- on second thought, I will just add the link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Journalists to the journalist articles, anyone is welcome to add this info. Ikip (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Some acceptable uses are:
- If an article, template, project page, or other Wikipedia page has just been created, and it may take multiple edits to complete the construction that involve the use of multiple articles, hidden text may be used temporarily to let new page patrollers and others know that it is under construction so that it does not get proposed for deletion.
- If a page may seem tempting to propose for deletion, but already has in the past, and has survived deletion, hidden text may be used to let others know that the page previously was proposed for deletion and instruct others where to read the previous discussions.
- If there is any information that is constantly added, removed, or modified in any other way, and there may be a better alternative, hidden text may be used to let others know of that alternative. in this case, it should mention the alternative and point to a discussion, if one exists
- If misinformation that has been commonly misbelieved is frequently added to an article, hidden text may be used to inform others. The text should point the reader to a discussion on the topic, if one exists.
- If information that may be tempting to add really belongs somewhere else, to point other editors to that place
- To inform others of existing policies that may apply when editing a page
Some unacceptable uses are:
- Telling all other editors not to edit the page, period
- Telling others not to remove a section of the article period, as if the section were in stone
- Telling others that a page should not be proposed for deletion, when this may be doubted by others
- Writing new guidelines that apply specifically to the page, and branding them as "policy." In the past, policies that have been proposed for a single article have failed to attain a consensus.
absurd recommendation to consult ANI
I find the statement If you feel that you are being bullied or another user has threatened you with bodily harm it is important that you report them immediately to WP:AN/I so the matter can be properly dealt with to be absurd. That would be good advice, unless, of course, the bully is one of numerous editors who engage in bullying and frequent ANI, in order to conduct their bullying. In which case, your reporting bullying there will identify you as a suitable victim for more bullies to attack. There is no guarantee in wikipedia that behavior of long-term bullies will be addressed by ANI. It is poor advice; I am inclined to remove the assertion from this essay. --doncram 17:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, if you are being bullied you should consult a reliable, experienced, neutral editor and then decide how to proceed. ANI is not the best place to go especially if a person is inexperienced with dispute resolution. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Referring the victim to ANI is like telling the battered wife they should report to the police. Sounds good on paper but after the police report, they are returned home for more abuse. The victim needs a safe place to go where they will be protected. ANI is not necessarily that place. It could be, but it should not be treated like its the automatic and perfect solution. This essay should offer victims a variety of solutions and avenues for protection and resolution.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Making "no-edit" orders contrary to policy
- no editor may unilaterally take charge over an article or part of an article by sending no-edit orders
This is incorrect in that it doesn't go far enough. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Multiple-editor ownership makes it more than clear that no individual user or group of users WP:OWNs a Wikipedia article. It is not appropriate to find one or two buddies, claim ownership of pages and WP:BITE any lone newbies who show up proposing changes to those articles. See tag team, WP:CANVASS, false consensus and wrongful consensus.
and Bullying of principal editors
- On the other hand, there are bullying editors who have not exerted themselves to the point where they could be called the "principal editor" of any significant article. Some of these editors ruthlessly attack editors who are the principal editor of an article and have done the hard yards, accusing them of "ownership", insisting that their own ill-considered contributions take precedence
The previous section acknowledged WP:OWN but this section condones exactly that - a principal editor claiming ownership and dismissing all other contributors as "ill-considered". That places this in direct contradiction to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. K7L (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agree its a confusing and contradictory section. Needs to be removed or rewritten.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing this important topic. However, I feel that the Hidden Text section is too long and is being given too much weight in the essay. Would anyone like to discuss or help revise the article to reduce its emphasis?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I feel that there are important aspects of bullying that are missing and would like to help expand this essay. For example there are three elements to bullying
- aggressive behavior
- performed repeatedly on a single editor, or a series of different editors (inexperienced editors are the likeliest victims)
- the behavior attempts to create a relationship where there is an imbalance of power between the two editors
This is accomplished by isolating the editor on an article or user talk page and dominating and intimidating via condescension, criticism, anger, threats, name calling, unsubstantiated accusations and attempts to label them as bad, ignorant of policies, having a conflict of interest, being incivil or by taking the editor to ANI for non-existent or minor infractions. I feel these aspects of bullying that occur (unfortunately) on WP on a regular basis need to be included in this essay. Thoughts from others?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
"Aggressive Undoing" section
Could anyone explain the intended meaning of this section's text? Is it purposefully written in broken English and incomplete sentences? If not, I think it would help to re-word it.
Making an "Undo" to prevent expression of an idea (usually criticism, or even facts with negative impact to expressions) without any reasons, or "you text is not conform to wiki standard". Remarks: "Please improve this point instead of bullying this, Thanks"