Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive 2

template:blpwatch-links
I've renamed this to the shorter and more canonical (standardized) name blplinks. works identically to how did, and avoids two identical templates.

The old name will work, but can the new one be used form now on for simplicity?

Thanks! FT2 (Talk 23:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking to oversight
Should there be a link from the project page to requests for oversight? Andjam (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot archiving
I see a bot is archiving this noticeboard. Are there precautions in place to ensure that unanswered requests don't get archived by the bot? It would seem sensible, given the important nature of some of the requests, that they don't get prematurely archived. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Heading level
Why are the top 10 or so issues H3s and the bottom 15 h2s? Is this intentional? I can't see anything on the page to indicate that.... Protonk (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh. I get it. Protonk (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Suppression of newsworthy detail in a biography
Why was there no discussion here about the redaction of the article on Nadhmi Auchi to exclude news-worthy and significant items like the connection between Auchi and US Presidential candidate Barack Obama?

I think that the redaction (which apparently happened this morning) was done without any regard to the facts of this case; it was, not to put too fine a point on it, a cover-up of a highly newsworthy event - the evident purchase of a candidate's mansion with the proceeds from a very shady multi-million dollar loan.

In this case, the article WAS neutral - its redaction by persons unknown was not. The original article cited articles in the London Times, Chicago Tribune, the Guardian and the Independent, all reputable newspapers, which backed every point made in the article.vfrickey (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at WikiProject Tennis
Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this Noticeboard
Is this Noticeboard the appropriate place for raising an issue about material concerning a living person that appears in an article other than a bio of the person? I have twice removed material that I consider improper. I've provided a lengthy explanation on the talk page, referencing Wikipedia policies. If that's the end of it, fine, but if the material is added again, should I post on the Noticeboard? (The person in question doesn't have a Wikipedia article. His name redirects to the article about the subject that involves him.) JamesMLane t c 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard is for anything that relates to a a living person anywhere on wikipedia per WP:BLP. Post on the project page, not the talk page though.  Ty  22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Huge transcluded page
→ '' In re :. ''

The Ongoing BLP concerns page which is transcluded on the main BLP noticeboard page is currently near 180kb and growing. Of that total, "Porn actors' birth names" alone is about 130 kb. Can those who know what's going on here check out the situation and remedy it? Perhaps other sections (e.g. "Using the word fraudulent, and third party sources") should be vetted as well. — Athaenara ✉  06:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive 1 for related February 2008 discussion.) — Athaenara  ✉  08:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved from below.

The section "Porn actors' birth names" has gotten to be the majority of this project page. Can we please factor it out to a page of its own and just link it from here? - Jmabel | Talk 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

End moved from below.


 * I see I'm not the first to bring this up. Didn't notice it was in a transcluded page. But, again on that transcluded page, can we factor it out & link from there? - Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now, the page contains no ongoing BLP concerns. That can't be right, can it.  Have they all been resolved?  If not, a link to the transcluded ongoing concerns page ought to be inserted.  I don't know how.  Would someone please do it? David in DC (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Archives
Houston, we have a problem. Threads are being bot-archived in individual archives, with the result that more than twenty of them have so far been created. — Athaenara ✉  06:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(Working on cleanup now.) — Athaenara  ✉  07:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, two archives are sorted. I will WP:CSD the 20+ tiny archives which are now redundant and post a note on the bot owner's page about the whole schmear. — Athaenara ✉  07:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Help!
A BLP rule says: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." If everyone agrees that an edit is truthful and well-sourced, but there is no consensus that the material would be appropriate in the BLP (e.g. undue weight), then does this particular BLP rule say that the material must stay out of the article?

I've got a situation where editors are evenly divided about whether some material should go into a particular BLP. An editor that I've been dealing with says that consensus is required to REMOVE that material for undue weight reasons. I say that consensus is required to add or restore it. Who's right?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If in doubt, leave it out. Would a Request for Comment be appropriate? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference library category
Just a FYI post, really: In order to help facilitate easier location of potential sources of offline information to help verify the notability of article subjects and contents, I have created Category:WikiProject reference libraries and placed into it all of the reference library pages of which I am aware. Please add more project reference libraries to this category if you know of more. Additionally, feel free to create new reference library pages for any particular project as well. They can be very useful. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to proceed - Murder suspects
A question has arisen regarding BLP concerns surrounding an edit in both The Dark Knight (film) and Joker (comics):


 * Dendermonde nursery attack
 * (tagged both with current event and main article tags)
 * In January 2009, a young man with a white-painted face, black eye shadow and ginger-dyed hair stabbed two infants and an attendant to death, injuring twelve others in a children's daycare centre in Dendermonde, Belgium. Among other newspapers, De Standaard noted that the appearance and method resembled those of the Joker. The perpetrator is also said to play games with the police and laugh during police interrogations. The assailant, 20 year old Kim De Gelder, allegedly committed the crime influenced by Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker from the latest Batman film, The Dark Knight.

A few anons had reverted in each article, prompting some little back and forth, and then an editor claimed that the issue is a BLP concern (regarding the suspect). I am unsure as to how it applies in this case, since we are not giving the suspect's address or any sort of personal information beyond the arrest for the crime; every piece of information is from at least three different sources, all quoting policemen on scene. Someone also made the argument of Undue Weight, but this isn't the Undue Noticeboard and of course, it doesn't really apply either. The statement is neutral and goes no further than the sources it cites. Some input from folk here would be grand. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute, centered, in part, on recentism problems, related to the Dendermonde attacks. Numerous editors on each article find the material tenuously connected at best to the topics of the articles. This argument, that consensus was against inclusion, was not enough for Arcayne. Since then, every single opposition argument has been derided, ignored, and the editors making them maligned. Arcayne, for example, accused me of attacking him in edit summaries, which I did not do, given that just a couple weeks ago, he swore to police and punish me for anything I do on Wikipedia which he feels violates his personal mores. When I pointed out that unsourced statements, from a single wire source, made vague, speculative (the articles specifically say "Some are speculating that..." without identifying the 'some') comparisons between the killer and The Joker. The articles identified Joker not as a comic book villain, but as a character from The Dark Knight. I pointed out that unfounded rumors aren't appropriate in the articles Arcayne seeks to place them in, he insists that anything published in a reliable source, (The Sun being such a reliable source), can be included. I pointed out that one, the rumors are refuted by a specific person, the suspect's attorney, and that there is no attribution in the articles to WHO made the speculation. Despite all this, despite multiple editors on each page opposing the edits, arcayne continues to revert. I'm sure he's got a 3RR filing prepared, should I revert again in the next week, complete with 'gaming the timer' accusations, so I cannot do any more, especially in light of Arcayne's public declaration to get me. Arcayne needs to be aware that consensus is against him, that a majority of involved editors don't find the sources sufficiently credible for inclusion and that as a current event can change, and should credible, reliable evidence in RS prove that he was imitating the Joker, based on EITHER the comic or movie, then the issue can be revisited. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This isn't about ThuranX. It never, ever is. As you might have guessed, he is not in love with me, but ThuranX' personal issues with me are pathetically unimportant compared to the issue prompting this comments, and its a damn shame that he felt it necessary to either confuse the matter or attempt to poison the well by treating the wiki like a battleground. It isn't, and it shouldn't be muddied by his petty behavior, and silly accusations.
 * That aside, the source is both verifiable, reliable and notable. As it is a developing event, facts will eventually emerge. It might be that the suspect wasn't idolizing the Joker. What part of the description by witnesses is incorrect until then? We are stating what the police have released to the media regarding witness statements. We are remaining neutral, verifiable and providing reliable citations that speak to the content of the above boxed text.
 * Consensus doesn't consist of 2:1 - never has. As well, consensus doesn't override our policies.
 * Inescapable fact: the sources point out the police source who states - unequivocally - that the suspect wore face paint, eye makeup and hair dye similar to Heath Ledger's Joker character in the Dark Knight. At least two of the sources say this. That the suspect's attorney denies this comparison is splendid (and likely even something to be added); it doesn't cancel out the comparison. OJ Simpson's attorney saying he didn't do it doesn't negate either the accusation. Even being innocent doesn't negate our role to write what the sources say (as per Richard Jewell).
 * The crux of ThuranX' argument here is that the sources are barely reliable. Or that noting the description is. Clearly, they aren't. Back on one page, his argument is that the description is a BLP violation. On yet another page, it morphs into an Undue Weight issue. I brought the question of BLP violation here, to get some input. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)
 * The crux is taht the sources say nothing. I have no doubt that this reply will result in attempts at sanctions, that's ok. Arcayne's been waiting long enough, let him have his fun. The point is that the sources say nothing. Nothing found in them is attributable to a person or group who are accountable for what they've said. We've got, in one article, an unnamed police source, and in all others speculation. if I Speculate that Arcayne is a Something, and publish that there is speculation out there that Arcayne is a Something, is that enough? No. Per BLP, We'd need to know who. BLP is designed to protect people from being maligned in our articles. Suggesting a person is deranged enough to imitate the Joker, when that very claim has NOT been in any way repeated by any member of the police, but has specifically and clearly been refuted by the suspect's lawyer means it is a highly contentious claim. The attorney hasn't said that the charges are rubbish, but has said so about the rumor he was playing Joker. I find this a measure of contentiousness worth respecting and avoiding repetition of. I further note that Arcayne's response included the basic concept 'I don't care about the consensus and opinions of others, I'm right cause MY interpretation of policy trumps theirs'. He says it's only 2:1, and makes out that i'm keeping score. I'm not. There are numerous editors all arguing policy and editorial content with him, and he's decided to dig his heels in till he has his way. And he's now running for the authority figure, just because all the other kids won't let him have his own rules for the game. I'll take my block now, I don't give a fuck. ThuranX (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude, no one wants to block you. Could you kindly get a grip, focus on the actual issue, and leave your personal grievances at the door? I brought the issue here because you claimed it was a BLP issue. I don't see it as such, and wanted more than your opinion on the matter. The folk here tend to deal with BLP a lot. At least, more than you or I. So maybe leave out the dramahz, and let them do their magic. okey-doke? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: has he been tried and found guilty yet? If not, can he justifiably be called the perpetrator?  I've not looked at the sources in detail yet, but will do so soon Fritzpoll (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he has been arrested for the crime. Similarly, edits regarding OJ Simpson's burglary arrest were entered the day it happened. There doesn't appear to be any issue with reporting a factual event that occurs, so long as it is very reliably cited. The root issue appears to the reliability of the characterization of the suspect apparently wearing face make-up to resemble the Joker. His brand new attorneys deny that this is true, suggesting their client's skin is just pale (pale people in Belgium? what a shocker), which isn't surprising. The elements of the question aren't in dispute. The question is:this: does this denial by his attorneys doesn't outweigh the initial witness testimony, as reported by police (reliable) to the media (also reliable)?
 * I feel that is this is the case, this might require a significant shift in policy as to how we write our articles. When OJ Simpson was arrested for the Vegas robbery, the article about it sprang into being that day. As well, we have articles for the parents of the murdered child JonBenét Ramsey - perhaps more on point, as the parents were accused of the murder, as well as John Mark Karr, who falsely confessed to having killed the child. He was notable for a single event, and yet, we have an article for him (just as we have articles for the parents), and details regarding him (and them) on a number of pages. These examples indicate that a denial (or indeed innocence, as in the case of the Ramsey's (another example of innocence would be Richard Jewell) doesn't erase the characterization of an event or depiction of it. If events are found to be incorrect, that initial mistake is noted and corrected as the story develops.
 * I look forward to gaining some insight into this issue. Thanks. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought I would mention that I have no intention of readding the info to the film article until I hear back from you. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * that comment only added once it was pointed out to him here that he hadn't continued warring on that page once a number of editors fought him on it, proving he knows consensus is agianst the adding but clearly unwilling to let go entirely and accept consensus. ThuranX (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's untrue, but the above editor has been pretty combative about the matter, so I decided not to respond to him, and avoid the dramaz, and wait for an evaluation of the material. That's it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne is ignoring a consensus built of eight people. EIGHT. I have asked himrepeatedly to reply to the other seven editors who oppose the material. He asserts that CONSENSUS is not a policy. It is. He says 'but other policies beat it.' Then he reverts again, repeats. It's this damned simple: Eight editors, having reviewed the section and citations, do not find it sufficiently relevant to this article to include it. Among the arguments are that an unsourced accusation isn't strong enough, that the attorney has flat out denied it, that the police have NOT confirmed the material supposedly anonymously attributed to them in the immediate aftermath of the matter, that the weight of the sources is AGAINST the accusation being true, and more. Let's add another. The Joker doesn't have red hair. The killer is not in the goth subculture. The killer has pale skin, not painted white skin. That leaves us with a redheaded boy in makeup. That's not enough to warrant inclusion.

There aren't enough sources to support it, it's that simple. We've got one wire report with a supposedly anonymous cop saying HE is reminded of the Joker by the makeup. That's not a cop being quoted 'The suspect said he's the Joker'. We've got newspaper reporters building on that ONE anonymous comment with 'he must be the joker because hes' not answering the cops politely'. That's crappy reporting and bady copy writing, not the same as the police stating that 'his interview behavior is clearly the same sort as seen in Heath Ledger's performance.' We've got his attorney saying flat out 'The Joker stuff is untrue, and made by the media'. We've got the Police, after that statement, refusing to confirm it, or even discuss it. In other words, the only reliable material is 'It's not true' and 'No comment'. EVERYTHING else is wild speculation, and Wikipedia doesn't repeat wild speculation in news articles, especially about living people, nice or naughty, because that runs headlong into BLP, even if that speculation and sensationalizing is in otherwise reliable sources. This is the last time I feel like summarizing, yet again, the entire mess. ThuranX (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with ThuranX' post is that none of it - I repeat, none of it - is true, except for the fact that 3 people in one article and 5 in another have felt convinced by ThuranX' improbably descriptions of the sources. And frankly, that's all he he has - descriptions:
 * the police have NOT refused to confirm the witness statement; they have not repeated it; two very very different things.
 * the attorney denied the characterization, which is noted in the statements that ThuranX is so frantic to keep out. Of course, theattorney is going to say that. Belgian law might be different than in the US, but I am not sure it includes the attorney stating 'oh, yeah, my client dresses up like a bad clown, and is uterly unhinged.' Please, a wee bit of sanity might be helpful here.
 * We have at least six sources - all from reliable sources and easily verifiable - that note the same thing, some even adding a picture of Ledger's Joker. It isn't speculation. Now, it is not our job to judge the reporters (thought ThuranX seems to feel it is). We report what they say, and move on the material as it changes. We don't attempt to crystal ball what's going to happen.  -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Where to go for advice?
Where should I go for advice on an "Is it OK to say this ...?" question? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted nonarchived entries?
This is last post I made on this subject's entry - Feb 11, now cannot find entry in current list or last entry. Before I go searching to see if someone accidentally or intentionally deleted it, is there something else that could have happened to it on this noticeboard? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive59. THF (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Biographies' AFD category
Hi. I was just reading the foundation-l thread on BLPs, and nosing around, and thought I might suggest that you add a link to Category:AfD debates (Biographical) somewhere on this page. It isn't restricted to just living people, but it might be worth participants here keeping an eye on.

or maybe add a categorytree like this somewhere:

That's all :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Stemming the flow of unreferenced BLPs
There is a concrete proposal to do something about this. See here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Design of the BLP noticeboard
I've worked up an idea for reorganizing this board and its functions, I'd appreciate ideas/improvements/criticism that anyone might have. It can be found here. Thanks, Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Public BLP watchlist
There is now a bot running to compile a list of articles reported to this board to make a problem-BLP watchlist. The list is at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Watchlist and the watchlist is here. Mr.Z-man 19:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved BLP case Charlie Crist archived
This case, as far as I'm concerned, remains unresolved and requires the community's attention, pertaining as it does to the Florida governor. It was bot-archived on May 29 (see diff here) without the question posed having been addressed at all, much less resolved. The discussion thus far went off on a tengent about general editing questions by two involved editors and no one on this forum has addressed the concern that brought this issue here in the first place: Should a so-called "documentary" indie movie be used to "out" a person who has not self-identified as such? The article lists a plethora of references in the section Charlie Crist, but most are reviews of the movie itself and don't even mention him by name. This section, as presented, unfairly leaves the Wikipedia reader with the impression that the so-called "documentary" has reliably outed the governor of Florida as gay, when no Florida newspaper has reported such.  JGHowes   talk  15:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but there sort of American political controversies are not really my cup of tea so I'm reluctant to get involved. However your comment that most sources don't mention him by name did strike me. I've reviewed all sources as they stand now, and only a few don't mention him by name. The NPR ones and the WP ones. The NPR ones perhaps have some merit because the Huffington Post source comments on the decision not to include the name. The WP ones however don't seem to have any merit so I've started a discussion about this in the article. If you come across other sources which don't mention Crist by name and don't have any relevance to the article on Crist, your welcome to discuss and try to remove them and bring them to the BLP/N if there is objection. As it stands though, the vast majority of sources do mention him by name (I'm not saying they're all appropriate). Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the WP ref Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk archives of Ali Khamenei
The archived talk for the Ali Khamenei article (1, 2) is chock-full of allegations and general attacks on the subject, much of which originate from the apparently now-banned. What's the process here? Should the threads in question just be deleted? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll have to be more specific. A (very quick) skim of the archives reveals nothing problematic. And it would need to be pretty problematic to justify deletion. Disembrangler (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically anything signed by Patchouli. I've removed the most OTT examples already; to be honest I think the rest is probably okay, but wanted to be sure. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Professor Friedwardt Winterberg
There have been various attempts over the years to libel professor Winterberg. The problem became so bad that his article was partially protected. However, I recently noticed two "watch" type pages which imply he has questionable political connections he is trying to cover up, etc. Is this really necessary? The man is 80 years old and doesn't know how to defend himself against such computer based attacks on his character. Various friends and colleagues have attempted to intercede on his behalf, but that doesn't make him a low person. I ask that the following material be removed from Wikipedia as falling outside the guidelines of Wikipedia's policy on living persons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alvestrand/Winterberg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alvestrand/Winterberg_notes

Physiker121 (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * IIRC the article has been protected due to the combination of a succession of IPs and socks of a banned user who have disrupted the article, and the subject or his assistants deleting well-sourced information. Some of the details of this disruption are in the pages that Physiker121 would like deleted. If folks really think the pages are offensive then WP:MFD is the appropriate venue.  Will Beback  talk


 * Heh. I'd forgotten that there were two of these pages. I've merged them.

This series of issues actually dates back to before WP:BLP was formalized. The heart of the issue is whether King is a reliable source for Winterberg's involvement with LaRouche, and whether Winterberg's LaRouche involvement is important enough to include in Winterberg's biography. (The original reason why I got involved with Winterberg's article, his support for Christopher Jon Bjerknes' claims in relation to the Relativity priority dispute, have already been removed from the article; I don't think he's objected to the stuff about the Einstein-Hilbert controversy now.) If we accept that King's book is a reliable source, and that Winterberg's involvement with LaRouche is worthy of mention, I see nothing in WP:BLP that warrants removing the material from the article. I've seen no WP:RS sources claiming the King book is not reliable; I've seen claims made to that effect on Wikipedia, but these aren't WP:RS. FWIW, the book's text is freely available for reading online.
 * As to the fact of me keeping notes around - I'm trying to keep the notes' facts to what's easy to gather for anyone with access to the history of the pages involved, not adding personal opinion - but at times, for instance when looking up IP-related information, it's unavoidable to document some degree of speculation. I think this is good practice, and don't want to stop doing it. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW - I am very happy to see that Winterberg's defendant has now created an account. I assume this is the University of Reno IP, since the editing styles seem to match. User:Physiker121 is definitely a WP:SPA, but I like having this much better than having to guess whether they're the same person or not. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't respond to this before - I only noticed it now in the archives. I ask again that the pages in question put up by Alvestrand be removed.


 * Alvestrand: If you have some sort of proof I am with UNR I suggest you provide it now. If you bothered to check my IP you would see I am more than 2500 miles from there and have nothing to do with that university. Not only have you libeled Winterberg, you have now libeled me which is a clear violation of the rules.


 * Will Beback: There is a lot more there than King's book. There are insinuations involving IDs and IP addresses that are based on Alvestrand's personal opinions and original research. Even if you accept King's work, the page is clearly not NPOV and should be taken down for that reason alone. But the book isn't NPOV either as anyone who has read it can see. Those Alvestrand notes/watch pages are nothing more than an attempt to embarrass Winterberg. Why else put them online for the whole world to see? Physiker121 (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a friendly reminder to both of you, all pages on Wikipedia, including user pages, user talk pages and user subpages, are covered by WP:BLP and subject to deletion/severe pruning if in violation. I am not accusing either of you of anything, just a reminder. – ukexpat (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Physiker if you genuinely feel these should be deleted in accordance with policy, your best bet is to take this to WP:MFD as recommended above, citing your policy reasons e.g. WP:BLP. Unless these merit a WP:Speedy which I would expect is unlikely, someone will have to bring them there anyway Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I think I accidentally posted this in the wrong place. I will move it. Physiker121 (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Backlog alleviated?
I'm going to tentatively remove the backlog tag, as I believe I've dealt with all of the issues raised that didn't at least have one respondent. If there are any objections to this, feel free to revert me. Unitanode 20:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Premature Archiving?
Today I noticed an archiving bot entry in my Watchlist for this Noticeboard, and I think it could be archiving too soon in some cases. The Noticeboard reads:"'Routine archival is automated, but any issue that has not been edited for 15 days may be copied to the appropriate archive page.'"The linked archive ToC reads:"'When there has been no additional discussion on an issue for 15 days or more, please move it to the appropriate archive, based on the date when the issue was originally opened. (That way, the archive sections will stay in approximately the same order as they were originally added to the main page.) Discussions are automatically archived 15 days after they've gone dormant by the date of the last note added.'"Here's the Watchlist entry:"... mb Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ... (-8,888) ... MiszaBot II (Archiving 7 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive69, Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive70.)" Both (of the two) new archive subpages include entries about 7 days old, and with that cutoff time premature archiving seems probable.

Also, the Archive ToC page only includes 2009 subpages up to Archive66 – mid June to early July. Please can somebody familiar with MiszaBot take a look? ( edit link showing bot params ) Thanks. –Whitehorse1 12:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We also have the 3 closed/resolved templates described on the noticeboard of course; I don't know whether they hard‑mark a thread archivable on the next bot run or not. Perhaps there's a happy effective medium between the 1 and 2ish week timespans? Whether the timespan was chosen as an arbitrary reasonable-seeming threshold or by design based on typically how long a reported issue takes to be resolved satisfactorily also seems key. –Whitehorse1 22:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the most recent archives to the ToC page (plus a few redlinks as we are getting through about 2 archives a month).
 * The question is, do we want to leave MiszaBot archiving at 7 days, or change it to 15 days? Changing it would increase the project page substantially, do we want to clutter the page with old threads, or keep them there in case there are more issues. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Martin451. With the current 7 days I think there are definitely threads being auto-archived too early; the last thread on the first-linked archive for example.


 * The bot ignores close/resolved templates, and only goes on the date of the last signature in the section. If this date is older than (currently) 7 days, then the bot archives the section. If you want to keep the section from being archived, just add a signed comment every so often. As no one else has commented here, I will increase the archive time to 10 days. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Who closes BLP/N discussions -- and how?
The specific discussion in question is Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

The violation reported was the use of "See also" wikilinks to circumvent BLP RS rules. WP:BLP was subsequently added to clarify policy:
 * See also sections are not exempt from the requirements of neutrality and verifiability based on reliable sources. Links placed here do not need to be cited, but may not create implications that are unsupported by the body text.

This seems clear to me, but an editor at BLP/N maintains that it is not, and he may continue to add a "See also" unsupported by a BLP RS -- see Talk:Ian Plimer.

Could an administrator please look in on these two pages and act/comment as he/she finds appropriate? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not how it works on Wikipedia. Admins have no special power in content or policy disputes. All they have is some extra buttons. My comment is on the page, but it is no more or less weighty than any other. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also a huge misrepresentation of what happened. The see also section has been removed as it is being abused in this instance. Verbal chat  09:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, who removed the "see also" section from the policy? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was removed after discussion, look in the history. Its addition was found to be unnecessary. No need to apologise, in this instance. Verbal chat  08:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How often are you supposed to raise issues to the BLP noticeboard?
A number of editors are complaining that I have raised too many incidents at the BLP noticeboard. Nil Einne has suggested in good faith that it may be more appropriate to go to other noticeboards in the first instance, such as the NPOV/N or the NOR/N. My understanding of the policies, however, is that when NPOV violations or NOR violations occur on the biography page of a living person, they must be escalated immediately to the BLP/N and not anywhere else. The policy states clearly that "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

I would appreciate some feedback and discussion (please note that William M. Connolley in particular, as well as Verbal, Stephan Schulz and Ratel are the other editors involved here). Alex Harvey (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll probably say I'm involved, but I feel the problem is more the nature of the problems you raise. Several have (reasonably, arguably) not been actual BLP issues, such as the discussion about sufacestations. This was marterial about the website, not the person. Another example is the "See also" discussion, not a BLP issue in that case - it was a related link, and has now been integrated directly into the text. Verbal chat  08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously all BLP violations are "reasonably, arguably" to some not actual BLP violations; otherwise BLP violations could not ever occur. In both of these cases, uninvolved opinion sided with my view that they were indeed BLP violations. You don't agree; fine; but uninvolved consensus was that they were. It's true that the "conspiracy theory" page ended up linked surreptitiously under the text "hidden agendas". But that's a totally different matter and not an issue I've ever raised to BLP/N. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase - you said they were, but for obvious reasons they weren't. Outside opinion did not side with you at all in either case. Verbal chat  09:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all you say? SurfaceStations:, , , , . BluefieldWV also sided with me but he's a climate change skeptic so probably counts as involved/non-neutral on the issue. See also issue: , , . The BLP violations were identified as such in both cases. One is removed, the other is tagged and will be removed shortly. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Trying again, is there any way I can get the input of good faith editors uninvolved in the recent BLP/N disputes? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I resent the implication that my advice wasn't given in good faith. It was. Please see WP:AGF and retract. Verbal chat  11:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Verbal, I only meant to imply that you are an involved editor, and that this really isn't helping since you've already made the same points in the previous discussion. Do you have any objection to allowing others to comment? If not, would you mind removing your response here and this present response to the same? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the insinuation that those who have responded to your previous queries were not acting in good faith is extremely unhelpful and further polarizes the situation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If every involved comment was removed then the original request would also have to be removed, which would be counterproductive. Also, people who are experts in an area tend to be active in that area, so discounting their opinions as involved would be counterproductive. In the original BLP discussion of See Also I was uninvolved,, but you quickly labelled me as involved once I disagreed with you - yet no attacks on those that agreed with you. Cherry picking diffs does not show the actuality of the situation in those cases either, where BLP was not changed in response to your so-called "loophole" - as it was decided it did not exist. To get back to the question, you can raise different BLP issues as often as you want, but you should remember the boy who cried wolf and not to test the patience of editors with frivolous or borderline requests. Not every edit that someone disagrees with on a climate change article is a BLP issue. I have no objection to anyone commenting, why do you? Verbal chat  15:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because, dear good faith editor Verbal, as you know full well, we had disagreed bitterly over an almost identical "see also" BLP/N dispute that was also resolved in my favour. Shall I find those diffs for you too? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is obviously futile but my email address is alexharv074 at gmail dot com. If there is someone out there willing to discuss this matter with me privately I would be very grateful. Thanks. [boldface removed from this comment -- Alex] Alex Harvey (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: in answer to the general question, in borderline cases it doesn't much matter which noticeboard you go to. Beyond that, if you're in the wrong place, people will tell you, and if you consistently get it wrong, re-assess. The main thing is to get outside input, and to avoid forum shopping. Rd232 talk 15:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Please don't use bold in comments. There's a reason you don't see others do it. Rd232 talk 15:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I became involved in the article when it was reported to BLPN in June of this year. I suspect other editors who watch this noticeboard also started taking a look then. Since most people who watch BLPN are now either involved, or uninterested in this article, I suspect that you (Alex) will find it difficult to get a new batch of good faith editors previously uninvolved to commment. How long is it between when an editor first replies to your (Alex) comments, and is seen as being "involved"? When you ask questions about this article, the editors most likely to reply are those who have previously shown an interest in the article, and some will have become interested when it was previously listed at BLPN. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Martin451, you may have identified the underlying problem here; part of the problem is I have no visibility of how many editors actually watch these noticeboards. I have been thinking in terms of thousands but if in reality there were less than 100 then what you're saying is probably right. If hypothetically a number of editors share a POV and are sympathetic to advancing the POV inside BLPs then the problem is rather intractable.
 * But let's take a step back: let's suppose I have misunderstood the BLP policy and the purpose of the BLP/N. So when is the BLP/N required -- in principle I mean? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's a BLP issue and you feel it hasn't been resolved properly on the article talk page, then bring it here; and do that whenever you need to. You should of course take note of the outcome here, assuming there is a sufficient input of non-involved editors to achieve a wider consensus one way or the other. Editors already involved will put their case, but should be prepared to listen to editors drawn in from the outside, as should you. If for any reason, you still feel there is a serious concern, then follow WP:DR.  Ty  07:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer a question asked above, over 1000 people watch this page. However, I have no idea how many accounts are active - and many people who have posted issues will probably have added it. I agree with Tyrenius about the use of this page, the problem to me seems to be the determining of whether there is actually a BLP issue. You (general "you") need to take on board the opinions of those involved as well as those uninvolved in the dispute, and show a genuine BLP concern (that it relates to a person/s). The surface stations problem would probably have been better received at the WP:RSN, for example. Verbal</b> chat  11:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Alex Harvey: it's hard to respond to your initial question as you do not indicate what article has raised your BLP concern.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking generally, but Anthony Watts (blogger) was the most recent. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fred Singer
(moved to mainpage, I accidentally opened this discussion on talk)

Flagged revisions petition
This is shameless publicising, but we've waited long enough. Time to raise hell.--Scott Mac (Doc) Flagged Now! 15:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Targeted Flagging - new proposal to help BLPs
Another shameless plug. This is a simplified proposal to implement flagged revisions on the most vulnerable BLPs, avoiding the development delays of FRPR - please comment --Scott Mac (Doc) 16:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

New page
As part of ongoing community discussion concerning issues surrounding interpretation of our BLP policy, I have posted BLP examples for discussion. This page contains five examples of situations in which application of the BLP policy could lead to disagreements among good-faith editors. The examples, based on specific articles but intended to be discussed more abstractly, are designed for discussion either on-wiki and also as an aid to discussion of the problem at meet-ups where there is a session scheduled on BLP issues (including in New York this Sunday, January 24). Input is welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A request for consistent application of NPOV and BLP
Discussion at Village_pump_(policy). THF (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How do we service noticeboards like this
I've have a notice that has yet to receive independent responses and be closed. So I was wondering why. Being a competent scripter, I did a pivot table on the last 2000 history entries. The results are
 * Top Posters: Off2riorob (431), Rd232 (68), SandyGeorgia (65), Jarhed (43), Scieberking (27), FkpCascais (23), Tony Sidaway (22), Nil Einne (21), Mugginsx (20), Collect (20)
 * Bots: SineBot (57), MiszaBot II (52)
 * 19-10 posts: 25 users
 * <10 posts: 329 users

This isn't even a typical pareto distribution for this type of forum. Something is clearly not working. Off2riorob's interest seems to be to clear this board, I haven't checked to see if the other top posters are intrinsically responders or just frequent incident posters. However anyone (like Off2riorob), who adjudicates on this number of posts, is going to upset a percentage of editors. Some of these who feel passionately about their topic will resort to mechanisms like AN/I in response, so getting AN/Is becomes an occupational hazard here, and servicing any board is a poison challis. (i) It is understandable why most editors prefer to avoid this. (ii) when this does happen then the commenting editor may have to avoid responding to further posts from such editors to avoid "repeated harassment" claims on subsequent AN/Is.

So what we seem to have is a situation where there is an imbalance of supply and demand in such arbitration services. Having had a scan BPLN is actually one of the better boards. Quite frankly looking at the response rates on some of the others, you may as well not bother using them.

So how do we improve the service to these boards?
 * My suggestion is some form of "Jury Duty"
 * Frequent editors (say those withover N posts N=500 or 1000 or some similar threshold) are invited to put their names on Q to support Wikipedia internal processes.  Their decision to join the Q is entirely down to the editor.
 * From the queue editors are invited to do "duty" by being assigned to a noticeboard for a fixed period of say two weeks.
 * During this time, they are asked to service the board by arbitrating on cases. They are also expected to familarise themselves with the relevant WP policies and guidelines (which should be a non-event for editors of this "seniority").
 * The level of effort that they put in is entirely down to them. If they then want to extend thier involvement then this is also entirely down to them.
 * There is some light level of arbitration and oversight to monitor these editors. This will mostly be non-interventional, but the AN/I administrators should at least be aware that an editor has been asked to serve on a noticeboard if an involved editor then raises an AN/I related to this work.

Perhaps we should raise this issue for or equiv, but I wanted to bounce the issue around on this discussion first for some reaction. -- TerryE (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your analysis does not address 'famously inefficient' editing styles. If it takes an editor four tries to get a single paragraph posted and de-typo'd, then you could that as be equal to four separate responses.
 * As always, my first response to anyone proposing that other volunteers be pushed into doing something unpleasant is: Lead by example.  Assign yourself to 'jury duty' on, say, the open User RfCs, and do what you've proposed that others be told to do.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP RFC reaching a conclusion of sorts?
There's a motion to close at Requests for comment/Biographies of living people it might be useful if people commented.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Rashad Hussain
There is an anon that has been deleting material from the Rashad Hussain article. It is around the 3RR area, so I was wondering if anybody had any suggestions on how to move forward while retaining reliable information germane to the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people
title says it all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales starts poll on "flagged revisions now"
Please see User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)