Wikipedia talk:Living People Patrol/Archive 1

Volunteers
I'm not an admin, but I volunteer to be actively involved with this group. I feel very strongly that BLP violations are a huge threat to Wikipedia's credibility. This is on my watchlist. Crockspot 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll also at least watchlist this. While I am very concerned that we not slip into the realm of the libelous, I am also concerned with some censorship-related issues. I'll make my comments on those below. - Jmabel | Talk 18:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Diversity in thought and opinion on this subject is welcome and refreshing and quite the spirit of wikipedia. Chilling Effect concerns are quite real, disturbing and relevant. I tried to make sure to specifically invite people from all backgrounds, if it needs more balance, feel free to invite others using the invite template below. I'll try and shape/frame this as loose as possible. Electrawn 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is now on my watchlist as well. I would very much like to contribute to such a group. It was so nice to find people who think like I do. I was beginning to think that I was the only person to care about keeping things neutral and unbiased. I thought I was going crazy, and so was I... ;) Arcayne 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
This group should not be involved with "flushing out NPOV". It should be just focused on applying BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly. NPOV in general is a charge to every editor, and isn't necessarily a liability threat to the overall project. Crockspot 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

From arguments at Talk:Kyra_Phillips, my view is that even after potential defamation is reduced by fixing sources and statements to WP:V, defamation may still not be removed by virtue of a strawman argument/section (NPOV_tutorial, Information_suppression). "Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV." I will expand that to say: Verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are not sufficent to ensure both NPOV and against defamation. WP:NPOV "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." I would further shape that for BLP articles to say: To give undue weight to a significant-minority view or to include a small-minority view, might be misleading to the shape of a dispute. The word I changed, and thereby raised the bar...was from tiny to small. Discuss. Electrawn

Perhaps the secondary focus of this group should be specifically to counter WP:NPOV? I think that fits better than just about NPOV. Electrawn 17:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Invitations
I have been inviting a bunch of knowledgeable people on the subject to participate via talk pages. To help spread the word and reach critical mass, here is my invitation template. Adjust as needed. Electrawn 17:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Libel-Protection Unit
Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. ~

Beware of the chilling effect
While I strongly agree that Wikipedia needs to be very careful not to libel people, I am conversely concerned that WP:BLP can become a tool to censor material that is not at all libelous, nor even problematic. So far, I believe I've seen at least three ways that happens. I'll leave out some names of the people I'm referring to so as not to get into a gray zone here.


 * 1) Mis-characterization of material as detrimental or even libelous. For example, people have invoked this to remove the characterization of a particular performer having been a "communist", even though he was an actual CPUSA member and in (recent) interviews is clearly more proud of it than not. There may be issues about how much discussion of a particular person's politics belongs in an article, but if well cited for, then WP:BLP should be beside the point.
 * 2) Excessive, if even-handed application of WP:BLP. For example, it should not require a great deal of citation to say that someone who wrote a book about her own experiences as a prostitute once worked as a prostitute, or that a certain U.S. president has been known to have some difficulties with grammar and with finding the mot juste.
 * 3) Related to that last: setting the bar for citation impossibly high. For example, if an accusation has been leveled against someone on 60 Minutes, or in Mother Jones, or in Private Eye, we should be able to report that. (If there was a response, we should report that, too. And if there was a correction by the original source, then either we should drop the matter entirely or should report if for the tempest in a teapot that it was.)
 * 4) Selective application of WP:BLP: for example, there are Wikipedians who seem to be determined, on the one hand, to invoke WP:BLP to remove statements about politicians of whom they approve, while, on the other hand, they make very similar statements themselves about politicians of whom they disapprove. So, clearly, they did not see the removal of the material as an honest matter of principle, let alone a legal issue: they were just invoking this to remove material not to their personal taste.
 * 5) Closely related to this last: the refusal to accept sources unless we are sure they have no axe to grind. The perception of who has an axe to grind is inevitably subjective. In particular, rejecting sources because they are politically opposed to the person in question is absurd. We don't reject the New York Times's coverage of Al-Qaeda on this basis. The issue should be whether someone has a reputation for intellectual honesty, not whether they are middle-of-the-road. The anarchist Kropotkin wrote for Encyclopedia Britannica: that should enhance Kropotkin's reputation for honest scholarship, not diminish Britannica's. Both The Nation and The National Review—respectively, the farthest left and farthest right major journals of opinion in the United States—have good reputations for getting the facts straight. They should both be every bit as citable on factual matters as Time or Newsweek. NPOV does not mean "centrist point of view".

I am particularly concerned with the conflation of libel and NPOV. The former is a legal issue, and there should be a bright red line not to be crossed. The latter is often a very subtle question: the inclusion or exclusion of an adjective, for example. No self-selected group are particularly likely to handle this better than the participants in a particular article. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well put, I think a version of your comments should be added to WP:BLP. Gamaliel 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To address point 3, reporting an allegation as an allegation is not a problem, as far as I can see. It is when a Wikipedia article draws the conclusion that the allegation is true is when it violates WP:BLP, via WP:OR. As to point 4, I am a conservative, and I freely admit that I am more likely to actively seek out BLP violations against conservatives, as I am sure is conversely the case with editors who lean toward the left. However, if a BLP violation is brought to my attention against anyone, regardless of their various orientations, I will act on it if I feel confident that it is indeed a violation, as I did just recently on Steven Greenberg (rabbi). I would hope that other editors would have the same objectivity and desire to bolster the credibility of the project. Conservatives in general see Wikipedia as a joke without credibility, in large part because of rampant violations of this type. They will not even participate here, because they feel that the deck is stacked against them. I would like to change that perception, and make Wikipedia a resource that anyone would feel good about using. Crockspot 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In regarding conflicts with libel and NPOV, I take the view that failure to maintain NPOV may indirectly be defamation. I also understand that a tiny minority agree with me. This is probably an issue better reserved for the legal system and wikimedia foundation lawyers. Still the line needs to be discussed, defined and solidified. As always, its probably somewhere in the middle. Electrawn 20:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also want to add, perhaps a bit of a chilling effect is not a bad thing. I am not the only editor who feels that violations of this nature have gotten a little out of hand. Crockspot 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That is why we may need to thread with caution and apply good judgement. Rules and regulations are not a substitute for common sense and good judgement. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Rules and regulations are necessary when it comes to dealing with people who do not have common sense and/or good judgement, as such it IS NOT instruction creep. WP:AGF does not mean that all editors should be considered as professionals. --HResearcher 13:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Some degree of chilling effect is a desirable thing in my eyes. We need to start turning the focus of Wikipedia towards having more effort on quality in the balance between quality and expansion. In the long run this will probably mean a more vigorous focus on WP:RS for everything, and we might as well start that with the most legally risky material. Remember that WP:V starts by saying "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." [Emphasis in original]. If poorly sourced material stays out until it is well sourced, we are better off. Remember that there is no deadline. GRBerry 21:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The absolute defense of Libel is truth. Libel. Is WP:LIBEL conflicting with WP:V? Is the defense Mistake (criminal law) enough? Fair_comment? Maybe... I appear to be wikilawyering, tea time. Electrawn 21:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that non-blatant libel is hard to prove as libel, and blatant libel is WP:V. mrholybrain 's talk 00:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The points raised against a possible chilling effect are quite valid concerns.


 * 1) Detremental or Mischaracterization: Labelling someone as Communist is negative amd could have undue harm on personal reputation and career. Rather than using phrasing saying XYZ was a communist, it should be written that XYZ was a member of CPUSA. A persons political views may change over their lifetime. Maybe Weasel wording comes into play? Alleged probably doesn't fit this case. WP:NPOV probably in play too.
 * 2) Excessive, if even-handed application of WP:BLP: Individual judgement calls. We want high standard citations, direct quotes from literary sources the subject qrote is sort of a gold star. As for a certain president who flubs words: Some sort of historical context reference is needed. Persons 50 years from now will unlikely understand todays obvious mot juste.
 * 3) Citation bar impossibly high. Having thought about it, using almost any source as a primary source for a fact is ok. Secondary Sources, the ones summarizing and being critical and drawing conclusions, should be held very, very high. Such sources I feel may even need truth verification, a possible narrowing of WP:V. There is a lot of improper secondary source citation on wikipedia, its just plain ugly.
 * 4) Selective Application: "Don't be a dick" "Don't appear to be a dick". Sure, BLP can be used as powerful sword, powerful exceptions come into play like 3RR. Civility, Good Faith, Writing for the enemy, etc. Hopefully we can code this into a standard process so accusations of selective application are moot.
 * 5) Axe to Grind Sources: I think I have narrowed this down to be specific. Op-Ed pieces as secondary sources should not be used or used very sparingly. For an OpEd by an individual, that individual should probably write within their field of view frequently. A tech blogger at say XYZ tribune going off on a political rant about a politician is outside the normal field of view for that person. Comments without bylines should be considered views of the publication, and preffered over individual ones. Still, identifying proper field of view is tricky. Is Financial Times an established british paper covering business, properly qualified to give criticism about a US journalist? Tricky.

Mostly agree, some points raised are moot, some written from Devil's Advocate. Electrawn 21:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing tricky at all about The Financial Times. It is a major newspaper, and hence a reliable source and citable on essentially all matters. FCYTravis 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How will this work?
How are we supposed to work together on matters where often the correct solution is to delete the material even from talk pages: how do we discuss difficult cases and reach consensus? Is there a plan for how to address that? - Jmabel | Talk 18:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume it would work like any other Wikipedia policy. First we hash out exactly what the policy is going to be, then we earnestly try to enforce it, with the help of Admins.  I think it's very important that Wikipedia have a policy, even if it's hard to enforce, because it will help protect the Foundation.  Morton devonshire 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Deletion from a page, or a talk page, leaves a diff the same way that adding material does, which can be linked to like this using the URL produced doing a compare on the history page.  (The example is the diff in which Jmabel posed the question heading this section.)  The deletion from history only rarely occurs (because it takes an admin and isn't at all trivial for them) so a significant fraction of such material will last, especially in currently active discussions.  Although I believe that admins also have a roll-back tool which wouldn't leave a diff, I really don't know how that works.  GRBerry 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See blprefactor ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Electrawn's Law (Adage ala Godwins Law)

"With each edit in a WP:BLP, the probability of WP:EDITWAR, violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA approach one."

To minimize the impact, I propose a Scientific management process, borrowing from Divide and rule, Inverted Pyramid, Historical method and other resources. Beyond that, how far do we go in the process - or simply put...where do we stop? Electrawn 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry, you don't seem to understand my point. In many cases, WP:BLP calls not only for the deletion of the visible comment, but the removal of the history. So how does one have a discussion of material where the history is removed? - Jmabel | Talk 21:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How are we to handle the situation when a SYSOP abjectly refuses to recognize the clear guidelines of this group? See upper comment in this diff. Crockspot 18:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just an admin here. These are brand new proposed guidelines, not the Ten Commandments. We're still determining how to implement policy.  Hardly a crime if I disagree with your application of it based on something which still has wet ink on it. Gamaliel 18:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, those guidelines were not invented last week. They were gathered and synopsised from various existing policies and guidelines, and then posted here last week. Crockspot 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Too complicated
I object strongly to many of the statements collected in the proposed process. This unit should absolutely not be concerned with interpreting Wikipedia policies. It should be concerned with edits that are obviously malicious only.

It is also too complicated and cumbersome as stated. I am deleting most if not all the proposed text. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it really simple, shall we? Otherwise it will not work. This "unit" cannot bypass neither policy, nor vigorous debate in talk pages between concerned editors. It also cannot interpret policy in specific or narrow ways. If you want this proposed group to gain the support of the community, we have to keep this extremely simple and as a group of people assisting editors rather than asserting policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, too much too soon. Here is the nutshell of BLP.


 * Draft a mission statement. Electrawn 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not need one. Just needs to be said that this is a group of people interested in assisting editors in implementing and enforcing the policy of WP:BLP. That's it. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the ulimate disposition of Counter-Vandalism Unit to be instructive here; the community (quite properly) will disfavor anything that seeks to create a group other than of the narrow form of which Jossi writes. Insofar as those editors who would partake of the LPU act only qua editors (cf. qua profoundly enlightened and potent members of a cadre), possessing, perhaps, some special insight in view of their frequent dealing with potentially libellous situations and their conversance with, inter al., BLP, the unit ought to serve only as a central gathering place from which users particularly interested in BLP issues might learn whether there are pages on the noticeboard at which more opinions are needed; I certainly wouldn’t accede to the creation of anything grander, and I imagine that no consensus for such creation.  I mean in no way to suggest that issues the unit would seek to address are insignificant, but I suppose I see no present need for a unit such as this (which presumes, I suppose, that those editors who would encounter BLP issues at articles at which they participate or at articles to which they've come through the noticeboard are in need of guidance from other editors, which presumption seems not only less-than-civil but also contrary to the nature of the project); BLP issues are well resolved at article talk pages or, where clear resolutions cannot be reached, at AN/I, AN, the new LIVING noticeboard, or the mailing lists, and so I think WP:CREEP entails. Joe 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Noted, I'll save my thoughts on a "strict" process for an essay on a sub page or something. Thus this group will serve as a gathering point of resources related to BLP, templates, processes, case studies, etc. Electrawn 17:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about where this is headed. I am all for going hammer-and-tongs after material that is libelous, or borders on libelous. But whether something is within NPOV (which is widely interpreted to include article balance, not just neutrality of voice) is often a matter of enormous controversy. I don't see how any self-selected group is likely to be better at that issue than the people working on the average article. - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100%. Unless this "unit" has a simple, direct and narrow objective, it will not have the support of the wider community. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises
There is also a proposal at Articles about ongoing enterprises. Fred Bauder 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. US courts treat companies as a "special" individual...but I doubt they consider them as "living." Defamation against a (legally termed) group is much less damaging than against a living, breathing human. I personally feel consensus and eventualism are still a better norm for articles on ongoing enterprises. Chilling effect comes into much more of a play here. Corporations are much more likely to sue than an individual for defamation, SLAPP. I also feel Corporate ethics and criticism is much more notable than individual criticism. Cross posting. Electrawn 01:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Truth
The policy as currently proposed makes no mention that truth is a defense against the claim of libel. For example, I am not libeling Sam Webb if I call him a communist or David Duke if I call him a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. I am not libeling Xaviera Hollander if I call her a former prostitute or Tony Kushner if I call him gay. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. That is well explained in Libel, but note that it is not the same in all legal systems. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it make more sense, instead of calling Xaviera a former prostitute, to quote verbatim a reliable source that did so? Lou Sander 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lou, it's her proudly worn claim to fame. She wrote a memoir called The Happy Hooker. This is like needing to "quote verbatim a reliable source" that calls Jimmy Carter a "former President of the United States." - Jmabel | Talk 22:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You may just be missing the point a little. It isn't about Xaviera, but about avoiding libel: If a reliable source says something potentially libelous/libellous, it might make more sense to quote and cite the reliable source, rather than to repeat its potentially libelous/libellous remarks. Lou Sander 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And make use of the word allegedly and such. Electrawn 03:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

An itty-bitty test case
HERE is an edit that somewhat indirectly accuses a person of illegally registering to vote. In the paragraph immediately above, such things are directly declared to be felonies (but in a different state). The stuff in red, and some of the stuff in green, doesn't seem to appear in the cited source, which is HERE.

This maybe isn't a flagrantly libelous/libellous paragraph, but IMHO it's flagrantly different from the spirit of WP:BLP. (And yes, the person is a controversial public figure who can't be easily libeled/libelled in some jurisdictions.) The editor involved does a lot of ignoring policies, etc. The work of the "libel patrol" could possibly include speaking a little sense to folks like this. What say all of you? Lou Sander 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the posts above, at least one editor has removed the questionable material from the cited paragraph, and at least once the offending editor has restored it. The more I look at the material, the more I think it is an example of libelous stuff that shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. What do editors other than Crockspot think??? Lou Sander 13:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The only source cited in that paragraph makes no mention of her voting in 1980 being possibly illegal. Even the Washington Post has the good sense to leave any such conclusion up to the reader. The paragraph in the article draws that conclusion, and therefore is original research. It should go. That was an easy one. Crockspot 20:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, I went ahead and cleaned up the paragraph, removing the OR, and leaving the sourced facts. Crockspot 20:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And due to the excellence of the Wikipedia software, (plus my having figured out how to work it), the references in the first paragraph above seem to still point to the un-fixed paragraphs, which lets folks see 'em as they were before the paragraph was fixed. This is truly GREAT stuff we're working with! (To see the material as it is right now, look HERE. Lou Sander 21:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean the links here on this page? You linked to the diffs, which will be there unless deleted by an admin. The person coming in fresh to read the article will only see that if they decide to dig through the edit history. But maybe that's your point? Edit histories are going to be chock full of stuff like that. If something in violation was in the article from day one until now, how do we clean it without destroying the entire edit history? Crockspot 21:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I'm trying to show the questionable edit itself, the related questionable material as it existed when that edit was made (through the paragraph immediately above link), and, finally, the whole section as it exists right now. I've been burned in the past by referring to pages that change. Lou Sander 22:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, got you. The back and forth discussion over there since my edit brings up another issue. We aren't required to discuss, but it seems a lot discussion will be necessary until people finally get it. Should that all eventually get cleaned up too? Crockspot 23:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion should use diffs. The material that is unacceptable on the article is also unacceptable on the talk page.  If the issue is poor sourcing, I think you can use the names of the sources in the discussion and have an effective discussion, especially if a diff to the removed material is used every so often.  GRBerry 02:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not libelous or against BLP to legitimately discuss an issue on a talk page. The idea is to not to let people use the talk page as a platform for defaming people. BLP is not to get in the way of a sensitive thoughtful discussion on what should or should not go in the encyclopedia artcile. It should get in the way of unsourced defamation meant for any unencyclopedic purpose. Common sense is the key here. WAS 4.250 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that common sense definitely allows us to discuss the Itty Bitty Test Case, which IMHO is NOT a horrible example of libelous/libellous stuff, but IS an example of stuff that probably shouldn't be tolerated in an article. (In other words, which any sort of Libel Protection Unit should jump on pretty quickly. I'm still not sure if people agree with me on this.) Lou Sander 03:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears to be WP:NPOV. If she hasn't been charged with a crime or a case hasn't even been heard by a grand jury...this kind of stuff doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Specifically, my opinion of the facts presented/asserted are that that she did not violate the spirit of the law, even though she may have violated the letter of the law. The question really becomes, is this kind of editing defamation? If it is...we need to actively stop it, if not...we need to let consensus and eventualism take it's course. Electrawn 00:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * When you look at the cited facts, there was nothing at all wrong back in Connecticut. She registered to vote, and her CT drivers license seems to say she was the right age. Years later, she put a different age on her D.C. driver license. A Wikipedia editor tried to twist that into a voting violation back in CT. Seems like our editor was trying hard to defame her. I think I don't want ANY sort of defamation, attempts at defamation, things that look like defamation, etc. in Wikipedia. Other encyclopedias don't have that stuff, why should we? Lou Sander 01:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure who pointed this out: http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi . For a site about copyright issues, their own copyright notice is missing. I emailed them asking to release under GFDL. That said, I think the protection focus is on Libel Per Se Electrawn 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be removed and others like it. There is also the problem where hundreds of mainstream sources will avoid the charge of a crime, but one source may actually make it.  For example, let's say a single newspaper says she "illegally voted" yet every other source simply declares the facts without alleging a crime, I think we must defer to the majority description.  Even mentioning the one source might be considered "undue weight" but unfortunately, that guideline is seldom enforced.  On BLP's I think it needs to be enforced much more strongly.  --Tbeatty 22:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Libel Per Se Focus?
From http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID526 (Fair use!):

Openquote...

Question: What is libel per se?

Answer: When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:

A statement that falsely:


 * Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
 * Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
 * Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
 * Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.

Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant slut," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact.

... Closequote.

About all I would add would be an addition to point 4, which would be add "or of questionable sexual orientation." This stuff is also described well inside Wikipedia. Electrawn 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession
The point Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"; is misleading. Someone could be highly skilled and notable in bottle-cap throwing, but not a trade, business, or profession. This should be modified to include more than just professional application, such as a person's talent, or what they are known to do. --HResearcher 15:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI
"Law.com: What is your liability for inaccurate information that's posted on the Web site?

Bradford A. Patrick: Our belief is that since every post is attributed to an individual, is time-stamped and is retained in the database, the foundation itself is not publishing that content. We view individual editors as responsible and have prominently displayed on every edit page that individuals are responsible for their own contributions. We take the position that we are a service provider and are protected under §230. We try to emphasize to everyone who posts that they, as publishers, have responsibility for what they add. " WAS 4.250 06:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems to be little far fetched since wikipedia authorizes certain individuals with powers to lock articles, block users, etc. Consider Daniel Brandt, a permanently banned user.  Does Wikipedia deny that they are even responsible for banning him since it was undertaken by administrators?  Adminstrators revert his posts per Wikipedia policy which is endorsed by the foundation.  This isn't an endorsement of Brandt, but rather to show that Wikipedia does indeed make content and contributor decisions.  Also, the same persons who are empowered to provide wikipedia services also provide content.  They also delete content.  Since these same persons patrol for false statement and not just with their own content, they are taking on an assumption of responsibility.  It will be difficult to argue that Wikipedia is not providing content when they a) explicitly offer the content under GFDL and b) provide content through sysops that have authorization to do a number of administrative chores.  The disclaimer is all well and good but I don't think it will stand up to scrutiny.  Wikipedia is more like the owner of a Radio or TV Station or Newspaper.  They may have individuals who provide their own content, but wikipedia is ultimately responsible.  They act like they have this responsibility in that the review and revise content and they ban contributors that don't meet their policies.  When a journalist libels someone a) the journalist is responsible b) the newspaper is also responsible and c) the journalist gets fired (banned).  This sounds more like the way wikipedia operates.  --Tbeatty 22:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Bradford A. Patrick is the foundation's lawyer. And you are .... ? WAS 4.250 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A wikipedia editor that sees BLPs everyday and what's in them. I'm sure he's a great lawyer.  But he's in a bad spot if he thinks that he can use "service provider" as a defense against libel.  --Tbeatty 03:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That response by Mr. Patrick was a good one... but... it is and will be challenged by people that feel maligned and defamed. That is a given. That is why making efforts through this patrol should be welcomed and supported. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it was a good answer. It looked like wishful thinking. The Wikipedia Foundation, through its agents, carries out what [Zeran v. America Online, Inc.|Wilkinson described] as "a publisher’s traditional editorial functions -- such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content". They also offer the content to third parties, one should note. IANAL, and don't claim to be, but I think a smart brief could easily distinguish between space providers who are essentially "blind" to their content (and cannot be reasonably expected to control it) and content providers who, although they do not create the content themselves, have some degree of control over it.Grace Note 06:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it was the only answer given the situation. Since that answer is the only one that really supports the current way in which Wikimedia operates, the Wikimedia lawyer has to answer it that way.  He's not going to concede any points before even the first brief was filed.  Heck, I am surprised he even admitted to owning the computers.  "We lease the servers from GE Capital so we believe that users are primarily responsible for content followed by the owners of the computers (GE Capital).  And all that data got onto their computers from phone lines owned by AT&T, the third most responsible party.  If AT&T had checked the content before it arrived at GE's computers, there would have been no problem."   The reality is that the lawyers answer to these questions will come after the policy has been altered.  And in no event will the lawyer ever admit that there is culpability on the part of his client before a sinlge brief is filed.  --Tbeatty 07:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is always the first legal defense. Being that he speaks for the organization that will be his first court filing.  He won't prejudice that position by saying anything that compromises it.  However, I doubt he believes that's where it ends.  Policy will change before the lawyer says that his defense changes.  Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I think we all know that this defense would be pathetic and if my lawyer put all his eggs in that basket, I think I would fire them.  Wikimedia through this attorney will come down with policy and only then would his public comments about libel change.  --Tbeatty 04:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See, just posted: User:Grace_Note ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do all Lawyers, lie? Contrary to Patrick's statement, every post is NOT attributed to an individual because Wikipedia's policies protect the identities of anonymous "posters". --HResearcher 14:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No. All lawyers are lawyers. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think he is simply ahead of his time, because edit pages probably will carry that kind of disclaimer, ridiculous though it may seem. Grace Note 06:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * gives me an idea. separate section for comment though.--Tbeatty 07:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia Foundation can certainly present Patrick's argument if they and anonymous editprs are slapped with a libel suit, but it will be up the the judge to determine who can be sued. An injured party would see Wikipedia as having deeper pockets than someone anonymous poster, who might have used a machine at work, at school, at a library, or via wireless router to his heighbor (you can't skin'em if you can't catch'em). So it behooves all loyal Wikipedia users to remove unsourced derogatory comments. And we have to follow a careful line if we merely report a derogatory comment after it is printed by The New York Times or other respectable media. But the guidelines say we delete an unsourced comment like "Mr X is a well known womanizer," or the same if it is on a blog, but if the charge is repeated along with X's denial in the New York Times, then it is citeable, especially if he is known for saying "I am a faithful family man and would never stray." See the Gary Hart case from 1987. Is there a proposed change to this policy? That we must now present reliable truth of the substance of the accusation, rather than just noting that the accusation and denial are reported in the mainstream media?Edison 20:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this group necessary?
What function would this group serve that is not served by the BLP noticeboard or through routine patrolling that responsible and conscientious editors already do anyway? Gamaliel 14:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that David Gerard would like to be able to tell people that we do indeed have people who are dedicated in some organized way to this. From a purely PR standpoint, it shows more concern for BLP issues than simply relying on the normal process. Crockspot 16:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That was the initial impetus, but some sort of simple patrol is necessary to know we're doing the job anyway. I was just surprised because I'd thought there was one anyway! - David Gerard 17:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. --HResearcher 14:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

On discussing the issue, it appears such patrolling isn't happening in any organised way. I've added notes to the project page on the simplified edit patrol - David Gerard 16:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good to see you. Chat it up. Electrawn 04:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

More specifically: please see WP:BLPN and the thread at - David Gerard 16:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We are requesting from Tawker an others to modify their IRC bot used to fight vandalism, so that it monitors the new special page that shows all recent changes to articles in Category:Living people. Once we have that bot, volunteers can watch over these articles using the IRC bot. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This group and the noticeboard were more or less born from the same process, and go together like peas and carrots. I have used the "recent changes" link from the mailing list five or six times since last night to check probably 150 changed bios. Reverted a few instances of blatant vandalism, found only one or two BLP issues, one which was already caught, and another which I simply gave guidance on the talk page, and the editors were already attempting to comply when I checked back later. The link is very helpful, and it doesn't take long to zip through a bunch, checking the diffs. The only issue I have is that it shows the same article multiple times, but that might be useful for spotting an edit war. Crockspot 16:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The easy part is the process, the hard part is putting out the flames from the resulting edit wars. Electrawn 05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

State of BLP Patrol: Week ending Sep 9th
Done:


 * Consensus reached that group will only focus on BLP articles, Group Renamed to BLP Patrol.


 * Critical Mass reached. Consensus reached simply that this group should exist.


 * Consensus seems to be to leave NPOV:Undue Weight issues up to local editor consensus?

To Do:


 * Devs are at work on software assistance and monitoring tools.


 * Alter IRC Bots and/or irc channels for active monitoring.


 * Develop templates in support of BLPP.


 * (Low)Develop userbox/category for BLPP wikipedians.


 * (High)Agree on what specific Libel patrol will target. Current proposal is to focus on USA definition of Defamation per se.


 * (High)WP:LIBEL is way to short to be an effective policy.


 * Agree on methods to minimize resulting edit wars.


 * Agree on methods for dealing with editors who insist on violating BLP and Libel policies.


 * (Low)Elect a Project Manager. I, User:Electrawn, offer myself to manage as the original creator. If anyone else feels they are better qualified, I will bow to someone more experienced.

I may have missed somethings for the todo or done, add below. Electrawn 05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Managing the project" can be re-termed "herding particularly stroppy cats" ;-) The main reason Wikipedia is so keen on consensus is that it's less headaches. If we can agree on obvious things that will help immediately (simple checking of as many living bio edits as possible), then more difficult things can wait for consensus to shake them out. - David Gerard 12:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, I'm herding them in from Wiki-en. There are many different directions various folks are taking from technical to process to policy to active patrollers. I am a big fan of Divide and Conquer. :) Electrawn 20:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous edits on BLPs
Is it time to end anonymous edits of BLPs? The lawyer discussion above has his comments that all edits are tracked and each editor is responsible for the content he adds. Siegenthaler was an anon edit that was tracked down by a third party otherwise we would never know who it is (and I think the community would have exploded if that information were revealed by Wikimedia).

Given that IP service providers such as AOL have rotating IP addresses, etc, there is no accountability that is enforceable. It seems that people who want to edit BLPs in particular, should give information about themselves so they can be held accountable for content. I realize that the whole concept of Wikipedia is that the editor should not matter, but that is simply not the case if the foundation wants to pass libel issues back to the individual editors.

I suspect that possibly the foundation is playing a catch-22 game. Editors are responsible. It's up to the libeled party to identify the libeler, not wikipedia. Therefore the less Wikipedia knows about the editors, the less effort will be required if they are ever served a subpoena (i.e. see document retention policies at major corporations). The idea is that if they have absolutely no information on editors, the answer to the subpoena is a form letter. If they have stored information on editors, the answer is a long and drawn out search with penalties for mistakes. This would seem to be somewhat irresponsible to the subjects. Should we end anonymous edits to BLP's? Should registrations for accounts that want to edit BLP's require more information so the editor can be more readily identified? Comment? --Tbeatty 07:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is how to keep it wiki. We will never achieve guaranteeable safety while pretty much anyone can edit. And bios already feel more locked down, speaking subjectively for myself, because a lot of editors are being (quite properly) really hard-arsed about verifiability &mdash; that on its own I think may be sufficient. We can't do such a further restriction without clear project-wide consensus it's a good idea. A further restriction that's a clearly good idea shouldn't have too much trouble - David Gerard 13:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect that what is considered a "good idea" will undergo a radical change the morning after the Foundation loses its first defamation suit.Grace Note 09:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

While viewing the recent changes to living bios, I try to pay particular attention to IP edits, especially those with red talk links, and I've found that almost all of them are adding positive content, and many of them have only that edit in their history. Of course, a few of them are adding nonsense, or worse. I personally don't think it's too much to ask for someone to register, but we might be reducing the amount of positive contributions by a semi-protection policy. I guess I'm undecided. Crockspot 13:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The provision that Mr Patrick intends to rely on doesn't actually require that there is transparent responsibility for content, any more than Gmail requires that it knows who the people who use its mailing system "really are". Actually, I'd have thought that any measure the Foundation takes to make accountability more transparent would be counterproductive. In the Demon Internet case, Demon's demonstrable ability to remove libels destroyed its defence that it was unaware of content. English and Florida law differ but I think that it's harder to maintain you are merely a passive provider of space when you can clearly make content decisions. Rather than banning anons, it would probably be wiser to ban Jimbo and other members of the board from content fiddling. Grace Note 09:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See new stuff on Singapore's draconian libel laws HERE. Lou Sander 14:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

New IRC bot needed
[moved from user talk]

Hello pgk. I do not know if you are following the discussion at WikiEN-I about WP:BLP. We are discussing the possibiity to have a similar bot as the one running at vandalism-en-wp, that monitors the newly created Recent Changes page for articles on living people, that can be used by the newly forming BLP Patrol. Could you help? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem in running a bot and feeding such a channel, the only gap is that there is no separate wikimedia feed for just those changes, so the bot would need to automatically filter anything else and just report on those.


 * The bot could automatically retrieve the category on a periodic basis and thus update what is/isn't report, so there would be a lag between new entries and exits, but I guess that isn't such a big deal.


 * The only question I have is would be regarding what you want reported. Are you just looking for every edit to any article in that category, or are you looking for more complex filtering?


 * To do it to report on every edit to any aticle in that category should be fairly straightforward, definitely something which could be setup quickly. --pgk 07:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What could work, would be to show all edits to articles in the category, as well as use some of the regex you have implemented for the RC bot, such as these using foul language, to alerts patrollers, etc. Blacklisting users and adding watch to specific articles will also help. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean using "foul language" we don't see content. As for watching specific articles, effectively we'd be watching all articles in the category, so unless you mean add additional highlighting to certain ones I'm not quite sure what you mean. Blacklist, whitelist, adminlist etc. would work as normal, edits by adminlist, whitelist etc. can be suppressed if need be. --pgk 18:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The current bot running at #wikipedia.en.vandalism has some kind of regex that checks for specific words entered, right? We could use it on this bot as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't look at content, that isn't available in the MediaWiki rc feed --pgk 21:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Does this bridge the gap? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Category%3ALiving_people Electrawn 01:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Persondata template
I forgot to mention the template, which comes to en: from de: - I've just noted it on the page. All biography articles are supposed to have this. A semi-automatic tool to add at least the name where possible should be a SMOP - David Gerard 13:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Read WP:Person. Viewing and editing metadata and the like is a technical hurdle for the average user. Why doesn't wikipedia have some sort of "Advanced Editing" tab under my preferences to turn this kind of stuff on and off? Electrawn 19:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

4288
Please support bug 4288 which is an enhancement that allows general tagging of revisions. This will allow user and group defined tags which can then be used for things like this project and possibly other stuff in the future. Thanks. --Gbleem 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good
I think it's obvious that people are interested in this and that it'd work towards improving Wikipedia. As such, I'd say the proposal has passed, and this is now a process and/or wikiproject.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  19:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Multiple watchlist functionality?
This functionality may already exist, if so someone can just clue me in about it. But it would be very helpful to be able to have multiple watchlists, so that I could keep BLPP-related articles separate from my personal watchlist. Crockspot 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Living People Patrol"
That name really sounds like something out of a zombie flick... just sayin'. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * After the zombies established their government, they set up guards at the perimeter, supplemented by outward forays by the Living People Patrol? - Jmabel | Talk 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Prostitutes
In any case: OK. On the assumption that we really mean it, I have brought List of famous prostitutes and courtesans in line, pretty much entirely by deleting names (including ones I myself added). I am not sure why Crockspot, who seemed so determined to remove from the list one of the names for whom the most citation had been provided, while ignoring the complete lack of citation for other names: that is certainly not the way this should be enforced. Some of these may have adequate citation in their respective articles; in that case, I have no problem (indeed, I would welcome) that citation being added to List of famous prostitutes and courtesans and the name restored.

I would also hope that a decent respect for the recently deceased would get people to seek comparable citations, but I suppose that is outside of the scope of these rules. - Jmabel | Talk 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure that I removed at least one unreferenced historical person from that article in the past. I was focused on Gannon in several articles, so I don't think it is necessary to attack me about this. Crockspot 20:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Random article link
I have found quite a few uncategorized articles about living persons by using the "random article" link. It is a good way to catch living bios that are not going to be found any other way. Just a suggestion for those boring times. Crockspot 20:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

BLP issue on talk page?
Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia is at least very close to the line. I suggest that the section be deleted, but figured I'd check in here and see of others agree. - Jmabel | Talk 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Several days and no response. I was hoping that this would provide a place to discuss these issues? Has this thing so quickly gone dead? Is there somewhere else I should be taking this? I really don't want to go "cowboying" this on borderline cases, I'm trying to get a sense of consensus on where the line falls. Failed to sign at the time, this was Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone else is interested, the answer to my question appears to be that such discussions are taking place at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I have no idea why no one answered me. - Jmabel | Talk 21:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:American terrorists
Per WP:BLP: should living people ever be included in this Category:American terrorists? If it were "American people convicted of terrorism", then maybe, but clearly it is not. I just removed Naveed Afzal Haq from the category: if what he did is terrorism, then probably every hate crime is terrorism; I don't think we want to go that route. Offhand, no one else on the list seems so inappropriate that I was ready to act unilaterally, but I didn't check all of the articles, and some of the names are unfamiliar to me.

The same considerations would apply to the many other subcategories of Category:Terrorists by nationality. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Forks of bios - categories
I just ran across an uncategorized fork of a BLP, Michael Moore controversies. I added "living people" and the talk page template. A lot of bios have these "criticism" or "controversy" forks that may be uncategorized. Something to watch for ongoing. - Crockspot 21:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Instantly found another: Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan. They're EVERYWHERE. - Crockspot 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this proposed policy
I issued a 3RR warning for three deletions of a section in a 7 hour period by a user, and Crockspot (not the user warned) immediately sent me the following warning "Please cease from issuing 3RR warnings to members of the Living People Patrol who are executing the consensus of the patrol in removing defamatory material. Such edits are exempt from 3RR, and the reinsertion of such defamatory material is a blockable offence, per WP:BLP on both issues. [User:Crockspot|Crockspot]] 16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)" The deletes by the original user mentioned BLP, but did not refer to it being the consensus of this group, and I do not see here where such a consensus was debated or determined. Other users had debated whether BLP even applied to the material in question, since it reported mainstream news coverage of a claim and counterclaim, rather than the unsubstantiated claim itself. Is there in fact a Wikipedia policy that there is to be no 3RR warning of persons who have signed onto this "Patrol?" If so, their reversions should be labelled as official actions of Wikipedia so that other editors do not see the serial reverting and accidentally issue what appears to be a proper #RR warning. This policy could have the potential of being misused in partisan debates.Edison 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A blanket 3RR exemption for any member of the BLP is not policy. The 3RR exemption applies only to obvious calls of "blatantly defamatory" material, not a tough call where many editors have good faith differences of opinion regarding some properly sourced material. Gamaliel 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if volunteers in the "Living People Patrol" were officially exempt from the 3RR rule, there should be a notice in the edit summary the the effect that it is an official Wikipedia action and not just part of a continuing partisan edit war. There should also be a record of the claimed consensus, just as is for AfD debates. Otherwise any individual could delete material because he disagreed with it, even though a number of other editors had good faith reasons for including it, and even though it did not appear to violate BLP, and cloak himself in the power of the supposed policy. Does signing ones name on the page of this article give additional rights to serially delete, and to threaten or punish anyone who applies a 3RR warning?Edison 17:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The consensus I mentioned regarded the specific information in the Larry Craig article, consensus being reached at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. No one in their right mind is claiming a blanket exemption from 3RR for anyone who posts their name to this project. But when an editor marks their edit summary "per WP:BLP", and they are in fact a member of this project, it should seem pretty obvious what that editor's intent is. WP:BLP specifically mentions an exemption to 3RR for ANY editor (project member or not) who is removing what they believe are BLP violations. The policy also specifies that the continual insertion of unsourced or poorly sourced libel into Wikipedia articles is a blockable offence. I would further bring to your attention the legal discussion at Administrators' noticeboard. It seems that the Foundation, if sued by the object of libel on WP, will feed the contributing editor to the wolves, rather than have its own limbs chewed off. This is a thankless and difficult job that I have volunteered to do, but I accept it, because I feel that I am making Wikipedia better, am protecting the Project overall, and am protecting my fellow editors from their own irresponsibible actions. - Crockspot 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing "unsourced or poorly sourced libel" should be the thankless task of everyone, and a well-deserved cheer for you and anyone else who undertakes it. Such removals are of course not subject to the 3RR rule just as the removal of simple vandalism is not subject to 3RR.  But removing properly cited information because a person is under the opinion that it may be a BLP violation is just that, an opinion, and does not qualify as an exemption and invoking BLP should not give you a free pass in an edit war. A number of editors seem to have trouble distinguishing between the two.  Gamaliel 20:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I have never had to go beyond three reverts, though I have been prepared to many times. Usually, another patroller hops in, or the depth of my "power voice" makes the offender back off. :) Crockspot 17:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a simple boilerplate to assert in the edit summary that it is an action of this group, per some policy, and that the concensus can be found at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Having signed up and had a go at the recently changed biographies, I find the vandalism vastly outnumbers libellous statements, with IP address users just putting in statements like so and so "is a ho" so it turns into vandal patrol for the most part, which is not all bad. Is there any automated tool or bot to facilitate vandal patrol, so it is not necessary to do all the cut and paste required by saying whose version you replaced wit whose, and to facilitate placing a warning on the offender's talk page citing back to the offending edit? Thanks.Edison 21:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Check out Category:Wikipedia counter-vandalism tools, there's lots of stuff there that you'll find useful. Gamaliel 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Another Concern
For lack of a better term, I'm going to label this the "Media Matters for America/Free Republic" problem. In a good deal of the political articles, users often use the above websits as sources when discussing the controversies of certain persons. The problem is that although MMFA simply uses transcripts of what others have said, and Free Republic will often use the AP to introduce a topic, much of the pages on these sites contain defamation of the article's subject. I believe that Wiki may want to set up a process banning such tendentious sites as a source for articles. What is point of cleaning up libel here, but still leaving it one click away. Ramsquire 21:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 13:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dispute on BLP/N
A contentious BLP/N debate which began in a pretzel incident section (now also in living people category and discussion continued subsections) could use some attention from experienced living people patrollers.

The differences line up between the serious BLP policy concerns which will not go away and individual users who don't (cf. the notice at the top of Category talk:Living people) see the point in a variety of articles which aren't technically biographies. — Athaenara ✉  01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Special Enforcement
Is this thing dead or something? ViperSnake151 12:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Living People Patrol/Development
To go along with the BLP Patrol redirect to this page, I moved BLP Patrol/Development to Living People Patrol/Development. GregManninLB (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, I created Living People Patrol/Proposal via a page move. GregManninLB (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)