Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 9

message: Please take a look at the nomination for deletion of .  violet/riga (t) 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP template 

message: This article says "five rated as 'generally privacy-aware.' They were: BBC, eBay Inc. (EBAY), Last.fm, LiveJournal.com, and Wikipedia.com." (Note: It is possible they only evaluated our user privacy behavior rather than our subject privacy behavior.) WAS 4.250 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An outside evaluation 

message: While Arbcom does not make policy, part of its role is to clarify and interpret policy. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards is a new section whose interpretation by the community and arbcom is critical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination). The community is providing its input at that deletion discussion page. I request that arbcom provide its input in the form of participating in the closing of that deletion discussion to whatever degree arbcom feels is appropriate. WAS 4.250 23:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for clarification of policy 

message: Has the question of identifying a link or external address for the agencts/agencies for named celebrities (actors, musicians and the like) ever come up before? I am not talking about the actual addresses of these individuals, but rather the contacts for their representation. I ask because my nephew wanted tosend a fan letter to an actor he likes, and couldn't find it in Wikipedia. I thought that maybe it would be something useful to have on the bio's of such folk. I don't think its an intrusion, as the info isn't private or whatnot. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is no. That information should be easily available from official websites. Your nephew should go to the Wikipedia article, and then find a link from there to the official website, which will have those contact details. Carcharoth 14:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but most of the celebrity articles don't have "official" websites - many only have imdb listings or fan-sites, neither of which are necessarily encyclopedic. A proper link seems to be more on target. I know how to find the representation myself, and the question that my nephew inspired is not one of Q&A but of institutional value. Is there a reason why your feeling is no? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Wikipedia is not a surrogate-official website to be used to inform people of the contact details of the representative of a celebrity who hasn't set up an official website. People shouldn't be using Wikipedia to find that sort of information. We should be providing readers with an overview on a subject, an interesting read about that subject, links to background information on Wikipedia, and links to external websites for further reading, and details of reliable sources and background reading where they can also read more. That is all. Anything more is not needed. More material and information may be available, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Another consideration is that this is ephermeral information. When the contact details change, or when the actor dies, the contact details of the representative will need to be removed. An official website keeps that sort of thing up-to-date. We shouldn't have to bother with trivial things like that. Carcharoth 14:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Carcharoth. While a site that wished to be a comprehensive link farm would have such a link, we strive to be the best encyclopedia we can be and regularly trim our link lists back rather than try to maintain a diversion. WAS 4.250 16:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (nitpick) It might be a diversion, but what we are avoiding is a diversity (or rather avoiding an indiscriminate diversity - as you say, no link farms). :-) Carcharoth 17:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity Question 

message: I perfectly understand the intent of this, but at last check I still don't get paid for editing Wikipedia and I dislike the idea of writing an e-mail requirement into policy. Could we re-word to something like "in discussing a deletion administrators [or anyone else, for that matter] must absolutely avoid repeating sensitive material."? Marskell 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if it has to be discussed, it should be done by e-mail. Sometimes the details will need to be given if another admin questions a deletion. I'm not sure I see the problem. SlimVirgin 20:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any Wikipedian should be free to not reply to an e-mail—any e-mail—if they chose. The instruction can simply reiterate not repeating sensitive info while discussing it on-site; this will suggest e-mail without demanding it. Marskell 20:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about using the OTRS ticket system? That will keep things confidential. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Email to the administrator is best.  All administrators should have email enabled. Anybody expecting to discuss sensitive matters should provide an email address though the Mediawiki mechanism.  You may not be paid to edit Wikipedia, but equally you don't have a right to know Wikipedia's business if you don't provide a reasonably confidential means of communication.  It goes without saying that SPA's would be unsuitable for the purpose.  Wikipedia admins should as a matter of course refuse to discuss matters with new editors, declared SPAs and socks, and the like, but should answer all good faith queries.  --Tony Sidaway 20:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "All administrators should have email enabled." I agree. But if an administrator I have no desire to speak to e-mails me and asks "why did you delete this?", I won't respond. I'll respond on Wiki to good faith queries, but not off, if I'd rather not. (I mean I'll usually reply off site, but if I don't want to, I don't want to.) That's all. Marskell 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "by e-mail if the material is sensitive" 

message: How about this, for a simpler approach that reduces the emphasis on ethical and subjective criteria? "Writing about the notable parts of a living person's life in the relevant articles is fine (that provides the context for what you are writing about), but unless reliable secondary sources (not newspaper articles) have written a biography of that living person, we shouldn't attempt to do so. Cobbling together known facts from disparate newspaper articles and interviews is essentially original synthesis (research). When you find yourself struggling to find facts like birth date, and so forth, it it usually because the basic research for a biography hasn't been done. It is not Wikipedia's role to carry out that research, and we should wait until reliable sources (in this case, not newspapers) have done so)." How does that sound? Carcharoth 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds overly strong. Plenty of highly notable people haven't had their biographies published outside newspaper articles: award winning actors, writers, scientists, even politicians. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be surprised. Are you looking in the right places? Note that I'm counting biographical material on their own webpages as an autobiography. Once that exists as a seed for the article, then I'd be OK with the rest flowing from that. In essence, if they have self-published biographical material, or an autobiography has been published, or a Who's Who-style entry exists somewhere, then fine. But don't rely solely on newspaper articles and interviews to construct a bio from the ground up. It skews things horribly. Carcharoth 21:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's - who style entry?  Would you consider this short biography to be an acceptable "seed" for instance? WilyD 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Which brings me to an even simpler formulation of the principle I've written above: defer to biographical sources for biographical articles. In other words, a newspaper interview or article is not written as a biographical article, even if it may contain biographical details. The primary source for the key details of a biographical article should be something that is itself written as a biography. This doesn't exclude other sources (for additional information), but the primary source should be a biographical one, simply to demonstrate that a reliable source has gone to the trouble of writing in a biographical style about this person. Otherwise, if most sources only write about someone in connection with something else, then we should only mention that person in connection with that something else. Can it really be that simple? Carcharoth 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be on to a better way to phrase "write about the event and not the person". WAS 4.250 06:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another approach 

message: There is a debate at Talk:List of Michael Jackson awards about whether the article is subject to the policies of BLP (i.e. does it have to be fully sourced with reliable sources) if it is not a traditional definition of a biography (it's not about his life, it's about his achievements).  It is my belief that these type articles are subject to the guidelines as they are simply split out of the main article because they are too large to maintain in the main article.  Is this interpretation correct?  What should be the proper action for an unreliably sourced article like the Michael Jackson article or List of Mariah Carey awards?  Metros 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As regards sourcing, this policy applies to every single contentious statement about a living person in any page on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split-out awards sections, are they subject to BLP? 

message: I'm not interested in the subject itself but Wrestling bios have concerned me for a while - they are generally a) very badly sourced and b) confuse the role that they "play" in the ring with their real world activities (and I know the two can be blurred because of the nature of the business). maybe we need some form of additional guidance? --Fredrick day 03:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Wikiproject working on sourcing and how to present articles.  I suggested they develop some notability guidelines and they tinkered with that a little bit.  I think there are some overzealous deletionists, imho, who either afd articles or delete much of the content citing blp even though the content has not been contentious or negative in nature.  A "fix it" tag should have been enough in those cases.  I think it would be better to help them improve wrestling articles before trying to delete them.  MrMurph101 04:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you mentioned how you considered how wrestling bio articles are poorly sourced and the "blur" between in-the-ring and real life activities and I responded that there is a project working on it.  The rest was mainly a comment on something I've noticed. Sorry to go off on a tangent on something else. :) MrMurph101 04:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies - I'm very tired and it's making me short-tempered - I think maybe the wrestling project might need to change their style guide to highlight BLP concerns. I'll mention it to them when I get up. --Fredrick day 04:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestling articles 

message: Blackfalcon, "semi-notable" and "of borderline notability" mean the same thing; the former is tighter and it's the phrase that has caught on, because it's not so long-winded, which is why it's being used here. Both mean that the subject is somewhat notable, but not pressingly so for Wikipedia's purposes. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I agree with SlimVirgin. It's neater, more compact, writing, and has been there since 1 May. Not that the latter is a reason for keeping it if there's something obviously wrong with it. But it is at least a reason why we should have a clear explanation on the talk page as to what the problem is with "semi-notable", and why "of borderline notability" is better. ElinorD (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both terms are going to involve the judgment of the closing admin, so whether we use borderline or semi doesn't really matter: the subjective element is there. What we're trying to get at is "not fully and unambiguously notable." In other words, if the notability can be argued about by reasonable people, then the subject is semi-notable or borderline notable. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It really doesn't matter which words we use.  They both mean the same thing.  The people who will wikilawyer about the one will wikilawyer about the other. --Tony Sidaway 19:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *That's not an especially helpful comment. There is no shame or wikilawyering in trying to find policy wording that is clear and meaningful. The problem is that "semi-notable" or "borderline" notable" are concepts that do not fit with current guidelines and policy on article inclusion. The notability guidelines set thresholds that topics are supposed to meet. Meeting those criteria is supposed to imply notability. Partial or semi or borderline status is not addressed, and the concept - as best I can tell from the very limited attempts at explanation here - is apparently exceedingly subjective. That is something we should be striving to avoid, if possible. However, the policy/guidelines are applied on a case-by-case basis. Most probably in every case where BLP deletion policy will be applied, there will be an existing dispute over the notability/prominence of the individual manifested in an AfD discussion. While editors can disagree on the notability of an individual, it's much harder to deny when that notability has been disputed. I, therefore, favor the wording suggested by Serpent's Choice and think that "disputed" notability or "lack of consensus" on the notability of an article subject should be made explicit in the policy. Since BLP deletion policy is essentially a fig leaf to justify the removal of  a certain number of articles, let's make a fig leaf that truly covers the administrative tool that will be used to perform these deletions. --JJay 10:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't matter, why revert? Let's say what we mean; vagueness has helped produce this mess. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed why revert? I don't believe I'm involved in the dispute over "semi-notable" and "borderline notable". Just giving an outsider view. --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There are longstanding precedents at WP:AFD for deleting some biography articles per the request of the subject.  Usually this has been done for stubs that have a minimum of sources and that barely meet site notability standards.  Individual editors' opinions have varied about whether to do these courtesy deletions at all and how far the practice ought to extend.  Now that the practice is supported in policy I've proposed expanding it to a defined level: if no pen-and-ink encyclopedia does have an entry on a person (or reasonably would) then I'll consider courtesy deleting their biography article on Wikipedia.  This standard includes specialty encyclopedias such as encyclopedias of music, architecture, etc.  DurovaCharge! 18:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if they have an entry in a directory of self-provided biographical information, like Who's Who (UK) (and similar publications elsewhere)? These have notability standards, but the subjects provide details an/or write their own entries. Kind of a cross between a directory and a biographical dictionary. Carcharoth 22:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most Who's Who directories are self-serving and criteria for inclusion either very loose or non-existent. See this article in Forbes≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borderline notability 

message: What does this policy have to say about article titles? I recently moved several biographical articles about the subjects of iconic photographs from :Category:Photographs into :Category:Photographs (people). Sometimes the article is named after the photograph, like Kissing the War Goodbye, sometimes the photograph's name includes the name of the person, like Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath, sometimes the title is descriptive, like 1968 Olympics Black Power Salute, sometimes there is a title (such as Migrant Mother - a redirect), but the article exists at the name (in this case Florence Owens Thompson). The articles in :Category:Photographs (people), though, are named after the subject of the photograph, as the photograph has either become indelibly associated with the subject, or there is no other convenient 'hook' on which to hang the article. Is it acceptable to use names as a 'hook' like this? See Wikipedia:Coatrack for an essay on this issue, mainly on how this kind of naming procedure can introduce bias. In some of these cases, use of the subject's name as the article title is probably justified, though in others I'm not so sure. I've provided a list for people to comment on and add their thoughts.
* Muhammad al-Durrah
* Che Guevara (photo)
* Federico Borrell García
* Sharbat Gula
* Satar Jabar
* Nguyễn Văn Lém
* Omayra Sánchez
* Phan Thị Kim Phúc
* Gerri Santoro
* Conrad Schumann
* Wilbert Bridgemington Shasterbury
* Thích Quảng Đức
* Florence Owens Thompson
Would simply adding "(photo)" after the name in the titles resolve this? Carcharoth 22:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article titles naming people 

message: In the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration, an arbitrator has pasted the following proposed principle on the "Proposed final decision" page:
: Summary deletion of BLPs
: 4) Any administrator, acting on their own judgement, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy.  This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so.  The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.
Now the arbitrators will vote on it, and if it gets a majority support it will be accepted as a principle in that case, and will tend to influence our future conduct (assuming we don't want to be told off by the arbitration committee).
Comments?  My own comment is that this makes our current "Disputed deletions" clause, listed below for completeness, look rather timid:
: Disputed deletions
: If a page is deleted citing this policy, adminstrators should not undelete it without discussing the issue in detail with the deleting administrator if possible. The deleting administrator should be willing to explain the deletion to other administrators, by e-mail if the material is sensitive; administrators who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Where appropriate, disputes can be taken to Deletion review, but any protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative.
--Tony Sidaway 07:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how that would even work. Let's say you, Tony, thought a deleted article actually did meet BLP, and wanted to contest it. How would you do that, without even a history restore? I can do it, but that's a pretty small subset of editors (namely, those who happen to be admins) who would be able to offer any meaningful input at all to such a discussion. I think a little wider notification (perhaps watchlist?) is needed for the way BLP is changing around—to me it was always a common-sense policy that "If something nasty or controversial is in an article about a living person and it's unsourced or "sourced" to some rumor blog, don't fact-tag it, remove it at once. If that's all there is to the article, delete it." I can't imagine anyone could disagree to that. But we're going well beyond that now, and I think it needs a little more discussion outside of the heat of any particular contentious debate. Just the fact that it is producing contentious debates shows it needs discussed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, just suppose a majority of the arbitrators agreed that this is how to contest deletions.  Wouldn't that sway you a bit?   Shouldn't the parts of a policy that impinge on conduct in a dispute reflect the way the arbitration committee views conduct? --Tony Sidaway 08:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ArbCom should not be setting policy; that some of them have deviated from this seriously disturbs me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The DRV template currently includes links to (Google) cached versions of articles. Is this intended so that non-admins can review deleted content? If so, does this clash with the proposed arbitration case principle? I also clicked on the cache links for several current DRVs, and the links don't seem to work. I suspect this is because the articles were only a few weeks or days old, and thus aren't on the Google cache yet, or maybe the Google cache updates more frequently than I thought. I can't check, because I can't see the history of deleted articles. Can anyone shed light on this? If not, then it is possible that non-admins will have to start writing stubs for articles at DRVs and asking admins to compare the stubs to previous versions of the articles and asking if the stubs are acceptable. Though really, it should be possible to discuss BLP violations by linking to external sites to illustrate your points. The point here though is that contested BLP deletions will effectively become an AfD, but without having the article to examine. In essence a DRV of a BLP deletion (unless it is something simple like "this is an article about a building, not a person") will be questioning whether the article contained anything against the BLP policy. To participate meaningfully in that discussion, you would need to see the article. A better way to do this might be to say that those contesting BLP deletions should not try and defend the deleted version of the article, but should make a case for any article about that person existing. Once that is established, then those who deleted it under the BLP would be asked to restore an edited version (probably a stub) that was acceptable to them, and those editing the article would be allowed to continue and strongly reminded to adhere to the BLP policy. Also, a default question at a DRV should be whether the deleting admin looked through the article history to find a version that was acceptable. Carcharoth 09:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems a reasonable proposal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The proposed final decision (above) addresses content at the article level, but does not seem to address individual content within that article. If the article is deleted, does that mean that all information within the topic itself is off limits from being posted anywhere on Wikipedia? If the deleted article is rewritten with the disputed material removed and reposted, does that constitute undeleting the article? The key here - which seems susceptible to being overlooked - is that every previous version of the article needs to significantly violates any aspect of the relevant BLP policy.  In other words, there is not one version to which the article could be reverted where it would not significantly violate any aspect of the relevant BLP policy. In this regard, it would seem that the topic itself - at least the topic as previously presented by every effort to present it on Wikipedia in that article - is off limits through undeletion or otherwise if deleted under the believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. Carcharoth's point about making a case for any article about that person existing is astute. Coupled with the proposed final decision language restoring through undeletion or otherwise (e.g., at DRV, RfC, user page, etc.), some could see this as leaning more towards banning information about the topic from Wikipedia, even those parts that do not significantly violate any aspect of the relevant BLP policy or information about the topic that previously was not posted on Wikipedia. Seraphimblade is correct in that a wide discussion outside of the heat of any particular contentious debate would be appropriate. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Deleted pages seem to disappear from Google's cache on hour timescales in some cases - maybe the case here. WilyD 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's in Google cache, it's not as big a deal, though a lot of editors have no idea such a thing takes place or how to find it if it does. (And if we link to a cached version of the article, it's really not a whole lot different from doing a protected history-only restore anyway, with the article blanked and replaced with the DRV template.) As to Arbcom, I'm not sure their function is so much to set policy as to interpret it. I'm not sure it's within their purview to decide what should be policy, as far as I knew, only Jimbo or the Foundation can do that unilaterally. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't carefully consider what the Arbcom thinks, especially given their expertise and experience at handling tough situations, but I don't know if they can just say "This is how it will be, period.") Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The way I read that proposal, it's an interpretation of the BLP, very much in line with the kind of deletions recently carried out under its aegis, and a reasonably detailed interpretation of the standards of conduct that should prevail in the case of a dispute.  This is well within the purview of the arbitration committee, which can make general statements about policy as part of its role in resolving disputes.  --Tony Sidaway 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree here with Tony. ArbCom is simply re-iterating the BLP policy. Even without that proposed decision, admins can take these actions within the current application of WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. But I'll repeat what ALoan said elsewhere: "disputed material has to be removed until "a decision to include it is reached" (by whom? how?)" - who decides the dispute? I see this creating more disputes in the long run, though it should stop the wheel-warring. Carcharoth 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed deletions 2 

message: Due to the number of BLP articles lacking sources, I went ahead and created  & :Category:BLP articles lacking sources. The template also adds the tagged article to :Category:Disputed biographies of living persons and :Category:Articles lacking reliable references. Vassyana 09:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: Notability is measured by the amount of coverage in reliable secondary sources. According to Notability, a topic is Notability if that coverage is "significant". Beyond this threshold line of Notability lies the importance/fame of the person. Some may measure this by the person's position or standing. However, such criteria is subjective. Objectively and for Wikipedia purposes, individual editors may measure the importance/fame of the person by the number of published materials, the circulation of those materials, and the time period over which those materials were circulated. It is an objective measure because the number, the circulation, and the time period themselves are undistorted by emotion or personal bias of a Wikipedia editor. With few published materials, collectively having a low circulation, over a short time period, such a person would have a low importance/fame for Wikipedia purposes. In other words, their level of Wikipedia notability is close to the boundary line of Notability and they would have Wikipedia boarderline notability. (Note that "borderline notability" is an appropriate term because it means of or near the boundary of Wikipedia notability.)  -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How borderline notability should be determined 

message: Is it simple Common Sense that the recent noms at AfD (Brandt, Beesley, Finkelstein) have WP:BIO or WP:N concerns, and therefore their self requests automatically imply a (new) AfD discussion?  In each of these nominations, the nominator's entry makes reference to BLP Deletion Standards as the reason for re-nomination.  I know that each of these have had prior contested notability claims, however, none of the nominations thus far have made reference to the underlying reason of notability.  Rather, each has bandied about this standard as if it were part of reasons for deletion.  And each has then relied upon allowing other editors to rehash any WP:BIO arguments.  If this is a new de jure deletion standard, shouldn't it be discussed and included de facto at WP:DELETE?  Or should there be emphasis placed that (as it is written now,) this is not a Reason for Deletion, but rather a note allowing a closing Admin to give weight to a self-request for deletion?  I believe it is a perceived conflict between BLP and DELETE which is causing at least some of the fracas about these controversial AfD noms.   LaughingVulcan  16:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point: I raised two of those nominations per changes in the BLP policy.  A WP:DELETE discussion is sensible. DurovaCharge! 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about BLP Deletion Standards 

message: The neutrality of the BLP standards is now disputed. This seems like an unfair way to simply delete an article on any semi-notable person if they want the article on them deleted. Strange policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed BLP standards

message: In line with a principle adopted (6-0-0) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision, I have changed the first sentence of the "Disputed deletions" section to read:
: If a page is deleted citing this policy, administrators should not undelete it without an actual consensus.
--Tony Sidaway 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this modification was restored because it "goes to far" - I'll just note that's impossible.  It doesn't go anywhere or even mean anything.  Clarity is a virtue here - what the ArbCom is trying to get at (presumably) is already encoded in the procedure suggested - discuss, bring dispute somewhere to find a consensus, don't run off willy-nilly, but introducing vagueness here is just asking for trouble. WilyD 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you explain the above?  What do you find vague about this? --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing phrasing makes clearer how to find consensus and at least implies what is, or isn't a consensus.  "A consensus" is a nebulous thing, and by leaving vague what kind of consensus you need, rather than being clear, you're only opening the door to more conflict, a more poisonous atmosphere, et cetera.  For ArbCom's purpose this might be fine, because they don't care where the consensus comes from - but a policy needs to be clearer. WilyD 21:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm confused but for a different reason; why are we enacting ArbCom policies findings before they even close the case? Presumably they can change their vote until such time as they all agree to close the case, so let's not jump the gun here, Tony. -- nae'blis 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strike while the iron is hot.  This is 6-0-0, there's no reason to suppose that it will change and if it does we'll deal with it when it does. --Tony Sidaway 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It's unlikely that it would be 6-0-0 right now if the idea were not a good one. And if we need to change it later, which is unlikely, well, this is a wiki. ElinorD (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to cool the iron a bit... does your proposal mean that if opinion on a deletion is roughly evenly split, and the admin who happens to close it favors deletion, then deletion thereby becomes a preferred alternative that can't be changed without consensus?  even if there was no consensus originally? JamesMLane t c 00:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolument.  This policy carries with it the burden that we don't carry any material covered by it, unless the is an actual consensus that it is fully compliant. On that, the arbitration committee is unanimous. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So one just needs to cite BLP when deleting an article (or removing contentious facts from an article) - and it should be possible to make out a case for some tangential BLP problem in virtually any circumstances, as the policy is now widely construed - and can then insist that a clear consensus to the contrary must emerge before that deletion is reversed?  Good luck dealing with the consequences. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No way to this. We promote admins because we trust them with admin tools, not because we trust them to decide for us what is a BLP issue or not. -- Ned Scott 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought we already had a page that said not to wheel war. -- Ned Scott 02:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently the interpretation of that page in these circumstances was a subject of considerable dispute, which has now been resolved.  --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no evidence of this - this has been the subject of considerable dispute, and in spite of your high hopes, ArbCom has told us nothing we didn't already know. WilyD 03:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed deletions 3 

message: The name "Biographies of living persons" does not accurately describe this policy.  I suggest renaming it to Biographical content (WP:BC)
My reasoning is such:
#The current name implies it only relates to biography articles when it applies to all our content, including non-biography articles, talk pages, Wikipedia pages, etc..
#The policy applies (at the very least) to the recently deceased, but the current name suggests that it only applies to the living.
This was mentioned previously but received too few comments.  This time I suggest that it will be moved unless serious objections are made.  violet/riga (t) 12:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For whatever it's worth, I agree with such a move, as it will make this more descriptive/precise in its scope. -- nae'blis 15:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Biographical content would include people who have died. This page is about living persons only. If we want to change the title, the best thing would be Wikipedia:Living persons, though I also think it's fine as it is. BLP has caught on. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some consensus that it applies to the recently deceased - it may only be virtual, not actual though.  WilyD 04:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to bang my head on the wall about this.  The policy is being applied by people using it to delete articles on people that have died and if we can't even agree which is correct then we have a very basic problem with this policy.  violet/riga (t) 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed name change 

message: The eagerness to include the ArbCom statement of principle (which was already in the policy anyways - both because it was, and because ArbCom doesn't make policy) has lead to the destruction of policy and it's replacement with principle.  The policy needs to outline what to do - this is being lost.  It now says "the deleting Admin should explain" but takes out "you should talk to the deleting Admin".  My revised version had all the force of the Arbcom statement of principle (which just repeats what was here before ArbCom said anything anyways) but had the advantage of being useable policy, rather than the unusable statement that also constitutes unintelligible policy.
Oh yes, the second point is - "Actual Consensus"?  Does this phrase have some secret jargon meaning?  Apart from the possibility that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle allows for a "Virtual Consensus" I don't see any possible meaning for this phrase over "consensus". WilyD 01:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes of course you should talk to the deleting admin (or at least attempt to do so).  This is already in the deletion policy. Please add that back for emphasis. --Tony Sidaway 01:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you cut that part out, the result was a jumbled thought process that didn't effectively communicate anything.  The process for handling disputes is the heart of so much of the toxicity around this policy - it should be as explicit and straightforward as is reasonably possible.  This is "the first step" - on what otherwise is a road map, it needs to be there. WilyD 03:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Actual consensus" means "a discussion has been held and consensus was achieved" and not "I restored the item anyway because I figure the deletion was a mistake and obviously there must be consensus to restore." See for instance the findings in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration concerning NightGyr and Violetriga, where often no attempt was made to talk to the admin, and if an attempt was made no consensus was achieved and no attempt to go to deletion review was made.  Just "undelete, please put this through AfD", which is of course unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway 01:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've also added references to the procedure for summary deletion of irretrievably bad pages, which is the new WP:CSD#G10. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, for fuck's sake, stop jumping the gun. I don't know what you're up to, but there is no reason to rush a number of badly worded policy changes when, as others have pointed out, nothing has changed. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I'm sorry if it appeared incoherent.  That won't do.  It must be as clear as possible that admins are not to undelete BLPs without clear consensus.  I'm sort of amazed that anyone finds such statements difficult to understand, but if they do that's an indication that we need to work on it. --Tony Sidaway 03:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be twisting premature arbcom findings to push your own view on how you feel such things should be handled. Don't even try to spin this around as "if you disagree with me, you disagree with arbcom". -- Ned Scott 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you explain how I'm twisting "the article must not be restored...without an actual consensus to do so"?  I'm really puzzled about this, and a little hurt that you appear to be accusing me of "twisting" and anticipating that I will launch a counter-accusation against you. --Tony Sidaway 03:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "It must be as clear as possible that admins are not to undelete BLPs without clear consensus."  How do we determine when content has been deleted pursuant to BLP, so that this unusual process (no undeletion without consensus, reversing the usual WP:AfD process; no "revert, discuss", reversing the usual WP:BRD cycle) is engaged?  It is sufficient that the person making the deletion simply asserts a BLP concern?  Need that person explain the basis underlying that assertion?  Or does the deleting person get their own way until an "actual consensus" emerges following the subsequent discussion?  (For the deletion of articles, we might rely on the good faith of admins, but BLP also covers the removal of well-cited, neutrally-phrased facts from articles - this sounds like a charter for POV warriors to get their own way.) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policies and Principles 

message: I added. A quote from WP:CSD to make it clearer what the summary deletion section refers to, and the G10 does not allow speedy deletion of sourced articles (seems to be some mistake about that one). ViridaeTalk 11:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote addition 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawana Brawley. —M (talk • contribs) 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? We don't do test cases for policy, and we don't use AfD to deal with BLP violations. -Amarkov moo! 13:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then an administrator should speedy delete the article per this policy. —M (talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or NOT. Edison 14:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A test case for [[WP:BLP1E]] 

message: User:Crockspot is claiming that WP:BLP applies to Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Surely the rationale of this page, "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life", does not apply to news items about the leader of the free world. — goethean ॐ 14:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article borders on being an agregate of original research and a POV fork. BLP should apply to everyone regardless of their position in society. —M (talk • contribs) 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Movement to impeach George W. Bush]] 

message: Anyone else see a real problem with this new section?  Doesn't every biography contain personally identifying information?  I mean, this featured article gives her birthplace, occupation, previous spouses, specific awards won, what schools she attended, probably a dozen specific jobs she's had, extensively coverage of her travel, specific charitable contributions, her tattoos - there's probably more.  While MONGO's purpose might be admirable, adding more and more to this policy is just making it unreadable - and the current addition is unusable.  I just thought I'd say something before I did anything. Cheers, WilyD 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Individuals who seek that degree of celebrity know that their lives will be scrutinized in public.  That's part and parcel of becoming an A list movie star.  Most people make different career choices that go along with a greater expectation of personal privacy. DurovaCharge! 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt, which is why it's problematic.  Although something like Roger Penrose is a mathematician at Oxford is still personally identifying, and he's less of a public figure (I think - I usually have a harder time figuring this out for physicists), but this is important to an article of Penrose, who is far more important in the 100 year view than Jolie ... WilyD 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For someone with enough skill and time almost anything can be personally identifying information (and I wasn't aware that say Gordon Brown's adress was secret).Geni 23:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - I'm not aware of any crisis, although Wikipedia does have this guy's street address, which is probably known to less than 100 million people ... WilyD 23:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No residential addresses?  Buckingham Palace?  10 Downing Street?  The White House? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, they're fine.  But street addresses of marginal people would be overdoing it.   If you see stuff like "the new proof of Hilbert's 15th problem was provided by Geoffrey Perkins of Northumberland Lane, Chester", then it's going far too far.  --Tony Sidaway 10:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a rather large grey area between heads of state or government and Geoffrey Perkins.  In any event, the policy currenty says "Wikipedia biographies should not include addresses..." which, it seems you agree, is too strong. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm inclined to the view that there should be very few exceptions to this.  State functionaries who have one of more official residences have been mentioned.  Also famous people whose residences are in themselves famous, perhaps, such as Jeffrey Archer who lives at the Old Vicarage in Grantchester, made famous by the Rupert Brooke poem of that name.  Archer bought the house because of the literary connection.  Gilbert and George whose life is their art and whose Fournier Street studio is also their residence.  As Phil Sandifer is fond of saying, "you can't taylorize clue", so I'd be reluctant to remove the general injunction against including addresses.  The few exceptions will be treated as such by all sensible people. People who aren't sensible have no business editing Wikipedia in the first place. --Tony Sidaway 11:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what you mean by "personally identifiable information".  The place of work of almost every scientist or other professor is probably in thier biography "Stephen Hawkings, a professor at Cambridge University" and so on ... the addresses part isn't what bothered me as much as the "other personal information" - it's true that you can't give people who don't have a clue any help, but given the slavish overenforcement of this policy these days, nor is it a good idea to write something that says "Delete   any information about a person from their biography".  WilyD 11:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure why this was struck out.  Stephen Hawking's post as Lucasian Professor of applied mathematics and his fellowship at Gonville and Caius are hardly private personal information, but the street address of his residence would probably be going too far. --Tony Sidaway 12:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I struck it because the wording I was most objecting to was modified to alleviate some of my concerns.  I think "private" is the key quantity here, not "personally identifying information" or "contact information".  If I type "Stephen Hawkings' Home Address" into google, I get his email but not his street number.  In most cases, none of this information is encyclopaedic anyways (although in the examples above it probably is) and certainly there are encyclopaedic cases of street addresses or phone numbers being encyclopaedic.   In general, the information is typically not encyclopaedic, but typically not sourcable.  In cases where you can find a multitude of reliable third party sources that give contact information, addresses, phone numbers, et cetera, this information actually stands a good chance of being encyclopaedic (I suspect, anyhow).  WilyD 13:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes, the bottom line is that one cannot legislate common sense.  I wouldn't be terribly surprised if someone added Madonna's street address to an article, and I wouldn't be dumbfounded if someone removed it as unencyclopedic.  If it stayed and I subsequently read an email from Madonna via OTRS asking us to remove it, and I'd be utterly ungobsmacked and would almost certainly support removal. There are a limited number of circumstances in which the address of a private dwelling, in detail, might be encyclopedic (10, Rillington Place is one good example). --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy of person 

message: What does "Eventualism is deprecated on BLP articles." mean, and how did such a poorly worded sentence become policy? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the Eventualism article on Meta? It explains a lot. Basically it's a rationale for incusionism based on whether or not a stub article on a subject would or could "eventually" be expanded. I think the implications for non-notable or mildly notable living persons should be obvious. —M (talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any consensus for such a broad claim nor do I see any evidence that the ArbCom has endorsed it. JoshuaZ 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just another way of saying that biographical material about living persons that doesn't meet the core content policies may be removed right away. --bainer (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, that doesn't read that way to me at all. Since the rest of the policy makes that clear why not just get rid of this sentence? JoshuaZ 14:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eventualism is deprecated on BLP articles. 

message: I removed the recent addition Violating content can be removed and articles deleted, as I see it as not an accurate summary of BLP. Do we need this in the nutshell? If so, a tighter sentence will need to be crafted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe something along the lines of "Unsourced or poorly sourced material should be removed immediately", to keep the wording in-sync with the policy text ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That version of the nutshell is unsupported by policy text.  The actual text says, over and over, 'contentious material'.  That does not mean 'ALL unsourced material', it means material people actually dispute the accuracy of. If you want it to say 'all unsourced material', then change the policy to actually say that. Chris Croy 19:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's probably about right.  --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to nutshell 

message: Self published external links should be allowed simply because there are often the only comprehensive source of online information going. Secondly we are not responciple for the content of external links. Thirdly our normal rules requireing a high level of quality from external links should work well enough to keep the trash out. Fourthly this would prevent us from linking to say BrianDeer.com in the Andrew Wakefield article which is fairly clearly completely stupid. Fithly by allowing links to the subjects website only we violate NPOV by biasing the links in the subject's favor.Geni 19:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been suggested that this requirement is in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability. First Verifiability only talks about sources not external links and secondaly it accepts self published sources under some limited conditions so even if Wikipedia:Verifiability did apply some self published sources would be allowed. Pages actualy relivant to external links would be Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam neither of which object to self published links.Geni 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every single edit you make to this page shows a failure to understand it or any related content policy. If we were to allow self-published material in BLPs, we would be linking to material that included personal websites set up to attack people, material published with zero editorial oversight, insults and polemics published because people were angry with one another, and so on. That is the reason for no self-published sources in BLPs — not as references and not as external links. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah no. That would run into the "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" of the links to normaly avoid section on Wikipedia:External links. Your version would require the removal of BrianDeer.com in the Andrew Wakefield article which would depending on your POV be considered anything from unbalanced to unethical (certain systems claim it is bad to deny people information that the lack of could risk increasing child mortality rates) on the other hand it would allow links to an online version of private eye something which would have a rather greater capacity to make life ah interesting.Geni 20:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We've had the no SPS provision either here or in V for some time, so we'd need to hear very strong arguments before changing it. I think we'd be opening a can of worms if we did. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then show that my arguments are flawed rather than trying argument by assertion logical fallacies.Geni 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. I have not heard any good arguments presented that warrant the removal of that long-standing wording from the policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is the same as it's always been - the Internet is becoming important to the world. Sometimes things happen in blogs and other sources that move faster than traditional editor-based publishing can. In these cases, we sometimes have to use a self-published source. It should be done rarely. It should be done carefully. But self-published is not an inherent flaw - just a warning that many flaws may well exist. But this becomes an attempt at source profiling - a lot of bad sources are self-published, so let's ban the self-published ones. This isn't useful. Phil Sandifer 22:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that although one of our goals is to disseminate information quickly, it is less important than the other goals of accuracy and reliability. Thus, on the balance we would prefer to be slightly behind the blogs, news media and tabloids, if it means that our information can be more accurate and reliable. There is no rush to insert the latest bit of gossip from a blog into a BLP article. The valid material will reach the reliable sources soon enough, if it's important. Crum375 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  In policy, we do not cater for exceptions. Exceptions can be made based on editors' good judgment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I strongly disagree with the statement that Wikipedia's aim is to to disseminate information quickly. That is best left for Wikinews. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But our aim is to disseminate information thoroughly, and sometimes that involves speed. As for exceptions, as long as we have as many editors willing to act like Taylorized killbots as we do, we cannot write whiteline policy like this. It's just a bad idea. Our policy should embrace the mutability and judgment that our practice requires. Phil Sandifer 02:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Most third-party publications that we use as sources employ people who are familiar with libel law, even if it's only a lone copy editor, and the bigger publications will have dubious material checked by lawyers before publication. We rely on that due diligence to protect ourselves. With a self-published source, there's no such checking, so we put ourselves at great risk by repeating what they say about living persons. There's also the notability issue; if something has only been published by an SPS, we have no reason to suppose it's notable enough for inclusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on the person and the area. Again, I don't see a good reason to make this claim in the absolute, and am very uncomfortable about your desire to make sweeping rules about all sources. Evidence, sourcing, and research just don't work like that. Phil Sandifer 02:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The vast majority of the internet is self-published, you'd be preventing just about every single EL out there. Am I the only one who thinks this is insane? It's one thing to get rid of bad ELs, but that doesn't mean we should accept a really bad way of doing it. Then there's the question about it even being an issue in the first place.  "rm per WP:EL" normally does the trick, unless it's super popular, and the policy line still won't help that. This would just make it a pain in the ass for everyone else to include good ELs. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have readded it. If it is not appropriate to use them as sources, then I fail to see why we should use them as ELs. And we're not talking about ELs on every article or subject, obviously—only those that contain bio material. Marskell 11:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's far from clear that these are blanket unacceptable sources. Even if they were blanket unacceptable sources, it is even less clear that this translates at all directly to them being blanket unacceptable external links. This is overreaching policy at its absolute worst. Phil Sandifer 15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-published sources are blanket unacceptable where they contain biographical material. I'm not saying you can't add an EL with some interesting colour info that might be weak as an actual source on a gadget page or an animal page or a video game page—just not on a bio page. Marskell 19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: External links in this case are not sources.Geni 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the others have been trying to explain, ELs in the EL section are not sources. No one should be using ELs in the EL section as a source. -- Ned Scott 21:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Though, and I stress this again, even if they were sources I still wouldn't support a blanket ban on them, because self-published and unacceptable are not inherently equivalent. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we link them, we sanction them. These arguments are bizarre. Wiki has (rightly) arrived at the point were the onus is absolutely on the editor adding bio material to be absolutely sure of reliability. But hey, we can fudge with ELs? Add a blog repeaing such-and-such gossip? It makes no sense. Marskell 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're changing my position from "do not ban all self-published external links/sources" to "allow all self-published external links/sources." My position is neither. My position is that most are surely unacceptable or at the very least undesirable, and that these can and will be detected by ordinary editorial judgment, eliminating the need for an overreaching bright line distinction. Phil Sandifer 21:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If we need to say something about ELs to keep bad ELs out, then that's one thing. We have many different ways we can do that, and how we can word the restriction. Excluding all self-published ELs, however, is the wrong way to do it. -- Ned Scott 00:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: At this point we've had three AfDs of long standing articles where the subjects wanted deletion- Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein and Angela Beesley.  Brandt ended with a "complex merge" which led to a DRV with an endorsement of the close. Finkelstein ended with a deletion deletion, a DRV in which the majority of people favor overturning but the closing admin endorsed and Beesley which ended with a non-consensus keep despite Beesley easily being less notable than either Brandt or Finkelstein. One thing is very clear from this: a policy which allows closing admins to apply any level of weight to the closer's wishes with no guideline for how much or how little is a recipe that produces inconsistency in the project and general time-wasting drama. Given all this, we need to clarify two things:
# How much weight can an admin use in such circumstances and what factors should the admin consider? Consider the following problem: obviously George W. Bush is one on extreme example where even if Bush requested his article to be deleted and an admin closed it as delete we would still overturn it as he is obviously notable. Yet the Finkelstein DRV was closed in part due to the claim that DRVs cannot determine notability. Related to this, consider the following list: the now deleted [{Archimedes Plutonium]](deletion endorsed even though it seems AP wanted an article), Kent Hovind Jack Sarfatti, Jonathan Sarfati, Stephen Barrett , David Miscavige, Guillermo Gonzalez, John C. Sanford, Rachel Marsden, J. K. Rowling, Diane Duane. Now, which of any of these would we overturn an AfD if an admin closed due to a deletion request by the subject?  For all but one of them I really have no idea what we'd do. 
# The current policy allows the closer to apply some unspecific amount of weight to the subject's wishes. However, in Beesley, Finkelstein and Brandt (which sounds oddly like Tinker to Evans to Chance) people in the discussion called for deletion with the sole justification of the subject's desire to not have the articles. We need to resolve whether that is a valid reason for a person within the discussion to call for deletion or simply applied at closing as a reading of the policy would suggest. JoshuaZ 17:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting, I see that conclusion as almost a reducio ad absurdum illustrating what's wrong with our current approach to deleting BLPs of public figures. JoshuaZ 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, if would probably qualify as a reductio if what I described above weren't already true. I'm just saying either we need to accept that our draconian application of this policy is true and move on, or we need to reevaluate such applications. I don't like pussyfooting around and general bullshit, and our current policy is both. The text says one thing and people do something else. Either we say admins can just delete anything related to BLP at whim or we say we want consensus. Either is fine with me; middle ground is not. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the arbcom are saying that admins can delete whatever they want citing this.  violet/riga (t) 18:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo! Well, most of ArbCom. But anyway, once the BJD case closes, I guess we should be seeing some new text on the project page. I suspect all of the text on the page will be deleted and replaced with something along the lines of: "BLP is meant only for admins, who may delete the page of any living person whenever they feel like it, so long as they cite this policy." That's pretty much where we're at right now, especially with the ArbCom ruling. And yes, that is a reductio. But yes, that is, apparently, the reality of this situation. Right, Tony? After all, we are writing an encyclopedia... right? <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: But that's exactly the issue -- BLP does not listen to the community -- the community has zero input on either the policy or the application of it. It boils down to unilateral and sanction-free admin action that no one can question, even if the article in question does not violate the policy. Well, at least that's what ArbCom is saying. BLP is now, essentially, a silver bullet that any admin can use to win an argument: A: "Why did you delete the article?" B: "BLP." A: "What do you mean? What policy did the page violate?" B: "I can't talk about it... BLP issues." End of conversation. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly does feel as if we have zero input. I reverted some minor copyediting, since I thought it might confuse things, and asked those changing it to talk on the talk page. Another admin even protected the page for half a day, asking for discussion (before I had left a note on Slim's talk page, but had gotten no reply). Slim added it back in, with no discussion whatsoever, not even acknowledging the valid reason the edit was reverted. Tony comes in and backs her up. What the hell? Maybe they're right, and the wording isn't a big deal, and maybe that's just one small example, but these guys are just forcing shit in, not having a single drop of respect for their other editors. And as you said, the abuse can extend further, to deletions. This is getting out of hand. -- Ned Scott 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same thing is happening on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources today.  A Change resulting from a discussion involving the input of at least 10 editors was reversed without so much as a comment on the talk by SlimV.  I (and MastCell) have left comments (link) on her user page (I think I was adding mine as he/she added theirs).  (quotes and surrounding text perceived as attacks removed.  R. Baley 02:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: edited to add:assumed you were refering to Tony Sidaway here, if not, my deepest apologies all around.  If so, this is getting ridiculous.  R. Baley 00:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Nothing remains in Wikipedia policy document without consensus.  The above seems to be just an extended bout of bad faith and personal attacks.  You cannot get your way by attacking those who disagree with you, so I suggest that you stop. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no interest in attacking you.  If you had refactored your statement as requested (not by me, but others did), I would never have quoted it (or the historied version of it I mean).  What I do have an interest in, however is that changes to core polices be the result of thoughtful discussion and consensus of the editors involved.  So, please, be well, talk, discuss, make policies more clear.  When people are ignored they tend toward crankiness.  For now though, I'm going to assume that SlimVirgin had an off day wrt what Ned Scott said above, and wait for a response to my (or mastcell's) inquiry.  R. Baley 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The policy page is bullshit, and we obviously don't give a crap about consensus -- if we cared about consensus, we'd listen to the community when it comes to BLP deletions. But we don't care, and neither do you. And that's fine, really. It would be nice, however, if you stopped pissing around and just admitted to it. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 06:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Please remove your personal attacks from the page. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (not an admission it was a personal attack though).  Can you please refactor your comments on the arbitration page I quoted you from. nevermind.  R. Baley 02:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see my name being taken in vain here. R. Baley, can you say how I'm having an off day? :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some observations. 

message: Two sections, BLP deletion standards and Disputed deletions, seem to be giving the wrong impression to me. If it's just me, then I apologies, but the way it's worded gives the impression that DRV is less of an option than in normal situations. It's also odd to mention that one admin should not undo the action of another without a consensus, as that is normally what should happen, regardless of BLP. Both sections just seem to be chipping away at giving BLP deletions more power when no more is needed. I'd like to know what other people think. -- Ned Scott 01:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent is indeed that DRV would be less of an option, but that is in dispute. As to an admin undoing another admin's action, that should generally never happen without either discussing the matter with the admin who took the action, or, if they refuse to discuss the matter or no agreement is reached, seeking community input on whether reversal is appropriate or not. Wheel-warring is bad in all cases. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm disturbed by the first comment. Nothing resembling a consensus or anything has declared that DRV should be less of a burden and it is already very hard to get something undeleted at DRV. JoshuaZ 14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JoshuaZ, I'm one of the ones who disputes that DRV should be less of an option. If anything, if we allow such unilateral deletions, it will be critically important that they be reviewed by the community at DRV. However, it is indeed the intent that DRV should become less of an option, even if I strongly disagree with that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we fix it, then. -- Ned Scott 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: I haven't followed all of the above discussion, so apologies if I repeat some stuff, but I wanted to raise a few points and see what people think.
*(A) My view on what Wikipedia is not and why the focus on verifiability and attribution has skewed some people's views, so that they are focusing on attribution before looking at whether the information is needed or not, can be summarised as follows:"Not every that can be verifiable needs to (or should) go in Wikipedia. The thinking should not be: "If it's verifiable, let's put it in"; it should be (1) "do we want/need this information here?" and (2) "can we supply a source for the information so the reader can verify what we have written?". (1) comes before (2) every time." Carcharoth 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that having false information in the encyclopedia is inherently harmful.  This isn't an issue just limited to BLP, of course; having false information about the Taj Mahal can be harmful, too.  But when it comes to articles on living people, false information has the potential to do much more harm, since reputations and lives can be destroyed in a single news cycle.  Therefore we have to be much more careful when writing about living people; if we are not completely certain that a potentially libelous statement is true (in other words, if it hasn't been verified), we need to remove it until an acceptable source becomes available.  Saying we need it in the article doesn't do any good; an incomplete article is, as a rule, far less harmful than a potentially libelous one.  It's much easier to re-add the fact that XYZ is an axe murderer after a proper source has been added, than it is to restore their reputation if a news agency cites our false information.  One good example:  Look at Ray Nagin.  You will notice that it mentions a controversy over whether or not he used to be a Republican (something he denies).  I spent a while looking at sources on that, trying to puzzle it out, and from them strongly suspect that the original source on the story that he used to be a Republican is, in fact, us--an anon added it to his article ages ago, with no sources, back when he wasn't very well known.  Then, after Katrina, many blogs and, later, even respectable news agencies used our article for a quick background check.  The result?  Our unverified statement on him has been echoed around so much that we now have to report on it, even though it was probably just a mistake.  While not really as libelious as some potential BLP issues could be, that's a good example of what we have to beware of, and why we have to err on the side of non-inclusion sometimes, at least until a good source can be found. --Aquillion 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another example, and it isn't the least bit damaging as far as I can tell, but it illustrates how unreliable Wikipedia can be, and how easily seeded with information: Richard Gere's German half-brother. Here I comment, "the only source I can find for this is Wikipedia--should we be in the business of creating fact?" , and here, a German anon provides a source for the statement and restores it , and here  we learn on "talk" that a German may be using Wikipedia to disseminate the notion that he is Gere's half-brother.  Or is he really Gere's half-brother providing information he knows to be true?  Well, no one appears to care--the only thing that's really important, if you read the talk page, is whether gerbils should be mentioned and what should be said about his sexual orientation. And where did I first learn the gerbil legend?  Wikipedia, where else?  Meanwhile, the Gere entry stagnates and collects troll edits.  That's the Wikipedia I know. If it takes BLP to fix that, then I'm all for it. -Jmh123 06:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some good examples, though really, why newspapers are using Wikipedia as a source of information is completely beyond me. Do newspapers no longer have journalistic standards? Carcharoth 10:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many do not.  -Jmh123 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  That article does seem to have had problems in the past, though at present there is no obvious problem material there now.  I think the question of how and whether to discuss events of his brief marriage, which were prominent at the time but now seem a lot less important, is a legitimate one.   Now, I think, even in America the question of a film star's sexuality carries a lot less weight than it used to, but as recently as the early nineties this kind of speculation still fueled the less salubrious magazines.  Nowadays Drew Barrymore can discuss her bisexuality and hardly anybody notices. --Tony Sidaway 13:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstood my comment, Tony.  The article doesn't have problem material now; it's just not a great bio, and is rarely edited except to add perjoratives that are then deleted.  No one cares about improving the entry, but people do care about gerbils.  The bare facts about his personal life are all that is necessary in an encyclopedia.  -Jmh123 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing well is hard, writing poorly is easy.  You can't realistically expect anon or even new editors to know about verifiability and citing sources - they're mostly going to write about what they know.  On every article you're always going to have to explain to anons the importance of citing sources.  For many (most?) people, the rumours about Gere's sexuality may be the only thing they know about him (shit, I'd heard the gerbil rumour at least six years before I was able to name a single film Gere was in) and there's nothing you can do but be patient with them.  As for improving enteries - if you watch, most "largescale" improvements come in spurts - because they're much harder work than copyedits, reformats, rvvs and the like.  WilyD 15:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more thoughts 

message: I have a question on a certain issue.  I'll oversimplify it for sake of argument.  Here goes:  Individual A is controversial, so it is noted that someone else (Individual B) does not like that person and accuses him or her of being a jerk (which is sourced of course). There is not much objection to this information since it has been there for a long time and when it is taken out it is put back in.  That's fine.  Now, someone puts in a negative accusation from  Individual A about Individual B or maybe another person (also sourced).  It is taken out because it is an "attack" so BLP comes into play or maybe it is due to notability since it is not covered by a secondary source which could be argued in the first example.  The situation appears to be a double standard at worst and inconsistency at best.  It does not matter to me which was is the right way.  I just believe there should be a uniform way to handle controversial people who have some sort of grievance with other LP's.  Do I have something here? MrMurph101 21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feuds between notable LP's 

message: I've written an essay on this topic at Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. It doesn't actually reflect my own views on BLP; rather, I think it reflects the broad opinion of most people on this, and I hope it will form an appropriate compromise. Waltontalk 14:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay 

message: OK - I'm interested in trying to develop concensus as I think the wrestling articles are pretty shameful in their current state and who knows what's hidden in some of them.  
Policy says Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.
As far as I can see this edit in line with policy (I gave nine days notice of my intention) but many editors will consider this going too far - thoughts? --Fredrick day 00:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you can't talk about his prolific career but you can mention wife abuse?  Interesting interpretation.  You removed far too much acceptable material in that edit.  violet/riga (t) 08:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does seem a little odd. However the description of the career is for the most part unsourced cruft.  Perhaps deletion might be more appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 08:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The wrestling articles are odd in that - unless articles about other performing arts, they tend to be a mixture of the real and whatever storyline that person is involved in. Now the wrestling fans might know what is what, but how are the rest of us mere mortals suppose to delineate out the difference? A storyline written up in the wrong way is reported as a factual happening in that person's life. Those articles of living people are amongst the most detailed yet unsourced that we have on wikipedia. I have no interesting in wrestling but as a BLP-related issue, they really do need more of a spotlight shined on them. --Fredrick day 09:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems odd, Tony?  Who could've predicted that "odd" edits would happen when people read the BLP policy in different ways?  violet/riga (t) 11:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stick to the subject. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applying this policy