Content deleted Content added
Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) |
Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) All this stuff is or should by now be under discussion on more public fora. |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{/Notices}} |
{{/Notices}} |
||
---- |
---- |
||
== Unreferenced BLPs == |
|||
Well done. I was wondering when it was time to say "enough". I think we need to make one more try to get an agreement with a hard deadline. Failing that, I need to find 6 admins willing to jump into the fire with me.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 15:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: I'm going to try to keep a low profile on this going forward (though you know I must fail in the effort of course if we're to get anywhere.) |
|||
: I think the idea of clearing the backlog by the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia in 2011 could work, particularly if we could get Jimmy Wales our nominal deity to consider that a worthwhile and achievable goal. |
|||
: I still find it difficult to understand why there is so much lethargy and foot-dragging on this. What conceivable good can we do by keeping unsourced stuff about living persons aroun? We might as well just import unchecked gibbering from blog feeds and stick an "unsourced" tag on them so they can sit around for a few years. [[User talk:Tasty monster|Tasty monster]] (=[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] ) 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::How many unreferenced BLPs have you guys sourced today? There are no minions here.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' 20:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Milowent, I have spent hours, days and weeks indeed, of my life scanning through unreferenced BLPs removing libels and other BLP violations. How many have you removed today?--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::I have sourced hundreds of BLPs in the past few months. I thought you retired?--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' 20:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I did. I'm back. So what? I'm simply making the point that because I have no desire to rescue unimportant BLPs in no way detracts from the point I'm making. Despite the hundreds of violations that I, and others, have removed, the list of unreferenced BLPs contains hundreds of BLP violations. Since posting above, I found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anita_Bryant&action=historysubmit&diff=393285209&oldid=388974872 this atrocity]. In the next five minutes, I'm sure I'll find another. You "what's the problem?" folks have your head in the sand.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 20:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::That wasn't an atrocity, but you didn't educate yourself to opine whether it truly was or not.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' 22:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I have absolutely no intention of ever sourcing an unsourced BLP. In my opinion an unsourced BLP should not exist. Do not create an article that is substantiallly a biography of a living person if you do not have verifiable information about that living person at your side as you type it in, and are citing it as part of the very earliest revisions. This isn't rocket science. Wikipedia is supposed to make the internet ''not'' suck, so don't add crap to it. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 20:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*"I have absolutely no intention of ever sourcing an unsourced BLP." Oy vey. Then why create a shitstorm if you're not willing to shovel the shit to fix the problem? It took me almost no time to find good source and update [[Nikolay Maksyuta]] which you had just prodded. New unsourced BLPs are subject to BLPPROD. When the project started, the idea of sourcing everything was not much less common. I agree that unsourced BLPs should be eliminated, but there's no mandate to delete them en masse.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' 20:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Five years after the BLP policy was created, ten years after Wikipedia was founded, Wikipedia's continued creation of unfounded and indefensible statements about living persons must die. Work hard and work fast to save the articles that can be sourced, because we are working for a Wikipedia that finally complies with its most basic policies. The best way to do that in my opinion is to delete pending proper sourcing. That doesn't mean you can't create the article with sources, and it doesn't mean you won't be permitted to look at the deletion log to see which articles need to be rebuilt. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 20:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Speedy deletion of unsourced BLPs == |
|||
Hi Tony, |
|||
I see that you have tagged a number of unsourced BLPs for speedy deletion on the basis that they have been tagged as unsourced BLPs for an extended period. I just removed one of those tags and I see that others have done the same on the other articles you tagged. These articles don't appear to fit any valid criterion for speedy deletion, and the reason you gave for listing them is outside what policy permits. |
|||
Of course these articles are not eligible for [[WP:BLPPROD]] because they are too old, but it's worth noting that the way you want to treat them (immediate deletion without discussion or time to fix) is considerably harsher than what blpprod allows for. |
|||
While I agree that many of these should be deleted, speedy deletion is not the way to accomplish this unless they also happen to qualify under a speedy deletion criterion such as A7. It would probably be best to [[WP:AFD]] them and let the full deletion process take effect. |
|||
Cheers, |
|||
[[User:Thparkth|Thparkth]] ([[User talk:Thparkth|talk]]) 15:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: There is no formal speedy deletion criterion, but the articles can be deleted on sight under the arbitration principle from the Badlydrawnjeff case, which I quote in full at the top of the discussion I started at [[WP:AN]]. If any other editor wants to remove such a tag, that's okay too, but it doesn't solve the problem. [[User talk:Tasty monster|Tasty monster]] (=[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] ) 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:: They can only be summarily deleted if they are against policy, per the case you cite, which means only if they are contentious or negative. I would quite like [[WP:BLP]] to go futher than it does at present, but the fact remains that it doesn't... [[User:Thparkth|Thparkth]] ([[User talk:Thparkth|talk]]) 19:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
All unsourced BLPs are intrinsically against policy. All admins are empowered, on their own cognizance, to kill unsourced articles about living persons. We don't know what is likely to be contentious or negative. An unsourced statement that Joe Brown of Littleborough, Nowheresville, Minnesota is a clown notable for his balloon tricks is damaging to Joe Brown of Littleborough, Nowheresville, Minnesota if it is unsourced. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*"All admins are empowered, on their own cognizance, to kill unsourced articles about living persons. " That statement is utter bullshit.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' 20:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Please explain. I asked your to elaborate on an earlier statement. Adding a blatant personal attack doesn't explain. --[[User ttalk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 20:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*Your citation to a 2007 arb decision doesn't support your claim that all admins can delete any unsourced BLP. Its wikilawyering.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' 20:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
The arbcom decision was that ''Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, 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.''. The relevant policy is [[WP:BLP]] which does not mandate that every BLP must be sourced (no, really! read it yourself!). I do not believe this is a mandate for the summary deletion of all unsourced BLPs, and I'm pretty sure that I'm stating the majority opinion here. [[User:Thparkth|Thparkth]] ([[User talk:Thparkth|talk]]) 20:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: Claiming that it doesn't endorse unilateral summary deletion of BLPs would require a request for clarification. I shall make such a request now. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 20:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:: I was thinking that would be a good idea. I hope you don't get the impression that I'm working against you here - I actually share your goal on this, though I'm perhaps a bit less absolutist on it. My concern is that we don't make up policy as we go along. [[User:Thparkth|Thparkth]] ([[User talk:Thparkth|talk]]) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::BLP requires ''strict'' adherence to verifiability policy, and [[WP:BURDEN]] applies – "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them..." My expectation is that admins would make a basic search to see if sources are readily available confirming main points of an article, add them if appropriate, and if none are found, delete the article. That's not unilateral summary deletion, particularly if an article has been tagged as lacking sources for a year or more. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 22:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Let's just wait for the Committee of 2010 to comment. I thought we had this home and dry in the Badlydrawnjeff case, but here we face a much more desperate situation with far more unsourced BLPs and a new lot of people who think it's okay to keep the crap. So we have to go back and ask them to support the basic principles we once thought were established, or clarify them in a way, we hope, will send us all off in a more productive direction. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 22:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Suits me, I was thinking of commenting there but will leave it alone for now. Note that although the Badlydrawnjeff decision refers to "Summary deletion of BLPs", the admin has to believe it significantly violates any aspect of [[WP:BLP]] which refers to "contentious material about a living person", so due diligence would imply being satisfied that the material was contentious as well as simply unsourced. As stated above, a search for sources would be reasonable, if tedious. Clarification of these points would be welcome. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 22:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:: Yes, I completely agree with the "due diligence" criterion. The deleting admin must know that the article is unsourced (by actually looking at all revisions) and believe that it is potentially damaging. That establishes a very low watermark from which I hope sensible discussion can proceed. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 22:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Summary motion regarding biographies of living people deletions]] == |
== [[Wikipedia:Summary motion regarding biographies of living people deletions]] == |
||
Revision as of 01:18, 28 October 2010
User talk:Tony Sidaway/Notices
This is more potent than the Bdj case (and, btw, can we try to leave a long departed user out of this). It might be worth you studying.--Scott Mac 23:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I find it surprising that I'd forgotten all about that motion, considering how pleased I was at the time about the endorsement of Ignore all rules. But that goes back to a minor gripe I used to have about the 2005-2007 Committees. They were great in their time but they had some weird foibles that needed some skilled second-guessing to step around. --TS 01:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)