Of course, given the magnitude of strife that this process engendered, there is also discussion spread across a dozen different policy pages, noticeboards, and user talk pages (including Jimbo's page). Cheers! bd2412 T 12:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Admin's barnstar

Many thanks for this. Much appreciated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Distal#Redirect

Hey, BD2412. Since you are still performing disambiguation cleanup regarding distal, and more recently proximal, someone probably should have told you about the Distal#Redirect discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have actually just finished. bd2412 T 03:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks

I was pleasantly surprised by your kind words and I accept your award with thanks. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

BD2412, I can't believe that it has been over 7 years and half years since you nominated you me adminship. I thanked you then and I thank you again now. Very kind regards -- Ianblair23 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RevDel

Hi BD2412, I noticed you seemed to be online, so I wanted to ply you with a question. In days past, I disclosed much more private information on my userpage than I am comfortable with doing today. Several months ago, at my request, another admin deleted some of the posts in question. Now I'm an admin myself and would basically like to nuke the rest. I'm thinking that since almost no one else has ever edited my page (this might not even involve any such edits), I could just do this under WP:CRD 5, since this would essentially be a G7 matter if applied to pages. Does this sound like a reasonable interpretation for you? Since this is all in good faith, I'd probably be understand, but I certainly wouldn't want to be de-sysopped or otherwise sanctioned for doing so. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is perfectly permissible to delete edit history from your userspace that reflects personal details. (As you can probably see, my own user page only has a history going back to 2011; I have occasionally archived my user page and talk pages, and have on occasion moved something over the archived space, deleting all of the underlying revisions, just in the course of organizing my userspace). bd2412 T 21:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even think to move a page over the current userpage. You'd think with all the time I spend at WP:RM I'd think of that. Thanks for the opinion. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Zürich

Hi there! I missed the RM→Zürich recently, but I was wondering if you could do the honours and help move Category:Zurich to Category:Zürich and its sub-cats too. I'm sorry if I'm dishing out too much work to an already busy admin; but many thanks in advance! Jared Preston (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that the RM for the city necessarily translates to the categories automatically following. I would put it on WP:CFD and see if anyone objects. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As an eponymous category, there's no reason it shouldn't actually be renamed. As for the sub-cats, I've done my best at CfD. Hope I didn't miss out any technical steps as that was the biggest multi-nomination I've ever created. Jared Preston (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That is quite something. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Shimukappu name change

Hi. Why was Shimukappu (unique title) changed to Shimukappu, Hokkaido? Surely this is against normal practice? Kleinzach 09:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that this was part of a mass renaming of article with Hokkaidō titles to Hokkaido titles, which included moving the handful of little-known place names in Hokkaido but without the prefecture name for the sake of consistency. Beyond that I can not remember. I was not involved in the discussion, I only carried out the moves. bd2412 T 12:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Do we know where I can find out which other pages were involved? Kleinzach 14:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I would guess that all of the moved Hokkaido pages will be reflected in my move log from January 2013. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't find them there. Those moves all seem to be of the 'X, Hokkaidō to X, Hokkaido' kind, I don't see any 'Y to Y, Hokkaido' examples. Any ideas? Kleinzach 14:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, then it is likely that these pages were never at titles other than those containing "Hokkaido". I note that I did not move Shimukappu to Shimukappu, Hokkaido; rather, I moved Shimukappu, Hokkaidō to Shimukappu, Hokkaido. It appears that the page was initially created at Shimukappu, Hokkaido, in 2005. Therefore, you would have to ask the original page creator why it was not created at Shimukappu. bd2412 T 14:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Sorry if my initial question was misleading. Kleinzach 00:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin speech

You made the right decision on Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago in what was probably a politicized environment. These are the kind of hard decisions Admins make that often are criticized but it is clear that you weighed all the factors that were evident. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wouldn't say that I really made a decision at all. The community made a decision, I merely determined what it was. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The 100 move

Are you happy if I close the discussion on this move and do it? As I understand the rules it's ok for any editor to do this given there is full support and 10 days have elapsed. Your listing under requested moves was fine though I wasn't exactly sure why it had to be listed there as it's not complicated - there's only one archive page. But if you want to complete it that's fine. 15:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I felt that the move request was potentially controversial. As the proposer, I would rather not be the one to carry out the move, so please feel free to go ahead with it. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, have done. Have changed most front line links. Doubtless some mistakes! Chris55 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

RFAR:Manning naming dispute - Formally added as party

The drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formally added as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see how this can help. I think that it is generally a bad idea to name the closing admin or admins of a discussion as parties to disputes between active participants in the discussion. Unless the arbitrators feel that there is some particular insight that I can offer with respect to those disputes, I do not intend to participate in the arbitration. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It's inevitable that at least one arbitrator wants to censure us. It's only worth worrying about if it looks like it will gain support.—Kww(talk) 20:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I just proposed that you all be commended for volunteering to take on this particular bucket of poop, and that's as someone disagreeing with your result - David Gerard (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess if I'm needed for anything, I can be pinged or summoned via my talk page. I have intentionally stayed out of all discussion of this topic, and intend to keep it that way if possible. BOZ (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

My view is the same. bd2412 T 16:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for closing discussions formerly listed at the Requests for closure subpage of the Administrators' noticeboard. Keep up the good work. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! bd2412 T 16:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 26 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 06:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Stump v. Sparkman and Harris v. Harvey

Might you be able to help me find someone to answer a question about the law in Talk:Stump v. Sparkman#Harris v. Harvey? The latter was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Judge Harvey was denied judicial immunity for actions he took outside the courtroom. This is the opposite of Stump v. Sparkman, in which Judge Stump was found to be protected. Harris v. Harvey shows that judicial immunity has limits in fact, not just in theory. As such, I think it makes it easier for people to understand the principle. It also is interesting from the perspective of the history of race relations in the US, because Harris was an African-American police Lieutenant. Judge Harvey gave interviews to news media in which he allegedly made blatantly racist comments. For those comments and other actions outside his jurisdiction, he was found not to be protected by judicial immunity.

However, I don't understand the extent to which that decision is precedential, and I'd like that clarified before inserting a brief section on Harris v. Harvey to the article on Stump v. Sparkman. I'm writing you, because you made the most recent 3 edits to that article. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have a look this weekend. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, BD2412. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 19.
Message added 13:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notifying all users that were involved in the same discussion a few weeks ago which involved deletion of this category. Technical 13 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Maicon Sisenando RM

Hi there. You participated in a move-discussion for Maicon Sisenando in February 2013. I've now opened a new RM, where I propose that this footballer is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I hope you take the opportunity to participate in the discussion. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

[STATE] lawyer categories

I'd appreciate your input here, if you have an opinion. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)