Template:Active editnotice

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 22 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 77 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 54 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 53 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 53 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 50 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 40 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 37 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 54 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 52 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 25 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 25 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 73 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 45 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 29 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?

(Initiated 17 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

I have applied semi-protection to the article after someone posted the supposed suspect's supposed Facebook page, and someone else posted a bunch of links to photos from that Facebook page. I am sure admins are keeping an eye on this. Poor kids, poor parents, poor us. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got the supposed subjects page (right now, a proper redirect) under watch, expecting that may be edited soon. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Facebook page has been taken down, but when I looked at it about an hour ago, it appeared to be the person the media has been reporting as the shooter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not the shooter. Given that the shooter was dead and he was going "IT WASN'T ME, I WAS AT WORK" after the shooting, you tell me. Alexandria (chew out) 20:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you need to check more recent reports, you're a little behind the times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • NY Times is now reporting that Ryan Lanza was the brother picked up at the scene and Adam Lanza was the shooter, so it may have been me who was behind the times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was someone with that name. There's more than one guy with that name in the world. Wait until we know who's who. DS (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Facebook page was for someone who was born in Newtown, CT, went to Quinnipiac University, and now lives in Hoboken, NJ. One report a few hours back (out of Washington) said that NJ authorities were searching a location in Hoboken for weapons. Sure, it could have ben a fake, but it wasn't a new account. It doesn't matter, I agree with Drmies' decision to remove the link, as any relevant information will come at some point from a RS, so there's no need for an EL to a primary source. I was just commenting on my own personal evaluation of the page, not recommending that it be used as a source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• To expand on a comment that Masem makes above, anyone watching the shooting page should likely also watchlist the (currently) redirect from the shooter's page. For better or worse, precedence is pretty well set here that the perpetrator of such acts are quickly notable in and of their own right for pages on them. The media and police pry apart their lives, and most of that info ends up in the perpetrator's page, not the incident page. So, once there is a bit of sourcable info, expect the shooter's page to be built out, and that it will need close watching just like the incident page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, per BLP1E, we should not have a separate page for the shooter, particularly since he is (reportedly) dead. The redirects to the shooting page are appropriate, but if this guy wasn't notable before the shooting, he shouldn't suddenly have a page because of it. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he's dead, then BLP1E has no application. Simple WP:GNG or WP:CRIME instead apply. postdlf (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, yeah, good point, but yes, still wouldn't not expect a separate article. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, Postdlf, I believe there has been some consensus in the past that BLP also applies to those who recently died. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not just informal consensus, it's part of BLP policy as WP:BDP. Postdlf is entirely mistaken. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • News to me. Lord save us from instruction creep. postdlf (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Further proof that crowd-sourced editing and breaking news does not mix well, this is the same amateur-hour bullshit we see every time this sort of thing comes around. Tarc (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tarc, I'm just watching CNN and now they're showing the one and identifying the shooter as the other (I'm from overseas: I don't do names). I'm completely disgusted by what this brings out--a whole bunch of sensationalist numbnuts who feel it incumbent upon themselves to report every little thing they hear on Wikipedia. That ***** who posted the Facebook page, and the other ***** who posted those photos, I have no words for them. Do you remember the shitstorm over Shooting of Trayvon Martin, where a whole bunch of such editors were reporting a whole bunch of news, and I got shit from a bunch of respected editors about protecting that? As far as I'm concerned, articles like this get locked down fully from the get-go. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I was just going to draw attention to this mess on User talk:Drmies, ironically. There are similar problems with Sandy Hook (Newtown), Newtown, Connecticut, and History of Newtown, Connecticut, both with bad writing (one of the articles had two sections covering this at one point) and poor sourcing. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• For the love of all that is holy blank the page, and lock it for at least 24 hours. What on earth is wrong with you people? Act responsibly, for once.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey give them a break they are serious compositors, recording for posterity accounts of mayhem, as it happens or didn't happen, or whether it was here or there, or what someone's brother said his uncle told him, serious reporting of all the speculation as its speculated. John lilburne (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since we are an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper, we can afford to wait until things get straightened out, but I wouldn't be too hard on the editors who are trying to put together an article, since the reports in the media is just about as sloppy, and tend towards sensationalism and tabloid writing as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I've watched the wikipedia page, and we've behaved far more responsibly than a number of news sources. Moving very quickly, with many critical eyes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So true that our reliable sources can't get the facts correct. The police bend over backwards to clearly state facts, and the news reports immediately report it with changes that are apparently not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We" does not include a fair number of people, including this person and this person (and again), unless you aren't watching the right pages, or have a very loose definition of "responsibly". Uncle G (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching our pages in comparison to how fast news sources reacted, and watching live coverage of the absolute bullshit they spouted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching over things when I can; I think I've gotten a lid on where it spilled over into Newtown, Connecticut, and the Lanza redirects are locked down (and a few variations are salted). I fully agree with the semi, and as always the talkpage is the place to discuss the content issues. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-Admin Comment - It is HIGHLY irresponsible to print anything at all until the facts are all in. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The page should be blanked with such a notice, and locked until such time as the media circus has found other more interesting things to sensationalize. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not gonna happen, nor should it. The regime now in place (i.e. semi-protection, many eyes on the page, close supervision of behavior by admins) is working well enough that such an extreme response is totally unwarranted. For better or worse, we're a place that people go for an overview of available information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that would be a little aggressive at this point. While Wikipedia is not a Tabloid, the articles should be allowed to evolve with current events. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One small thing that could easily be done is have a new {{current-fog-of-news-war}}. At the moment all {{current}} says is This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. At least for some events, like this, there should really be a warning that says something like Due to the nature of the event, facts drawn even from normally reliable sources may turn out not to be correct. Quotes from or links to primary sources of any kind are not permitted unless taken from reliable sources. Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; rather than a new template, I've added an "incomplete" parameter to {{current/sandbox}} -- please see the bottom portion of {{current/testcases}} to see how it looks. An admin would be needed to copy the source from {{current/sandbox}} to the fully protected {{current}}. NE Ent 11:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, I extended the semi-protection for this article for another week. The talk page could use more neutral eyes on it, to help explain and mediate. I expect this will be true for at least another week. If some experienced editors that aren't interested in editing the article would watch the page closely, it would be helpful. The potential for disruption is pretty high and tempers are likely to continue to run hot. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Given Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Adam Lanza article? I have half a mind to raise the protection on Adam Peter Lanza and Adam Lanza from semi- back up to the original full protection, but set to expire after a week. I see no reason for history to repeat itself here, given that many of us have seen this before. We need to learn from what has happened over and over, not dance the same dance yet again. Let's not do the premature-and-bad-biography-nominate-for-deletion-discuss-for-a-week-then-another-week-at-deletion-review-quickstep this time. Let's just wait the week without having the massive diversionary time and effort sinks, instead. There are plenty of other discussions at AFD that that time and effort by many people could be far more productively spent upon. Faithful amplification (AfD discussion) and Jumping to conclusions (AfD discussion), for examples. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a refreshing approach. NOTCENSORED needn't throw NOTNEWS to the curb.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The heat of the current situation and potential for damage warrants a slightly heavier hand than usual. All the wikilawyering and such (ie: reverting closing of threads) isn't helpful, although short of any individual action. I wouldn't be surprised if someone just extends the semi-protection longer than the one week extension, and I would support it. I want everyone to able to participate, but we have to balance that with our ability to monitor. Full protection on those articles as redirects is heavy, and technically preemptive, but I think doing so in plain site with the understanding that it is a reasonable application of IAR is warranted. And calling this censoring is absurd. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protecting the redirects as redirects is sound. Important though these cases are there is rarely any reason to have a separate biography article, even when everything is well in the past, certainly not in the first few weeks. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    
• Do it NE Ent 22:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• Of course it is absurd. It is also inevitable that someone will call it that (if it hasn't already been said). I'm just saying that should not deter Uncle G from doing the right thing.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understood what you meant. I've been here through all of these BIO-AFD-DRV cycles. ☺ The pretty coloured box was in one of them, at Deletion Review. I for one don't want to see the likes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed's rumor, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Chiang again this time. Uncle G (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose an edit filter that prevents entering the name of the school or suspected shooter in any article in mainspace for a while. No need to screw around with multiple protection stages and people creating articles under alternate names to bypass those protections.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) Wouldn't that affect this article too? I think at this time that would prevent more good edits than bad.. Unless we can implement a "accept awaiting review" for anything with that name. We in #wikipedia-en-pc would be happy to take care of it if that's technically possible. But I don't think an edit filter is good here. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit filters can easily allow thing in WP namespace and forbid them in article space. That's one of the nice things about them.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words: Yes, it would affect the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bah, I wasn't clear. Not this AN article, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think, though don't quote me on this, that you can create an exception for specific articles using regex. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 03:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • •  Done by Drmies (talk · contribs) NE Ent 13:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any value in considering putting together some "how to carefully admin a major tragic event" guide, involved when and how prot should be applied and to what articles, and to deal with a rash of good faith but misaligned edits from unfamiliar/anon editors, based on our experience with this article? As well as what doesn't work so that we don't keep going down the same paths? --MASEM (t) 02:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we really need to. As this can't be the last event like this, sadly. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary as long as we have an active core of editors. NE Ent 8:00 am, Today (UTC−5)

I'm thinking more of a shortcut of accepted admin steps to take that have been accepted and need no discussion in the very short term after such events (eg, is semi-prot of the article appropriate, is creating and full -prot of names associated with the event appropriate, etc.); these are decisions that after the initial flurry of edits can be come back to evaluate but in the short term to avoid disruption. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anything is probably better than what we have now. Don't get me wrong (I don't think I'm addressing this specifically to you, Masem--I'm in complete agreement with you), I don't think that our current set of rules etc. can't handle it, of course. That shortcut, the more I think about it the more I like it. We'll have to hammer out a consensus: as far as I am concerned it's full protection for article and talk page all the way, and immediate salting of relevant titles and redirects--but I could settle for a middle way. What bugs me here as with the Martin shooting is that immediate knee-jerk "we must report everything that's reported"--we know very well what those dangers are. And the next thing is this clamor of CENSORSHIP!!! all over the relevant talk pages and AN/ANI. Sigh. Yes, Masem, I like your thinking. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• An active core of editors is nice, but though Uncle tagged me earlier to keep an eye on the talk page, my shift was cut short by RL. BTW, you all noted I protected one of the redirects and altered Rich's protection of the other. Cries of censorship--that strikes me as the WP version of Godwin's law. The internet presents a huge disconnect between input and emotional effect. It's not censorship to try and prevent massive BLP violations such as posting the Facebook page of a guy who didn't do it in a Wikipedia article; in fact, I still feel bad that I didn't rev-del those edits rightaway and I'm glad someone made up for my oversight. Masem's point is well taken though I wonder if we have the framework to do this: voluntary editing and scheduled tasks don't always jive, and if one of my kids makes a mess in the bath tub I'm going to run upstairs and fix that first, until Mr. Wales starts paying me by the hour. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I will be honest, I think the current rules are handling it just fine. The reality is, we are stretching currently policy only slightly. Perhaps a little protectionist, perhaps cutting off disruption quicker than usual, perhaps with a slightly heavier hand, but still within the gray area. Every major event is going to be different and I just don't see how any manual will beat good old fashioned common sense (by the way, that was my "policy" rationale when extending the protection on this article). There has been one or two blocks, a few feelings hurt, but generally speaking, everyone's voice has been heard, the article is being editing by some, the talk page is being monitored for change requests by others, and behavior has been monitored by yet others. All things considered, I think we have done better collectively than a rule book would expect. We do have one rule that applies here, WP:IAR. As long as we communicate and act in the best interest of enwp, I really feel like that is all the rule book we need. No instruction creep needed. Be bold but sensitive, and we can discuss any disagreement here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be aware I'm not talking about rules, I'm simply asking if it makes sense to have a page of what actions that admins - whether involved or not - should be enabled to take in the case of a fast-moving current event that has the potential to draw a lot of IP with good intentions but misinformation, or others; these are actions they can take in the very short term (a few days) that they should not be critized for nor seek to get approval to do. Once out of the "code red" period, normal editing rules would apply, such as getting a second opinion for adding protection, etc. Normal editing policy still is required at all times, but enabling admins to take actions that we all agree are appropriate helps to maintain the proper decorum of the discussion. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To give you an example, if a flurry of BLP violations started flooding the page, and it wasn't possible to police them one at a time, I would full protect the page for a few hours without hesitation, which is the normal process. I'm sure others would as well. Most of the new editor interest is by new IPs who are in good faith but clueless, but I haven't seen anything we can't handle, it just takes a lot of us to do it. I've been pretty active, as have several others, and it seems like most of the experienced editors are pretty clued in on how to manage it. I haven't seen anything out of control and we have faced similar flurries of activity before. Everyone chips in. Honestly, the community could make the rule book, but I probably wouldn't have read it and just have done what I've done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Length of full prevention on shooter page

So, from reading the above, is the intention to leave the (currently redirected) shooter page protected for a week? Indefinitely? My suspicion is that, unless it is left protected indefinitely, the page will be started soon after the protection is dropped, whenever that is. Like it or not, he's now notable. And like it or not, whenever the protection is lifted, we're likely to have the cycle of page creation/Merge request/AFD/DRV. Be it today, a week, a month, whenever. And if the past is any indication, in the end we'll end up keeping the article. This protection is not eliminating the cycle, just delaying it. And to my eyes we are substituting the opinions of a few admins for the normal consensus process. Ugly as that process may be at times like this, consensus is a core pillar around here. And past consensus, contentious or not, has been towards the existence of such perpetrator articles.

If this is really only going to be for a week, as was mentioned above, then I can grump away. But since I do not see this protection as solving any of the above mentioned problems, only delaying them, I worry that it'll not be just a week. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he wasn't notable before the crime, then the notability of doing the shooting is not going to make him notable enough to have a separate article on him, particularly since he is also dead and thus only analysis of his motives/reasoning will come to light during the investigation. This is standard practice with people that only come to light because of a crime. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Anders Behring Breivik and James Eagan Holmes. Concur with temporary protection until the hubbub dies down but it should then be removed. Two weeks, perhaps. NE Ent 15:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You showed several that I was about to list. Seung-Hui Cho is another good example, as he also died in his rampage. I cannot think of an event of this type and scale where the perpetrator did *not* become notable enough, after the fact, to have his own article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's not notable seperate from his crime - neither was anyone else - it's just with modern media crawling over everyone's personal lives / social networks etc. that some articles becomes too long and therefore merit forking. GiantSnowman 15:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's one side of the debate we get each time on these. But there is another side of the debate that says that the perpetrators are indeed notable. I'm sorry, but just proclaiming him not notable does not make it so. There are legitimate arguments to be made both ways. And in the past the consensus has ended up to be to have the articles. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying there shouldn't be these articles, I'm saying these are unique occurences where the articles on the perpetrators exist not because they are independently notable, but because enough media attention is aimed at the crimes that some of it spills over into the intimate lives of the shooters and we therefore have enough material to justify a seperate article. It's because the articles are long, not because they are notable. That is why there is one article on Harris & Klebold, not two seperate ones. On a seperate note, I'd agree to prevent creation for a week or two, given the shambolic media reporting which has seen an innocent party get embroiled. GiantSnowman 16:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying that there are arguments to be made that they *are* notable. These arguments are strongly made each time that we have one of these. James Eagan Holmes was most definitely not a "split out" article. For better or worse it was a separate article, started shortly after the incident, that survived merge requests and AFD. And there were indeed arguments made, quite strongly IMHO, that he had almost instantly become separately notable. This is likely not the right venue to debate this, but I'm hard pressed to just let slide comments that appear to proclaim as settled fact (his lack of separate notability) that are at the *least* quite debatable, and quite possibly are not fact at all. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, from a standpoint of GNG, the perp of a major crime like the shooting is instantly notable once the identity has affirmed, there's no denying that. However, we have policy like BLP1E (which I would also say suggests extends to the recently dead), as well as guidelines from the CRIMES project, that state that we don't create article on people notable for only one event (this is what's wrong with the Holmes article and it really needs to be merged back to the Aurora shooting one). Eventually, they may be spun out from the crime article as time progresses, but it should only be when SIZE is an issue somewhere. Again, I stress that a lot of these end up repeating the details of the crime and, if the perp is still alive, the pending trials and convictions. But if a lot more outside of the crime can be written (the two Columbine shooters for example) then great, that's probably a reason to expand. There is nothing yet for the Sandy Hook shooter yet that isn't already on the crime's page so there's no rush to consider unprotecting the redirect yet. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and practice are pretty clear. NE Ent 17:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy (Guideline actually) is clear, actual practice is considerably more murky. All of the one event style guidelines are primary applicable to situations where someone is borderline notable, but due to the one event do pass the guidelines. Where one event has made a person incredibly notable, and attracted sustained world wide media attention, the one event style guidelines break down. Monty₈₄₅ 17:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, particularly that I've not seen anything much on the current shooter that isn't already well covered by the shooting article and the fact that rumors are flying around the press right now as to motivation (including linkage to a financial deception investigation and connections to the Aurora shootings!!) The article on the shooter would be a nightmare to contain, given how much work's going into the actual crime article. Maybe when things settle down in a few weeks and investigators know more, but we're far from considering a separate article right now. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E is far from clear on this, I'm sorry. It explicitly lists 3 conditions that all need to be met for it to apply. The first condition applies. The second and third are not met. Do note that this is exactly the same argument that has been had on previous incidents like this. One side wants to apply BLP1E, the other looks at the wording of BLP1E and says that, by BLP1E's own criteria, it does not apply. And both sides argue past each other. Sigh. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know with the shooter dead, BLP technically no longer applies, but at the same time, common sense says that if we create an article on the person without full protection, it will be a minefield as bad as the shooter article, making editors work twice as hard to maintain both. We have no DEADLINE, it makes sense to consider the options once the investigation closes and we can assess how best to move forward. People searching on the shooter's name are sent to the crime page, so we're not failing the reader in any way yet. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) And just to clarify where I am coming from on all of this. I'm not trying to argue that such an article should exist today, this minute. Given the media chaos, A week or two is not unreasonable here (grump grump). I'm not necessarily trying to argue that we need an article on this specific shooter later. I am arguing against the idea that this is a settled issue against such articles. Or that the only reason we have such is to split out overlarge incident articles. There are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the debate. But for one side to make statements as settled fact that are IMHO far from settled is to try to cut off that debate before it is even allowed to start. And that is IMHO very much against the way WP should operate. We have such articles on the perpetrators of most, if not all, similar incidents. And IMHO we do not have them all simply because of size splits.

This is a debate we have had before, it's a debate that we will almost certainly have somewhere fully about the current incident. And it's a debate we will likely have again in the future. People on both sides believe strongly, and both sides believe that they have policy on their side in one form or the other. And unfortunately both sides tend to argue past each other in these things. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I would say the outcome here should be that an article on the shooter suitable for mainspace should first be drafted by an experienced editor in their userspace. When the article is ready, the drafter(s) should request it be moved over the redirect. As the above comments, I would suggest waiting a week or two for things to settle down before doing so. Monty₈₄₅ 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only time these articles should be created is if the article on the crime they did starts to get long, then it makes sense to make a separate article on the perp. The problem with these articles is that if this is their only claim to notability (as in the case of James Eagan Holmes) is that 90% of the content duplicates that of the crime committed; the only "new" info being usually a brief bio. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get sidetracked about whether or not bio articles should be created; without full protection they will, soon. From what I can tell, everyone's in agreement here that full protection should persist for now until facts are clearer. With the holiday break approaching there will be a lot of people with time on their hands at home, and less reporting in the field. I think continuing protection on the redirect for a while is prudent to avoid the bio concerns. Shadowjams (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who originally protected a few of those redirects, "indefinite" was intended to be "until things calm down and we have enough information to figure out what to do here"; since there's no particular point in time we know that will occur, I went with indefinite. As it definitely hasn't occurred yet, I agree with Shadowjams there don't seem to be any serious objections to the current state of affairs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this as a proposal. We plan to leave the shooter redirect fully protected until *at least* after Christmas. One week ends sooner, but protecting through Christmas means we do not have to fight/argue about this in the timeframe right before the holiday itself. And that gives over a week and 1/2 after the incident for things in the media to settle out. We then plan to revisit the issue shortly after the holiday itself. In the day/days after there will be more people with more available time on their hands to potentially keep a close eye on the initial development of an article, whether it's in AFC space, user space, or in article space itself. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the overall sentiment here that the bio is inevitable but we are better served by leaving indef protection for now. This is the same idea we have used on the event page, perhaps being a little more strict in interpretation than usual, for the sake of managing the chaos and allowing everyone to have a voice, but protecting the survivors and the integrity of Wikipedia. Firm but polite. I like Monty's idea as well, having editors create the bio, move it over the redirect after the new year (and the kids are back in school) and I would expect at least a year of semi-protection. I know this sounds preemptive, but it is simple reality and we've already seen the problems when this started. I think this balances "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" with our ability to protect the encyclopedia as a whole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree completely with Dennis. No hard dates of course, I think Dennis is just reflecting experience; I am slightly more optimistic that protection won't be necessary for that long, but we're all just guessing at this point. The point is, from experience we know how the editing patterns shake out, and so providing some policy to much of this is the most benign way to allow broader input and yet still adhere to consensus rather than !vote counting. Shadowjams (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for the heck of it I'll link to WP:LGB. Mind you, I did not pick that color. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Asperger syndrome

There have so far been only two attempts to add Sandy Hook to Asperger syndrome (a featured article where sources should comply with WP:MEDRS), but that may increase. Perhaps it can be added to admin watchlistss? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've semi-protected it. If someone thinks that's too heavy-handed, they can reconsider. Thank you Sandy, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know about Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/RfC where we need some extra eyes. Rcsprinter (rap) No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 00:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? I see no signs of disruption and it's a bit too early to close. Perhaps we can have some eyes on List of straight people, though--whose redlinkedness kind of proves your point. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP needs a little care from the wielders of the mop, AKA admins. There are now 26 open requests. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's now somewhat under control with 8 requests pending; it could use some clerking though. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does a template automatically count as high-risk when it's used in a MediaWiki page? I've asked for guidance at WP:VP/Pr (section header the same as this one) regarding MediaWiki:Gettingstarted-msg, and I'd appreciate input from people who actually do the protecting. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather we not prematurely protect unless absolutely necessary. The obscurity of mediawiki: namespace pages means that templates transcluded onto them are in general less vulnerable to drive-by template vandalism than on average. Moreover, as the VP discussion suggests, this particular case is a rather unusual trial that's being closely-watched by multiple parties. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion underway at DYK to discuss whether or not to commemorate Dr. Blofeld's 1000th DYK as a special Christmas DYK. Please leave your opinion there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The score was actually nil:nil, as a person behaving foolishly managed to get verifiable information removed from the encyclopaedia by other editors who were so distracted with the edit warring and the talk page histrionics that they didn't actually check things out for themselves. I have rectified this, after checking things out for myself. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The onus is on the person adding to ensure that it is reliably sourced, not with anyone else. I tried to explain that to the vandal on several ocassions, only to be met with someone who did not read the page about reliable sources and who considered that abuse and warring was the best way forward. The "fact" you have subsequently re-added fails both WP:WEIGHT and WP:TRIVIA. It's been shoved into the footnotes by a third party, although it is even dubious whether it should be there at all. - SchroCat (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You demonstrate exactly the sort of non-collaborative non-effort-expending attitude on the part of an editor with an account that makes editing so bad for so many, and that people rightly ridicule in cases like this where myopic Wikipedians foolishly fight to un-write the encyclopaedia. Calling someone who in no article edit did anything but add verifiable content and cite sources intended to support it a "vandal" is almost merely icing on the cake of how unproductive, uncollaborative, and un-Wikipedian that attitude is. Follow User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, which is the step-by-step guide taken from the verifiability and deletion policies of several years' standing, including its original 2003 formulation. If you see poor sources, put in the effort yourself to find better ones. You're supposed to be a collaborative editor. Stop thinking that your purpose here is no more than to sit in an armchair, mark other people's work, and use the undo tool, without otherwise lifting a finger to help when an article needs fixing. That is not our editing policy.

    And you're clearly not reading beyond the names of the shortcuts to the actual pages they lead to, another common failing. The concept of "weight" is about the relative emphasis on viewpoints, which has no bearing here; and neither was this a trivia section. (Indeed, the trivia section house style guide explicitly explains that it isn't applicable to facts.) Instead, it was a simple fact, verifiable from a James Bond encyclopaedia. Not only are you not reading beyond the initialisms and not following our editing, verifiability, and deletion policies of long standing, you have forgotten what we're trying to write here, which is a free content encyclopaedia intended to be at least as good as that one, telling the reader everything that it does. Get a grip on what you're supposed to be doing; read (and, better yet, figure out the underlying reasons for) the actual policies and guidelines, not the shortcut initialisms; stop treating people without accounts so abysmally and calling them vandals for adding verifiable information, and stop doing exactly what people outwith Wikipedia ridicule.

    Uncle G (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone with some knowledge of templates and thus less likely than I to muck it up take a look at CAT:EP? We're nearing 50 edit requests, most on templates. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 06:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bunch of them. You don't need knowledge of templates — just copy/paste code when requesters supply it. If they don't, I'll decline it and leave a note on the requester's talk page, saying something like "Hi, I couldn't understand your request, since I'm not good at template coding; please go back and supply the exact code you desire". Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to submit a article called Who Is Ant Mania....the article is about a musican — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTMANIA24 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Userspace_articles

I have concerns about the process at mfd concerning userspace articles. I would appreciate your thoughts. - jc37 06:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]