Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
notice
→‎Editor Dr. Blofeld: On attitude and policy
Line 159: Line 159:


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. {{diff|From Russia with Love (film)|528712798|528637761|I have rectified this}}, after checking things out for myself. ☺ [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 23:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
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. {{diff|From Russia with Love (film)|528712798|528637761|I have rectified this}}, after checking things out for myself. ☺ [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 23:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
: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. - [[User:Schrodinger's cat is alive|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:Schrodinger's cat is alive|talk]]) 04:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
*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. - [[User:Schrodinger's cat is alive|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:Schrodinger's cat is alive|talk]]) 04:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
**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 [[Wikipedia:editing policy|editing policy]].<p>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 [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|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.<p>[[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 08:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


== Protected edits ==
== Protected edits ==

Revision as of 08:22, 19 December 2012





    

    

    
Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

    

    


    Shortcuts
    


    

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    

    

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    


     
    Template:Active editnotice
    

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    

    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.
    

    

      

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


      


      Shortcuts
      

      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.

      Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

      

      

      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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need 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.

      

      

      


      

      Technical instructions for closers
      

      

      


      Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

      

      

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


      

      

      

      Other areas tracking old discussions
      


      Administrative discussions
      

      ANI thread concerning Yasuke
      

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems.  Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

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

      Requests for comment
      

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions
      

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

      


      Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk)  09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure.  Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

       Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk)  07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.  —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk)  08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues
      

      (Initiated 74 days ago on 3 June 2024)
Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede
      

      (Initiated 55 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy -  17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Titles of European monarchs
      

      (Initiated 54 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      This is dragging on ad nauseam.  I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section
      

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC.  --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley
      

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)
      

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years
      

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years.  Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


      
The present text in the article is ambiguous. The present sentence  within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia) can be interpreted in two ways, as can be seen from the discussion. One group of editors interpret this as "although today in Croatia, Tesla's birthplace was not related to Kingdom of Croatia at the time of his birth in the 19th century" and other group of editors are claiming that "at that time the area was a part of "Kingdom of Croatia". I hope that end consensus will resolve that ambiguity. Whatever the consensus will be, let's not have ambiguous text. The article should provide a clear answer to that question. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?
      

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      @Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox
      

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3
      

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 9 July 2024)
Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak
      

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier
      

      (Initiated 31 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      There have been only  5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

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

      Deletion discussions
      


      
XFD backlog


      
V

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Total

      

      
CfD

0

0

0

22

22

      

      
TfD

0

0

3

2

5

      

      
MfD

0

0

2

0

2

      

      
FfD

0

0

0

2

2

      

      
RfD

0

0

17

20

37

      

      
AfD

0

0

0

0

0

      

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

      Other types of closing requests
      

      Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?
      

      (Initiated 260 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024.  TarnishedPathtalk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024
      

      (Initiated 83 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS
      

      (Initiated 80 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk)  16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk)  07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker
      

      (Initiated 78 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation
      

      (Initiated 68 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal
      

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Srebrenica massacre
      

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 26 July 2024) Move review for Srebrenica massacre. Last comment was two weeks ago. This can be closed.  TarnishedPathtalk 00:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

       Done. SilverLocust 💬 04:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

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

      Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, part 2
      

      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]

              • 

            • 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]

        • 

      • 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]

      

      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]
      

      

      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]
      

      Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
      

      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]

        • 

      • 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)

      


      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]

      


       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]

      

      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. gwickwiretalkedits 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]
      

      

      

      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]

      


      Ongoing RfC
      

      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]

      


      WP:RFPP
      

      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'sPonyobons mots 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Protecting templates used in MediaWiki pages
      

      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]
      

      DYK nomination
      

      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]

      

      Editor Dr. Blofeld
      

      

      

      Another IP sock blocked and From Russia with Love has already been protected from IP socking for a few days. Final score: Wikipedia 1 : 0 IP socks. BencherliteTalk 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      

      

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      

      

       

      This editor is posting abusive comments, calling other editors "losers" and blocking them from responding. As yet, Dr Blofeld has not been issued with any warning and in one post is sniggering "he, he" that they are able to circumvent wiki etiquette rules and block users. The bullying on this site is intolerable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.37.110 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Then please quit being a loser and using multiple sock ip accounts to promote your agenda and get an account and start contributing some real material then. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      


      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.
      

      

      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]
      

      Protected edits
      

      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]
      

      Dastangoi article
      

      

      

      No further action required. GiantSnowman 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      

      

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      

      

      

      I had created an article called Dastangoi in the main article space. This article was tagged as "under construction" as I was in the process of building the article. I was being extra careful with my edits as this article was previously deleted because of copyvio. Whilst I was making my second edit after creating the article, User:Forgot to put name re-directed the article to my user space and posted the article for speedy deletion. 

      I put a note on the user's talk page requesting rationale for the move and speedy deletion tag. The user apologised for the action taken without stating rationale and suggested that the re-direct and move to delete was made since articles were better developed in user spaces and then moved to main space.

      The page has now been deleted. What do I do? Prad2609 (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      You are certainly free to develop an article in mainspace, though to prevent deletion you certainly would be wise to do so in userspace. However, Forgot to put name should never have moved the article into your userspace. If you want, I can move User:Prad2609/Dastangoi back to Dastangoi - although you have been warned that it may be tagged for deletion in its current state. GiantSnowman 16:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I have moved the article back into mainspace as user finds convenient to develop it in article space. Anyways, I am sorry for doing so. Forgot to put name (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      And you messed up the new page move - that is why you shouldn't be messing with it - I've deleted all the redirects you've created. GiantSnowman 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.
      

      

      Article submission
      

      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] 

      

      Notice: 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]

      

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=528771597"