Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Policy page?

BLP-PROD seems to already be in use, but is there even a policy page/section for it? (besides the rather brief WP:DELPOL mention; and template != policy). Perhaps WP:Proposed deletion should grow a section? --Cybercobra (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We could make the front of this page the policy page. We're starting to add the info to other relevant pages. Maurreen (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
That was the other option I was going to suggest, moving this page or WT:Sticky prod policy to something like WT:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Moving this page to that title sounds good to me. Maurreen (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I just moved it. I've also added a little basic info to the "front page." Maurreen (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
What about the policy page? Subpage of this one? --Jubileeclipman 05:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Maurreen (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think we need a separate policy page for this. Maybe a usage guideline. The small bit in DELPOL seems sufficient to me. Gigs (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I'd describe the details in WP:PROD, and just stick pointers into WP:DELPOL and WP:BLP. This page could in the end live as WT:Proposed deletion/Biographies of living people. Amalthea 19:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

teething issue - categories

I've just tagged a few articles with this, it seems to categorise the editors into Category:Users with new unsourced Biographies of Living People under review. Not sure what that category is supposed to do, but whoever thinks that category is a good thing presumably didn't mean it to be a redlink? ϢereSpielChequers 09:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What use is this category? Especially if it isn't updated to account for articles deleted or detagged? Rd232 talk 10:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

small, but important change

First line... "All biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 are required to indicate at least one source which directly supports it." (my addition in bold).

This is to bring it into line with WP:V and other policies. Without the addition (or something like it) people will argue that adding any random source (even one that has no relation to the topic) is enough to stop the deletion process. I know that is not what is intended. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we get this working for a few weeks before we discuss broadening it? Currently we have a bright line, this is a way to delete new unsourced BLPs. I appreciate that falls far short of a fully referenced article, but if we start having a problem with individual editors adding random URLs to articles we can deal with that when and if it happens. In the meantime lets try and get this working so that all new unreferenced BLPs that aren't speedy or AFD candidates are tagged with a sticky prod. ϢereSpielChequers 15:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers, I'll support that suggestion.--Kudpung (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. However, if the article is on, for example, an actor, and the source given is an article about 17th century France (which has nothing to do with the BLP) then it is still PROD-worthy. The idea is that the source needs to be somehow related to the BLP article. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
"at least one relevant source" ? --Cybercobra (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with people using their commonsense and removing a source about a dinosaur from an article about an Uzbek basketball player. Just be prepared to put it straight back in again when someone points out the bit about how he since retiring from sport he has subsequently done Uzbek voiceovers for said toy dinosaur's TV program. Unless someone can come up with an example where this is an issue I suggest leaving this out of the wording unless and until it becomes an issue. ϢereSpielChequers 18:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Other policies

The way this was written made little sense and contradicted our core content policies. I've therefore restored the proposed tag until the wording is hammered out. It shouldn't be added to any other pages until it has consensus to become either a policy or guideline. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are issues and feel that there should be an RfC on the final wording. It is also found at WP:DEL over my objections... Hobit (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I had thought that we had a green light on this, but will stop applying stickyprods until we have consensus to restart. Apologies if any of my prods are contentious. ϢereSpielChequers 19:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I've removed it from all the policies I can find it on. The wording is going to need a lot of work to make sure it doesn't actually weaken our sourcing policies, including BLP. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
No more RfCs please. Such a thing would only serve to act as another delaying tactic. It has been over two months since the BLP RfC started. The fact that no change at all has been made is appalling. We cannot let this thing hang around indefinitely. NW (Talk) 19:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone could explain this concept to me, and why it's an improvement on the current situation. As it stands, it seems this would happen:

  1. Someone creates an unsourced BLP: "SlimVirgin came to public attention when she was nine after having a poem published in a local newspaper. In 2010, she raped nine children."
  2. Someone sticky-prods it, and there it has to sit for 10 days.
  3. In the meantime, someone invokes the BLP policy and removes the second sentence as contentious. But they're not allowed to remove the first unsourced sentence, because that would leave the page blank. And they're not allowed to admin-delete it, which is almost certainly what would happen now.
  4. On day 10, someone finds a source for the first sentence: my poem in the local newspaper.
  5. Because someone added a source, the sticky prod can be removed.
  6. It leaves a BLP of a non-notable person based only on a minor primary source.
  7. Therefore, someone has to add the regular prod tag.
  8. There it sits for another seven days.
  9. Finally, if no one objects, it can be deleted.

I'm hoping I've misunderstood the proposal. :) If it doesn't intend to create situations like this, it's going to have to be worded quite differently, and preferably remain at guideline level so it's not competing with other policies. It's also going to have to explain how it interacts with the other policies, such as BLP, V, NOR, the deletion policy, the prod policy, and WP:ATTACK. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Such an article would be speedy deleted under CSD G10. Sticky-prod does not prevent simultaneous speedy deletions, or indeed regular proding for other reasons. It simply says that articles which would otherwise be kept, must have at least one good source to stay. It means we don't end up with 40,000 totally unsourced BLPs (which may or may not be verifiable). We'll still have the backlog, but we draw a line under any increase. All BLPs must have at least one source to remain (or course, having one source does not mean they will remain - speedy, prod and afd still all apply as usual). --Scott Mac (Doc) 20:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Are you able to write that into the proposal to make clear that this doesn't interfere with regular deletion or BLP processes? My concern (based on some recent discussions at the BLP page and elsewhere) is that this is intended to prevent—or may have the effect of preventing—other forms of deletion. In particular I'm worried it will prevent admins from exercising their discretion when it comes to attack pages and the like. If we can make clear that this is simply an additional tool, I'll feel a lot happier about it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added something to that effect: "The sticky PROD is an additional tool to be used in the interests of increasing the quality of BLP sourcing on Wikipedia. Nothing in this proposal should be understood as affecting the core content policies or existing deletion processes. This proposal does not affect the discretion extended to administrators under the BLP policy to delete any BLP where the page's primary content is unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material; where there is no obvious way to fix it; and there is no previous version of the page that is policy compliant; see this section of the BLP policy for more details." SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The only reason that "other forms of deletion" have come up at all is because some editors tried to use this as an opportunity to write new policy, such as the edit regarding BLP PROD morphing into this. Gigs (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
How is that "new policy"? That's the current BLP policy. Crum375 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The latest changes go against the RfC results, so this wouldn't be implementable. They state what policy requires, but policy does not require that such articles be deleted and there is no consensus for doing so. This process should not attempt to restate all the requirements for BLP, it is a separate process for deleting new unsourced BLPs. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Crum, deletion of otherwise unproblematic unsourced and poorly sourced BLPs is not the current policy, other than what BLP PROD provides for. Gigs (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is the edit: "Articles about living persons that are unsourced or poorly sourced are subject to deletion, especially if the material included is negative or contentious." Where does it say that we will immediately delete "unproblematic" BLPs? It only says that unsourced articles are subject to deletion, and more aggressively in the case of contentious or negative BLP material. Where is the "new policy"? Crum375 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the problem - if we want to restate WP:BLP and WP:V we can do so, but we should make clear that this is a new limited process that specifically addresses new BLP articles that are completely unsourced. Per some confusion and questions at WP:BLP I think we should make clear that the source has to verify a substantial amount of content, and not just be a random source that verifies nothing or almost nothing. Also, another way to say this would be to note that this process is just one tool, and supplements rather than replaces all the other BLP policies and procedures, e.g. speedy deletion, the requirement to source all contentious material, speedy deletion of inappropriate articles, and so on. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
If you want to add a new tool to strengthen the current policy, you should not weaken it in the process. I would suggest the following: have a bot go through the site in two phases. First reduce to a stub all unsourced BLP articles, after notifying their creators. Second, after say one week, have the bot go through and delete them, unless one or more source of any kind has been added. Then produce a special list of "resurrected" articles, for humans to go through and verify the sources. Do not modify V and BLP policies, as no changes are needed. Crum375 (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Not only is that completely unrelated to what have planned here, it would also completely fail to gain consensus. Can we decide on what we have here and now before moving on? NW (Talk) 21:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The point is not the mechanics of it, but making sure not to weaken the content policies while adding extra tools. Crum375 (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The proposal, if worded carefully, does not weaken anything. It is an additional tool to deal with brand new BLP articles, to prevent unsourced articles from even getting into our system. It operates alongside speedy deletion, regular PRODs, AfD, sourcing / verifiability requirements, the directive to remove unsourced contentious material, and so on. The mandate to create this kind of process came out of the recent RfC on deleting unsourced BLPs. We therefore have consensus for it, although we'll need to get consensus on the final wording, and also on adding this to the BLP policy page. The RfC was specifically about completely unsourced articles, not weakly sourced ones, and the notion of speedy deletion of legacy articles was discussed extensively. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec)If it is just one extra tool to help enforce our sourcing requirements, I think you'd find no objections by anyone. The problem is when it is added to the content policies and implies a weakening of the current rules. Crum375 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


(ec) NW, I don't know what went on in the sticky prod workshop. All I know is that it was impenetrable, and ended up being barely watched or contributed to. The usual process when proposing a new policy or guideline is simply to propose it, as has now been done, then to advertise it widely. It then goes through a process to make sure it's consistent with all existing policy, and it slowly gains consensus. That's what we're now doing. If this is to be a new tool that helps with BLPs, I'm all for it, so let's make sure it's coherent and that it works. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the workshop either, I'm just comparing the outcome to the outcome of the RfC. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Expanded mandate

These changes, inserted a second time,[1] go well beyond what was agreed to in the RfC. As such, consensus is not established for them (nor could it be established here on this page), and I would not support them or a proposal that included them. It would be far better if we can stick to implementing the proposal approved via the RfC than trying to pile on additional deletion criteria. Also, restating the words of BLP is pointless here. As done here, with embelishment, it goes beyond BLP and says things that BLP does not. If we faithfully repeated the text of BLP it is redundant and unnecessary - we can simply say that this procedure supplements and does not replace any part of BLP. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The RfC wasn't in a position to compare what was being proposed to other policies, and it didn't establish a wording. We have to do that here, using our knowledge of existing policy, and then we have to gain consensus for it. I saw no consensus anywhere to change or undermine existing policy, WD. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Sarah's changes look to me like a restatement of existing policy, nothing more.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The part at the bottom seems to require full sourcing before BLP PROD can be removed. BLP PROD can be removed when there's a single source. Gigs (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The two specific expansions are:

  • Biographies created after 18 March 2010 that do not contain at least one such source [i.e. a source for any material about a living person that is contentious....material challenged or likely to be challenged, including quotations] - whether this is the intent or not, this wording means that an article may be deleted if there is not a source for all material requiring sourcing. What was agreed to is that there is a new deletion procedure for completely unsourced articles.
  • If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted only after [the article is completely compliant with BLP] - I think we just had a discussion about this at WP:BLP, and that is not policy. Any deleted article may be recreated if the reason for deletion is addressed, in this case lack of sourcing.

- Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I fear there's a fundamental misunderstanding here of several issues:
(1) If an admin were to undelete contentious poorly sourced material, that admin could be sued. I hope people realize that.
(2) If any editor were to try to prevent deletion (e.g. by removing the prod) of contentious poorly sourced material, that editor could be sued. We therefore have a responsibility to admins and editors not to write anything that would make these actions sound unproblematic.
(3) We don't create policy via massive RfCs. We might want to ask for consensus for existing words via RfC, but without showing people what they're being asked to support, and without explaining to them the implications for other policies, it's meaningless. V, NOR, and BLP are strongly supported policies and I don't believe the community wants to see them undermined.
Consensus has to be created now—here—for whichever particular words we decide on, and the implication of those words has to be understood. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Take your FUD elsewhere. Nothing here requires restoring unsourced information that would be libel if false. Gigs (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Nobody is going to be sued. We're talking about sourcing and deletion. As it now stands, consensus (which was clarified via RfC) runs against summary deletion of BLP articles merely for being unsourced. However, as a way to avoid accumulating a bunch of new unsourced BLPs, there was considerable support for a new "sticky PRODs" procedure for deleting completely unsourced new articles. There was no support there for a new requirement that once deleted, BLPs could not be recreated without complying 100% with policy. I would oppose any such requirement - it makes no sense because no article is 100% perfect on first draft, and this sort of thing tends to get abused. We have enough abuse of speedy criteria G4 as it is. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Confused

WD, your post above has confused me again. On the one hand you say this is just an additional tool; that no other process or policy is undermined. I completely support it in that case.

On the other hand, you seem to be saying that it's okay for BLPs to contain some unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. All that's needed is for one contentious claim to be sourced.

Those two positions contradict each other.

Look, what would happen is this, presumably. I find a BLP with two bad unsourced claims in it. I can't find sources. I sticky prod it. You find a source for one of those claims, but not the other. Therefore it's undeleted and the one sourced claim gets to stay. But the unsourced one has to go. Do you disagree with that?

Assuming you agree, then we agree regarding what sticky PROD means. But do we also agree that, in the case above, sticky PROD would be completely inappropriate? With nothing but two bad unsourced claims in it, we can't hang around for 10 days for people to find sources. Inherently problematic BLPS have to go immediately. Any sticky PROD proposal has to reflect that, or we undermine our current policies and practices. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Contentious unsourced claims should be removed, not PRODed. This PROD is for totally unsourced articles that contain no contentious claims. Gigs (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
And that is what my additions to the proposal tried to convey. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
We have to separate content policy from behavioral / procedural policy. BLP policy does not currently say that an article may not be created unless it's perfect. Rather, it points out what the standards are, and how to go about improving or in some cases deleting articles that are not perfect content-wise. If I or anyone else creates a new BLP that is above stub level, it is almost certain to contain some errors, claims that could be improved, statements that some people feel do not faithfully convey what the sources say, claims that people might think reflect a POV, and so on. Nobody would say I've done anything wrong or threaten to block me for it as a behavioral matter, that's just the editing process. However, take the case where the article I've just written is about a living person whose prior Wikipedia article was just deleted for lack of sourcing. Why should the standards for my creating the article now be affected by that? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
We currently have large numbers of unreferencedBLPs created every week. The ones with bad claims or no assertion of importance can be speedied, but everything else either needs to be sourced, or deleted via prod or afd, and some people are impatient with that process because it isn't working as fast as they'd like. I thought the RFC gave us consensus to make a big step towards deletionism - and start prodding new unsourced articles without going through wp:before. It would be ironic if that proposal failed to be implemented because it was stretched from unsourced to poorly sourced..... Please lets make this one step and then see where things are when that is working. ϢereSpielChequers 22:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
WD, I think if you look at the proposal, it doesn't affect what you have in mind. If there's a sentence that you think does, please let me know and we can tweak it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The entirety of the "Undeletion" section, it should just be removed. It creates a new rule that editors are forbidden to recreate articles that violate any of a number of policies. It turns content policy into procedure and behavioral policy. Also, the word "such" in the introduction. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────To suggest at this stage that we should practically start over - which is what will happen if there is to be another RfC - or to start a new discussion on the wording, are counter productive. It appears that such suggestions are from latecomers and people who didn't participate in the workshop and/or who were only fleetingly involved in all the tedious RfCs. I suggest that:

  • The prod template is ready to go.
  • That the creator warning is ready to go.
  • That the policy is ready to go.
  • That Twinkle should be implemented without any further delay.
  • That an automated function should be developed in the PROD template to place the warning on the creator's/major contributor's talk page.
  • That a short period of trial use, say a month, will iron our the wrinkles.
  • That the wrinkles should preferably be ironed out by the people who contributed from early stages to the development of the policy and its process: It's a fact that it will take 3 hours to read up on all that has gone before and some of us are probably getting slightly bored with having to explain everything over and over again to the latecomers.

--Kudpung (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting starting from scratch, K. If you look at the page now, that version seems to have good support. This is what happens when policy is proposed. SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, no longer, because Maurreen changed it. I think Cenarium's version, or thereabouts, is one that could gain quick consensus. SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

undeletion

We have two basic approaches to choose between here. Either these articles can be restored by any admin if a user offers to reference them, or the admin is responsible for checking that the offer of sourcing is adequate. I consider that the former position is workable and had started tagging articles with sticky prods on that basis. I appreciate that sooner or later someone will start abusing such a process, but if they do I suspect someone will spot it and explain to them that blogs and other usergenerated sites are not acceptable. But please can we remember this is about articles that currently survive newpage patrol with little more than a notability and unreferenedBLP tags and subsequently often last for years unreferenced. ϢereSpielChequers 21:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The third option is that someone simply creates a brand new article that's sourced. Keep in mind that this is only about brand new unsourced articles. No competent, experienced editor is going to create an unsourced BLP at this point, so we're talking for the most part about newbies and people who haven't gotten the message. Those articles are likely going to be short, and have plenty of other problems. Either the new editor is going to educate themselves and try again, or an old hand is going to notice the opportunity to create a useful article about a notable person and do it the right way. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidemon. Maurreen (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Well starting from scratch can happen either way. But experience after the deletion spree was that quite a few articles were restored on this basis. I think it will be ongoing - people will see a redlink, click to create it and if it says that it was deleted vis a stickyprod then this gives you the option of restoring and seeing if there is anything worth using as a start. Also this was based on the idea of a prod - uncontentious deletion, uncontentious restoration - just with the proviso that you only ask for restoration if you are willing to restore it. ϢereSpielChequers 22:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Truce proposal

For the time being, how about this:

Sticky prod mentions on related Wikipedia namespace pages, (such as WP:BLP, WP:DEL, etc., but excluding WP:PUMP and the like) would just link to either this page or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people.

And for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, one of these:

  1. Blank.
  2. Redirect here.
  3. Return to the the version of the consensus summary essentially agreed to by five people and with no objections voiced, in the above section Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Already in use?. I note that that among these five people, there is some disagreement about some related issues, but the section had agreement on the gist of the consensus summary. I believe this is the version that The Wordsmith added to WP:DEL:
    1. Wikipedia now requires biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 to indicate at least one source. New unsourced biographies of living people can be proposed for deletion. Unlike standard proposed deletion, these articles must contain a source before the tag can be removed. If the article remains unsourced after 10 days (in contrast to 7 days for a regular proposed deletion), the articles can be deleted. After adding the deletion tag to an article, the user must notify the creator or main contributor.
    2. If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a source. The undeletion can be requested either through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

Such a truce would preclude any other changes that are later shown to gain consensus. (OOPS! I meant to say " Such a truce would NOT preclude any other changes that are later shown to gain consensus. Maurreen (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

What do you think? Maurreen (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Add another item for "Nothing in this new process prevents the application of all existing policies regarding content and deletion", which is probably a better way to go than trying to summarize BLP and V here. Gigs (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Gigs. That's a good idea.
Should I take it that of choices 1-3, you favor #3? Maurreen (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The larger consensus at the RfC was to make the process this way (one source needed). The only thing agreed upon by a smaller number of people was the number of days and the cutoff date. I reject any attempts to declare the RfC consensus void via a local consensus, and no one has objected to the number of days or the cutoff date. The concerns raised about weakening other policies can be made allayed by just disclaiming it explicitly as I suggested. Gigs (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Commenting on the above language, "Wikipedia now requires biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 to indicate at least one source. New unsourced biographies of living people can be proposed for deletion":
I think this is wrong. It implies that BLPs created before that date, or non-BLP articles in general, don't need to have sources, which directly contradicts WP:V, WP:NOR and other sourcing policies. It is also wrong because it implies that any source is acceptable, even it's your mother's apple pie recipe on your website. It's also wrong to imply that older BLPs or other articles can't be proposed for deletion. Even if we follow this by saying this does not prevent application of all other policies, it still spreads misinformation. Not everybody reads the fine print. Crum375 (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Crum375, it's a truce proposal, not necessarily the final answer.
Do you think #1 or #2 is better? Please keep in mind that the tag is already in use, the process is already in operation. Maurreen (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with people tagging unsourced articles as candidates for removal with a new tag. I do have a problem if the process is unclear, on in any way weakens existing policies and processes. My concern is that the focus on "one source, any source" will create a false sense of security and perhaps induce some editors to stick in dummy or poor sources, which will be harder to spot than no sources at all. Crum375 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Crum, for a truce, which option above do you prefer? Or do you have another suggestion for a truce? Maurreen (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
A "truce" implies there is a war of some kind. I don't see any. I only see us searching for ways to make WP better, focusing at the moment on improved enforcement of our content policies for BLPs. If the question is how to deal with the sticky prod, I have already made a suggestion above. Crum375 (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You don't need a war for a truce, sometimes you just need two or more sides and a heated argument. If we can agree to get this started there are lots of totally unsourced BLPs that will be deleted via this process. If people stop it now and try to broaden it beyond new unsourced BLPs then this whole saga could run for months - a more radical change may not get even get community consensus. ϢereSpielChequers 23:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I am open to any idea where this new process does not in any way weaken existing policies and processes. Crum375 (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I got lost somewhere as I don't understand the truce proposal. That said, I do object to using the new blp tag at this point. It isn't policy anywhere. As a separate note, it is seeing a fair bit of use in older articles where it doesn't apply. Sorry for being dense, I'm just not getting what is being proposed. I do feel that something this large really needs a lot more eyes on the details of the proposal before it goes live. Hobit (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
With all due respects Hobit, that's what come of getting to the ball game after the final whistle has been blown. In reality there have been over 400 eyes on this, and confidence was accorded to a small workshop team to do the necessary practical development.--Kudpung (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it, where was that confidence accorded to anyone? What scope was given? Hobit (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Page moves and archiving

I also object to the workshop talk page being moved here, and all the other page moves that have made this whole discussion so hard to follow since the RfC. I ask that all the page moving and odd archiving cease, so that people can clearly see what's being discussed, and which discussions people have taken part in before. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There is history missing here. Maurreen, could you outline here all the page moves and redirects you've engaged in over this sticky proposal, please, so we can reconstruct what has happened? SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
To the best of my memory, the only moves and redirects I've done about this are:
  1. Moving "Sticky prod workshop" and the accompanying talk page to "Proposed deletion of biographies of living people" and its talk.
  2. Updating the "Sticky" shortcut. Maurreen (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, once this is redecided on, I hope you'll restore the consensus summary to the pages you removed it from -- regardless of how much the consensus summary might or might not change. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Does that include any page moves or redirects from when this issue was first debated back in February or whenever it was? The reason I ask if that I had difficulty finding things before, and kept being redirected until I basically gave up. This kind of confusion means pages aren't watched, and therefore that no consensus can be assumed. And your redirect of the workshop to this proposal makes this page look as though it was discussed from March 6, whereas discussion only opened today. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Those I listed are ALL the redirects and moves that I believe I have done having anything to do with this whatsoever. Maurreen (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Could I make a request that there be no more page moves, redirects, unusual archiving, or sudden creation of new policy (this is the second one you've done; the other at NPOV)? I don't mind this kind of thing at guideline level, but at policy level it's labour intensive to sort it out, and it leaves people confused and pissed off with each other. The confusion means people wander off, so consensus becomes harder to achieve. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
So where is the previous archive? [2] SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The real Archive 1 has been lost. Maurreen (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Archives don't get lost. If we know where and went it was created, or where and when the discussion took place, we can recreate it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have recovered it at Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop/Archive 1 and merged it in the archive created here, then moved Wikipedia talk:Sticky prod policy to archive 2. Some centralization and rebooting efforts were clearly needed at this point. If necessary, particular recent threads can be un-archived. Cenarium (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, C. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Wikipedia talk:Sticky prod policy can be accurately named archive 2. What latecomers do not appreciate is that because of the total confusion that was created on Phases 1 & 2 of the RfC by people starting off-topic threads, on closure of the RfC, two pages were started: Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop, to develop the physical appearance and programme functions of the template and user warning templates, and Wikipedia talk:Sticky prod policy to discuss policy issues that the prigrammers may have required to be resolved before completing their code. Such policy debates and decicisions incuded, for example,how long a sticky prod should stick for.
To have had both things going on at once on the same page would have created even more confusion - of the kind that is starting to happen here and now.--Kudpung (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

latest wording

The wording now includes the statement "editors should be aware that they may be held personally liable for any actionable material they undelete or propose for undeletion." Which means that someone who can't see deleted edits on a particular footballer is being told that if the deleted article contains a libellous statement they are liable for that? I can understand that anyone asking for a G3 or G10 to be restored deserves such a warning - but for a sticky prod of a non-contentious but unsourced article? ϢereSpielChequers 22:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to say something about it, because we're creating a process for restoring BLPs already identified as problematic. It's one thing to say to a subject (or to a court), "Sorry, we didn't see it, and we didn't realize. As soon as we realized we put it right." It's another thing entirely to say, "We did realize this was problematic, but we went ahead and undeleted it anyway." Extra caution and top-quality sources are needed when we do that, and editors and admins need to be advised to be extra careful. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Please comment on the truce proposal above. Maurreen (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
This is going farther and farther from anything I could support. The legal stuff is out of place here. There is no special requirement or procedure for restoring deleted content. Any article may be recreated by any editor who believes in good faith that they can meet the objections leading to deletion - you don't need permission to write an article around here. My attempts to keep things within a narrow scope seem to have gone nowhere - I'm wondering if the best thing to do might be to create a second alternate proposal on a different page. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
WD, the first version of this page contradicted existing policy. If you can find a better way to sort it out than the current wording, please do. I support this if it really is just an additional tool. I strongly oppose it if it's going to undermine existing policies. That's what the current confusion is based on, and the fact that someone tried to add this as policy, and edit warred when others removed it. That's unacceptable and it has caused suspicion. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
With a few tweaks, this version[3] was okay. I think the opening sentence, which I left in, is a bit of a relic - we should reference BLP policy rather than duplicate it. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the difference between referencing policy and saying what policy says. I want to make it clear, as you said, that this is an additional tool, not a replacement one. SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It's all out of place. This is massive scope creep. Gigs (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I support starting a new proposal on another page as well. There's nothing worth salvaging here, it's gone way too far from what was agreed upon at the RfC, and SlimVirgin's disruptive editing has made it impossible to refine. Gigs (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Reverting to Rev 353609416 would be acceptable to me as well. Gigs (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
"non-contentious but unsourced articles" are only problematic in being unsourced. Otherwise they would have been deleted by another route. ϢereSpielChequers 22:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
If mention is made of libel or defamation, it should reflect our policy on it, which does not mention liability, only responsibility. Cenarium (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you see as the difference in this context? SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Partly because the community isn't competent to discuss legal matters, so we stick to what the WMF says. You can find discussions on this in the archives, the policy has been revised in 2005/6 so as to reflect what the WMF directed rather than a prior mostly community-built revision. I could give some reasons as to why this wording is not desirable, but it seems unnecessary per my first point. Cenarium (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't added anything legally contentious, C. It's just a fact that whenever we make an edit, we could find ourselves liable for it. Similarly if we undelete an article, we could find ourselves liable for the whole thing. A page that discusses admins undeleting things—articles already deleted because problematic—should at least mention that, because people may not realize it. There's a feeling among some editors that the Foundation will invariably carry the can for BLP issues, but that's somewhat unrealistic. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Some basic questions

The idea is a good one, but it was discussed on a page that not many people watched (or that over time people wandered away from because the discussion got so bogged down), so the basic concept was not thought through properly. People posting above are saying different things about it.

Question: Is it correct to say, per WereSpielChequers: "This is a proposal for a new deletion and undeletion process for newly created biographies of living person that contain no contentious material, but that are unsourced. Existing deletion processes should be used for BLPs that contain anything contentious."

SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There was plenty of opportunity to participate. Maurreen (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Do not say that to anyone else, please. It was close to impossible to participate sensibly what with the nitpicking, page moving, page redirecting, and renaming, so that even now you can't find the archives. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Maurreen, I did try to follow this, and I did notice the amount of work you put into it. But I gave up trying to follow it and chose to wait until a formal proposal was ready. The number of editors dropped considerably over time. I assume we lost the middle-grounders on this and think we should A) get a complete proposal (wording and everything) that the group working on this thinks has consensus and then we can B) have a broader discussion... Hobit (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
There was plenty of opportunity to participate. Those who did participate are not confused. Those who came later are confused because they cannot be bothered to rewind and hence keep asking, ad nauseam, for others to summarise the situation for them. The number of editors dropped because of all the side tracking and off-topic threads and personal attacks that were constantly started. Similar to the situation that SV is precipitating on this page.
However Hobit, your proposal makes sense, please go ahead and do it - make the list of all the items you want consensus on. But let's definitely not have any more 'broad' discussion. if anything we need to tighten things up even more so that we can go live with the template as quickly as possible.--Kudpung (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Images copyright model

An idea. We already have a good working mechanism for identifying and removing images with improper copyright. This includes notifying the uploaders, verifying the copyright status manually, and deleting the images when needed. As far as I know, this semi-automated process does not in any way weaken the copyright or fair use policies, and works well in conjunction with the complementary manual processes. Can't this be a model for the "sticky prod" idea? Can't we simply add automation where possible, with a simple analog of "unsourced material" = "improper copyright", and not weaken existing BLP or other sourcing policies? Crum375 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

copyvio lends itself to automation by comparing text. A bot that can tell whether an article is about a living person would be more difficult, would take time to spec, write and test and would fly in the face of an RFC which pretty thoroughly rejected bot based deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 23:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
We can have the bot guess whether it's BLP, and then a human could do the final verification, as we do with images. Crum375 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with our image processes. But if you are thinking of something like Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized and unreferenced biographies of living people then yes it might be possible to have a bot that lists articles categorised as unreferencedBLPs that have got past NPP. But the taggers would still need a sticky prod to apply on them. ϢereSpielChequers 00:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
A sticky prod would be fine, as long as it's made clear it's an extra tool to augment existing processes and not in any way supersede them. I don't think the image copyright bots in any way infringe on existing human processes and policies. It would be nice if we could do the same here. Crum375 (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC and consensus

I'd like to make clear for those saying the policy as it was added has consensus via the RfCs that the RfCs did not discuss the wording of any specific proposal. Phase 1 concluded: "Develop consensus on the details of a BLP-PROD process, most critically on the duration of a BLP-PROD."

Phase 2 was closed as saying: "A new PROD-like process should be designed to handle new unsourced BLPs (those written after the final approval of the process). Modifying the current PROD for this purpose has been soundly rejected. The BLP PROD should, in general, not be removable without sufficient addition of sources. What "sufficient" constitutes must be determined by the community. In addition, there appears to be a consensus significant minority who feel that the nominator should make a good faith effort to look for sources before nominating. The community will have to determine whether or not this is a valid part of the new process."

What we're doing now is discussing how to write a guideline or policy. Can anyone point to earlier discussion where consensus was established for 10 days, for example (which strikes me as too long: why should the BLP prod be longer than the current one), or what constitutes "sufficient" addition of sources? SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Sticky_prod_policy. You were free to participate at these earlier stages. To come in now and expect everyone to start over with your blessing, even discarding the RfC consensus.... Gigs (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
More specifically, #Length of time before deletion. And I expected people to use their judgment for what constitutes sufficient sources. NW (Talk) 00:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I can't imagine why something as essential as that would be moved to another discussion page. And I see there's no consensus for ten days either. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) This has been something else that has concerned me a lot. I several times tried to find out what was going on at the sticky workshop page because I couldn't understand it; e.g. here. I was told by Maurreen that, "When you have opportunity to participate in something but choose not to, you have no right to complain about the result." [4] But that's not the wikiway. If I stay away from a page on which I see filibustering and nitpicking, I have every right to stay away from it and to complain about anything it produces. I was also concerned to see Maurreen say that it was good that people were staying away from the discussion, because it would make it easier to handle. True, but it also means no consensus can emerge from it.
Reading the earlier discussions I see that even people involved couldn't follow them, and mentioned them being spun off so many times it was impossible to know what was going on. Where were they spun off to?
All in all, I think this is a good idea, but it's development has not been handled well, so let's change that from this point on if possible. I'd like to start by gathering all the discussions in one place, if whoever was moving them could let me know where they are. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no "start". The discussions are done. Sorry you missed out on them. Pay attention next time. Gigs (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
You're not reading my posts. I did try to "pay attention," but found discussion scattered around several pages and people nitpicking to the point of insanity. No consensus for anything will ever emerge from something like that, and your barbs aren't increasing my confidence. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
<ec>Discussions are done once a final proposal is in place and people get to discuss that proposal. At WP:DEL's talk page we have some exact wording proposed. As I mentioned there (and elsewhere) I feel that we should do what we generally do--see if there is consensus for the final proposal. Last I checked, WP:BEFORE isn't included in anything yet even though there was consensus on wording about it. To me, leaving that out isn't acceptable. But yet people are adding this as policy in multiple places and already using the procedure. Come up with your final wording and let's see if everyone buys it. Hobit (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It would help to mention the points of contention, incertitude or discussion at the top of this talk page, so more people can weigh in and help get this done. Cenarium (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Mine is issues of WP:BEFORE. I really believe that the sparsely attended discussion (compared to the RfC) on the responsibility of the PRODer needs much wider input. I'd prefer we just have a full proposal from the proponents (the project page associated with this discussion page?) and have a discussion and consensus check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talkcontribs)
(ec) Points of contention: (1) what constitutes sufficient sourcing; (2) how long should the prod tag stay on for; (3) are sticky prods only for BLPs with no contentious material in them; (4) is this just an additional tool, and therefore (5) can the proposal make clear that this does not affect current content policies or deletion processes? SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
We'll never get consensus for anything if you keep restoring that verbose mess. This policy can be summed up in a sentence or two. Confusing the issue with legal advice and summaries of 3 other policies is just muddying the waters. Gigs (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I really don't care too much about the "sum-up" I care what the proposed policy is. Do you feel that the proponents of the policy are ready to go with the text that is on the project page? Any edits to it before we hit a wider discussion? Hobit (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Your desire for another round of polling has been rejected repeatedly. And no, I don't think what is on the project page right now reflects any consensus other than SlimVirgin and herself. Gigs (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, a handful of editors don't get to shut down further discussion. We do traditionally discuss once we have a new proposal in hand (not just at the start of the process) and no one has provided a reason not to do so here. Also I'd not realized SlimVirgin had been editing the project page. My bad on that. Hobit (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to focus on the process itself here, let's not stray away from the point of this policy. We can use an organization similar to WP:PROD: nominating, objecting, deleting. Although in that case, since the reason for deletion is unique, it should probably be given a section, the first one, where it can be exposed. Cenarium (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

STOP IT

User:SlimVirgin, stop messing with my comments.

Say whatever you have to say.

But outside of your own talk page, leave my comments alone. Maurreen (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Then don't open new sections to reply to a question I asked you in another section. It is pointless, and it's the kind of thing that makes these pages so hard to follow. Where is the missing archive? Your archiving of the MoS took literally years to sort out and a huge amount of work, and I would like to avoid that for anything related to BLP. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't assume it's all about you.
I did not "open new sections to reply to a question I asked you." Maurreen (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Everybody needs to stop messing with other people's comments. Maurreen (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

An appeal

After many years of evolution (not revolution) on the issue of BLPs, the apple cart was upset because of deletions that some people argued were out-of-process. That can't be put right by trying to force new policy words into existing policies, then reverting when people object and telling them they have no right to comment. It can only be put right by focusing carefully on the middle ground, on consensus, and on clearly worded policy that doesn't affect existing policy, so that everyone can get behind it.

The first thing people have to do is make themselves familiar with existing policy, particularly V, NOR, BLP, and the deletion policies; I'm seeing comments on this page that show people aren't completely familar with them.

I'm fully supportive of a sticky prod policy that doesn't imply things we don't intend it to imply. So can we start with a new, collaborative atmosphere, and work quickly toward achieving that? It would help if people who object to the current wording could list one or two sentences in it that they see as problematic, and explain why. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The first step is reverting back to the version that doesn't have all the extraneous stuff in it, the one I reverted to earlier. We can work from there. Gigs (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, can I appeal to folks to please stop adding this stuff to other policy pages until it gets settled here? This is still, per the box on the top and the name of this project page, a proposed policy/guideline. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think everything has been reverted out of every other policy at this point, and WP:DEL is full protected. There was quite a bit of discussion and consensus forming at WT:DEL... it's a shame to throw that away. I think we might want to have a discussion as to whether a separate policy is justified, or whether this whole ball of wax should just be part of WP:DEL. Gigs (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. _if_ this does happen, I personally think adding it to WP:DEL is the right thing. It doesn't really belong on WP:V and I don't see the need of having it's own page once we hit a point we have a solid consensus. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Some of the editing here is just getting silly e.g. that the sources don't need to be reliable. People need to make themselves familiar with the existing content policies, or this will never work. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, why should we start over again? Where were you when we were discussing it? Links here were posted on the BLPRFC talkpage, and on the Village Pump, and on IRC, and on the wikien-l mailinglist. We've been discussing this for weeks, and I find it very frustrating that it is all being thrown out because certain people didn't participate. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
That's what happens when people feel excluded, and people were excluded by the nitpicking and page moving. It's going to happen with this one too if we're not careful. Rather than wasting words discussing that, can we please just move on? What are the current objections? SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Wordsmith: There was no way I had time to follow all that. It seemed to go forever and honestly I felt it was railroaded in some places (the number of closes by involved admins was non-zero). I don't want a start over (though others might). I want a proposal (with all the words) that people feel is ready for a "support/oppose" RfC. There were lots and lots of details discussed after the first RfC. I just want to see if there is wider consensus for where it ended up. I think this is pretty standard, and I'll again point to the de-admin proposal as a similar situation. Hobit (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me add that I'd favor having one person get a draft of this proposal ready for a wider audience and I think you or Gigs would likely be the best choices. Too many chefs at this point. I may not like the proposal but I want it to have a fair chance. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────SV, Nobody is seeking to undermine the integrity of previously existing WP policy - the whole idea of this excercise is to strngthen it. Just because you and others may not have been available to take part in the RfC or the workshop that followed it, there is no reason to suggest that you were excluded. It is clear that you now have a genuine concern for the BLP issues, and that is most welcome, but we must avoid those who persevered and became the small task force to engineer the development of the template, from being railroaded by new participants who fail to understand the preliminaries, and whose manner of posting may appear to assert some authority. It was precisely this kind of thing, and some bullying, that drove many keen participants away from the RfCs. What is needed is proactive input, not counter-productive personal attacks. Any page moves certainly created clarity, and were welcomed by those who had not lost sight of the main objectives, and continued to develop them.
To get this thing finally wrapped up, the smaller the workforce, the better; and preferably by those who have been familiar with it from the beginning and have not lost the plot, or by those who don't need two months of work and 3 hours of reading summarised for them over and over again.--Kudpung (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

defamation section

I really don't see how this section belongs in any guideline or policy. I also don't think it's relevant. You can get sued for this by publishing on facebook or talking to a group of friends. You can also get sued for saying bad things about a company (and that's probably more likely here frankly). Hobit (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC) <added some words to clarify02:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)>

I removed it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources

The RFC kinda backed sources. Reliable ones not so much. Forcing new users to deal with WP:RS is a great way to exclude them from the project and we cannot afford that level of newbie atrittion at this time. If it becomes a problem we can consider modifying the policy.©Geni 02:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Geni, what we mean on WP by a source is a reliable source. See WP:V#Sources. Everything in here must be consistent with that. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Must? There is no such requirement. The fact is that we know that RS is for new users far more complicated than it seams to us. This is not unexpected markup also seems straightforwards to us. We also know that we are not picking up new users in the way we used to and this cannot afford to implement any bitey policy at this point. If sources not meeting RS turns out to be a significant factor in future BLP issues we can address the problem then. Until that point we cannot afford the level of newbie atrittion that would result.©Geni 02:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Geni, I'm having a hard time believing that someone is saying it's okay to add non-reliable sources to a BLP. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Because I'm not saying that. Remeber we are dealing with new articles. Adding stuff doesn't really apply at that point.©Geni 02:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that a new BLP saying X is a rapist without a source might be compliant if we add someone's opinion from a blog. Look, guys, this is the sort of thing that drives people insane. Of course the sources need to be policy compliant. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
except this policy has nothing to do with saying "X is a rapist". That triggers a bunch of existing policy. No the point of this policy to focus on articles with say "X was a football player" without any sources at all.©Geni 02:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
This is what I asked above, but no one replied. Is the sticky prod proposal only to deal with non-contentious BLPs? SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
That was the general idea yes.©Geni 02:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hummm, per WP:V we can use a self-published source (such as a subject's webpage) under fairly liberal guidelines. Are we intending to say that such a source is or isn't acceptable for removal of this PROD? (Assume it meets the first four requirements of WP:SELFPUB) Hobit (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Any source listed under WP:V#Sources should be acceptable, with the proviso that, the more contentious the claim, the higher quality the source would need to be. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll note that's different than saying we need reliable sources which are a subheading in WP:V#Sources. Given your response to Geni about reliable sources, I'm now confused. Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It would be anything that Sources section says is okay. So anything under Reliable sources or Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. But the latter is a subset of reliable sources. The only thing you have to watch out for is that we can't have a BLP that relies only on the subject as a primary source. So as a lone source that wouldn't work. As a supplementary source it would be fine. SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still lost on sources and SlimVirgin's explanation is actually confusing me more. I'd like to hear some opinions on when exactly this PROD can be applied. Let's say there is only one source in the article. The source is about the topic and supports the material (all material in the article is basically non-controversial like "Bob was an actor on MASH" or "Mary is a Full Professor at Michigan State" or "Andrew played basketball for Florida State") Which of these sources would be enough to prevent this sticky PROD from being applied?

  1. IMDB.
  2. The person's bio on their employeer's website (academic bio for a faculty member, stats on a school's athletic website)
  3. The person's personal homepage on a geocities type site.
  4. The person's personal homepage on their employer's website.
  5. OpEd in school newspaper.
  6. Article in school newspaper article
  7. Coverage in fairly reliable blog (Huffington Post)

I personally would say all, or maybe all but 3. Hobit (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if I read the current state of things right, any relevant source will protect an article from the sticky prod but only a RS can be used to remove said prod? Is that the intent? Hobit (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott explained it here. They will need at least one reliable source to stay. By reliable, we just mean something like a newspaper article. SlimVirgin talk contribs 12:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Outside help sought

FYI -- I have asked for help getting a truce here. Maurreen (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you want them to do? I don't think SlimVirgin has done anything blockable if that is what you are getting at. Gigs (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked. But maybe I am grasping at straws to hope for a general truce. Maurreen (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Admin deciding at his discretion"

Limiting identifing serious problems with BLPs to admins is a bad idea. Per the standard idea that adminship should be no bigger deal than absolutely required admins should not be singled out here.©Geni 02:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-admins can't delete so clearly admin discretion to delete is what's being referred to. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
While non admins can't actively delete they can certianly flag things for deletion. Highlighting admin involvement (it's a given that admins can always not carry out a deletion) excludes the wider community.©Geni 02:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't say that people can't flag things. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't say they can either. If there is no need to mention what non admins can do there is no need to mention what admins can do either. Instead I prefer admin status neutral language.©Geni 02:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't follow. The sentence is quite clear, that even with a prod on it if a page is seriously dodgy it can still be deleted under other processes. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Admins and non admins have a role to play in addressing BLP issues. in this case only the admin role is highlighted. It is better to treat both roles equaly. To put it another way it doesn't greatly matter if it is an admin or non admin who realises that a BLP is sufficiently problematical for other deletion processes to be needed and the policy so not indicate otherwise.©Geni 02:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
This has to reflect WP:BLPDEL, which says, "... it may be necessary for an administrator to delete the page. The deleting administrator should be willing to explain the action..." The point is that admin deletion can only be done by admins, who must bear responsibility for their action (or inaction). There is no question that non-admins can flag problems as they see them and bring them to admin attention. Crum375 (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Different tone. "it may be necessary for an administrator to delete the page" suggests that the descission to deletion may not be the admin's.©Geni 02:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
If it suggested that, it would be wrong. Whose decision do you think it is to delete when an admin performs a deletion under BLPDEL? Crum375 (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking the community's as given expression in the form of policy. Normaly CSD G10.©Geni 03:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The community and the Foundation lay down the ground rules. The admins make the deletion decisions. Otherwise, according to your logic, judges don't make decisions, only legislatures do. Crum375 (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
That depends on your legal system.©Geni 10:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the point is just that admins are the only ones who have the discretion to delete (and oversighters to oversight), so there's no point in mentioning other discretions. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 10:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Blow by blow of the problems with SV's draft

Per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, all articles are required to include reliable sources for any material about a living person that is contentious. In addition, any material challenged or likely to be challenged, including quotations, needs a reliable source per Wikipedia:Verifiability. All improperly sourced BLP articles may be subject to deletion per WP:BLPDEL, but biographies created after 18 March 2010 that do not contain at least one reliable source directly supporting the material may also be proposed for deletion under a new "sticky PROD" process. The more contentious the material, the higher quality the source must be.

  • This is verbose and redundant, but OK otherwise.
Relationship with other policies and processes

The sticky PROD is an additional tool to be used in the interests of increasing the quality of BLP sourcing on Wikipedia. Nothing in this proposal should be understood to affect the core content policies or existing deletion processes. This proposal does not affect the discretion extended to administrators under the BLP policy to delete any BLP where the page's primary content is unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material; where there is no obvious way to fix it; and there is no previous version of the page that is policy compliant; see this section of the BLP policy for more details.

  • The limits of discretionary deletion outside of G10 is a highly contentious area. We don't need to make reference to it. I suspect this was added to bolster the idea that admins do have such a discretion. The second sentence is sufficient to convey that this doesn't affect existing deletion processes, whatever they might be, so I suggest reducing this section to only the first two sentences.

Whether the BLP is subject to deletion or not, any unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed from the article immediately and without discussion, in accordance with the BLP policy.

  • This is fine, I guess. It's kind of redundant but if there's a concern that contentious material will be retained through a PROD, then this is OK.
Sticky prod process

New unsourced biographies of living people can be proposed for deletion. Unlike standard proposed deletion, these articles must contain a reliable source directly supporting the material in question before the tag can be removed. If the article remains unsourced after seven days, the article can be deleted. The editor who applies the deletion tag to an article must notify the article's creator or main contributor.

  • Seven days was not the number decided upon, 10 was. No one challenged the closure of that discussion.

This process does not preclude an admin deciding at his discretion that an unsourced or improperly sourced article must be deleted sooner, even with a prod template, due to concerns about libel or harm to a living person, in accordance with WP:BLPDEL. This may include normal admin deletion or oversight, depending on circumstances.

  • Here's more lipservice to SV's favorite topic, discretionary deletion out of process. Nuke this line.
Undeletion

If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted only after reliable sourcing is provided in compliance with WP:BLP, WP:V, and other applicable content policies. Anything about a living person that could reasonably be challenged, particularly if it is contentious and negative, must be sourced appropriately, and per BLP the supporting sources must be high quality. The undeletion can be requested through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a reliable source. The undeletion can be requested through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

  • Undeletion should happen if only one source is provided. There is no need to bring an article to perfection prior to undeletion. De-prod requires one source, undeletion should require one source as well.

All this said, I still think this is best dealt with as a single paragraph in WP:DEL and WP:PROD, not as a separate policy page. Gigs (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write the line you're calling my lipservice to something, or at least I don't think I did. I think it repeats what's already there, so I don't mind it going. And I agree that this should be added to existing policy, not as a stand-alone. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well if that's so, sorry about that. Stricken. Gigs (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gigs on all fronts. Still opposed to the proposal, but I think his comments reflect the previous discussion. I think I dislike the lede more than he does though. Hobit (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask where consensus was established to write this up as a separate policy, with those particular words, and to add it to existing policies, reverting people who removed it? It has caused chaos today, and I'd like to see where it was decided. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Gigs, what would you recommend for the undeletion section? SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This was the old text. I don't think we need to add to it. Anyone who passed RfA should understand that they need to use their discretion when restoring material so as to not restore copyvios or libel (which shouldn't have been deleted through BLP PROD in the first place)

If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a reliable source. The undeletion can be requested either through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

Gigs (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I generally agree with what Gigs said, but I would go further. Mainly, the RFC result supported sticky prods for new unsourced BLPs. To change sticky prods to any other criteria would need demonstration of community consensus. Maurreen (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of days

So, Gigs, I've shortened the undeletion section, per your suggestion. I've removed the "my lipservice" section entirely. :)

Next: the seven or ten days. I see no consensus for ten days. What are the benefits of making this longer than the current prod? SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Prods are generaly aimed at things that we don't think are fixable. In this case the articles are generaly in theory fixable and it is best to give those who wish to fix such things and the article creator plently of time to do so.©Geni 03:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Prods can be added for a number of reasons, which can be fixed by adding a source e.g. making no attempt to assert notability. Not clear why one form of source search only needs seven days but another ten. SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is the straw poll. It's hard to see how many people commented because a few posted more than once, but 12 mentioned seven days, which seems to be more than any other figure was mentioned. If someone else wants to write up a complete count, please do. SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Father Goose's summary seemed fine to me: "Rather than go with an average, which can be skewed by outliers such as Milowent's suggestion of 1000 days, a median figure is a better way to find "the middle". At this particular instant, it appears there are 12.5 votes for 7 days and 12.5 votes for longer timespans, and the median would fall right between 7 and 14 days, or 10.5. Setting aside the "consistency with other processes" argument, what's the harm in compromising at 10 days?--Father Goose (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)" NW (Talk) 03:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It would make more sense to me to close it on the figure the greatest number agreed on, which was seven. We need to explain why an ordinary prod only gets seven, but a BLP prod, where deletion could be more of an urgent matter, would get ten. That makes no sense to me. SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with NW/FG here. The mode of the discussion is less interesting, where the median makes more sense. I agree being consistent would be good, but not needed. Hobit (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that this detail is one of the least important ones to argue about at this time. There's very little consequence attached to the specific number as long as it's somewhere within the range of 7 to 14 days. This is basically a color of the bike shed problem. Come back to it later.--Father Goose (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For reasons I don't understand some people want to bend over backwards to help people who create BLPs without sources. I understand the reluctance to see mass summary deletions, but let's not go over to any other extreme. Someone adding an unsourced BLP is editing against policy, and is being lazy and inconsiderate. If they know that John Smith won the 1908 World Tennis Championship, they must also know how they know it. Asking them to add that isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take that long. SlimVirgin talk contribs 04:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the longer sticky prod period will induce at least some admins to ignore that route and speedy-delete pages per G10. Perhaps that's a good thing. Crum375 (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The prod and deletion discussion processes were brought into alignment a few months ago with a seven day period. Unless there's a compelling reason to break this consistency, seven days seems reasonable, especially as sticky prods only apply to newly created pages (where the author will generally still be around and editing, etc.). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The compelling reason for the inconsistency is to make sure that this minor issue does not hold up implementation of the process. 10 days was offered as a compromise between "7 day" and "2+ week" groups. We'll repaint the bike shed after it gets built.--Father Goose (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I would hope that no-one misuses {{G10}} in the way that Crum375 suggests. Aside from the risk of having one of today's newbies have their 2011 RFA trashed because one of their earliest contributions was incorrectly deleted as an attack page; I'm sure I'm not the only admin who's been contacted by the subject of an attack page wanting to know what the attack page was and who made it. And for every person out there who goes so far as to contact us about an attack page that was deleted about them, there will be a lot more who just go through the trauma of thinking that someone somewhere hated them enough to create an attack page on them. Thats why it would IMHO be a real and serious breach of BLP to deliberately misclassify uncontentious bios and fancruft as attack pages. ϢereSpielChequers 10:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The 10 day time limit was decided on by a correct consensus, carried out in a correct manner, and closed in a correct manner. To want to start it again would be deliberate disruption of the matter ion hand. Likewise, the newcomers are reopening discussions on issues here that have already been thrashed out and put to bed. --Kudpung (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Kudpung, what was very noticeable about the sticky prod discussion, and the RfC discussions generally, was that over time the experienced editors dropped out, or failed to take part at all. Maurreen even said at one point that this was a good thing, because it made discussion easier. Once when I asked her how the issues were going to be sorted, or added to policy, she said words to the effect of "this will be decided by the people who've been taking part in the discussion so far," almost telling me not to worry my pretty little head. :) That's not the way WP works at the level of policy development, so there's no point in asking people not to take part now. I suggest we start working to iron out the problems, rather than having any more meta discussion. SlimVirgin talk contribs 11:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
SV, It depends on whom you consider to be experienced editors, or by that do you mean your walled garden of policy-drafting sysops? I cannot help but retain in memory the aggressive way in which you entered this topic in the first place, and bit me hard for genuinely trying to be of help. Good thing I ain't a newbie, otherwise you would have lost the Wikipedia another potentially regular contributor. FYI, what appears to have completely escaped you, is that the sticky prod is designed specifically NOT to bite the newbs; quite to the contrary, to encourage them in fact to use sources in their future edits. That's the way WP works. So, yes, some people want to bend over backwards to help people who create BLPs without sources but you didn't want to rewind and see what has already been discussed before taking over this project. I suggest you now fast-forward and help get it on the road.--Kudpung (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

New draft

I have made a new draft. Please give your thoughts on it, remember this page is in constant evolution and nothing's permanent or established at this point, no need to revert because of status quo. Most of the rewriting is based on the structure of WP:PROD. The changes are motivated by a need to actually describe the process, this policy is about the process and many secondary aspects were given too much emphasis while the process itself was not described.

  • I have made a shorter introduction based on what was the section on the process.
  • I have added a section on the reasons for this process, mostly based on what was the introduction. There's some need for this due to the particularity of the new process.
  • I have removed mention of Sticky prod, which was a working name (and sounds unprofessional).
  • I have added a section on nominating to describe how to nominate. This includes some encouragement to remove contentious material and look for sources, I think it reflects the result of prior discussions. It also asks to check the history for removal of sources.
  • I have added a section on objecting, and included undeletion there. This should also cover when re-adding, etc.
  • I have added a section on deleting. About that, we also need to find a wording for an automatic deletion summary.
  • I have moved the section Relationship with other policies and processes at the bottom before see also because it is of less importance to the process itself.

Cenarium (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this version is better. I made some minor tweaks to it. Crum375 (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Suggesting reprodding after a successfully challenged stickyprod seems pointless. If someone objected once, they'll object again. Just take it to AfD if you still think it should be deleted. Gigs (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I've made two small changes, the reprodding change, and simplifying existing policy disclaimer per my comments above. Gigs (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I like this version, Cenarium, thank you. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
And I have revised it. Maurreen (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Cenarium asked people not to make major changes, so we had a stable version to discuss. SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
We had had a stable version earlier, which more people had agreed to. Maurreen (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
More people had not agreed. No one had agreed, and this version is better written. SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Malarkey. Maurreen (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Cenarium has written a version that's well written, coherent, and has a good change of obtaining consensus. Please discuss here what the objections are, if any, until we reach that consensus. If we keep adding our own bits, we have no stable version to talk about. SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Maurren, you're out of order here. You've caused chaos today, and you're in large measure responsible for the earlier discussions that caused the issues not to be ironed out. Bits of your version are not policy-compliant e.g. "If you see an article about a living person without references, it is strongly encouraged to remove any contentious material, and look for reliable sources which can support the article's content." First, that's poor writing. Second, it's not strongly encouraged—unsourced contentious material must be removed immediately per BLP. And you've conveniently removed that admins may still delete such articles. You're turning years of policy development upside down and wasting everyone's time. You also risk not gaining consensus for a proposal that lots of people (me included) would otherwise want to support. SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I proposed a truce hours ago. But you appear to only want a stable version when it's a version you like. We could have had a stable version about 24 hours ago. Maurreen (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you forget that I was one of the few people—in fact at one point, I was the only person—who used to support you when you got into trouble for precisely this kind of behaviour before your four-year break. SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. Maurreen (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Please show diffs or retract. Maurreen (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced contentious material must be removed yes, but we can't say that one particular editor must remove it, editors who have not contributed to the article have no such responsibility. However we strongly encourage any editor, upon becoming aware of it, to remove it. This section on nominating is process-oriented, the relevant policies supporting this process are discussed in the reasons for this process page. Cenarium (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that I've initially written 'it is' but 'you are' was the intended meaning. Someone corrected. Cenarium (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Monday-morning quarterbacking

Tweaking is one thing. But it's really not kosher to complain especially about general processes and procedures for anyone who chose not to participate. To do so is to just criticize the work that other people were willing to do but you were not willing to do. Maurreen (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing is participating. Commenting on this talk page is participating. I have no idea what you're talking about. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to policy drafting, that's how it works. The draft gets most of its outside scrutiny at the "ratification" stage. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Unsourced" redux

It appears that the main point of contention is about the level of sourcing.

  1. Since this whole saga started back in January with the mass deletions, the focus has been on unsourced BLPs -- not badly sourced BLPs.
  2. The RFC resulted in strong support for sticky prods for new unsourced BLPs. Any change concerning the level and quality of any sourcing should first show a similar level of community support before implementation.
  3. "Unsourced" is less subjective than any other standard proposed. If the community were to support any other standard, that would call for more deliberation than just agreement by two people (the proposer and deleting admin). Maurreen (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood. The current version is also about unsourced BLPs. SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The current version goes further. Maurreen (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Re to SV

User:SlimVirgin wrote above:

"Maurren, you're out of order here. You've caused chaos today, and you're in large measure responsible for the earlier discussions that caused the issues not to be ironed out. Bits of your version are not policy-compliant e.g. "If you see an article about a living person without references, it is strongly encouraged to remove any contentious material, and look for reliable sources which can support the article's content." First, that's poor writing. Second, it's not strongly encouraged—unsourced contentious material must be removed immediately per BLP. And you've conveniently removed that admins may still delete such articles. You're turning years of policy development upside down and wasting everyone's time. You also risk not gaining consensus for a proposal that lots of people (me included) would otherwise want to support."
  1. "You're out of order here." -- WP's version of Robert's Rules of Order is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
  2. "You've caused chaos today." -- You're shooting the messenger.
  3. "You're in large measure responsible for the earlier discussions that caused the issues not to be ironed out." -- Your opinion.
  4. "Bits of your version are not policy-compliant e.g. 'If you see an article about a living person without references, it is strongly encouraged to remove any contentious material, and look for reliable sources which can support the article's content.' First, that's poor writing."
    1. Even if it is poor writing, where is it written that poor writing is not policy-compliant?
    2. The version before mine had this sentence: "If you see an article about a living people without references, it is strongly encouraged to remove any contentious material, and look for reliable sources which can support the article's content." -- I don't see any difference between that and what you allege is my poorly written non-compliant-with-policy version.
  5. "And you've conveniently removed that admins may still delete such articles." -- Not relevant here. If it is said elsewhere, it doesn't need to be said here. I find it convenient to be concise. I find redundancy to be inconvenient.
  6. "You're turning years of policy development upside down and wasting everyone's time." Your opinion. And again, shooting the messenger.
  7. "You also risk not gaining consensus for a proposal that lots of people (me included) would otherwise want to support." -- Not getting your point here. For one thing, do you realize people are already using the sticky prod? Maurreen (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    One small point. I and others were using the sticky prod, albeit for perhaps 24 hours. As requested I have stopped doing so, as I assume have others. My understanding is that the sticky prod is not to be used whilst we consider whether to implement a radically different version with poorly sourced articles and bot based deletion now under discussion, this of course means that when I come across an uncontentious unsourced BLP that has a credible assertion of importance I will tag and categorise it, but not prod it for deletion unless I am sufficiently suspicious, or interested in the subject to look for references. ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

SV: The fact that a user is a regular contributor to the making of Wikipedia policy and/or a sysop of long standing does not accord any of the superiority that you claim, or ownership of policymaking. To join a project when all the work has been done, to rip it apart, to commandeer the the discussion, to make personal attacks, or to deride the GF efforts of those who have persevered with a difficult project for months are some of the the very things that cause 'chaos' and are reasons why people drift away. If you have anything personally critical to say to a contributor, it may be more constructive and productive to post your comments on a more appropriate page.--Kudpung (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm claiming zero ownership—on the contrary I welcome more eyes. It's you and Maurreen who are trying to discourage people from contributing. I can only say again, it would be helpful if we could now focus on the issues, because I suspect they can be sorted out pretty quickly. SlimVirgin talk contribs 11:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I won't bother listing all the diffs, but several others have commented on the way you have been collaborating here and your adminship does not provide you with a magic shield. I have already asked you to focus on the topic of discussion; and whether you are right or wrong, to keep your personal attacks on more appropriate pages. Not only are most of your contributions to this page slowing the process down, but they also risk putting it in reverse gear. --Kudpung (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium's version

Back to the issues, please. Kudpung, what do you object to in Cenarium's version? If there's too much, please pick out two sentences and say what you feel is wrong with them. SlimVirgin talk contribs 11:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to support the current version. If we can stay at that in essence, I'll have no further objections. SlimVirgin talk contribs 12:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, the phrase "that do not contain at least one reliable source directly supporting the material" broadens this out from unsourced BLPs to poorly sourced BLPs. I don't believe that we have consensus for that change - the RFC and even the January deletion spree were focussed on unsourced articles. We already have {{Primarysources}} tags to re-educate the newbies who create such articles. ϢereSpielChequers 13:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it does broaden it, and I think there's a misunderstanding here. This policy applies to unsourced BLPs. But when people talked about the need for one source to be added to them, they didn't mean anything between ref tags. It would have to be something supportive of the BLP, and something we could rely on, or we couldn't really call it a source. But it's still the case that the policy only applies to entirely unsourced BLPs. SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I think there's an issue here, I had initially stated 'part of the article's content', which may be too weak, it has been revised to 'directly supports the article's contents' which may be too strong. I've opened a thread on it. Cenarium (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
One compromise that had been used in the original wording was "relevant to the article" to prevent an article on an actor from having a completely unrelated source on, say, 17th century France. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Reprodding

I see my changes were reverted without discussion... again. Why was the reprodding section restored? What possible justification would there be for a second prod for an article that someone obviously objects to the deletion of by adding a source and removing the sticky? Gigs (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The rationale is that things may change over time, the version may change, and a regular prod or another mechanism may become more suitable. We don't want to preclude any of the alternatives made available by existing policy. Crum375 (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Existing policy doesn't allow an article to be prodded twice, even if it changes considerably. It's for the case where literally no one cares enough about an article to make a single edit to save it. Gigs (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Where does it say that we can't reprod an article which has changed considerably? Crum375 (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear difference here. The traditional prod is terminated on the grounds "someone objects to deletion" - it is simply the existence of the objector that counts, and the article cannot be re-prodded because we assume that the objector remains objecting. However, the sticky prod is terminated on the grounds "the article is (now) sourced" - hence if someone removes it ant it is not sourced, the removal is illegitimate and replacement is proper. The mere fact that someone objects to deletion is irrelevant if the article is still unsourced.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my concern here Scott. I'm not talking about restoring the sticky prod when it's improperly removed. The current wording suggests that if the sticky prod is properly removed and a source added, the article may still be prodded with traditional prod. Gigs (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
And rightly so. If an article is prodded as "unsourced" and someone adds a source - it may still be that the article is also not-notable, and can be prodded as such. Actually, I suspect we'll often have articles double-prodded here. Someone will prod for non-noatability, and then someone will sticky-prod as unsourced simultaneously. That also looks ok, basically someone is saying "even if someone thinks this is notable, it must also have a source to survive".--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, Gigs, you have not responded to my question above, where does it say that we can't reprod an article which has changed considerably? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crum (talkcontribs) 12:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Crum, the current prod instructions state that a previously prodded article is not eligible for prod. Gigs (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Gigs, can you please show me where it says in the policy that you can't reprod an article even if it is substantially different from an old version which had been prod'ed? The only thing I can find in WP:PROD is that if someone removes a prod, it should not be re-added over his objection, including a bad faith one. But that does not mean that the article's title is forever immune to prods, even the creator has left, perhaps after stubbing the page, and the article re-written from scratch, for example. Crum375 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
"Confirm that the article is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that it has: * not previously been proposed for deletion." Gigs (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. While I think that's illogical, e.g. in the case the article has been stubbed and rewritten from scratch, we'll leave that issue for another day. The point here however, is that it's a different type of prod mechanism, not in conflict with WP:PROD. Crum375 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that ordinarily replacing a sticky prod with a prod would be counter-intuitive, I can see occasions when it might be appropriate - for example if a link was added to source indicating that the person was no longer alive and never really notable. But I'm not convinced that a sticky prod is really still a prod, so may I suggest that we watch what happens in a trial period? ϢereSpielChequers 13:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, it's definitely not a showstopper. We can wait to see if it's an issue in practice. I just think traditional prodding doesn't make much sense if someone has already objected to deletion once by adding the source, and it's a little bitey/confusing. After a month or so we'll have a better handle on whether it's causing confusion or not. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to go?

I've been bold and marked this as policy. I realise the wording of this page is still being discussed a bit - but frankly with any new process that's likely to continue for a few weeks as the thing beds down anyway.

Is there any substantive reason that I've missed, that necessitates any further delay here? Otherwise, can we get it moving now. As I say, I suspect that we'll find a few more problems to iron out as it begins to run, but that's to be expected.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

My two objections have been raised in the two sections I just added here. Neither of them are major enough to hold up the deployment. I support your change. Gigs (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm good with your version. SlimVirgin talk contribs 12:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not see a consensus for 7 days -- indeed the consensus appeared to be for 14 days. I would ask that the number of days be changed to conform with what appeared to be the consensus. Collect (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that 7 days duration had the largest number of votes among those who participated. Crum375 (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia policy, a consensus is not drawn from a simple majority of a numerical poll. In this case, the consensus was drawn from an average of the number of days of all the suggestions (barring one humourous exaggeration). Do we really need to have a consensus to agree the results of a consensus? It begs the question: How many people joining this issue in the last four days for the first time, have actually taken the trouble to rewind and get up to date?--Kudpung (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest to go easy for now, i.e. not too many nominations in the next few days. But yes, this is good enough to go, and we need to see how it goes at this point. Cenarium (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Go go go...
Over 4 months of discussion and still arguing. We launch it and we adjust wording & practices with the return of experience. --KrebMarkt 14:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Precisely KrebMarkt, and BTW for anyone who forgot, the sticky time according to the consensus was 10 days.--Kudpung (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Other policies 2

"This proposal does not affect the discretion extended to administrators under the BLP policy to delete any BLP where the page's primary content is unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material; where there is no obvious way to fix it; and there is no previous version of the page that is policy compliant; see this section of the BLP policy for more details."

The scope of this discretion is highly contentious, and there's no reason to mention it in this policy. The preceding sentence clearly states that this policy does not alter "existing deletion processes". That is very sufficient to encompass any discretionary deletion. Gigs (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Immediate deletion of badly sourced negative BLPs may be unpopular but it is clearly policy.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Negative BLPs are a different matter entirely, and G10 enjoys wide support. I don't think we should mention G10 either though. A general note that this alters no existing deletion process is sufficient without calling any of them out. Gigs (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It's part of the BLP policy. Admins looking at this policy will be glad to see this information, rather than having to go elsewhere to hunt for it, or wonder whether it no longer applies. The policies can't contradict each other, or even seem to, and it's normal when writing policy to refer to other relevant policy provisions to make clear there's no clash. SlimVirgin talk contribs 12:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
That wording is a change that you recently made to the BLP policy that may or may not reflect wider consensus. The validity of that line is currently being discussed at WT:CSD. Quoting contentious policy that you yourself wrote in another policy only serves to lend it improper validity. Gigs (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't add that and you know I didn't. I recently copy edited the page. Before the edit, it said, "If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion ... Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard." [5]
After my copy edit, it said: "If the page's primary content is contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; there is no obvious way to fix it; and there is no previous version of the page that is policy compliant, it may be necessary for an administrator to delete the page." [6]
There is no difference between these, except that the second is tighter. SlimVirgin talk contribs 12:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that. I do think your wording change changed the meaning slightly. Regardless, it's not clear at all that there is community consensus for an "unwritten" speedy deletion criteria that extends past what G10 and IAR allow. Since there's no compelling reason to mention this here, we should take it out. Removing it won't change the meaning of that paragraph, which already clearly states that this doesn't affect other deletion routes. Gigs (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It has been in BLP for ages. BLP is a core content policy, one of the most supported policies on WP. Gigs, you're trying to undermine admin deletions. You've made that clear here, and you've made it clear on the BLP talk page, and it's because of things like that that I got very concerned when I saw who was involved in developing this policy. If there's no attempt to undermine the policy, I'm happy to see prods this and prods that developed, and you'll never see me trying to interfere. So if you don't want me hanging around, pls leave the policy intact, and allow us to refer to it when it's relevant. SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Bullshit. You have been trying to insert and push a policy basis for out of process deletion that the community has soundly rejected. You've even gone as far as obstructing the creation of orderly processes like this one, which frankly were ready to go before you came in here screaming that we had to start over because you didn't get a chance to participate. Gigs (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm tired of the attacks and the straw men, Gigs, which you've been posting to two pages at least. Please give it a rest. I'm fine with the current version and happy to bow out now, so you're rid of me at last. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing here was ever designed to undermine any existing process. Gigs (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Specific number of days

There appears to be a valid question as to whether the mode is the correct value for consensus, the median or the mean. It appears that the easiest method of resolving that issue is to offer a "limited ballot" for what appears to me the "currently most favored values" to establish consensus. I therefore would suggest that the values at issue are reduced to 7, 10 and 14 days ... Collect (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't care as long as it is 7 or more. Polling is particularly bad for determining something like a number, since the choices are infinite. Gigs (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Though I supported 7 days I don't see that it would be helpful to reopen this now - or that we would be as likely to get as many responses as we did before. So please count me in the "Can live with any of those options but want to get the process started" camp. There are fundamental issues that divide us on this, but I don't see anyone arguing that ten days makes it unworkable, whilst we do have seemingly insuperable divides over wp:before and also over whether this is for unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs (If someone does think that this is a dealbreaker, and that ten days can't be made to work. my apologies, but please tell me why you think ten days can't work). ϢereSpielChequers 13:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Compromise I'm a strong supporter of 7 days. But lets start here.

  1. Everyone agrees that such articles may certainly be deleted beyond 14 days. So, if nothing else we could simply start things there - there's no need for delay.
  2. Unless someone can demonstrate there' more than a couple of strong objections, then why not start with 10 days as a "reasonable compromise"?
  3. Those of us who'd prefer 7 (and I personally think that may be most) can try to demonstrate a consensus for that, and shorten the time if/when we can.

--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I prefer seven, because it makes sense to keep it in line with the current prod, but it's not something I'd lodge an objection over. SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. My point is that if people are screaming for a poll to determine consensus, we can stick a longer date in for the meantime. There's no need to delay waiting for consensus.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia policy, a consensus is not drawn from a simple majority of a numerical poll. In this case, the consensus was drawn from an average of the number of days of all the suggestions (barring one humourous exaggeration). The poll ran for several days followed by a significant number of days when it attracted no further comments. IMO the consensus was carried out correctly, agreed by all concerned, and correctly closed without complaint. Do we really need to have a consensus to agree the results of a consensus? It begs the question: How many people joining this issue in the last four days for the first time, have actually taken the trouble to rewind and get up to date? To me it looks like yet another attempt to reopen the RfC again by those who couldn't be bothered to participate earlier.--Kudpung (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Eh? Note my earlier comments in many places. I suggest 14 days unless and until a specific consensus for a set number of days is arrived at. The doscussion above appeared to be set at either 10 or 14 days - using the least number of days as "consensus" appears to be errant. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

10 days please. That's what was agreed to before and I see no change in consensus here. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not even close to ready yet.

Issues include:

  1. Do any relevant sources protect the article from the sticky prod or only reliable ones? The current policy says any, but folks here keep claiming only reliable, including the person who made it policy. Pick one. This is a huge issue.
  2. I personally feel a link to WP:BEFORE is appropriate and was indicated as having consensus in the discussion.
  3. A few folks, myself included, feel this belongs at WP:DEL as a (small) section rather than as a stand-alone policy.
  4. In all cases if this is the wording we are going with I'm going to ask for an RfC on the policy as written. This is what we generally do and I see no reason not to do it here. The rather strong back-and-forth on this page hints strongly at a lack of consensus for the details.

Hobit (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I specifically reject holding another RfC. Gigs (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
You may reject it, but it is the standard thing to do. In particular if people are really claiming we need the article to be well sourced rather than just sourced (which the last RfC rejected) we've got a problem. Even without, there has been a huge amount of discussion and since the RfC and a lot of details hammered out. To claim that RfC provided endorsement of this policy is off base. Hobit (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything about "well sourced". It specifically says "one reliable source", which seems reasonable to me. Gigs (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
For **** sake. We've had two RFCs and a clear consensus here. I've had enough of this filibustering by people who object to the basic premise. This is a very small change to BLP process and has taken a ridiculous three months of vocal minorities resisting at every turn. Frankly, I've had enough. The consensus was a working sticky prod as an alternative to the speedy deletions - and no other action for three months as that beds down. It looks to me like a small number of people are determined to wreck that agreement - I've been very patient here, but I'm almost ready to give up and resume speedy deletions. It can't be argued we didn't try to find an alternative.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hobit, the current version doesn't say any source, it says reliable: "... these articles must contain a reliable source directly supporting the material in question ..." SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
In the section that describes when to apply the sticky prod it says "If you see an article about a living people without references". not "without reliable sources". Those are very different things. Hobit (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It means the same thing. SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Considering that you cannot reference an unreliable source, no, there is no difference. NW (Talk) 13:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Re to Scott. This process had started, tags were being applied, as far as I'm aware it was stopped by people trying to extend the process from unsourced to poorly sourced BLPs. If the process had been stopped by those who don't want a deletionist solution then I could understand you being frustrated. But the current arguments are mainly as to whether we go with a solution that is somewhat beyond the RFC in that it doesn't oblige taggers to first try and source an article, or a long way beyond the RFC in that we extend the process to poorly sourced articles. As I remember it the January deletion spree was of completely unsourced articles - and that has somewhat influenced the subsequent agenda. ϢereSpielChequers 13:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
At this point it doesn't really matter who did what. Lets just get this going again. Gigs (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Gigs. WereSpiel, I'm not sure I really understand your concern. Just one relevant reliable source is needed, then the article isn't unsourced anymore. SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection to the idea that removing the tag requires a reliable source - though I suspect we will get into interesting discussions as to how gently one handles newbies who regard someone's own website as a reliable source. My concern is with the phrase "All improperly sourced articles about living people may be subject to deletion per the standard deletion processes, but in addition, in order to enforce a quality standard for biographies of living people, those created after 18 March 2010 that do not contain at least one reliable source directly supporting the material may also be proposed for deletion under this new process." As I consider that the section that I've put in bold would widen this from unsourced articles to poorly sourced articles. ϢereSpielChequers 13:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
OTOH, if the article is "sourced" from a wikimirror, or a myspace site, we don't want to tie our hands. Rule of thumb is that if any regular wikipedian believes at least one of the sources to be legitimate, then blpprod is not the way to go.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
My definition of "poorly sourced" is that there is at least one source that supports some of the claims in the article but not all of them. In that case we should not be using BLP PROD. As for self-published... if it's a university bio or an "official" site for someone famous, I usually accept that even though it's not really independent. Myspace and purely personal sites I usually consider unsourced still. I'm not saying these standards are the ones everyone uses, but that's my thought process at least. Gigs (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd roughly agree with you. I don't think we can define this at the borderlines - but most of the time reasonavble people will agree. The odd occasion will need some discussion, and that's OK.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to recapitulate in a new thread on the validity of sources. I've no objection to tagging as policy if we allow more leeway for changes for some time than we do for established policies, as this is still new and some points are unsettled. Cenarium (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hobit, WP:BEFORE has been thrashed out and put to bed a long time ago already. Please read the three hours of previous debate before raising topics from the dead. Otherwise we'll have all the latecomers here all wanting to re-debate it as well.--Kudpung (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. 1 I'm not a late comer. I'm someone who got frustrated with what I saw as railroading of the discussion. What Risker did was utterly unacceptable -- she's been highly involved in the issue since I first heard about it. She's admitted to being off-site canvased about BLPs in the past and !voting based on that, and she was part of the group that issued the ruling about BLPs that started this mess. In any case, I figured I'd let you all develop something which wouldn't be acceptable to the editors-as-a-whole and then let it get shot down at that point. Instead people are claiming they can greatly overreach what the RfC did and _still_ not need a wider discussion. Holy cow. And if that's not enough, we have admins claiming they will just go on a deletion spree if they don't get their way. Come on now, this whole process is badly broken. If you think it's not, what's the harm in holding an up/down RfC on the policy which you all still haven't figured out yet even though it's policy (what counts as a sourced article is not clear to the folks on this page and yet that's central to the whole thing). This whole thing is a disaster. Hobit (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Validity of a source

There are disagreements, or the wording is unclear or interpreted differently, on what constitutes valid source to prevent deletion under this process. We should also make sure not to create a contradicting situation where it is not appropriate to blp-prod an article because there is a valid source to prevent it, but if prodded it is not appropriate to be deprodded because the source is not valid to cancel the process, and vice versa; that is, the provision on the validity of a source to cancel an already applied prod should be the same as the one to prevent prodding in the first place. This needs to be settled. I think the main question is:

  • To which extent the source should support the article's content ?
It should not be required that the source(s) support all of the article's content, as consensus developed in the RFC for unsourced articles, which undeniably can't extend to incompletely sourced articles. On the other hand, a source which makes a completely trivial mention of the subject, e.g. only by name in a list, should probably not be considered valid. So we should present a wording which reflects this, what about something along the line of supporting a non-trivial part of the article's content ?

The wordings in question are:

  1. (lead) "these articles must contain a reliable source directly supporting the material in question before the tag can be removed."
    It's unclear because the material in question is undefined, is it all of the content ? Suggest to change to a non-trivial part of the material or something along those lines.
  2. (1st section) "that do not contain at least one reliable source directly supporting the material"
    Suggest to change to non-trivial part or similar.
  3. (2nd section) "an article about a living people without references"
    The wording may need to be changed as too imprecise, though the question of when to prod is already covered above.
  4. (3rd section) "To be cancelled, this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that directly supports the article's contents."
    It can be interpreted as meaning that the source should support all of the article's content, same remark as above. Suggest "that directly supports a non-trivial part of the article's content".

As to whether the source should be reliable, keeping in mind that the reliability of a source depends on the content it supports, it seems appropriate to require this in line with content policies. There were consensus against extending this special prod to badly poorly sourced articles, but badly in the sense not enough supported by reliable sources, I think.

There are a few cases where the validity of a source may be disputed, maybe we should see about how to handle those cases. Cenarium (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I support clarification to say that the source "must directly support at least some of the claims in the article". I don't think we should try to define what is too little or say trivial vs non-trivial. Gigs (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
And I would like an agreement that primary sources are acceptable. University or corporate bios etc. I also think that sources like IMDB should be acceptable to things like "bob was in movie X". Hobit (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Why not do this negatively. The basic premise should be "any source means it is not unsourced" - but then we agree a limited number of exceptions - types of sources where there is already a wide agreement that they are unacceptable as the sole source on an article? Examples would be 1) wikis and other user editable sites. 2) Wikipedia mirrors 3) myspace and other personal websites 4) youtube uploads. Remember that we are not saying these things can never be used as sources, just they they can't be the sole source for an article. Actually, I'd say imdb is also an instance that it is always insufficient as the sole source of an article. --Scott Mac (Doc) 15:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me we have already had this discussion - a dozen times. Unsourced is no sources right? Unsourced should, IMO, include article that have sources that a re not sources, such as ones that are fictive, totally unreliable, and/or only vaguely connected. A source that is an article about someone or something else, and where our Lp is only named without further context cannot be classed as reliable. I think unsourced, or lacking in reliable, verifiable sources is what we are looking for, and the rest is common sense. I've already said that I don't consider the IMDB to be reliable, just asI don't consider any open collaborative websites or directories to be reliable. ironically,based on that assumption, the Wikipedia is not reliable.--Kudpung (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
So we're saying that sourcing "Bob is an actor who was in movie Foo" is considered to be unsourced if IMDB is listed as a source? I think the definition of "unsourced" is being bent pretty darn far. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion is one thing, but this needs to materialize in the policy. Cenarium (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I think something like IMDB is the minimum level of sourcing that I would accept as valid and requiring an AFD.Kudpung immediately above me is right, though, this has been discussed dozens of times. We need to distill that list of unreliable sources you suggest into some sort of concise phrase for the template. We can expand on it further in the process page. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)IMDB filmography/credits listings are somewhat reliable, as they are reviewed by staff, and mostly just a summary of on-screen credits (which themselves are a valid primary source). Nothing else at IMDB is reliable. Regarding listing unreliable sources, I think that's a very slippery slope, and I don't want to wind up with a mini version of WP:RS inside this. I'm comfortable with leaving the word "reliable" in here and discussing it on a case by case basis when the need arises. I do think that we should address Hobit's other point about the amount of claims in the article that are sourced, and I still support the change to "should directly support at least some of the claims in the article" rather than the more vague wording that's out there now that might lead some to believe we need full sourcing. Gigs (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Realizing everyone feels I'm stalling, I _really_ don't think this should be policy at the moment. #1 the RfC didn't generate consensus for putting a stick prod on "poorly sourced" articles. I'd personally say any source which would be acceptable in an article (including primary sources which we use all the time though they don't help with notability) should be acceptable. #2 We don't agree among ourselves what counts and what doesn't. That's a show stopper for something like this. So even if you stretch the previous RfC greatly to include "poorly sourced" article, we don't even know what that means. At _least_ let's get that agreed to before we start using this policy. Hobit (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
While I don't personally regard IMDB as reliable in strict interpretation of RS, like everything else, there is always a grey area in which I am certain that most editors will apply common sense. As I have mentioned previously in this discussion (the part of which now appears to have been archived) there will always be the adolescents who are in a race to increase their edit count by tagging without doing WP:BEFORE, and there are also the editors, no more intelligent, who firmly believe that a high edit count is the path to adminship. We will be able to call such indiscretions gently to order on-the fly as required, just as we will be looking out for indiscriminate removal of the sticky prod. It will inevitably take time for other editors and/or patrollers to acquaint themselves withy the new prod, and those of us who have discussed it or helped to develop it will always, I'm sure, be on call for advice. I think we really need to get the show on road now.--Kudpung (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
So we are saying it needs a source that meets the requirements of WP:RS, not just verifiable. Correct? Hobit (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I went ahead and changed "supports the material in question" to "supports at least some of the claims in the article". If someone can think of a better wording then do it, but the old wording is pretty vague as was pointed out. Gigs (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP prod --> prod

Currently, the page reads:

If a valid source has been provided and the {{prod blp}} removed but you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, you can use the regular Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process, or list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

If someone contests the {{prod blp}}, I think they're also contesting a general {{prod}}. So the option would only be AFD. To have people tag the page, have it untagged, and then have it re-tagged with a more generic prod seems like a recipe for pissing off editors. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I raised the same point above (#Reprodding). I don't think we should allow reprod after a BLP PROD is validly contested with a source. I'm willing to wait and see if it causes actual problems, but like I said up there it seems kind of bitey/confusing. Gigs (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it to this:

If a valid source has been provided and the {{prod blp}} removed but you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, you can use the regular deletion processes, including listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

This is more general, and in line with the other sections. Crum375 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I think re-prodding should be explicitly ruled out.
Agree that AfD is the way to go in such cases. --KrebMarkt 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A regular prod would still be permissible in some instances. We may have an unsourced BLP, which gets BLPproded. Someone finds a source and adds it, so removes the BLP prod. However, that does not mean the person objects to deletion, it merely means they don't think it is unsourced. Someone may still prod with "despite the sourcing, this is still not notable" and everyone may agree (including the sourcer). It cannot be assumed someone removing a BLPprod is "objecting to deletion".--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a real corner case that would be fine for AfD. I can't see people going around sourcing articles they think should be deleted. Gigs (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no that will definitely happen. There's plenty of people who don't look past form-filling and will remove a BLPprod on "proceedural grounds" because "there is a source there", even when they'd agree the article is not notable. BLPprod is to do with sourcing - not notability. So there's no reason someone should not prod on notability grounds afterwards. These are two seperate processes. If you want to combine them you'd need to put an instructing on saying "do not unprod this article unless it is a) sources b) one you think should be kept". This process does not interfere with regular prodding. Mixing them will cause confusion and lacks consensus.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, are you OK with the current wording that doesn't encourage reprodding but also doesn't explicitly forbid it? Gigs (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

undeletion

"If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted only after reliable sourcing is provided in compliance with all applicable content policies. The undeletion can be requested through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion."

Are we saying the article must be fully sourced to be undeleted? Really? If not, what are we saying that requires the language to be different than the "contesting" the PROD? Hobit (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how that got changed. It was supposed to say "when an editor is willing to provide a reliable source". I'll revert it to the version that had consensus. Gigs (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that undeletion in this context means userfy, in which case the problem is irrelevant, because as soon as the article is moved to main space, an NAP will pounce on it (we hope). --Kudpung (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope that undeletion does not mean userfy except when someone undeletes a page to become someone's userpage as I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of unreferenced BLPs in userspace. However I do think it would be appropriate for the undeleting admin to reset the clock on the sticky prod, not least because an article restored by an admin is not going to be picked up by newpage patrol. Happy with "when an editor is willing to provide a reliable source" though. ϢereSpielChequers 18:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
An admin shouldn't be restoring anything that is still eligible for sticky prod, so I'm not sure what you mean by "reset the clock". Gigs (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well unless anything has radically changed since I last looked at the template, yes an admin should restore these articles if someone offers to reference them. At the point when the article is restored it will still be unreferenced as it can't be referenced whilst deleted. However the 7 or ten day period will have expired. So resetting the clock if only by 24 hours will give the person who has offered to reference it time to do so. ϢereSpielChequers 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Poorly sourced

As WP:BLP states: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
Although it seems to have been in use for some time, I don't know where the expression poorly sourced originated, and the irony is that it conveys as much accuracy as the rhetorical questions How long is a piece of string?, or How deep is water? In other words poorly sourced doesn't mean anything at all. An article is either correctly sourced within the meaning of WP:RS (with the exception of the vague poorly sourced), and WP:V, or it isn't. A source that does not contain a reference to the subject is not a poor source - it is simply not a source. Likewise, I would be inclined not to accord the benefit of doubt to an inaccurate, fictive, volatile, or collaborative source, or a blog. Common sense will surely be applied therefore in deciding whether to CSD, AfD or sticky tag an article, so let's remind ourselves that we always have CSD and AfD to fall back on in case of doubt.
The sticky prod will dissappear when either: 1. The article has been deleted after its 10 days, or 2. Someone has added a source.
In the case of #2, surely someone will verify that not simply an unreliable source has been added by the article's creator just to escape deletion? Thus, have we somewhere suggested that a bot should let someone know that "a source has been added to article XXXXXX" ? - for later, of course. For now, let's get the thing on the road.--Kudpung (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC) BTW: If SV really wants something to get her policy teeth into, with poorly sourced now there's a suggestion :) --Kudpung (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, note that your quote is for contentious material. Secondly, we need to figure out what is expected as far as sourcing goes. Is a primary source acceptable? When? If this is a Boolean thing it should be as clear cut as CSD. This isn't close. If it requires judgment, it should go to AfD. Hobit (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Clearly it has to be a reliable source (ideally sources) that verify something that is actually in the article. Ideally they would verify the bulk of the article, or at least any contentious statements and enough uncontentious ones to establish notability. Even though the RfC didn't arrive at an answer here I think we need to spell out some standard. I see no problem with leaving it fairly general and leaving it to the discretion of a reviewing administrator. Someone whose article is deleted for being poorly sourced can't really complain, that's like complaining for getting a ticket for driving 80 miles an hour when you were actually driving only 78. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I think one of our problems has been to work with the same standard for both applying the tag and removing it. I'm comfortable with a much stricter standard for removing the tag than for applying it as either the article is being rescued by someone who knows that blps need a reliable source or by someone who is in the process of learning that. So whilst we don't have a mandate from the RFC to delete poorly sourced BLPs I do think we can set rules that once tagged an unsourced BLP has to be reliably sourced or deleted or redirected to a band or cast list or recategorised as fictional, inanimate or deceased. ϢereSpielChequers 11:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum's edits

Just stop it. Injecting your personal ideas into this without discussion is making it impossible to stabilize the policy. Gigs (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hobit, sorry I didn't mean to rollback you, I'm on my macbook and it's easy to slip. Gigs (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I was a bit confused for 2 seconds but I got over it :-) Hobit (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your edit, in any case. This is no place for "advertising" other controversial policies. Gigs (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum: Two issues: #1 Please be careful in your edits, you are messing random things up that are unrelated to what you are trying for. #2 Just because that section was there (one of the times) this became labeled as policy doesn't give it magical protection. Please discuss. Hobit (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is now policy. You can't go in making major changes without talk page consensus. Crum375 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
No, neither you nor anyone else get's to lock in a discussion by picking the time it becomes policy.Hobit (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is "locked in". But once a page becomes policy, it can't see-saw between different versions. If you'd like to make major changes, please gain talk page consensus. Crum375 (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's 2 to 1. Does that count? Hobit (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
And also, I don't see you reverting the 7 vs. 10 days thing. Do you feel there was consensus for that too? Hobit (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there was consensus for the 7 days. It was the number most RfC participants wanted, the number we agreed on here when the page was made policy, and the number for regular prod policy. Also, nobody has been able to explain to me why two similar mechanisms need different numbers. Crum375 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It also A) wasn't how the discussion was closed and B) wasn't the number when it first became policy. If I unmake it policy can we reset then? Hobit (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't remove the policy tag. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
No planning on it. But to claim that the instant someone added the tag the rules of the discussion changed is fairly bogus. Hobit (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK, Wikipedia policy does not allow unilateral changes to items that have been decided by consensus. That consensus was wrapped up as 10 days. There were no objections from the participants in the poll. Any changes to the template with out discussion are disruptive editing. There is no clear justification for a new poll, and I will revert it to the 10 days that were agreed.--Kudpung (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I support blocking anyone who changes it from 10 days without clear new consensus for something different. FFS this is getting ridiculous. Make sure you update all the templates as well (including the warning). Gigs (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
{{dated blp prod}} has been changed to 10 days now. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 05:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiple templates

There are lots of these unsourced and poorly sourced BLPs, and templates are cheap. Why don't we go with two, or better three templates?

  1. Unsourced New BLP - which could go live now.
  2. poorly sourced New BLP - which is going to take some more work and negotiation, though could go live now as a variant of {{refimproveBLP}}
  3. Primary source BLP - which we logically also need, but might well not be a prod at all - just a tailored version of {{primarysources}}.

The advantages of three separate templates are that we can give the very different messages that we want to convey in those circumstances. The disadvantage of going live with an unreferenced BLP template that can be applied to badly referenced articles is that newbies who have included a reference in an article are likely to feel perfectly justified in removing an unreferenced tag; But a specific note about primary sources will sometimes prompt them to fix the article. I'm also keen that we give our newpage patrollers a viable clear system, I see lots of mistakes at newpage patrol as it is, and if we go ahead with unsourcedBLP (unsourced means no reliable source) I predict that today's debate about when a source is so bad as to constitute an unsourced article will be recurring on a daily basis. ϢereSpielChequers 18:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. I'd prefer #2 not be sticky (and certainly _it_ should have a broader discussion if people want it to be sticky) but that would solve 75% of my issues. Hobit (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not enormously bothered whether we make new poorly sourced BLPs a sticky prod or merely a cleanup tag. What I do want is to get Unsourced New BLP running and to make newpage patrol less bitey for both newbies and patrollers. I think that would be best for the community, for the pedia and for the people whose details we are plastering over the Internet. ϢereSpielChequers 19:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Prod

I've just had a crack with this template on the mainspace but the notification template on user talk pages doesn't seem to work?[7] Have I mis-used the template or is there a problem with the template. In any case, I look forward to seeing this built into Twinkle. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no redirect from that capitalization. Also there was a proposed template still on there that needed to go. I fixed it. Gigs (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

Just giving a gentle reminder here: At the RFC, it was decided that in 3 months, there would be a review of the progress (or lack thereof) made, at which time we would decide if sterner measures are required. That was on 7 March 2010, and nearly a third of that time has expired with little progress made. I very strongly suggest that editors here figure something out quickly, because many of us (including myself) don't want to see more draconian measures taken in two months. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's already been added to WP:BLP. If someone wants to unprotect WP:DEL and put it in, and let Amalthea know that it's safe to turn on in Twinkle, then I'd say we are as done as we need to be. Gigs (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd certainly object to moving it any farther at this point. Give it a day or two to settle out. Also, will Twinkle be auto-checking if the BLP creation date allows for this? I've seen Friendly folks tagging things incorrectly already... Hobit (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Amalthea didn't want to make it do a fatal abort because you might want to sticky prod an old redirect which was only recently turned into an unsourced BLP. He suggested a warning dialog that must be confirmed if the article was older than the cutoff. I recommended that such a dialog be added. The discussion is over at WT:TWINKLE#BLP_Prod. Go put in your two cents. Gigs (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Users with new unsourced Biographies of Living People under review

The category for users with Sticky-prodded articles does not depopulate when someone removes the prod. This is going to render it pretty useless in the long run. Can someone code up a bot task to nuke the categories when sticky-prod is removed? Gigs (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the point in the category?--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
List of people to wag your finger at, I guess. User:Doncram added it a few days ago. I'll let him know. Gigs (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's needed in the long run. I don't see much purpose in it, unlike those added by spam or promotion warning templates which can be helpful for tracking purposes. However, we may want to see how blp prods are received at the beginning, and this is a way to find out, so I propose we keep it for now then remove and delete it after a few days. Cenarium (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep, i created the category by accident at first, but it has some use for the moment, perhaps. I believe it is currently the only or most efficient way to navigate between Sticky-prodded articles. As covered in discussion sections above, I tried to added a category for Sticky-prodded articles, and at one point i added the tag to the wrong template, where it was obviously mis-named. There was (and AFAIK still is) no category for the sticky-prodded articles, but i fixed the label of this category to describe the User talk pages. I agree it should not stay as a permanent characteristic of the user Talk pages; i only envisioned it being of temporary use to identify current users (and enable navigation to all the current sticky-prodded articles). Since 10 days has not gone by, i think it is still an accurate label for all the user pages it groups together. --doncram (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it a cone of shame for new editors? Can't one just add a category to the sticky prod template? With conditional statements and such you can have all kinds of fun with categories. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It could be done that way too, although I've hidden the category so new users won't notice it. Cenarium (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe not actually, because adding the category at the top of the page could mess up formatting and users would probably remove it. When removing the categories from userspace though, we'd better use a bot account, since minor bot edits don't trigger the new messages bar, and seeing the new messages bar for this would be quite confusing for newbies. Cenarium (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I tried to edit the sticky-prod template to add a category to it, but there's something i don't understand about it, so the category would not display. Perhaps someone else could add a category to the sticky-prod template, then there would be less need for the category being discussed here. --doncram (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Watch your Rs please

No pointing fingers but I think a number of people may have exceeded WP:3RR here. Kind of funny when you consider that this is a policy page. I think we should declare amnesty for anyone who got a little too enthusiastic but could we slow down the reverting? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Crikey

!!! :) A lot of activity here since I last checked in (top of page: move to subpage thingy)! Think I've lost trck of it all, anyway. I am involved in the MoS audit, in fact, so even my minimal involvement here will probably end now. Too many pies. Or is that fingers? Anyway, looks like progress is being made (with or without the usual off-topic levity/not-so-levity etc) --Jubileeclipman 21:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

over-stated

"at least one reliable source that directly supports the article's contents. " This is more than was agreed on, and gives the porential for dispute in what should be a smotth process. If there is a good faith source of any sort, the article is not unsourced. It may be poorly sourced, it may be appropriate to discuss and delete the article if nothing better can be found, but that is for afd. The present wording is not in conformity with the very limited consensus that brought this procedure into being. I consider it perfectly legitimate to remove a prod from an article that has any possibly acceptable source. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I have to agree with this. I hate unreliable sourcing. But I'm not comfortable making unilateral judgments myself about what are reliable; reliability depends so much on the context. Those judgments are best for AfD. Take this article on which I just removed my own BLP prod: David Huntsinger. The sources look questionable to me, but the author has made a good faith attempt to source the article and I can't be sure the sources are unreliable. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
If you think the source reliable, you can remove the BLPprod. But it would be disruptive to do so if you don't. Suggest a better form of words.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Note however I do agree that things like facebook and myspace should be unacceptable, full stop. It is the IMDB type sources that trouble me. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, like Scott said, we are at a loss for concise wording that conveys that without just saying "reliable". Ideas welcome. Gigs (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I was thinking of "a source independent of the subject". That's a clear objective line that can be drawn that at least cuts out self-published facebook garbage. But perhaps there are problems with that too. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
There are, because I think most people would accept a university bio, or company bio at a large company. Not independent but also not completely self published. Gigs (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I'd then suggest "a source not published by the subject" but that makes what should be a clear sentence a little unwieldy. I can certainly see your difficulties. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but if you read WP:SELFPUB #5 none of these are acceptable as the sole source for an article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I've never see anyone take SELFPUB #5 seriously. It's kind of a weird clause, that a source becomes acceptable based on what other sources are cited. As long as we have standards like WP:PROF and WP:ATH which don't require any secondary sources, SELFPUB #5 doesn't seem to mean much. (IMO those notability standards are broken, but that's a conversation for another day) Gigs (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If not any source is accepted then why not prod-blp all new blp articles with poor sources? I'm not with this position but I'm following the logic. Sole Soul (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This comes down to #Validity of a source above. The policy needs to be consistent, and the provisions for preventing a nomination and canceling a nomination should be the same. The lead states "at least one statement about the person that is supported by a reliable source", I think it's fine to work with and we should add this in the objecting section too. The level of reliability of the source needed is something that is hard to evaluate in general, it can be left to the editors' judgements, and in case of incertitude pointing to WP:RSN is a good idea, but in cases of dispute an AFD might be a better way to settle the matter. Something about this issue could be incorporated in the policy. It depends on what you call poor source, but if a source is unreliable it should be removed from the article anyway per content policies, so removing it then blp-prodding or blp-prodding alone is quite equivalent. Now this is not the same as poorly sourced articles, it is enough that the article includes a source that it reliable enough to support a statement about the person in the article to prevent deletion under this process, and even poorly sourced articles in most cases satisfy this. Cenarium (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I too like Father Goose's wording that's currently in the lede. Gigs (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've changed in the objecting section to the similar wording 'at least one source that is reliable enough to support a statement about the subject in the article', but it has been reverted by Crum375. There is strong opposition to the prior wording and it was not agreed. All prior discussions at #Validity of a source and above suggested to modify it in the sense I did. Cenarium (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Let's play devil's advocate. If the wording were changed to "at least one statement about the person that is supported by a source" (no mention of the quality of the source), what might happen?
    • No source is added, article is deleted.
    • A reliable source is added. The BLP prod tag is removed; other problems with the article might still need to be addressed.
    • An unreliable source is added -- say, myspace. The BLP prod tag is removed, but the prodder probably then sends it to AfD. What's the benefit of this scenario as opposed to the first two?--Father Goose (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable using an unstable policy that goes significantly beyond the RFC, and though I'm keen to resume using these tags, I've already participated in one false start of this policy and would rather not do so again. If certain people are determined to introduce a policy that goes beyond the RFC, what is the appropriate way to communicate this to the community, do we need a fresh RFC or can it just be announced at the village pump? (For the avoidance of doubt I support exempting these tags from wp:before and extending them to some types of poorly sourced articles, but I'm aware that both go beyond what was agreed in the RFC). ϢereSpielChequers 06:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Poll of the week club

What length of time should the tag remain on the article before it is deleted?

There was a poll held on this issue, which was closed less than two weeks ago (by myself): Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people/Archive_2#Length_of_time_before_deletion. No objections were raised at the time of the closure, suggesting that the closure was accepted by those who had participated in the poll.

In the closure, I suggested a compromise figure of 10 days, based on the median of the votes up to that point. In going with this compromise figure, nobody got exactly what they wanted, but everybody's vote still did form part of the final outcome, numerically.

I don't have a problem with the issue being revisited -- in my closure I suggested as much. But I am going to insist that if we do change the figure again, we do so only after another formal weighing of opinion (presumably a poll). I'm happy to let someone else close the next poll. But until that poll is held, we'll go with 10 days. Unilateral changes of the figure -- within such a narrow range that it makes so little difference anyway -- are just a source of pointless conflict that interfere with getting the process implemented.

For whomever wants to set up the next poll, be aware that you will have to form a consensus ahead of time for how the closure should be performed -- mode? median? average? closer's fiat? Also be aware that even if an actual consensus is formed for what figure should be used, it will be rejected by the next set of people who come along.

With that in mind, have fun setting up the next poll.--Father Goose (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to see this in action, at least for new BLPs Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Although Crum375 has once again unilaterally changed it to seven days, I prefer to observe 1RR and have already performed one revert, so I will not revert him at this time.--Father Goose (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The poll got about 31 suggestions (no multiple choice answers were proposed), and this number of participants was achieved only after begging people on their talk pages to participate after a hiatus of several days. Do we really want to go through tis again? Is the current consensus now that we should take several more months before we can implement the stick prod and the policy/policies that go with it?--Kudpung (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I changed it back to 10 days. This seems to be consensus, and a reasonable compromise between the two sides. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 03:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
There are two mentions of the time period in the policy, I'm not enormously bothered whether we go for 7 or 10 days or frankly at this stage anything longer than 24 hours and less than a month. But I do think that the lede should not contradict the later paragraphs, so as I supported 7 in the debate that settled on 10 days I hope no-one is offended that I've just changed the 7 in the start paragraph to match the 10 that was later on. If people are going to keep changing this please change both paragraphs at the same time, its bad enough that the policy is too unstable to use without it also being self-contradictory. ϢereSpielChequers 05:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I had done a search for the number 7, but not the word "seven". —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 17:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've requested 24 hours protection

[8]

No question about it, we're deep into edit warring territory. So, time to talk it through.--Father Goose (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose this. We have just launched a new policy. It needs tweeking as we go at many many levels. The edit warring needs to stop -but knocking heads together (by blocking if necessary) would be preferable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose also, let the policy at least exist for a few days to see how it is actioned, the wheels will not drop off. Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn.--Father Goose (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice one, lets see it in action and tweak any issues that arise in a few days, best. Off2riorob (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion should be made by an independent administrator

I had initially included "To ensure independent judgment, an article should not be deleted by the same person who added the {{prod blp}} tag.", as does WP:PROD. It has been removed on the basis that it should be a summary deletion after grace period. I think it should be restored, because the decision to delete may require some judgement for example if a source has been given but the initial prodder dismissed it as invalid and reinserted the prod or a source has been added but the prod not removed, etc. It is best to leave the decision to an independent party, and it's in line with prod and usual practice. Cenarium (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems a little creepy. Sure, if the deletion is likely to be controversial, then best to leave it to another. but if there's no reaction during the grace period, and zero sources - what's the problem?--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
"To ensure independent judgment, an article should not be deleted by the same person who added the {{prod}} tag." - from WP:PROD. It's good advice for any kind of prod. It's not like another admin can't handle the deletion, and it avoids potential COI issues.--Father Goose (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I reject the contrived idea that this is some extension of an existing summary deletion authority, and I suspect so would the community. This is an entirely new prod-like deletion process. It's becoming more and more clear that Crum's unilateral edits are disruptive. Gigs (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the community decided to adopt a prod-like process as opposed to a speedy-like or summary process with grace period, so standards from prod like deletion by another person should apply. Cenarium (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Some tweaks to the objection section

A few suggestions for the "Objections" section:

  1. this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source – I would change this to specify that the reliable source needs to be present in the article and not just present somewhere.
  2. The second line isn't clear whether a new tag should be added (i.e. resetting the timer), or if the old tag should be replaced.
  3. I would also suggest that for the tag to be removed, any source added must cover any negative or contentious material, or such material should be removed (along with adding a source). If someone can remove the deletion tag while the article still has an unsourced claim that the subject is a child molester, then this process will have failed.

-- Mr.Z-man 03:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

1. is how I've been reading it all along, adding "in the article" seems fine to me.
2. I think we've been operating under the assumption that the timer will not be reset after an improper de-prod, otherwise, someone could game that. If someone re-subst's the template, it's going to reset though, so they'll have to be careful to revert instead.
3. Any negative or contentious unsourced material should probably be removed at the time the tag is added in the first place, not allowed to linger through the prod process. Gigs (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
1. Agreed, good change.
2. The timer should not be reset (I don't think there would be any arguments about that). We should just undo the change, or re-insert the original if undo won't work.
3. Negative unsourced material should be removed on sight, per WP:BLP. We should probably add that statement to the Nomiating section, for clarity. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 03:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I made some changes to reflect these concerns. Gigs (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Unsourced contentious info should be removed immediately even if the deletion tag remain. Sole Soul (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Deleting" section

"1. The {{prod blp}} tag has been in place continuously for at least 10 days." Taken literally, one could prevent deletion by removing the tag periodically. I'm removing continuously, so if there are any objections, revert and let's discuss. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 05:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think one concern was that a prodder might remove what the deprodder had felt was a reasonable source. Clearly that would not be a desired state of affairs (and, yes, I have seen articles where an editor zealously removed sources and then proposed the article for deletion as being unsourced <g>). How might we avoid any such possibility? Collect (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

I'm not quite sure what's going on here. I removed the WP:BLP section. It seems unfathomable with such critical raised involvement concerns unresolved and at hand (see also WT:BLP) to go around implementing stuff from it. –Whitehorse1 09:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing the BLP section makes sense to me.
But if the sticky prod is being used, it might be good for other relevant pages to link here.
I'll try to figure out a general recap. Maurreen (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I've placed the {{Disputedtag}} linking to this discussion. Given the issue, in my view the sticky prod should not be being used. –Whitehorse1 10:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the "disputed" tag. We should have thought of that some time ago.
But I expect that stopping the use of the tag might be an uphill battle, and one in which I am not prepared to engage on either side. I do have some empathy for both sides of that question. Maurreen (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Just for clarity, it's used in its context of "[to] dispute [that] a page has properly been accorded policy status", from the template doc page. I should think the cleanup of immediate removal & cessation of further present use is in large part an administrator responsibility. –Whitehorse1 11:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
As far as what's going on, does my "Points of contention" section below help?
In the archive section, I mention an earlier consensus.
I'd like to do more, but I'm running out of energy and can't make any promises. Maurreen (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

← No, they're not the same topics. Any consensus is in question. As linked above, this is about the matter of implementing with fundamental unresolved issues of concern that relate to WP:INVOLVED. –Whitehorse1 12:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that you doubt the validity of the RFC conclusion that is the basis for the sticky prod?
If so, I don't know what to tell you. Maurreen (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Please clarify whether or not you've read the linked discussion in the 1st comment of this section, so I can suitably reply. –Whitehorse1 12:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't kept up with the changes at the BLP page since the early discussion was consolidated here. Maurreen (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
You may've seen it, you may not. The linked section is topmost on that page, you've commented in the sections below. It was among discussion on wt:blp in the last few days as well. The issue in question is closer uninvolved status; as you know, the 1st phase closure shaped the focuses of the 2nd. –Whitehorse1 12:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


As of this morning, WP:UNINVOLVED is still part of Wikipedia:Administrators, which is established Policy.

These are some of the factors that bear on the involved question of the close by Risker. This is absolutely not what I'm used to doing, so presentation may not be ideal:

  • participated as an arbitrator in a closely related full case (point-making, blps among issues)
  • apparently helped User:Lar set up an earlier (and focused on the same category of articles) contentious venture multiple people characterized as a point violation or contradiction of our principles
  • participated as an arbitrator in a closely related motion (' “BLP deletions” summary motion') in which people discussed the matters concerned with terms like disrupt or point
  • creator–initiator of RfC was the party in the full case;
  • voting on case points the same day as closing the RfC; case didn't end until 4 days later
  • two weeks before declined to hear the full case as sanctions inappropriate; case went ahead nonetheless
  • two days after declining, voted in support or 'endorse' of the "BLP deletions" summary motion
  • the next day, on the motion twice commenting to say the actions were 'required' plus 'hoped to see some form of "protected" prodding'; motion passed same day
  • in the RfC close statement wrote (even bolded, only non-heading words bolded in entire statement), "there is a surprisingly clear consensus that some form of BLP-PROD is the preferred method of addressing unsourced BLPs."


I have not hurled around accusations. To enquire about the closer's participation in related matters possibly raising the issue of being "involved", is reasonable and legitimate. At all times, I have tried to address this sensitive issue with dignity and respect toward Risker. Twice, I posted on her talkpage asking her to weigh in on the issue. As she replied to messages above and below the section on her talkpage, later removing it, it appeared I was being ignored. When whoever edited it wrote "unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors" under Accountability in the Policy, they weren't kidding. –Whitehorse1 13:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


I am disappointed to see User:Scott MacDonald has made a personal attack against me, removing the {{Disputedtag|talk=Unresolved}} tag with "the policy tag already shows that some aspects are still under discussion ... (one or two malcontents doesn't change that)". I wonder if this is going to be ignored by administrators on this page. –Whitehorse1 13:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I guess I have my answer. Whitehorse1 22:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive housekeeping

The archives are now out of order. This includes, but is definitely not limited to:

  1. In general, the discussions in Archive 2 did not happen after the discussions in Archive 1.
  2. The "Already in use" section of Archive 1 starts with a note from 1 April and ends with a note from 10 March. Part of that section originated in some other section.
  3. In Archive 1, the "Already in use", which is from April, is followed by the "Opposition to workshop" section, which is from 7-10 March.

Does anyone want to work with me to carefully correct at least some of this? Maurreen (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Maurreen, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't archive or re-archive. Moving comments and archiving topically makes material hard to find. The current archives are fine as they are, and in future we can leave it to the bot. SlimVirgin talk contribs 09:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
SV, please be more consistent. You have made my own comments hard for me to find. Maurreen (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to get into this. I'm thinking only of the fact that archives were lost in this discussion, that for some reason discussion took place across multiple pages and were hard to follow, and that the MoS archives took literally years to recover. Discussions should occur chronologically, people comments shouldn't be moved across pages, either mid-discussion or after the fact, and archives should also be created chronologically. That way, people know where to look and can see things in context. My preference would be to leave things as they are, and to use the bot from now on. SlimVirgin talk contribs 10:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Would you please make any bot start with a new archive, No. 3, so at least one section will make sense? That way we can at least limit the damage already done and not add to any confusion. Maurreen (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that the bot will do that automatically, but I'll check that. SlimVirgin talk contribs 10:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I also point out that, intentionally or not, the archive hides the earlier discussion of the wording. There was a consensus summary that had agreement on the substance.
Chronologically, that discussion was immediately before Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Policy page?, which is now at the top of this page. But the archive now has five sections in between. Those five section were from three weeks before. Maurreen (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Disputed tag

what is disputed? It is at ten days, all is good, consider letting the policy alone for a fortnight and seeing it in operation. Off2riorob (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see section: Unresolved. –Whitehorse1 12:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Its no wonder nothing can get done, all this is is a way to stop uncited articles about living people from populating the wikipedia, why such resistance? Off2riorob (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not rail at me or imply disruptiveness or such things. I have raised a reasonable and legitimate question. –Whitehorse1 12:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the disputed tag should be removed, because Whitehorse is disputing the very idea of a sticky prod, saying that Risker, or The Wordsmith, or Father Goose didn't close the RfC properly. I don't think anyone agrees with that; it seems clear that people want this to go ahead. SlimVirgin talk contribs 12:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I would say so as well, why people don't like it is beyond me, it is totally beneficial and has community support, this dispute needs to stand back and allow the sticky prod to be used for a couple of weeks and then come here if there appears any wheel dropping off results. Off2riorob (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
That is extremely disturbing. –Whitehorse1 12:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with the policy as proposed, but I note that we haven't allowed time to judge consensus - therefore it's not adopted yet. I don't think a "disputed" tag is appropriate (because policies under development always generate differing opinions), but rather that it's under development, something suggested by a "proposed policy" tag. Let it wait a few days to sort out, then we can judge if there's consensus. With policy things need to gain acceptance, it's not shoot first and ask questions later. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
proposal mess
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Proposals subpage

To make it easier to follow discussion, I suggest posting proposals to /Proposals.

The next question is whether people should comment here or there. Maurreen (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No subpages please. We've had far too many pages and splits and renames - resulting in fewer people participating. I, for one, am watching too many pages already.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I will move them to the project page. Maurreen (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I've speedy tagged the proposals subpage for deletion, and removed the link at the top of this page to avoid any confustion. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 13:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposals section

Proposal 1

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Proposals

This had agreement on the substance among people who participated in the sticky prod workshop.

  1. Wikipedia now requires biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 to indicate at least one source. New unsourced biographies of living people can be proposed for deletion. Unlike standard proposed deletion, these articles must contain a source before the tag can be removed. If the article remains unsourced after 10 days (in contrast to 7 days for a regular proposed deletion), the articles can be deleted. After adding the deletion tag to an article, the user must notify the creator or main contributor.
  2. If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a source. The undeletion can be requested either through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
Maurreen (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I'm not so sure about the and/or aspect of creator/major contributor aspect.--Kudpung (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - per Kudpung --Jubileeclipman 15:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I am assuming that the said "source" is going to be required in the request for undeletion. Also I'm not that great at auto editing but has anybody brought up, or is it even a issue: "Let's say Huggle", is that program going to overlook these issues ? Is it going to be programed with the parameters to tag these BLP's ? Sorry if I took the lid off the worms, I just thought of this and it's been kinda hard to follow every conservsation. Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You may not have realized when you commented, because Maurreen's note to you failed to mention it, but we already have a comprehensive sticky prod policy in place on the page, and the proposals posted here are significantly inferior in my view. The policy does deal with the source issue you raised. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Mandatory notification was explicitly rejected in previous discussions. Trying to force it in now is incredibly inappropriate. Mr.Z-man 17:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Please provide the diff. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • comment Giving the deleting admin special status with regards to undeletion is a violation of WP:OWN and that always causes trouble in the long run.©Geni 00:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose previous discussions have rejected mandatory notifications.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2

This one is based on Proposal 1. But it adds No. 3, information that this does not affect other policies.

  1. Wikipedia now requires biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 to indicate at least one source. New unsourced biographies of living people can be proposed for deletion. Unlike standard proposed deletion, these articles must contain a source before the tag can be removed. If the article remains unsourced after 10 days (in contrast to 7 days for a regular proposed deletion), the articles can be deleted. After adding the deletion tag to an article, the user must notify the creator or main contributor.
  2. If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a source. The undeletion can be requested either through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
  3. This does not affect other policies.
Maurreen (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - as per proposal 1. --Kudpung (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - per Kudpung --Jubileeclipman 15:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Also as per proposal 1. Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose still no consensus to require notification, this has been discussed and rejected.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 3

This one is loosely based on Proposal 2. But whilst poorly sourced articles are not subject to this, rescuing them requires a reliable source, and the creator must be informed not just a major contributor

  1. Wikipedia requires that biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 must have at least one source, otherwise they may be proposed for deletion as "completely unsourced biographies of living people".
  2. Whoever adds this sort of deletion tag to an article must notify the creator and any major contributor.
  3. Anyone is welcome to rescue such articles, just add one wp:Reliable source and you may remove the deletion tag. If no-one adds a reliable source within 10 days then the article is liable to be deleted.
  4. Articles deleted this way will be undeleted if an editor offers to add a wp:Reliable source. This offer can be made either to the deleting administrator or at REFUND.
  5. This does not affect other policies.
ϢereSpielChequers 13:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Perhaps the prose could be improved slightly, but I think this covers the essential for us to live with it during a trial period. --Kudpung (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC) PS: Emphasis is on the 'and' in #2.--Kudpung (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - The most comprehensive proposal so far. Perhaps add that "source" in all cases means WP:RS and that the addition or prior existence of an RS ("source") invalidates the BLP-PROD tag and we are there --Jubileeclipman 15:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support with two reserves
    # Projects should be duly notified
    # Delay can be revised to 7 days if the return of experience demonstrates that 10 days are too much
    --KrebMarkt 16:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - As to Kudpung. Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support let's do this Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This is good. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already have a comprehensive sticky prod policy in place on the page, which Maurreen's canvassing note failed to mention, [9] and the proposals posted here are significantly inferior. In addition, the prod is up and working, and seems to have been set up well. I also want to make the point that it's highly irregular to set up a straw poll with such a biased description of the situation. SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
SV, you're so evidently keen on due diligence, why not just regard this poll in GF as a further reinforcement of the policy.--Kudpung (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • commment Again pretty good but we need to drop the special status of the deleting admin.©Geni 01:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose mandatory notification again, the tagger should should do so, but making it mandatory would byte us in the butt. Same problem as requiring users to look for sources.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 4

This is intended as a compromise between Proposals 2 & 3. It is intended to move toward the intent of No. 3 with less extension of what was stated in the RFC, etc. Maurreen (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedia requires that biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 must have at least one source, otherwise they may be proposed for deletion as "completely unsourced biographies of living people".
  2. Whoever adds this sort of deletion tag to an article must notify the creator and any major contributor.
  3. Anyone is welcome to rescue such articles, just add one relevant source and you may remove the deletion tag. If no-one adds a reliable source within 10 days then the article is liable to be deleted.
  4. Articles deleted this way will be undeleted if an editor offers to add a wp:Reliable source relevant source. This offer can be made either to the deleting administrator or at REFUND.
  5. This does not affect other policies.
  • Did you mean to say relevant source? ϢereSpielChequers 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, thanks very much. I missed that and have fixed it now. Maurreen (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - three proposals already cover sufficient eventualities. Oppose also the stiking of wp:Reliable source in favour of relevant source. 'Relevant' leaves the sytem open to the acceptance of blogs, social network sites, the IMDB, and all sorts of things we don't want.--Kudpung (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose mandatory notifications will lead to more wikilawyering and end up byting us in the process. Change it to "is encouraged to" or something along those lines and I'll actually read what the rest of this says...---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral canvassing

To encourage a broad consensus, I plan neutral canvassing. Below is the wording I plan.

"Hi. You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention.
"There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process.
"I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks." Maurreen (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Are there some usual places to post public notices, like village pump? How about a timetable? It's a holiday in much of the world today, right? Plus a weekend. Can we give it 5-7 days and try to conclude by then? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Wikidemon, five to seven days sounds good for me. Hopefully, we will recruit both the weekend editors and the weekday editors. I have started with the people who participated in the workshop earlier. But I'll also work on other central points, and just adjust the intro. Maurreen (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I have put it on the pump. It's already at WP:CENT. I don't remember how to get a message put on watchlists. Maurreen (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
That is not a neutral description because it links to two misleading threads you created, and doesn't even mention that a policy is already on the page, so I'd appreciate if you would refrain from posting it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, a leading and inappropriate message. Please don't stop posting it Maureen. Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
For one thing, I had put SV's apparently preferred version in the proposals section, and she removed it. For another thing, if you think my wording is not neutral, it would be helpful for you to suggest other wording. Etc. Maurreen (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
That's not my preferred version; my preferred version is something else entirely. What you tried to post here as a proposal is the policy. This kind of editing really isn't helpful, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop focusing on me. SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would follow your own advice. Maurreen (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Maurreen, canvassing: good idea - do you need any help? Here's a message that you can just copy and paste;

[[Image:Information.png|20px]] Hi ''{{PAGENAME}}'''! You participated earlier in the [[Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people | sticky prod workshop]]. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few [[Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Points of contention | points of contention]].<br>There are now a few [[Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Proposals section | proposals]] on the table to conclude the process. I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks."--~~~~
--Kudpung (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung, thanks very much for your offer to help. I'm trying to take a break and attend to my real life.
I started working through Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 1. I think I finished through Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 1#Template draft #2. I have been skipping people who have participated in the past 1-3 days.
The personalization coding is neat. Maurreen (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to organize a meaningful straw poll/RfC, the description will have to be completely neutral. People are now !voting without realizing there's a policy on the page and that BLP prods are already in use, because Maurreen posted a misleading message and didn't tell them. That means the results will be useless. SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any value n the voting above, it seems unclear. I had a look and couldn't understand what was being judged or what relevence it had to the current content on the policy page now, whether is was an addition to policy or an alteration or what it was. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. The vote Maurreen is asking for is tainted, and the choices incomprehensible. Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I go to bed with most of the issues settled, and I wake up to a new round of voting? Come on. Policy isn't made by getting everyone to agree on everything. We just go with something that mostly works, and it can change later. We have something that mostly works. I strongly reject another round of voting. Gigs (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mandatory notification?

What? I just noticed that this was part of the policy, where was there consensus that we should add loopholes like this? From what I recall, every discussion about requirements for taggers ended up with the result that we should strongly encourage, but not require, as getting these articles fixed is more important that jumping through bureaucratic hoops. Mr.Z-man 17:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it a loophole? In any case, I'm OK with making it "optional" as long as Twinkle does it by default. Gigs (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Well re-read that part and make your own conclusion. Part of the whole BLP compromise is based on the fact that every single unsourced BLP article will be given a fair chance to be sourced with notification to the relevant persons and projects as a key point in such process.
Now whatever it's done manually, semi-automated or bot-done notification, it isn't my concern just it has to be done or you can toss the whole BLP compromise in the sewers. Twinkle and the bots will have to catch up. --KrebMarkt 18:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not really any extra work. The prod template gives you something to copy and paste so you can quickly add it to the creator's talk page. SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Can we agree to similar language to that used in WP:PROD: "The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed article deletion, except for cases where contributors are no longer regarded as active editors on Wikipedia. This should be done by adding the {{subst:PRODWarning|Name of Article‎}} tag, or other appropriate text. Prodding an article via Twinkle will automatically inform the article's creator." —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 18:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The tag also says it's mandatory, so that would need to be changed too. See here for example. SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I think Mr. Z-man's concern is that by calling it mandatory someone might remove the BLP Prod without adding sources on the grounds that the notification wasn't done. At the very least, such process wonkery would be a troutable offense, and might be considered outright disruptive if done on a wide scale. Gigs (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the tag to say "Notification is strongly recommended" rather than "mandatory". —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 18:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Nods. If that wording can appease Mr. Z-man's concern, let's it be so. Mine is to have as many relevant editors aware that an article need to be fixed in due time. --KrebMarkt 19:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)Yes, that's exactly it. If its a requirement, then the tag could be removed if it isn't done. If the tag can't be removed for that, then it isn't a requirement. Mr.Z-man 19:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've changed the article to remove the parts about mandatory notification (hopefully I didn't miss any). I believe that it is a terrible idea to tag an article without notifying someone, considering most of the offenders are going to be new editors, and may not be aware of watchlists, etc. If they are to return and find their article deleted without any reason, they are likely to just recreate it, or repeat the same mistakes in future articles. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 18:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I could live with a bot doing the notification and I have no problem with people exercising judgement and not templating the vanished, retired, banned and template bombed, I do think it important that notification be mandatory. Apart from this having been part of the proposal for many weeks, we need to remember that not notifying contributors was one of the most controversial aspects of the January deletion spree, and dropping wp:before has left it very easy to tag these articles for deletion so notification to the authors should really not be burdensome. ϢereSpielChequers 21:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Unless I've missed something, we're discussing a feature here that has already been thrashed out during two very lengthy RfC phases, and a workshop page, and reconfirmed earlier today. Why is it necessary now to rediscuss it as if it were a new issue? FYI, anyone sticky proding an article is required to notify the creator and the major contributor. This has been incorporated into the policy page (unless it's already been deleted again).There has even been discussion (that was not followed up by the programmers) that placing the prod template would automatically do this.--Kudpung (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
No other deletion process requires notification, where was the consensus to include it in this process? Mr.Z-man 22:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Mandatory notification was not part of Jehochman's phase 1 proposal (the original sticky PROD idea) nor was it part of Balloonman's phase 2 summary. As far as I can tell, this is just something stuck in at the last minute by a vocal minority in order to weaken the process and now people are claiming that we need a consensus to remove something that never had a consensus to be added in the first place. WSC points out that this was a controversial issue on the workshop, but I'm not sure how one makes the leap from "controversial" to deciding to include the non-status quo side in the policy without additional discussion. Mr.Z-man 22:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Correct: Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposals were unitentionally too vague and were the very reason why so many related issues were introduced up and discussed. I have reedited the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Nominating/Nomination/Item 4 to makes creator/contributor notification mandatory, but I will not enter an an edit war over it. If it is not mandatory, it defeats the object of giving the creator a fair trial. The general consensus of the RfC was to satisfy the inclusionists and the deletionists, and as a solution to combat rogue tagging by adolescent editcount maniacs, those who still believe a million automated edits are the road to adminship, and other fly-past artists.--Kudpung (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere in the RFC was there a consensus to have mandatory notification. Nowhere else was a consensus for mandatory notification achieved. No other deletion processes have mandatory notification. Therefore, there is no mandatory notification. We can use the same language as the regular PROD. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Kudpung, what would you even envision it meaning to be "mandatory"? Are you going to block someone who is a chronic non-notifier? Are you going to remove un-notified tags from new unsourced BLPs like Mr.Z-man fears? Both of those actions seems pointless and disruptive to me... so even if we did agree to make it "mandatory" we couldn't really give it teeth. So really this seems like a lot of noise about nothing important. "Strongly encouraged" means about the same thing as "mandatory" when all of your policies are merely "documented best practices" like all policies are on Wikipedia. Gigs (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Every place, including RFC1 and 2 that mandatory notifications/searching for sources have been brought up, the requirement has been shot down. Just as I would oppose unilateral deletions of BLPs because of the potential harm it could do, I can't support mandatory wording such as this for the same reason. You can encourage people, but you cannot require it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't get it. Of course the creator of a new article needs to be notified. Just make it part of the procedure. Is it mandatory that anyone follow any procedure around here? No, they just get grief when they don't. Just add it here or on the template / tag / procedure page, just say that after the article is nominated the creator gets notified. It's pointless to debate whether to add "should" or "must" - just do it. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
"Must" is a pretty strong word which is undoubtably going to lead to ANI reports and eventually getting people blocked. It is unnecessarily strong. Even "Should" would be an improvement, but MUST means that we could end up wikilawyering the issue. "I wasn't notified ergo it was deleted out of process" --- this might be from the creator or by somebody who felt that they were a major contributor, but wherein the tagger didn't see them as such. Plus, you are assuming that the only time this prod will be used is when the article is new. A year from now we are still going to be finding articles created in March 2009 that are candidates! The creator might not be active and there might have been half a dozen "significant contributors." "MUST" is too strong.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Gigs: I don't quite follow - I most certainly have no intention of blocking a chronic non-notifier, definitely not going to remove un-notified tags. For more than a couple of reasons, includiing: First, I'm not an admin; second, my whole intention is to contribute to the making of solutions that make the task of sticky prodding easier to understand, easier to do , and easier to do in GF with a clear conscience rather than not do it for fear of recrimination from one of our more spiteful admins; third, psychologically, the words encourage, and should, tend to make most people not bother. This latter makes it even quicker for the adolescents and fanatics to crank up their post count in record time - especially when we have been arguing, for example, so much for a manadatory BEFORE, which of course cannot technically be enforced.
Wikidemon is right IMO- of course the creator must be informed, isn't it one of the major features of the whole thing we are striving for? I.e.: educating new creators/major editors in the need for sources, and not biting the newbies and not diencouraging them from continuing to contribute, while at the same time giving the article an equal chance of either being rescued or deleted. Conclusion: yes, of course mandatory - but let's not split hairs over the wording.--Kudpung (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how to reply to this. No other deletion notification is written as mandatory in the policies. People still do it. If someone neglects to, often someone else will do it for them. Gigs (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
If we leave informing editors as optional, then as happened here some editors will tag articles whilst leaving their authors with redlinked talkpages. I'm very uncomfortable with that, remember these are good faith editors, I can understand those who believe that vandalism should be wiped immediately whilst ignoring the vandal. But we have many thousands of articles written by new editors, who if they rely on simply reading our policies frequently interpret wp:Verify citations must be added for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, literally rather than in the wikipedia sense that Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, includes the fact that any unsourced BLP here is going to be challenged. Mandatory informing of contributors was there in the first RFC from the first suggestion that we focus on new unreferenced BLPs rather than old ones. I said then that "Good faith contributions should never be deleted without the author being informed", and something along those lines was in this template until the last few days. I can understand the argument that with years old BLPs that there may be little point informing a contributor who hasn't edited for many months, but to prod an article for deletion within minutes of its creation whilst leaving the newbies talkpage red, strikes me as wrong. I think it very important that if you apply a sticky prod to an article, part of the process is informing the author that you have done so. I would regret having to argue delete in an MFD of this policy, but if it is implemented in such a newby biting way I fear it will do more harm than good. ϢereSpielChequers 23:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
These issues will virtually disappear once Twinkle has the BLP PROD option turned on. Could we just agree to do that now? Rd232 talk 23:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I support mandatory notification, what is the value in allowing editors to choose whether they want to notify or not, notification allows the creator a week or ten days to find a citation, seems respectful, I worked one one with a newbie the other day and helped him add citations, yes I support mandatory notification with or without twinkle. Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not think notification should be mandatory, it should be strongly suggested, but to require it just leads to pointless bureaucracy, imo. There's not a large problem with users not receiving notifications for AfD/CSD/PROD taggings, so why would there be with this? However, I will look further into programming a bot to notify the creator and relevant WikiProjects, similar to what User:SDPatrolBot II does for CSD. This will obviously allow an opt-out. When we last discussed this there was no opposition (that I can recall) to a bot, and I doubt the people here (myself included) who disagree with mandatory notification would mind a bot. A bot would mean that we get the same end result (the right users are notified), but without it being part of the process, which will allow for the creator not to be warned by the nominator in certain cases (as mentioned by WereSpielChequers), without running the risk of being prey to wikilawyers. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Strongly suggested, sounds fine, pointless bureaucracy is better avoided, agreed. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with strongly suggested. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
A notification bot is fine with me. Gigs (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. A notification bot will plug any holes left by some people not using Twinkle, obviating the need for making notification mandatory. Rd232 talk 10:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we should at least get Twinkle up and running with an automatic creator/major contributor notification. We caniron out the wrinkles later. I think also Kingpin is on the right track to develop an automat make notifictions immediately the prod templte is placed on an article, whether he believes in that policy or not. --Kudpung (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Twinkle is now live, FYI. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 19:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced tag

One thing that would help would be the creation of a poorly sourced BLP tag. A few of the ones I've looked at in the unsourced category did have sources. They were just poor sources, or were poorly laid out so they weren't immediately obvious as sources e.g. they were buried in the text or in EL. I didn't want to remove the tag, because it's true that they do need better sourcing. But leaving the tag means they remain in the unsourced category, though they can't be BLP-prodded. If we had an unsourced tag that really was only for completely unsourced ones, that would help with accurate BLP-prodding. SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

{{BLPrefimprove}} tags them as needing more/better sources already. Perhaps we need some categories added to that template to help work through those articles as well? —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 18:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a large part of Wikipedia:Mistagged BLP cleanup has been downgrading {{BLP unsourced}} to {{BLP sources}} where appropriate. Gigs (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to fiddle with tags and categories because I'm not sure how they relate, but the problem I had was in going through Category:Unreferenced BLPs from April 2010. First, they're not all from April 2010, but some go way back, so I take it that means the date they were tagged. Secondly, some were sourced; some badly sourced, some less badly but with the source in the EL section. So that uses up quite a bit of time, looking for new unsourced BLPs in that category, when some (or most) are neither new nor unsourced. I was therefore wondering if there's a different way to tag and categorize the ones that BLPprod would apply to. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Special:Newpages is the best we have so far. There was talk of making a bot that would identify likely new unsourced BLPs and make a list which could then be gone through by hand (but explicitly not automatically tagged). Gigs (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I have been using Wikipedia:Database reports/Recently created unreferenced biographies of living people, which catches most of them, I believe. NW (Talk) 19:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not ideal, but you could change the date back to when the article was first unsourced (probably the creation date). A good number of editors are doing this—I keep seeing new articles pop up in 2007 because this is being done. It also helps people like me who are working from the back of the backlog to tackle the oldest problem articles first. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 19:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
NW, the database report looks helpful, thank you. Joshua, I didn't follow your point about changing the date. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
If you wanted to get the old articles out of the April 2010 subcategory, you could change the date on the tag to reflect when the article was actually created. This would put it back into a subcategory like March 2008, for example. (see comment below) I like NW's report better though, it looks like that's the way to go. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 19:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I see, that's a good idea too, thanks. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Please don't change the date of the unsourcedBLP tag. The date is supposed to be when it has been tagged as unsourced not when it was first created. This isn't just a pedanticism - there are a lot of people interested in the number of old unreferenced BLPs and the rate of cleanup. If you take an article that I or others have found this month and change it to being part of the backlog you make it look like those who are working through the backlog are making less progress than they are. ϢereSpielChequers 22:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
WSC, makes sense, in fact it's common sense. I support your request/suggestion.--Kudpung (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I can definitely see your point, as someone who's working through the backlog as well. I retract what I said. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 01:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Example

Andy Crofts This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've put one of these tags on and the author has thrown in myspace/facebook/twitter sources. Under proposal 3, these shouldn't be sufficient and the tag should stay there. Correct? The current notification template also specifically asks the creator to add a reliable source. I think this is important because an author's first resort to saving their article will be to throw in whatever rubbish they can find. That serves no useful purpose. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The source should be compatible with WP:V#Sources, so no myspace, twitter etc. SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The tag itself states that reliable sources are needed to prevent deletion. It links to WP:RS. I would expect that if the author removed the tag after adding unreliable sources, then it would be restored, and the closing administrator would be able to make the correct judgement, and delete the article as unsourced. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 18:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
This is perhaps a reflection of how well the template may work, I was attracted to have a look and found a more or less reliable citation and added a search and had a look and did a copy vio check and checked for any derogatory or controversial looking content and searched for coverage and then decided there was no notability and sent it to AFD, where by the article will likely be deleted in seven days and not the ten that the sticky prod would protect it for. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean it's working or not working? :D SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Its working fine and is not imo going to be a threat to content in any way, it is actually at ten days an extension of protection. I would say editors will get the idea and go there to see what is worthwhile to keep and the end result is that content worthy of keeping will be improved and content that clearly is not will not stay around uncited for lengthly periods. Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right that the different processes will work well together. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The whole idea now, SV, is to get this thing up and running asap to avoid any further accumulation of unsourced BLPs - whether they get deleted or rescued. The various processes are supposed to work together, and it was always assumed they would. Unless it's been done already, all we a re now waiting for is Twinkle and the auto creator notification to be switched on.--Kudpung (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)