Talk:2019 Saugus High School shooting

Request for comment: Victims' names

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article include the names of the dead victims? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: This used to be a formal Request for Comment. What happened to that? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: This happened to that. Note that I have re-opened yesterday's ANI complaint per the mainspace activity, if you haven't already noted that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey: Victims' names

• Omit - Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. If they are deemed relevant, genders, ages, and/or ethnicities could be summarized in prose.
  Further, there are arguable privacy concerns. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. "Well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Wikipedia.
  For the multiple excellent counters to arguments about precedent in other articles, including the vast majority in which the lists have received little or no discussion, search for "90%" at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2#RfC: Victim names. The 90% number largely represents the effective equivalent of democratic voting by editing – Wikipedia is not a democracy – and it falls dramatically when you look at articles where the issue has received significant scrutiny in recent years.[1] It falls so far that nobody can claim that it represents a community consensus for the lists. Attempts to reach a consensus in community venues such as the Village Pump have repeatedly failed, despite arguments about precedent, and there could be little clearer evidence of the absence of a community consensus for the lists. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—you say "there are arguable privacy concerns". If there are privacy concerns I will join you in arguing this information should be omitted. What are the privacy concerns? Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I expounded at some length in one of the many previous discussions. I haven't been able to find that since, and I doubt I could be that eloquent again, but it had to do with the increasing societal desire to be as anonymous as possible, even in death, and that the families' privacy should be considered as well. I have not claimed any solid policy basis for this – even though I believe the spirit of it can be seen in some policies such as WP:BLPNAME – but these discussions would be a small fraction of their size if everybody limited themselves to solid policy basis.

I won't be debating this point at length as if there is one correct answer; you and others are free to agree or disagree as you see fit. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It was June 11, Virginia Beach. You thought you "live in an increasingly crazy world", I reassured you they died in one. They were the best of times and the worst of times, and if I remember correctly, went on like this longer than any of these wastes of precious thinking time. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Include of course, as we do in over 90% of similar articles. WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply as this is not an article about the individual dead. WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not apply as there is certainly additional information about the dead that is not being included. WP:NOTCENSORED applies here, as does WP:NPOV, see more at Wikipedia:Casualty lists. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Include. There is nothing remotely indiscriminate about the names of the victims, no one is arguing the name of the perpetrator should be omitted, all reliable sources carry this information, this is not a creative writing project, there are no "privacy concerns" associated with including the names of the victims, greater than 90% of articles that could contain victim names, do contain victim names, and lastly—we follow sources; if all the sources contain the victim names then an article derived from all the sources that contain the victim names should also contain the victim names. Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• My inclination is not to include the names of victims in this kind of article. I am not passionate about it and I realize that different conclusions are reached at different articles. In this case, with the victims being minors, I prefer not to name them. And of course we never almost never publish the names of people who were wounded but recovered, to protect their privacy. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"And of course we never publish the names of people who were wounded but recovered"... I see from your comment below that you now understand, based on Chardon High School shooting (and others), that you should never say never. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just a comment. I looked at Chardon High School shooting to see how they dealt with the names because the numbers are similar: 3 killed and 3 injured. You can see how those editors handled it. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect it took you some digging to find that article about a shooting seven years ago. In that case, they went into great detail about the injuries and deaths. I very much doubt if that would be done in any such article nowadays. But in my comment above I should probably have said "almost never." As the saying goes, "always remember never to say always or never." -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You suspect incorrectly. Actually, I did no digging whatsoever. I went directly to that article because that shooting is unforgettable in my state, where it happened, and I knew there were a few killed and and a few wounded, similar to the Saugus shooting. So I wanted to see how Wikipedia handled the names of the students for that school shooting. I would suggest that in the future you state what you know, not what you assume, when responding to others. You've done it twice in this discussion and were wrong both times. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Name the dead The coroner has publicly IDed them, any privacy concerns are thus only deep-rooted personal anxieties of editors who would project them onto every stranger they read was shot to death in a shooting/death article. Not cool. You do you, people! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

In wikipedia we should refrain from naming other editors even if it is publicly stated (outside of wikipedia). So im very doubtful that applies. Plus while "You may do you" we should respect everyones privacy because we cant just assume they don't care only because you don't care, That's even more inconsiderate! --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Include the names of the victims. All the RS covering the story include the names of the victims, and so should we. Doing otherwise would be artificial editorializing and would violate WP:WEIGHT. Nsk92 (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Omit. The deceased victims were not notable in life. Their untimely demise does not vary that lack of notability. Readers' understanding of the event is not enhanced by inclusion of the victims' names. Publication of their age and gender will satisfy any demographic understanding of the event. WWGB (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Some people choose to think of people as male or female, old or young, dark or light and rich or poor. Others find individual names more distinctive, less likely to blur together with completely unrelated Asian minor dudes. The exact same source could as easily satisfy both kinds of readers, why arbitrarily starve one, especially if it takes more effort to be selfish, or justify the hypocrisy of giving deceased victims who were't notable in life a mini-biography if they kill the nameless randos before leaving their families to grieve their suicides in private? I'm no fame-hungry depressed suggestible teen with daddy issues, an attention deficit, a smartphone, a gun and access to dehumanized young blood, but if I were, I'd be tempted to have the world remember me as the exceptional one, that "special little snowflake", more interesting than my peers. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

What a blatantly hypocritical argument. Why don't you substitute the words "victims" with "shooter" and see how it reads, like this: "The deceased shooter was not notable in life. His untimely demise does not vary that lack of notability. Readers' understanding of the event is not enhanced by inclusion of the shooter's name." So, why aren't you also opposed to including the shooter's name? Was he notable in life? Of course not. The fact is that the notability of both the shooter and his victims are the same. They all became equally notable upon the publication of their names in most mainstream reliable sources across the world that provided any more than cursory coverage of the shooting. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that's the problem when an anonymous IP editor with three days of experience edits Wikipedia. Blowing away innocent students moves you closer to notability. Dying at school does not. WWGB (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You're trying to minimize and belittle me personally because my views are different than yours? Perhaps you should think about controlling your temper and instead focus solely on the points being made by those who disagree with you. If you're confident with your argument(s) and believe they're sound, there's no need to be rude or condescending to those who think you're wrong. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

WWGB—you are mixing up notability with noteworthy for inclusion. You are saying "Ah, that's the problem when an anonymous IP editor with three days of experience edits Wikipedia. Blowing away innocent students moves you closer to notability. Dying at school does not." We are not discussing "notability". Please note: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." I don't think we are contemplating the initiation of new articles on these deceased individuals. "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Bus stop (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your comments sound vaguely familiar. Do you have an account? If so, what's that username and why are you commenting logged out? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC) "Vaguely familiar"... that's not very definitive. Not that it's any of your business, but no, I do not have an account. Are you the Wikipedia sheriff? I wonder if you would have asked me that question had I supported your position in this discussion. Perhaps you should consider being a lot less aggressive with other editors who hold a different opinion than your own on this matter. It appears your style is to get quite defensive and hammer them over the head, especially on this particular topic. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

WWGB, you are correct. They were not notable in life, they are now notable in death because of their widespread coverage in our reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

They're still not notable. It's the shooting that's notable, not the victims. Jim Michael (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The victims need not be notable to be briefly mentioned in the article. They are content in the article. Wikipedia:Notability tells us "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article...Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". (All bolding has been added by me.) Bus stop (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

But there's no need to name them. It doesn't help our readers understand what happened. Jim Michael (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Include Other articles include the names, this one, (and all the rest that don't have names) should to, provided names have been publicly released. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 00:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Omit - as I've stated on several other talk pages. The names are of otherwise unknown people (killed or injured) are of no relevance to over 99% of readers. We don't need to follow the media's practise of giving excessive details about the victims of fatal incidents which invades the privacy of those people who were injured as well as the families of those killed. Discussions on these events have been concluded on other talk pages with the judgement that names shouldn't be in such articles. Jim Michael (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Jim Michael—you say "Discussions on these events have been concluded on other talk pages with the judgement that names shouldn't be in such articles". Should one editor be closing 4 RfCs pertaining to victim names—all with the same outcome—to omit victim names?

Sept. 22, 2019 Virginia Beach shooting Result: omit victim names

Oct. 2, 2019 2019 El Paso shooting Result: omit victim names

Oct. 3, 2019 2019 Dayton shooting Result: omit victim names

Oct. 6, 2019 Midland–Odessa shooting Result: omit victim names

The above four RfCs on victim names were closed by Cinderella157. I think an editor should close a maximum of one article on this subject. Bus stop (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Omit - There are legitimate privacy concerns related to the survivors of the event which should be respected. Listing the names of victims can indirectly affect relatives and other people related to the victims. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Does this indirect effect concern their privacy in some hypothetical way? If so, are you concerned with outing the Tennosuke or Berhow clans. Maybe talking about a grieving mother's dead hunter husband will get get animal rights or anti-Japanese outrage nuts doxxing these unrelated relatives. Or just folks who don't take kindly to groups who ignorantly support child murderers financially? Aside from Sandy Hook, digging up dirt on the families and friends of reported innocent victims just doesn't happen on any appreciable scale. If it did, I'd be aware of and opposed to the legitimate threat local cemeteries, coroners, police, fundraisers, Facebook memorial walls, public vigils and press pose to private citizens. Damn opposed! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Include It's clear that Mandruss is obsess with refighting this same battle over and over again as he did in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and Santa Fe High School shooting and doesn't have anything new to add. TheHoax (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  In multiple extensive discussions at the Village Pump, the community has required us to "refight this same battle over and over again", as I think you know. The words they used were "decide on a case-by-case basis", far less inflammatory, combative, and aspersion-casting than yours. I was strongly opposed to that outcome – I favored a guideline to avoid all this – but I lost, and I know how to lose. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Clearly this is preferably decided on a case-by-case basis. For most of Wikipedia's history, until very recent years, the question as to whether victim names should be included or omitted was decided with little fanfare. On article Talk pages, often without RfCs. Involving only those editors interested in writing the article. Until recent years there has been no need for a community-wide ruling. And there still is no need for a community-wide ruling. It is not the same battle being fought over and over again, as you put it. It is a unique set of circumstances and a unique set of people writing each article. The question as to inclusion versus omission has come up many times and it has been resolved just as many times. I say this because I have examined over 200 articles, some of which had Talk page discussions about this. I have even examined archives at these articles for discussions about inclusion/omission of victim names. My conclusion is that until recent years this has been anything but an insurmountable problem requiring a community-wide ruling. My conclusion is to relax. Relax and allow the editors most involved in writing a given article to reach a conclusion as to whether to include victim names or not. Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Include After weighing both sides, I've concluded that since most reliable sources in the U.S. and internationally include the names, it would be completely non-sensical not to include them here. I see that even Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting includes all the names, even though all the students were just first-graders (6 and 7 years old). There are many other school shooting articles that include all the names. Sure, anyone can run a long list of Wikipedia articles that do not include names, but that doesn't mean it's right; it only means the anti-namers put up enough resistence on those talk pages to prevent it. For me, the bottom line is that if the victims' names in these tragic events are published worldwide in most, or the vast majority of, mainstream publications, they should also be included on Wikipedia. There obviously are no longer any privacy issues when the names are already known by everyone, so that excuse clearly becomes bogus. So, include the names. Not to do so is nothing more than censorship disguised as concern. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

— 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Occlude more of these discussions by running that RfC again. "Case by case" was an obviously poor choice. We should set a guideline one way or another. (And it should be to omit, because naming the names adds no value to the reader.) – Levivich 01:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What a surprise that an anti-namer, who's actually "voted" to omit the names of the Saugus students, has posted this in an attempt to delegitimize my views. However, it won't change the facts and common sense of what I've said. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Welcome to your third day on Wikipedia! You are clearly a fast learner. WWGB (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC) This is your third attempt to minimize and belittle me in this discussion. I'm not sure why you're so worked up, but perhaps you're worried that my comments might sway others to support my position. Otherwise, why not just ignore me? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC) WWGB, AFAIK 2605 hasn't made any claims of being new to editing. That their contribs page is so short means nothing. IP addresses often change automatically, with varying frequencies set by the ISPs. IPv6 addresses seem to change even more frequently than IPv4 addresses, and I've seen a case where one changed every three hours. Every time your IP address changes, you start over with an empty contribs page. 2605 could easily have years of experience and are simply enjoying the freedom from history offered to every editor per WMF dictate. They have also stated that they have no account, and, absent checkuser results to the contrary, we take them at their word per WP:AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC) "Anti-namer". There you have it, folks, a new ad hominem slur to pointlessly throw around. I was almost shamed into changing my position, but then I thought of the alternative "pro-unnamer". Let's see, I guess that would make you an "anti-unnamer". I may work up a chart for easy reference. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC) It was not a slur; just a fact. In this debate, you are an anti-namer and I'm a pro-namer. Or, alternatively, you're a pro-unnmaer and, as you've suggested, I'm an anti-unnamer. Exactly. Either way is fine with me. After all, this entire discussion is about whether to include the names or not, right? So, each of us takes either a pro position or an anti position. You said, "I was almost shamed into changing my position..." So, you considered taking the other side, but now won't do so because your feelings were hurt? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Ok, I may have misread your intent. I'm accustomed to the words Opposer and Supporter (we know the context), but we can use yours too. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• STRONG INCLUDE: – We have this debate at every article. Once again, I believe we should INCLUDE the names of the deceased victims. But, not (necessarily) the names of the injured victims. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• OMIT - we often omit violence victim lists for various reasons, determined case-by-Case for reasons like WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:ONUS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Unless a person is covered for something other than just as a victim identification, it does not seem providing event information or actions during the event (e.g. fought back, rescued others, etcetera) and adds no narrative value or help to understand the events. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  Actually the opposite is true: we DO NOT often omit violence victim lists. 90% of articles of this type include a victim list. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is erroneously mentioned here as that policy applies to articles about victims, not to them simply being mentioned as part of a larger topic. WP:ONUS is self explanatory, our sources discuss the victims by name, it would be WP:OR to not include them. Finally WP:NOTEVERYTHING is irrelevant here as we are only talking about names, not full biographies (which would then be everything). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Include - we aren't talking about writing an article regarding these victims. As for the rationale WP:ONUS: Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article - That is what we are establishing here. The victims are notable in context of the event, quite often foundations and trials involving the victims come out as a result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Omit: The names are of small relevance to the reader and simply would just be Out of the scope. As others have stated very clearly WP:NOTEVERYTHING is going to be featured in wikipedia "Just Because". --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Omit - Not going to go into a long rational here, I've just seen many of these discussions and they always end up "omitted" so in the interest of consistency, my opinion. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  If we're doing anything in the interest of consistency, we'd be including the names as 90% of articles already do. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Locke, I am getting tired of your constantly pushing that 90% figure. It is one statistic, based on what has been done throughout the entire time Wikipedia has existed. Recent usage is that roughly half of such articles include the names and half don't. Recent usage should carry more weight; we do a lot of things differently now than we did in 2001. In any case, "consistency" is irrelevant. Several discussions on the subject have said there is not a default to include or not to include - that the decision is made on a case by case basis. That is what this discussion is for. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean, the 90% figure is very compelling however, as it shows just how common these types of lists are in articles. But it's hardly the only reason to include a listing: WP:NPOV requires that we provide proportional coverage to our sources, and our sources often go into minute details on the victims in these events (far beyond simply naming them, our sources can often be found providing detailed biographical information). Further, WP:NOTCENSORED clearly tells us that simply because something may be uncomfortable does not mean that we omit it. There haven't really been any compelling reasons provided to omit the names, which boils the dissents down to simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And I'd like to see omission of facts from an article be for a better reason than that. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Include - It's only two names and they're the two people who were killed in the shooting. People central to an incident don't need to be otherwise notable to be referenced by name. Cjhard (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. We shouldn't be adding names just because they died at a certain place and time. There are notable deaths but otherwise this seems too random. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Include It is relevant and not unreasonably long. HAL333 03:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Include Other mass-shooting articles, such as Columbine High School shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, and Virginia Tech shooting, name the victims. And unlike in Orlando where 50 people died, at Saugus "only" 2 people died. This article certainly has room for the names of the dead. Sanjay7373 (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not about whether or not the article has room or how long the list of people are. The names simply add no encyclopedic value to the article and have no real relevance to the information provided here. If people care that much about the names this isn't the place to go, the media has that covered (although I would heavily question that person on why he needs those names). The people aren't even notable in their own right which would warrant a place in an article. Although WP:NOTWHOSWHO doesn't directly condemn including information such as those involved in an event it does make it very clear that it still has to be WP:DUE. Simply being at the event with no actual relative importance (You literally can't write anything specific about anyone there.) doesn't give you a place in an article. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If the name of the perpetrator is encyclopedic, then so is the name of the victims. Also, it's a WP:NPOV violation to omit their names as they're the other side to the story, and our sources name them as well. It's borderline original research to actively remove their names, to be honest... —Locke Cole • t • c 16:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: Victims' names

I wanted to evaluate Locke Cole's and Bus stop's assertion that the names are included in more than 90% of similar articles. So I looked at Category:2019 mass shootings in the United States. Here is what I found:

• Aurora, Illinois shooting: Six killed, not named.
• 2019 Dayton shooting: nine killed, not named.
• 2019 El Paso shooting: 22 killed, not named.
• Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting: three killed, named in the article.
• Midland–Odessa shooting: seven killed, not named.
• Orinda shooting: five killed, named in the article.
• Poway synagogue shooting: one killed, named in the article.
• 2019 Sebring shooting: five killed, named in the article
• STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting: one killed, not named.
• University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting: two killed, named in the article.
• Virginia Beach shooting: twelve killed, not named.

• Summary: out of eleven articles, five include victims’ names. The one article that is specifically about a high school shooting does not name the victim.
• Conclusion: there is no consistent practice. Whether to publish the names or not is a matter of consensus at each article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN—you say "Whether to publish the names or not is a matter of consensus at each article". True and correct. But in most instances the victim names are included. I list over 200 articles containing the victim names here. The conclusion of that and other discussions is this is decided on a case-by-case basis. But in my estimation over 90% of eligible articles contain victim names. Other factors must be taken into consideration. A cadre of editors show up at articles at their inception in recent years to block the inclusion of victim names, this being an example of that. More importantly, victim names can't be included for incidents deriving from parts of the world where such information doesn't flow freely. It is a complete contrivance to argue that an incident of this nature taking place in the United States should not include victim names. The reporting practices in the United States not only include names but pictures too. What is Wikipedia accomplishing by omitting victim names? Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for repeating the point that has been made by me and others at one article after another. The counter-argument is that you're cherry-picking; that if you look at a much larger sample, including (1) articles from ten years ago, before this issue was on anybody's radar, and (2) articles where the question has received little or no discussion, inclusion appears to be far more common. The argument one chooses depends on whether they favor inclusion or omission.

  In my view the most compelling point is that repeated discussions at the Village Pump, involving extensive discussion by editors not especially invested in the issue, have failed to reach any consensus other than "decide on a case-by-case basis at each article". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Mandruss—yes, we decide on a case-by-case basis. But that involves dialogue. Why are you repeating your entire "omit" argument from countless other articles? You have repeated that wording a dozen times. Do you consider that engaging in dialogue? Why repeat the same boilerplate? That is the avoidance of dialogue. So, how are we supposed to decide on a case-by-case basis when you post the same language at every RfC on this subject that you initiate? Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The argument is the same because the question is the same as far as I'm concerned. As I've explained to you on numerous occasions, extensive circular debate on this is not going to change your mind or mine, and is worse than useless since it reduces the chances that new arrivals will read any existing discussion at all. I decline to contribute further to that. Your trollish assertions that I am refusing to engage in constructive dialogue have never gained any traction, as you know, and I advise you to drop that stick. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, I’m not going to plow through that wall of text looking for your “over 200 articles”, nor would I look at all 200 articles even if I found them. I did some research here, specifically about similar articles, specifically in the 2019 time frame. That research did not support your “estimation” of 90% of articles; in fact, it found the victims’ names in 45%. Bottom line, no argument along the lines of “we always name them” or “we almost always name them” or “we never name them” is going to fly. I see that the discussion you link to did not result in a rule either way - to include the names or to deprecate them. We still determine by discussion on a case-by-case basis whether to name them or not. Apparently your argument is "the press reports the names so we should too," is that correct? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN—of the eleven articles you examine above, four of them were closed by the same editor. Do you find this as troubling as I do? The editor's name is Cinderella157 and I list those 4 articles above. I include the statement saying, if I can quote myself, "I think an editor should close a maximum of one article on this subject." Do you disagree? Has Cinderella157 ever closed an RfC on victim names in favor of including victim names? Perhaps they can weigh in with an answer to that question. Bus stop (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Response by Cinderella157 (since I have now been pinged twice[2][3] by Bus stop and the most recent is a specific request for my comment: Has Cinderella157 ever closed an RfC on victim names in favor of including victim names? I was unaware of this discussion until I was pinged.)

• An RfC for a community consensus on the question at WP:VPP closed with consensus that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, arguements falling to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists are, in this case (and similar), invalid by virtue of the consensus of the broader community at WP:VPP.

• The question by Bus stop has the tacit premise that a close can be made "in favour" independent of the comments. It cannot.

• As indicated, I have closed four RfCs on inclusion of victims' names.[4][5][6][7] These are all recent shootings. Bus stop has characterised the result of these four RfCs was to omit victim names. This does not capture the nuance of each close and of each RfC - even to the point of being incorrect. The RfC at Talk:Virginia Beach shooting was closed: There is a consensus for inclusion of the victims names in prose in a way that helps explain how or why the events occurred but not for prose which is a defacto list. So, in answer to Bus stop, I have closed an RfC to include the names of victims [per emphasis added].

• I am unaware of any guidance or convention that would preclude me from closing more than one similar RfC. It made simple sense, since many of the same comments were being made by the same parties and I was familiar with the merits and "strength" of these. Also, these closes were made over a span of more than two weeks. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: Consequently, arguements falling to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists are, in this case (and similar), invalid by virtue of the consensus of the broader community: I'm mildly disturbed that you could use such faulty logic. On a "case by case basis" does not mean you ignore the prevailing trend that most articles include a list (whether as prose or as a bulleted list). Are you saying you completely ignored my comments because I made reference to that fact? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  Locke Cole, a for the definition of case-by-case in reputable dictionaries, this was the first in the list of my google search, of which others are similar: Considering or dealing with each instance separately, taking into account its individual circumstances and features (From the Oxford Dictionary - emphasis added). Something assessed on a case-by-case basis is made without reference to the precedent of other similar cases. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  Case-by-case should not involve four cases being closed by the same editor with the same result. That is because editors—all or most editors—have biases. Evaluations of this sort should be made by multiple editors rather than vested in one editor. Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MelanieN—what we see here is a concerted effort by a subgroup of Wikipedians who have taken up the cause of omitting victim names and they only attempt to do so at articles at their inception because that is where litigiousness works best. And it subverts the normal article-building process, by which independent editors, acting alone, take the initiative to add material to an article. This clique should be broken up. It is legitimate for editors to band together for wholesome purposes such as common interests, but not to prevent the inclusion of victim names at all articles upon inception. I don't even add victim names or victim lists. But I respect the normal method of article-building as practiced by myriad independent editors. Of course there are fewer articles of recent vintage containing victim names. That is because a clique of editors has arisen in recent years with a common purpose—to prevent the inclusion of victim names in articles at their inception. There is no WikiProject prevent-the-inclusion-of-victim-names, is there? These editors may be bored but I am tired of entertaining them. They complain of disruption at articles when they are the primary cause of the disruption to which they refer. Bus stop (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Bus stop, do you have any actual argument to make for adding the victims' names? Or merely an extended personal complaint about what you see as a cabal? I believe you have been here long enough to know that the rule is: discuss article content, not other editors. The above should be hatted so we can have an actual discussion, but I'll wait for your response -- MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC) This "clique", even if it exists, does nothing but start the discussions and !vote like anybody else. Despite your AGF-failing claims to the contrary, there is nothing untoward about using standard Wikipedia decision-making process. The fact that you keep ending up on the losing side doesn't mean the system or some subset of its participants are corrupt. You have never gotten a shred of traction for your assertions at article talk or more public venues, and that should mean something to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Yes, MelanieN, of course I have an argument to make—let the process of article-writing roll free, in its simplest form. That means that if no editor adds a victim name, there is no victim name in the article. But if one of our esteemed editors takes the initiative to add a victim name—let it be. Just leave the esteemed editor's entirely-constructive edit alone. This present situation is stupid and antithetical to the normal Wikipedia editing process. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC) So new content should not be contested because it was added by one of our esteemed editors, whatever that means. Never mind what WP:BRD and WP:ONUS say. As I've said elsewhere on this page: uninformed, and, since it's persistent, disruptive and begging for a TBAN. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC) If it's new and an eternally recurring feature story in the wake of every mass shooting, per every outlet in the References section as usual, yes. Don't paddle against the overwhelming mainstream current. Not here, anyway; it's never been easier for old people to form counterculture alternative rock power trios online, and everyone has some hidden musical talent dying to "kick it". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC) In other words, since your position is objectively stronger, people should stop opposing it. I'm not buying that, particularly since your position keeps getting defeated in these discussions, but it was a good try. As for your last sentence, I'm unable to solve that riddle. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Mandruss—it is not that "new content should not be contested". But the agglomeration of many edits by many editors is the means by which articles are written. You have adopted the Cause célèbre of preventing victim names from getting into articles at the time of article inception. I would not be saying this to just any editor who happens to remove a victim name. This is the normal process by which articles have taken form. You are using a well-rehearsed formula using a fair amount of litigiousness to accomplish the purpose you have taken on. Bus stop (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC) "We keep losing! Somebody must be unfairly manipulating the system! There he is, it's Mandruss!" Have you noticed that nobody with the possible exception of the block magnet Locke Cole supports you on this, and that a number of experienced editors including admins have explicitly disagreed with you? Didn't think so. Take it to the community or kindly keep it to yourself. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC) An example of your rule-mongering would be your reporting Locke_Cole to AN/I today. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Necessary to restore status quo ante per standard practice. I asked him to self-revert first, and he blew me off with a "gtfo". ANI exists for a reason, and nobody in the ANI thread supports your opinion on that, including multiple admins. Take it to the community (as I did) or kindly keep it to yourself. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: You can see the data I was working from here. I worked my way through a sizable chunk of the category before being told (by an editor partaking in this very discussion) that my data was irrelevant because I was "cherry picking" (by using a large cat and proceeding alphabetically instead of the actual cherry picking and just using more recent articles). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Some survivors of mass shootings & bombings have been accused by conspiracy theorists of being crisis actors who chose to take part in faking the attacks which they were victims/witnesses of. Although many media sources state the names of victims (killed & injured), we should not add to that. Jim Michael (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

A lot of that is from their own political activism. I am not saying that what conspiracy theorists doing are okay (in fact, I believe the opposite), but it's still pretty far fetched that a Wikipedia page is responsibled. TheHoax (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss, earlier I asked, "Do you actually have anything new to discuss this time that wasn't discussed last two times? (specifically in Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and Santa Fe High School shooting" You admitted: "No. The situation is the same as far as I'm concerned, and so there is no reason for my arguments to vary." You have continued to justify throwing in the same canned comments by saying that the community requires the discussion must be "decide on a case-by-case basis". This is however a red herring. The underlining assumption that the community has made is that the situation in each of the shooting is unique enough that each requires its own discussion, but as you've admitted, "[t]he situation is the same as far as I'm concerned". Since the situation is the same, there is no need to have the same discussion over and over again unless there is something new to discussion. Throwing in the same canned comments is unhelpful and isn't what the community had in mind. TheHoax (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I have opposed "case-by-case" precisely because I felt the factors don't change significantly from case to case (assuming we're talking only about mass killing events). I can't help it if the community disagrees with that viewpoint, and I'm not going to vary my arguments simply because they do. You seek to avoid all this by agreeing to accept outcomes reached at other articles, but you're only interested in accepting outcomes that match your preference for inclusion. And in fact you have accused me of bad faith because I refuse to go along with that. No, thanks.

Never mind that any such agreement reached on an article talk page would never be accepted as binding by other editors at other articles, nor should it be.

I guess I'll reiterate two points for about the fourth time in this eternal saga:

• My order of preference is:

• A guideline establishing "omit" as the default for these events.
• A guideline establishing "include" as the default for these events.
• No guideline; i.e. case-by-case.

• "Default" means that it should apply to roughly 95% of cases, and to deviate from the default editors should seek a consensus that there is something exceptional about the case that justifies said deviation. Thus, I do not advocate blind inclusion or omission, so the argument (seen often at Village Pump) that "one size can't fit all" is a straw man. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, I didn't said that I oppose a "case by case". I oppose you opening an RfC and throwing in the same canned comments every time. If you actually have something new to discuss that wasn't discussed before, I would have no objection to that. TheHoax (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Ok, then we'll agree to disagree, barring (1) some policy or guideline supporting that opinion, (2) some kind of community support for it, which you could seek at the Village Pump, or (3) some evidence of common practice supporting it. My !vote is "canned" because it is the clearest, concisest, and completest articulation of my position that I've come up with to date. I'm sorry you feel that's improper. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC) How about this? As soon as you open an RfC, all the other editors just copy & paste the comments that they made previously. Then we close the discussion. TheHoax (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Excluding all editors who may not arrive within your small window, including editors new to the issue? No. The purpose of RfC is to solicit input from a larger group of editors. But I obviously have no objection to "canned" !votes. I repeat what I said above: Never mind that any such agreement reached on an article talk page would never be accepted as binding by other editors at other articles, nor should it be. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC) If another editor has something new to discuss, it is for him/her to open the RfC. It is not appropriate for you to open an RfC just for the sake of throwing in the same canned comments over and over again. TheHoax (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Thanks for your opinion, as wrong as it is. I'm done with this line of discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Process: Victims' names

The dead victims' names were in the article for less than five hours before being challenged, not nearly long enough to establish status quo ante.[8][9] Therefore that content should remain out pending consensus to include it. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—how do you concoct what constitutes "status quo ante"? Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia tradition, there is no precise definition, but it's fair to say that very few experienced editors would consider five hours long enough. User:NeilN is the only admin I've ever seen give anything like a precise definition, and he said "four to six weeks" in May 2018.[10] Sadly for this and other reasons, NeilN has not been active for over a year. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Your propensity for arguing against the inclusion of victim names at the inception of every article eligible for the inclusion of such information is not what NeilN is addressing. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The "status quo" upon your arrival at this article was the names being included as your first (and only, thus far) edits were to remove what was already there. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See your talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC) You did not argue anything on my talk page, you just made an accusation. Try again. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Mandruss—you might consider collaborative editing as an alternative to rule-mongering. That would of course involve dialogue. You only attempt to remove victim names from articles at their inception. You never attempt to remove victim names from already-existing articles. Why aren't you trying to convince those at already-existing articles that the victim names should be omitted? Because they would not listen to such bad advice, advice that would degrade the quality of an article in which they are interested? Perhaps because doing so would actually involve dialogue—you know—as in "collaborative editing"? Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Bus stop, I am not required to meet your idiosyncratic requirements as to cross-article consistency in my editing, but you are welcome to take the issue up at ANI or any other venue of your choosing. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC) I think I'd rather not engage you in your rule-mongering at the AN/I venue. Let me say that I wouldn't be editing Wikipedia if rule-mongering was all it was about. Additionally, I don't happen to be welcome there due to a temporary curtailment of privileges at the AN/I venue. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC) . In contrast, the concept of status quo ante is not idiosyncratic but rather widely-accepted process, and insisting that that widely-accepted process be followed is hardly "rule-mongering". This has been re-affirmed at article after article, including by admins, as you are eminently well aware. Just. Stop. It. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss is correct. When something is added to the article and promptly reverted, the default is to leave it out until consensus to include it is reached at the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

{{ping}MelanieN}} If you will put on your admin hat and restore status quo ante (or if Locke Cole does so), I will withdraw my ANI complaint. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Retry botched ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss, I am editing here as a regular editor, not an admin; you know that. When I quote a rule or a guideline, it is one that anyone could quote. I see that you removed it and I agree with that. Let's continue to discuss it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mandruss—you never attempt to remove victim names from already-existing articles. This suggests to me that all you are doing in regard to the question of victim names is wielding rules. Sheer wielding of rules can be tantamount to the misuse of policy in the hands of someone only interested in winning. In typical fashion you are saying above "I won't be debating this point at length as if there is one correct answer". There is a correct answer: we follow sources. The sources set the template for our articles. The expectation is that our articles adhere to the general outline as can be found in sources. That is what Wikipedia is about. Our articles should conform to the general outline that sources follow. Our articles should reflect the vast majority of the best quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC) If Mandruss is not removing the names from existing articles, I assume it is because he is respecting the consensus that was reached by the editors at that article. In fact, by leaving them in place he is observing the "status quo ante" rule that he cites here. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC) MelanieN—our primary aim is neither to respect consensus nor to observe status quo ante but rather to improve articles. We aren't writing Wikipedia for the benefit of editors, or at least I am not editing Wikipedia to brush up on my grammar or vocabulary or other writing skills. Please tell me—why wouldn't the same criteria apply to already-existing articles as articles at their inception? It is easier to prevent victim names from getting into articles at time of article inception than it would be to remove victim names from already-existing articles. There has never been an instance, to my knowledge, in which "privacy concerns" have brought harm to anyone as a result of our articles containing victim names. This is fear-mongering that is not evidence-based and I think that fear-mongering would have less traction at already-existing articles for the simple reason that no harm has come yet. The ludicrousness of this is that I would be the first to support the omission of victim names if I thought there were any "privacy concerns". There are none. This argument is pure and simple fear-mongering. When reliable sources of the best quality and widest circulation disclose not only names but also photographic images of individuals, there would be no "privacy concerns" only applicable to Wikipedia. We report information widely found in the best quality sources. An edit to add victim names is not improper in any way. Such edits should not be reverted. The disruption here is not being caused by well-meaning editors trying to build articles by constructive edits. This disruption is entirely the result of those who mistakenly think it is their right to revert every such edit. Mandruss and WWGB should be required to explain why they revert on sight any edit that adds victim names. No one granted them the authority to do this. It is patently disruptive. At article after article they have considered it their province to start RfCs about whether or not an entirely permissible edit can be made. This is a terribly disruptive situation and we know who is causing it. At the Saugus High School shooting article the present disruption has been caused by Mandruss and WWGB. Just look at the edit history. Pinging El C as they are equally familiar with this situation at other articles. We have a problem and the answer to it is simple: Mandruss and WWGB should not be permitted to revert on sight any edit that adds victim names. They have figuratively-speaking appointed themselves the czars of the inclusion and omission of victim names. That disruption should not be permitted. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC) I'm not inclined to give either side an advantage by using DS to ban some of their opposition from engaging in this problematic, including on the mainspace. Not Mandruss, not Bus stop, not Locke Cole, and not WWGB (who I can't link accordingly as they have yet to revert victim names in this article). El_C 18:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Any admin should be telling any editor not to act disruptively. (And of course they have.) I don't know why this should be difficult to understand. Edits adding victim names should not be reverted on sight. These are permissible edits. Mandruss and WWGB have appointed themselves czars overseeing the inclusion of victim names. Wikipedia does not need this sort of overlordship, in fact this overlordship is the source of enormous disruption. At article after pathetic article Mandruss and WWGB are given free rein to create this dispute. I personally have never, ever, initiated the addition of victim names. But that is a permissible edit. What is impermissible is to create this enormous disruption over an edit that policy does not forbid. Mandruss and WWGB should be told to back off. The overlordship practiced by these two editors should be stopped because it is very disruptive. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC) I stand corrected. But I don't see how the reverts by their side are any different than the reverts by your side. El_C 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Bus stop, please try to refarain from refactoring once a comment you made has been replied to. Thanks. El_C 18:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC) I was honestly unaware you had replied when I added more to my comment. You said "I don't see how the reverts by their side are any different than the reverts by your side". The distinction between normal editing and abnormal editing should be obvious, at least in this instance. "Disruption" is in part defined by its abnormality. Incremental edits by editors that happen upon an article are different from edits by "overlords" present at every article that might contain victim names. They consider it their role to be sure that those victim names do not get added. They immediately revert such edits. And they shortly thereafter start RfCs. And then we are off to the races, with all its boring litigiousness. I am tired of dealing with editors who have decided that it is somehow their duty to see to it that victim names never get added to articles. No one appointed Mandruss and WWGB as guardians against the inclusion of victim names. The solution to this problem is simple—they have to back off. It should be considered tendentious editing for Mandruss and WWGB to revert edits adding victim names. They have brought this on themselves. Their abnormal editing pattern in regard to victim names is clearly disruptive. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Well, not really. In the few cases where there has been a healthy amount of discussion and a consensus to include, I'm respecting that consensus. In the far more common cases where there has been little or no discussion, it's more the fact that I don't have the time to do everything I would do if I had unlimited time. Bus stop's incessant attempts to use that to undermine my participation at new articles are nothing short of vacuous, and they accomplish little but to add to the evidence for a future topic ban. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC) "Bus stop's incessant attempts to use that to undermine my participation at new articles are nothing short of vacuous, and they accomplish little but to add to the evidence for a future topic ban." Mandruss—does it not occur to you that editors can write articles without your expert guidance? Why would they need you to swoop down like a god from the sky to tell them that they can't add victim names? I never add victim names. I never add victim lists. I defend the right of editors to construct articles free of your meddling. This question is supposed to be decided on a case-by-case-basis. But you aren't engaging in dialogue. You are initiating RfCs at the drop of a hat. And threatening other editors with all manner of litigiousness. And posting the same boilerplate at RfC after RfC. Bus stop (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC) I have never told anybody they can't add victims' names. I have started discussions and !voted against inclusion, along with many other editors – per standard Wikipedia decision-making process. I'm done responding to your irrational, uninformed, and disruptive comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC) You are initiating RfCs at the drop of a hat. I did so per an admin opinion at ANI that I should do precisely that, as I clearly stated in the edit summary that converted this to RfC.[11] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC) You ratchet up the litigiousness and the animosity and the disruption as quickly as you can and then you attribute the ensuing disruption to others. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC) You better believe it. I am way past "animosity" when it comes to your disruption of these discussions. Stop playing the innocent victim. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC) "Stop playing the innocent victim." I don't add victim names. I don't add victim lists. I defend the right of others to construct articles unimpeded by you. You are going along behind editors making constructive edits and undoing their edits. If an editor makes a constructive edit just leave it alone. You have taken up the unseemly cause of the czar of victim-name-removal. Bus stop (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC) You are going along behind editors making constructive edits and undoing their edits. Bingo. Per WP:BRD. The fact that you disagree with the removals is immaterial. After 13 years and 39K edits, don't you think it's time you learned something about how Wikipedia makes content decisions? I do. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC) The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle contains the "discuss" element. By what stretch of the imagination does this boilerplate constitute discussion? Bus stop (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC) It doesn't say people are required to discuss until you release them, and this has received massive discussion at previous articles with the same old arguments on both sides and not a single mind changed. There is discussion, and then there is useful discussion. As I've told you elsehwere, here and at other articles, circular and repetitive discussion is worse than useless. I would now ask you stop talking to me on this issue, and I will ignore anything further from you about it. If you don't like that, you may take it up with the community, and otherwise too effing bad. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Can't we stop this debate?

Okay, this is getting too hostile. Both sides are repeating arguments because the question remains the same. El_C 04:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's clear that Mandruss is obsess with refighting this same battle over and over again as he did in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and Santa Fe High School shooting and he doesn't have anything new to add. His argument is the same as the last two times. TheHoax (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC) In multiple extensive discussions at the Village Pump, the community has required us to "refight this same battle over and over again", as I think you know. The words they used were "decide on a case-by-case basis", far less inflammatory, combative, and aspersion-casting than yours. I was strongly opposed to that outcome – I favored a guideline to avoid all this – but I lost, and I know how to lose. In short, no, we regrettably can't stop this debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Mandruss Do you actually have anything new to discuss this time that wasn't discussed last two times? If not, we might as well close this discussion. TheHoax (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC) If I'm not mistaken, the two last times were this close on 3 October, which was "weak consensus to omit", and this close on 6 October, which was "no consensus". If all Supporters agree to accept either of those outcomes here in the interest of time, that's fine with me. I really doubt that will happen, however. The community consensus is to decide on a case-by-case basis, and they didn't say anything about "only if Mandruss has something new to say each time". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Mandruss I asked you a specific question: "Do you actually have anything new to discuss this time that wasn't discussed last two times?" Is the answer a "yes" or a "no"? TheHoax (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Stop yelling. The answer to that irrelevant question is: No. The situation is the same as far as I'm concerned, and so there is no reason for my arguments to vary. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Well, the reason I asked is that if you actually have something new to discuss, I would be willing to have that discussion with you, but since you are just going to throw in the same arguments you made the last two times, it's just a huge waste of time and I wouldn't bother. TheHoax (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Cool. It's my opinion that we should fully articulate our arguments in our !votes and go spend our time on something more constructive than putting them through the meat grinder over and over. So we're in agreement on that. But that doesn't mean we shut down the discussion after a handful of !votes. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Or, you know, we could just include links to the last two discussions and ask if anyone has anything new to add, and if not, close the discussion. TheHoax (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC) I support that, provided the "last two discussions" are the ones I linked, not the less recent ones you linked. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC) When I said, last two discussions, I mean the discussion for Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and the discussion for Santa Fe High School shooting. TheHoax (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Yeah, in that case I oppose that. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Exactly! It's because you are not acting in good faith. TheHoax (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Mandruss—you say "there is no reason for my arguments to vary". Then why are you initiating an RfC? An editor made a constructive edit. Why is Mandruss reverting it? Does Wikipedia need the overlordship of Mandruss? You are only creating a toxic environment. The addition of victim names to articles is entirely permissible. An editor such as yourself with the overriding purpose of preventing victim names from ever getting into articles in which such names might be found is acting in a way antithetical to best practice at Wikipedia. Articles are best built by numerous edits by numerous editors. Keeping victim names out of articles is your special project. Bus stop (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC) You, sir, are becoming tiresome – again. Take it to the community or kindly keep it to yourself. In the meantime have a gander at WP:AGF and see if you can make any sense of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Bus stop, that is exactly what I am also wondering. TheHoax (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Why were the victim's names removed?

Why were the victim's names removed? They should be re-instated until consensus to remove them occurs. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

They were removed per standard process. Disputed and controversial content is omitted pending consensus to include it. They were in the article for less than five hours before being challenged, so they were far short of status quo ante status. This has been supported by multiple admins including El C and MelanieN, and opposed by no admins. It is a settled issue despite the refusal of a couple of involved editors to accept that. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Where did you get that "rule" from? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

From the last sentence at WP:ONUS, from WP:BRD, from standard accepted process, and from repeated re-affirmation by the community. As a fundamental principle, Wikipedia does not need reasons to omit content, it needs reasons to include it; therefore the default position for new content is always omit – regardless of the type of content. If you wish to discuss this further, please do so at the Village Pump. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There are reasons to include this content, and you've read them for years. Nothing changes when the shooter and the dead do, in this context. My favourite reason is because the lead sentence is about them, and only them. If something or someone is in the lead sentence, they matter by default. Things that matter should be identified in the same story entirely circling them. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, there are reasons to omit the content and you've read them for years. That part of my comment was only in response to Spadaro's claim that the content should remain in pending consensus to remove it, which is exactly backwards until new content has existed unchallenged long enough to acquire status quo ante status. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop the personal bickering and accusations. Don't make me put my admin hat on.-- MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are reasons to include this "new content". You've read our side's key arguments repeatedly for years, and part of you knows we have the objectively stronger case. Nothing changes when the shooter and the dead do, in this context. Your arguable privacy concerns remain unapparent and your tendency to count draws or no contests as wins continues to irk us babyfaces as surely as Ric Flair did as the dirtiest player in his game. I respect your ability to make all the towns and not run out of steam using all your signature tricks till the timekeeper rings the bell. In that sense, you deserve to lead your bullshit promootion troupe as champ, and keep your heat and title until we beat you cleanly and decisively in the middle of the Village Pump. Same goes for your tag and television champions (they know who they are). But nothing lasts forever, big man! I propose you and your three horsemen meet the Hulkster, Chief Spirit Eagle, Locke "Adam" Cole and the Ice Train called Bus stop in a variation on the classic War Games tradition on New Year's Day (when 2020 is hindsight in Atlanta). No time limit, no interference, no DQ, no escape, no mercy. Just until one member is trapped in an unrebuttable position and gives up. Sound fair? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC) part of you knows we have the objectively stronger case. Please don't presume to tell me what part of me knows. I do not know that at all, not even part of me. That's where I stopped reading. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Those are your own words above, "objectively stronger". Not the first time, either. I forget where that all began. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm fairly certain I have never said that a part of me knows you have the objectively stronger case. Or if I did, I plead temporary insanity (might have been when my beloved cat was dying). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC) It was at 1:33 yesterday morning. You called it a position, though, my bad. You pled temporary insanity at the Christchurch mosque, I think, don't recall a cat. Sorry for your loss, anyway, cats rule. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The removal also survived a trip to WP:ANI yesterday (permalink), which was read and considered by at least the two admins who commented in it, El C and Cullen328. If it had been improper I have no doubt someone would have said so there and it would have been reversed. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not other editors. MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Agreed. However, a small group of editors are on a crusade to exclude this information, I suspect for personal/political reasons, as 90% of articles on Wikipedia do include this information. Excluding it violates multiple content policies and puts our articles in the untenable state of only providing detailed information on the aggressor and nearly nothing on the victims. Further, we engage in POV pushing by ignoring that the secondary sources often balance coverage of events like this to include more than just information on the perpetrator, but also to include information (often in far more detail than I think we need here) on the other people involved. Finally, the information was added as soon as it was made publicly available, thus the content was the status quo as it was impossible to have the information prior to when it was released (still working on that time machine tho). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC) I agree with User:Locke Cole. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Your comment is in violation of WP:AGF, as well as wrong venue. I could just as easily say "a small group of editors are on a crusade to include this information, I suspect for personal/political reasons, as a majority of these articles in recent years do not include this information – and, per consensus can change, they are more significant than articles from Wikipedia's first, say, twelve years." But I won't say that, since (1) I have more sense and (2) I don't loudly and persistently violate WP:AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC) WP:AGF is not a death pact. Once your behavior makes it clear you're behaving a specific way and without good reason, I no longer have to AGF. Also, this comment by you where you demonstrate your inability to reciprocate. You're also wikilawyering like no tomorrow lately, maybe tone that down? There is no "wrong venue" for pointing out that you appear to have a personal bias on this subject (which given your other editing patterns likely fits the idea that mass shootings are less objectionable if you don't know who the victims are and can't personalize them). And I never said consensus can't change, stop making strawman arguments. The only reason consensus seems to be changing is because you're been bullying your way on every debate lately. In discussions where you are not involved, discussion takes place and we aren't forced in to an RFC. YOUR behavior here is the problem. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC) I am weary of arguing with you guys. As long as you continue to leave the names out until there is a consensus to include assessed by an uninvolved closer after a reasonable amount of time for participation, feel free to whinge and bloviate about the corrupt omission cabal (and its leader, the most corrupt of all, Mandruss) all you want with my blessing. Attempt to add the names without that consensus assessment and I'll see you at ANI – again – and you will be less likely to escape a sanction a second time by disappearing until the complaint is closed. Good day to you sir. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC) How do expect us to WP:AGF when you keep proving the opposite? I would AGP for any editors that wants legitimate discussions, but when you keep throwing in the same canned comments, it proves the opposite. TheHoax (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

General note about this discussion

This is a discussion to obtain feedback from the community on whether to include, or not include, the names of the students killed in this attack. Those names are currently not in the article, per BRD: The names were boldly added, they were promptly challenged by being reverted, and we are now discussing to see if there is consensus to re-add them. That discussion has been repeatedly disrupted by arguments over process and accusations against other editors. Today I have hatted multiple such arguments, to make this a reasonably readable discussion for those who wish to participate. Any future commentary should be only about reasons for or against inclusion, not about the behavior of other individuals. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur with MelanieN's note and advise participants to take it to heart. El_C 22:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur with both of those admins who are not acting as admins. Er, at least MelanieN is not acting as an admin, not entirely sure about El C. Wikipedia needs cops. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned on ANI, I'm not going to invoke the GC/DS to enforce WP:ONUS pending an RfC closure like I did with those other mass shooting articles — it is just a suggestion this time. This does not mean that I'm prevented from otherwise acting in an admin capacity. I have already applied 1RR on the article and further administrative intervention is possible, though unlikely. More than anything, I'm waiting for another admin to step in, if and/or when it is necessary, and act as they see fit. El_C 22:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Me too, that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Amusing but off topic. I am really trying to keep this discussion from becoming a wall of text. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Aye, I feel like a kid at Christmas Eve, waiting for the pitter-patter of tiny feet on my rooftop, hoping this is the year my wicked stepbrother brings a real tree through the curtain instead of gremlins chucking pumpkins down my chimney. But this time I mean it, Carlos, if we just kick back in the patch and focus on not falling asleep', she'll be here. And if not, he'll be back for the new nightmare. Shouldering ONUS can seem like carrying BURDEN sometimes, but telling the difference between the way things are and the way they used to be is possible, so given enough time, some genderific Azor Ahai shall be punctual in that unspecified dread hour of whichever long night turns out to have foretold in the flames of those smashing pumpkins, smiling politely (it's always 3 in the morning with a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters somewhere, Chuck). Cheers to que sera, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Only a thousand monkeys? That's a lot less than what I had in mind. Anyway, I come from a land of no(t much) Christmas — so how can we relate, poetry man? El_C 07:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Any space containing infinite monkeys contains one thousand monkeys, my friend. Always more, always less and always one thousand. Nobody knows for sure how it gets away with this, so some find comfort in humble beginnings and definitive endings. Since we weren't there and aren't there yet, respectively, there's a lot of faith involved. If you have a messianic religion beside Christianity, you already know the deal and can swap in your own symbols for renowned alpha male and omega man Jesus Christ. He was played in the preceding presentation by the real Christmas tree. Christmas Eve represents darkness, emptiness and death in my neck of the woods (seen here based on a true story about wood gremlins, but warped and twisted into something that would get by the censor board, something general audiences might find edible, something they could sink their teeth into, something with a glimmer of hope inside, some silver lining, some compensation, some refund on their wasted minutes, something that doesn't end in the middle of winning and dying, between birth and failure, amidst light and shadow...a candle...a pumpkin...a poem?) Seriously though, that's how this ends. My shitty public art spiel and this imaginary battle between damnatio memoriae and valar morghulis. They both end in the middle, over and over, back where we started, dust in the wind, nil all, immediate rematch claws, instant gratification, instant karma, instant forgiveness, eternal mercy but perpetual sorrow. Yes, but wait, no. You ever listen to "One" by Creed, or "It's Time for Everyone" by Mokey Fraggle? "2 Become 1", "Viva Forever", "Wannabe"? All seven prophets who've come before me have done a less strange job at spreading the U-word (rhymes with "impunity"). When life takes back our lemon tree, it takes a part of us all. We're all to blame. This is the dawning of the rest of our lives...on holiday! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

After some discussion, I have restored the RfC tag. IMO this subject has become a battleground that is unlikely to achieve consensus without input from additional people. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: This issue with including victims names in articles about mass shootings needs to be taken to the Arbitration Committee for a policy ruling, or added to one of the WP Policy Essays instead of it being a battleground each and every time it comes up. One general rule should be that if the victims are notable in their own right, or if the shooting event makes them notable (one of the victims gave their life protecting others, or someone at the scene did some extremely notable act of bravery or sacrifice which is notable) they can be included, otherwise, they should be omitted out of respect for the privacy rights of the victims and their families. I have observed that shooting victims who are wounded and survive the event are never mentioned in most cases based on WP:BLP. There needs to be a policy decision made here and posted as such or this same debate will just keep happening. Comments? Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

We already have essays: WP:VL for the omit side and the more recently-created WP:CASL for the include side. This needs a proper and binding BLP supplementary (with a default to either omit or include) — so, over the last few months, I've been consistently encouraging participants to put time and effort toward that end (i.e. cementing an actual policy or guideline). El_C 02:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts, Octoberwoodland. Setting up a general policy on this has been discussed several times on general WP discussion boards. There has never been a consensus one way or the other, and the "rule" remains that it is decided by consensus at each individual article. I feel sure that ArbCom would not take this question up or find it to be within their mandate. (As for wounded people never being mentioned, I said that earlier and had to correct it to "almost never"; somebody linked to an article from 2012 that reported the names and hospital courses of the wounded.) -- MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I nominate User:El C to put forth a proposal at WP:VPR. It needs to be somebody with extensive knowledge, not only because the proposal will be sounder and therefore stand a better chance of success, but because they will be taken more seriously at the Pump (i.e. a proposal can easily be welcomed or booed off the stage, depending on who is proposing it). I would be happy to help formulate the proposal in any way I can. (Note: "Nominate" is not meant literally, I know this is not an election.) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm honoured? Anyway, I'm happy to submit the proposal, but both parties should agree on its contents in advance, I think. El_C 07:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Both parties? You mean both sides in this discussion? This is the working group? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, input from both sides should be given as to how the question is actually framed. El_C 07:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm the wrong person to take the lead on that, so I'll back off and watch what develops. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment: While this discussion is ongoing, User:Locke Cole has added the victims' names back into the article again.-- MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Luckily, I've set up 1RR, so that should keep the sheer number of potential reverts in check. El_C 03:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't count on it. Locke Cole added it on the 16th and again on the 17th, a few hours after the 24-hour limit set by 1RR. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: FWIW, I don't actually plan on adding it back (despite being within my rights to do so under a 1RR restriction), I simply felt like I was being challenged to do so by an editor on this talk page. Unless that happens again, I plan on letting this play out. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring warning: Over the past 36 hours or so the names of the victims have been added to the article by User:Locke Cole, User:TheHoax, and Locke Cole a second time, And promptly reverted each time. If this happens again I will full-protect the article. WP:Edit warring is against Wikipedia rules. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I hope that warning is the end of this disruption, but if one or two editors are being disruptive, I think it would be better to handle this in a more-focused way than full-protecting the article (which discourages a bunch of other editors who are going to want to edit this article about a recent high profile event). A more-focused way might be, for example, a limited duration WP:ABAN for the disruptive editor(s), which I think is authorized under WP:ACDS. – Levivich 04:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to full-protect such a heavily edited article with new information coming in daily. I too hope that the parties get the message and don't provoke any drastic action. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

My first mass shooting article I intervened as an admin I fully-protected — I got so much heat for it. El_C 07:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, of course you did - you undoubtedly protected the WP:Wrong version. 0;-D Welcome to the club. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not other editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:Edit warring is against Wikipedia rules. - "Rule-mongering!!" -- "You are obsessed with rules." -- "Wikipedia is not about rules." -- Where is the nearest bus stop? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Victims' names proposal workshop

Workshop is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Victims'_names_proposal_workshop. El_C 16:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This was a nice thought, but consensus appears to be it was tainted because of canvassing and will not move forward right now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Its probably best to tackle it on again in a month or maybe more. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Elitematterman: Per the heading of Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Proposal phase postponed until 2020 — Workshop phase remains open, of course, written by admin El_C, the workshop phase remains open, of course. The only thing being postponed is the submission of any proposal that comes out of that process. In other words, we could have a proposal developed within a few weeks and then sit on it for some undetermined period. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough. I suppose that what comes from the proposal itself is what we are trying to keep untainted. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Info

His father died. He had a heart attack and Nathaniel may have been the one to find him. 2603:8001:7A48:ABCA:B455:65FB:41F6:EA19 (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Added death. WWGB (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

---

2019 Saugus High School shooting → Saugus High School shooting – There has only been one shooting at Saugus High School. Similar articles include Virginia Tech shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Robb Elementary School shooting, and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. None of them mention the year. This article seems to have been moved without consensus. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 08:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong support per nom. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.