Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Policy talk page

To avoid cluttering the workshop page with off-topic discussions, I have created this talk page for policy discussions. I won't actually be contributing much here as I am personally more concerned with implementing the consensus that has been reached to do something about new, unreferenced BLPs, and helping to get the wording and functions of templating, notification, and warning systems up and running as quickly as possible. --Kudpung (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE

Consensus seems to be for using "encourage". I'm collapsing discussion to encourage the remaining issues (if there are any) to be discussed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: (Moved from template workshop page)

Should this incorporate WP:BEFORE or anything similar? Maurreen (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This would be an exception to that policy, or at least the bit about making a good faith attempt to find sources, which is why if this goes ahead we need to make the article creation process clear that new BLPs require a source. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If incorporated, we need not to make it imperative, we can just recommend it (at various degree). Cenarium (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not needed. It is always welcome for people to improve articles. But we would also welcome people patrolling for unsourced BLPs and prodding them, even if they've no desire to source anything. We want to identify all such material so that it can be sourced by those volunteering to do that, or else removed. We want 100% of new unsourced BLPs to be prodded, so we want to encourage people to do this, not complicate matters.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

But we would also welcome people patrolling for unsourced BLPs and prodding them, even if they've no desire to source anything. - No. People should be encouraged to improve the encyclopedia constructively, not merely destructively. Tagging is easy; googling a bit is only marginally less easy, so why not? Why if you're doing tagging, you can't also do googling? Proof of a good-faith attempt at sources (say, Gnews/Gbooks search links) should be provided in the PROD tag, also for the purpose of helping the (possible) de-prodder in case. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not. The purpose here is to say "that if you want an article to remain on wikipedia, it must get sourced". Unsourced material gets removed (after a reasonable opportunity for the creator or others to source it - and with the promise it can be replaced if later sourced). The onus is not on the person identifying the problematic article to fix it (nice if they volunteer, granted). A BEFORE requirement utterly invalidates sticky-prod, which is designed to ensure all new BLP articles which no-one can be bothered trying to source are removed. Saying "they will only be removed if someone tries to source them and fails", just has us back where we started.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/ Scott. Would defeat the tag's purpose. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was a technical page only, but if opinions are being solicited: "certainly not" seems correct. 1) it's a bad idea and 2) it's against the consensus so far. Unsourced material can be removed at any time. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In short, although I would prefer WP:BEFORE, I think requiring appropriate notifications would be a reasonable compromise. Maurreen (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before. Get a bot to do it and there's no need for instruction creep.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. However do not hold up implementation of this while a bot is created, or whatever. That is unacceptable. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there was a consensus for the WP:BEFORE bit so let focus on the Notification part. All we want is a fair chance for each newly created unsourced BLP article to be fixed and only the Notification part can achieve that. --KrebMarkt 17:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re (above): I was talking in general about a specific "BEFORE". I don't see how it would be instruction creep, or any more that what we already have with PROD or AFD instructions, and it seems essential. We can say for example 'you must be sure that no (valid) sources exist in the article before nominating', "it's best to inform the creator" (even if a bot does it when 'forgotten'). Checking if the article doesn't already exist by googling or searching WP so as to redirect it should probably also be advised. As for looking for sources, I wouldn't make this a requirement, but we can talk about it somewhere on the page (e.g. 'editors are encouraged to look for sources, at least a cursory research, and add any source which would prevent the deletion of the article under this process'). Also, what we want is all those articles to be sourced otherwise deleted within a fixed timeframe, that prod is only a mean to achieve that. Cenarium (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So why is this?

Let us have an explanation for the newbies of why we require them to do something we are not energetic enough to do ourselves. This will be felt as biting; and is therefore dubious. Why isn't "This has no sources; I looked and didn't find any. Source it or it dies" more than enough? It isn't as if a search for sources is that hard; otherwise it would be unreasonable to expect every newbie to do one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly simple. If BLP material is to remain on Wikipedia then it must be sourced. We encourage the newbie to do that, and offer whatever help we can. If there are editors volunteering to source articles so that they can remain on wikipedia, then that's brilliant. However, if the newbie isn't able or willing to source it, and no one is (in fact) willing to help, then regretfully we will remove the material until/unless someone is willing to source it. We can't require anyone to do anything on a volunteer project. Requiring the prodder to research sources defeats the purpose - because that would mean that if no-one is willing to research the sources the default would be the article doesn't get prodded, when in fact we have a understanding that if no one is willing to source, then regretfully we need to remove the material. Those arguing for a WP:BEFORE prerequisit, are in fact arguing for the status-quo.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not what policy says; what BLP actually says is Remove any contentious material which is unsourced; which is a conjectural interpretation of the source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or which relies upon a source which does not meet the standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability (though see self published sources, below).

Nor will this template achieve it. Even if we wanted BLPs to have a footnore at every comma - and there is no consensus for that, fortunately; there is no point to having biographies if they are unreadable - this template does not insist on that.

Nor does this proposal offer help or encouragement; in fact, WP:BEFORE merely says that we should try to help before tagging. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The debate has moved on from there. We're talking about how we implement a sticky prod. We're not re-fighting lost wars.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Do you mean to contend, in public, that getting our extremists to comply with policy is a lost war? Please consider rephrasing that remark. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The requirement could be as low as "is there a reliable source on the first page of google?". But there needs to be one. To suggest that there is consensus to allow editors to tag at semi-automated speed is laughable and knowingly false. WFCforLife (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We're dealing here with BLPs. They are not ropcket science that requires a professional insight into the subject matter. Therefore, IMHO, a prodder should naturally do a WP:BEFORE, whatsmore, it's basic common sense. However, the problem is that it is difficult to enforce because an overwhelming number of your extremists just drive-past taggers who are:

children or adolescents who are running contests on the block for high edit scores and treating the Wiipeda as a game (proven).,
slightly more mature editors (among them some young PhDs) who firmly believe that arrogance, and a high edit count, are the paths to adminship. (proven).

--Kudpung (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because there may not have been consensus for requiring WP:BEFORE, that doesn't mean there was consensus to not require it. Indeed, this seems to be the major point of contention. So acting as if it has been decided is not the most productive way forward. - Snarkibartfast (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I would prefer WP:BEFORE, I doubt it's worth pressing for new articles, as long as there is appropriate notification. Because we're talking about new articles, the creator should normally be able to provide a source in a timely manner. If for some extraordinary reason, the article creator can't give a source in a timely manner, the editor can userfy it and re-create the article when the source is obtained.

Because they're new articles, each side has a reasonable chance to get what it wants – one side gets sourcing, the other side will generally avoid deletion. Maurreen (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not an uber fan of WP:BEFORE in BLP-PROD context because i find it inefficient. First, the ones who are the most likely tagging those articles are new page patrol editors so i don't see them able to fix those articles in a fast & efficient way without degrading their efficiency in new page patrol. In fact the most able, knowledgeable & skilled person to fix such article are article creator, article big contributors and related projects editors who can do it right & faster than someone from page patrol. Second, i found rather challenging to prove a negation as how do someone prove that an editor failed at WP:BEFORE. Diff can register what has been done not what has not been done so it can turn ugly as a contest of good/bad faiths between editors. --KrebMarkt 09:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Those patrollers who don't want to check should team up with some one who can do the checking. If there are going to be non checking patrollers around then we need a different tag for them: blp-unreffed-with-no-check, and this will not get deleted as a prod, until a check has been made. This can be a pipeline to the checking department that is allowed to put the real sticky-prod on - after checking for easy to find references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See my earlier comments about users who 'work' on the Wikipedia as New Page Patrollers who have no interest whatsoever in doing any other kind of editing. It may be pure coincidence, but most of the patrollers I have actually had any experience with, were from the kind I mentioned, and are hardly likely to team up with anyone from the Rescue Squadron.--Kudpung (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE is not just a matter of searching for sources - there are numerous steps in it. The proposed process clearly has some implicit preliminaries of this sort, such as reading the article and checking that it has no references. Other sensible preliminaries include checking the edit history of the article, in case references have been removed; checking the talk page for signs of recent discussion; considering alternatives to deletion such as redirection. As for source searches, the main difficulty is that personal names are often not unique and so a simple Google search only works if there is already some good context which indicates that the person is quite notable (cases such as Susan Boyle, for example). To mitigate error and inefficiency, it is best if best practise is made clear. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Precisely Col. Warden, and that was the point of my messages above - drive-past New Article Patrollers don't/won't do any of this as they are more concerned with their 500 per hour edit counts to boost their user pages with barnstars. For them, 'BEFORE' means for quantity BEFORE quality. --Kudpung (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Cenarium (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC) (note that I meant that I agreed with the comment by Colonel Warden Cenarium (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

In my view, the reality of new page patrol combined with our inability to verify whether someone adequately searched before tagging, and the subjectivity of what an adequate search is, we should not require WP:BEFORE (which won't be abided by and in my view is likely to cause many dramatic accusations) and should instead provide a longer time for the article creator to reference their own article. (Alternately, there could be a WP:BEFORE requirement that is cut-and-dry - i.e. is there a source in the first 10 google hits for the name?) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the "reality of new page patrol" part. We get around 2500 new articles every day, but the bulk of new page patrolling is done by just a few people. Since the start of the year, fewer than 40 users have patrolled more than 335 new articles (i.e. more than 5 articles per day on average). I would oppose any mandatory WP:BEFORE for this system. Besides the problems that Calliopejen1 noted, say a Google search does show some potential sources. What then? What if the original author won't fix it? The new page patrollers don't have time to fix these articles; there are simply too many articles and too few patrollers. We'll be forced to leave it unsourced and then we're back to where we were before, with an increasing backlog that we just dump on the wikiprojects and hope that they continue to be willing to work on it. Mr.Z-man 18:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Calliopejen1 and . Mr.Z-man There is never going to be a way to ensure that WP:BEFORE is carried out or to prove that it has been - it's not technically possible. New Page PatrollersI (the serious minority) will evaluate the new articles sufficiently to see whether they are innocuous and can be sticky prodded, or if they are damaging enough for CSD.

I would venture to suggest this discussion is now moot, and that it might move things along if we check out the progress of other aspects of the development of the template and the automations in the relevant sections of this workshop page. See, for example,the Length of time before deletion sectionbelow. --Kudpung (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying instructions to Prodder

Again, BEFORE is not just about looking for sources (which I agree should not be mandatory), we should get one specific to this process (like WP:PROD has one, see Before nomination:); it should really be about what should be done before proposing deletion with this sticky prod. In my opinion, it should include at minimum verifying that no sources exist in this article or prior versions (since it's for new pages it won't be time-consuming, and it happens that article content be replaced completely or partially and all refs removed), and saying that it's best to inform the author. Cenarium (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, WP:PROD is one of the few policy edicts that is easy to read and understand. It assumes human intervention for WP:BEFORE will be carried out, but as discussed above, cannot guarantee it. I've thougth about it a lot but I cannot imagine any automated process that can force WP:BEFORE to be done, or to prove that it has been done. We are assuming that the New Article Patrollers will help out here, but it is also a fact that many New Article Patrollers are only interested in increasing their edis counts and are not inclined to be very helpful. Some even respond with incivility when politely asked for an explanation. So again, I suggest that this section on this wksp page is now moot.--Kudpung (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a little misunderstanding. Cenarium's connotation of BEFORE is somewhat different than the connotation than most of us had been using.

Cenarium, would it allay your concern if the instructions about sticky prods include a sentence like this: "Editors who are sure that a new biography on a living person contains no sources should tag the article with a sticky prod"? Maurreen (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: section moved from template workshop page. Maybe we could determine, as we go along, which areas have general agreement, and which areas don't. The areas that don't can be suspended for a little while. Then at some point we could do some trading off – such as Side A gets what it wants on Point 1, Side B gets what it wants on Point 2. Maurreen (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything that's critical to this proposed system that doesn't have consensus one way or the other? If there isn't, I don't see why we can't just leave them out so we can get this done sometime soon rather than continuing to argue over things that aren't actually important. Mr.Z-man 07:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen the most cosensus's have been one way or the other, on all aspects of every thing discussed, therefore any side issies outside the "Main Issues" that were close to an even conensus should be dropped, If those subjects are that improtant it will be brought back up Mlpearc MESSAGE 08:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the areas of contention are: 1) whether to include any WP:BEFORE requirement(s), 2) whether to require any manual notification, 3) how long the article is to be tagged before deletion, and 4) when the sticky prods are to start.

I'd like to suggest this as a compromise: 1) not require any WP:BEFORE provisions, 2) be satisfied with notification(s) by bot, 3) allow the article to be tagged a month/30 days/four weeks before deletion, 4) decide the specific date after we have worked out most of what we need to work out (there is no need for a lengthy delay but we might give a short warning period).

This should give something to each side and still seem reasonable to each side. Maurreen (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with three of those. We should either include BEFORE, which is now policy, or provide a coherent rationale why both of the following are true simultaneously:

Finding a source is too much work for a prodder (so the prodder can't even be asked even to look for one)
Finding a source is not too much work for an inexperienced newbie, who is to be required to find one in a hurry, or watch his work be thrown away.

I don't think it matters here what level of sourcing we are discussing - although here we are requiring any claim of a source whatsoever; these seem incompatible. But I am prepared to be persuaded by the brilliant rationale which will doubtless emerge as a reply to this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed above that people who do new page patrol simply aren't interested in sourcing, and I believe that. People are suited to different tasks. Furthermore, the person writing the article surely knows more about the subject and where sources may be found than some random NPP person. If we allow one month for a new user to source their article(s), this should be plenty of time for them to do so, no? I don't think one month possibly could constitute being "required to find one in a hurry, or watch his work be thrown away". Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

One month is minimal, yes. But leaving our sourcing policy in the hands of those who "aren't suited to sourcing" or - patently - to recognizing sources where they exist, is to let the blind lead the blidfolded, without even the benefits or Alt text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE is not policy. It isn't even a guideline, or even related to the current PROD system. It is part of the instructions for AFD. But those 2 statements aren't a contradiction at all. Its the difference in effort between asking someone with little to no familiarity or interest in the topic to source it and asking someone who just wrote the article a few hours or days ago to source it. Unless they just made it up, they should generally already know where to get the source – either the source that they used to write the article, or the source that they learned the information from to write it from memory. Its the same reason that we're asking wikiprojects to help. They have both interest and knowledge in the subject, so it will be both easier and less tedious for them to source it vs. some random person with no background knowledge of or interest in the subject .Mr.Z-man 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

BEFORE is part of WP:AFD. Who else argues that that is not policy? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably now moot

Please see the latest messages in the relevant sections. WP:BEFORE, for example, is probably now moot as it concens poplicy, as is also DRV, that are probably not strictly areas for discussion on this sticky prod template workshop page.--Kudpung (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when are instructions for processes policy? If it is policy, why is there no policy tag? I don't think I've seen anyone argue that they are before now. The actual policy that governs AFD, the Deletion policy, AFICT, makes no mention of anything like BEFORE being part of the policy. In either case, its definitely not part of PROD, so I don't see why we should we should treat BLP-PROD as if it needs an exemption from BEFORE. Mr.Z-man 19:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

But in the spirit of compromise, I would be prepared to consider a text which recommended checking for sources. If that's too much responsiblity for some gallant page patroller, they should simply template {{unsourced}}. Anybody who can't add a source is reasonably likely to be wrong when they say that not are cited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This workshop page is probably not the best place for this kind of discussion. As far as the template development is concerend, WP:BEFORE is evidently moot. Let's try to avoid turning this page into the same kind of fiasco that the RfC became.--Kudpung (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Then where is? I opposed discussing policy here, but nobody agreed with me; this is a policy proposal, and I offer a reasonable counterproposal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to be discussing compromises, I consider this our opportunity to ensure that the uncertain status of BEFORE becomes standard, and do not agree to its elimination. In fact, a case could well be made that one week is better than two or four, because then the process could be folded into WP:PROD without creating a 4th deletion process, which will just confuse things. So require at least a rudimentary online check for sources, let it run for one week, insist on a good automated notification system rather than a manual one, the procedure can start a week or two after we agree. In other words, just keep the point that would actually get us better articles, and let us make better decisions about them.

The argument was raised that people at NPP aren't interested in sourcing. I think just as authors ought to learn how to check for references, so should anybody trusted with NPP. Otherwise it's the ignorant judging the ignorant. If you can't tell whether the material might possibly be notable, you shouldn't be trying to eliminate it. If authors should know, so should everyone else. I find it irresponsible that someone should come here and argue, "sourcing is important, but let the other people do the work." I tend to judge they do not actually want sourced articles, they just want a way of deleting articles regardless. If they actually cared material be sourced, they'd want to help. I can't believe anyone experienced here does not know how to use the Googles at least. They don't have to figure out Wikipedia reference syntax, which I agree is over-complicated and confusing: they just have to insert the link. ` DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For better clarity, and to avid the kind of train wreck that the RfC became, I'm going to suggest moving this discussion on BEFORE policy to a dedicated sub page.--Kudpung (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand how the sticky prod could possibly be useful if we require people to check for sources first (which they clearly have not been doing; they'd rather just tag an article with {{unreferencedBLP}} and move on to the next article). Could someone give me a(n) (hypothetical) example where sticky prod would be more useful compared to the regular {{prod}} tag if WP:BEFORE was made a requirement before tagging? NW (Talk) 03:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For anyone pushing for prodders to be required to try to reference *new* articles, please consider the context. The article creator is the best person to do add a source. We're giving them a month. It's very easy to do. It's a very low standard.

What would be accomplished by requiring the prodders to try to reference *new* articles? Maurreen (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion, 'before' is about what to do before starting a process; in this case it's about what users should or are advised to do before sticky prodding. WP:AFD has a 'before', so has WP:PROD (in the intro), and even WP:CSD. There's all different, adapted to each process (some points are irrelevant to other processes). Imo, we should here at minimum ask to make sure that no valid sources existed in the article or prior versions (those articles are new so it shouldn't take long, and replacements removing sources are commonplace), and recommend to notify creators. Cenarium (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

At least one person here is pushing for prodders to look for sources before prodding the articles. That is the sticking point. Maurreen (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm ot sure there is any misunderstanding - at least no on the part of the participants in the development of the sticky BLP prod template. Points 9 and 10 of WP:BEFORE are not ambiguous in any way and are exceptionally easy to understand. I'll mention once more however, because the point seems to have been missed: to enforce those two points is nigh on impossible until the New Article Patrollers have all been (re)educated to understand that tagging is not a sport.

This effectively means, that to enforce WP:BEFORE, all newly prod-tagged BLPs need to be checked yet again by another user to see if a source could have indeed been found. If one is found then the patroller would have to be warned with something like:

Hi ''{{PAGENAME}}''! Although a suitable source exits for xxxxxxx, you placed a PROD, BLP PROD, CSD, or AfD template on the page. This could be considered to be disruptive editing. Please take a look at WP:BEFORE, points 9 & 10, and familiarise yourself with the the things you can do before PRODing a new BLP. Thanks.

--Kudpung (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

God no. First of all, templating the regulars is just going to make things a hundred times worse and drive people away from something that's already understaffed. Second, WP:BEFORE is not policy and it is not related to PROD in any way. Its part of the instructions for AFD. There is nothing to "enforce" because it isn't an actual rule. The whole purpose of this sticky-PROD process is that we're trying to tell people that we will no longer accept BLPs with no sources. So we use this process to tell the creator that they need to fix it. By pushing the burden of finding sources onto the person who tags it, we're sending a completely different message and completely defeating the purpose of the process. We'd be saying that its unacceptable, but it doesn't really matter since it can only be tagged for deleted if its truly unverifiable. Mr.Z-man 22:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Charming picture of New Pages Patrol you draw up. Let's see: They're not interested in/not capable of looking for sources, and they won't follow simple instructions unless an admin with a template stands over them. That's not my view; those are your comments. But if all this is true, why exactly are qwe handing them a guillotine? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

They're not capable of looking for sources because they simply don't have the time. There's maybe 3 dozen people looking through thousands of new articles every day – namespaces outside of mainspace are almost entirely unpatrolled. Its not like RC patrol where there's 5 people looking at every diff. Other than that, I think you misread my comment entirely. They won't follow the simple instructions of WP:BEFORE because WP:BEFORE is not instructions for PROD, continuing to argue that it is won't make it true. Additionally, I'm saying that we shouldn't template them. I have no clue how you got "an admin with a template stands over them" out of my comment. Mr.Z-man 00:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Files outside mainspace? What BLPs are there?

But if NPP doesn't have time to look for sources, what are they? Do they have time to think about what they are doing? (That would explain the error rate in {{unsourced}}, wouldn't it?)

I trust that nobody here is really advocating handing over sourcing decisions to munchkins in a rush to accumulate edit count; but it really begins to sound like that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

They are my comments indeed, and I have not suggested otherwise. The beauty is, that it stimulated some response even if no one noticed the irony that was intended. That said, trigger-happy taggers are nevertheless a very real problem for the reasons I've stated, and the problem 'handing them a gillotine' has been brought up in other sections oi this workshop, and equally ironically, nobody has risen to the challenge of addressing the issue. These and other reasons are why I have declared the debate on this page about WP:BEFORE to be moot. It would also be nice if some people could see the difference between messages that are general suggestions, and ones that specifically address comments of other users. --Kudpung (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

are my standards too high?--if something is at all likely to have a source i look for one at least superficially before placing or removing a deletion tag, and I would think myself reckless otherwise--I want to get articles deleted that don;t belong here, but i want them to be the right articles. there is only one way to prove that you care about sourcing, which is to do it. I don't ask for anything beyond what I do myself. As for time, I have time to look at every prod (actually, the half I might have any chance of knowing something about).

Let's analyze that number of NPPs. There are about 500 new BLP pages a day. I just same one hour's worth from NPP. I found 9 of them sourced, 6 unsourced but clear candidates fro speedy deletion and so tagged, and 3 unsourced but not speedys. That makes 36 new pages a day that have to be dealt with. The NPP people amoung them all can do that much. Are the people opposed to before telling me they between them can not try to source 3 pages an hour? DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Z-man, whats the time problem--most new articles are not blps, and most BLPs are either sourced or obvious A7s. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to telling people that they have to do the work of the article's creator. Its unfairly putting the responsibility on the wrong people. The only thing we got out of that month-long RFC was a sticky PROD process, I'd rather not see it killed in committee by a vocal minority adding so many restrictions that it becomes a useless process that's entirely incapable of doing what it was intended to do. The purpose of sticky PROD is to establish that we will not accept unsourced BLPs, not that we won't accept unsourceable BLPs – we already don't accept those. It might be 3 pages per hour, but it isn't like the backlog where it will eventually go away. Its 3 pages per hour for as long as we continue to push forward with the status quo, which knowing the English Wikipedia, will likely be forever. Mr.Z-man 16:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been convinced that requiring taggers to search for sources is the wrong approach--I agree that it is "putting the responsibility on the wrong people". I believe that the community has decided all new BLP articles must have sources. The question now is, who should be adding these sources? The people best equipped to find the sources are the article creators and other people who want to help out with this project by monitoring the prod category. There is no advantage to making NPP people do source searching, when other interested parties can do this role better. (NPP people do not want to do this and probably have less experience doing this, anyways.) Why make NPP do searches before, when other people will do better searches later? It's just a matter of a sensible division of labor, in my view. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is again contrary to clear polioy: by WP:OWN, the article creator has no special rights, and so no special responsibilities. The assumption that NPPs are less competent than the newbies w3ho create imperfect articles is unsubstantiated - but if it were true, there would be no reason to believe that NPP is competent to add this tag in the first place; let them add {{unsourced}} and let someone who knows what they're doing and has time to think decide whether the article should be sourced, prodded, or AfDed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone is advocating giving carte blanch e to munchkins. In fact it seems throughout this page that there are plenty of warnings against doing just that. However, it does appear that although the problem of edict count addicts is very real, there is little support here for taking this (necessarty?) evil into consioderation, and what to do about it, while aty the same time avoiding making it a major issue on tis template design wksp page. I do see that in the Arbcom, DGG lists such a typical example of a rabid tagger.--Kudpung (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternative path

It seems like the main (or only) contentious issue is whether to require prodders to check for sources. In the interest of moving things along while still giving fair opportunity to different views, I suggest that we:

Suspend the issue for the moment.
At some point, hold a short well-planned vote. "Short" means somewhere between a day and a week. "Well-planned" includes having the duration specified. Maurreen (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Voting is evil, and there has been far too much of it already. We've only been discussing the issue on this page for a few days; let's try to come to an agreement with discussion before turning to a vote. NW (Talk) 03:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We could even just do a straw poll among ourselves. Maurreen (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I will settle for a recommendation to look for sources; but in the meantime, I would like to have it explained why exactly the sticky prod is not useful if we are required to look for sources before slapping it on? Nobody proposed requiring finding sources before tagging, so the process will either produce at least one source, or get rid of unsourced BLPs where there is no obvious source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole purpose of this process is to make it clear that we won't accept BLPs with no sources. By requiring the tagger to look for sources, we're not communicating this message to the people creating unsourced BLPs, because all they see is someone fixing their articles for them. Mr.Z-man 22:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, this is the fallacy; that by biting one bunch of newbies, we will teach the next bunch of newbies to do better. Superficially plausible, but it really makes no sense; the same "logic" would show that after 9 years of blocking vandals, we would by now have taught junior high school students not to vandalize.

I still think it would be nice if a proposed policy predicated on the perils of unsourced BLPs had at some stage a tendency to actually source BLPs. Or am I oversimplifying? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That was one of the goals of the RFC, and why this only applies to new unsourced BLPs. The 40,000 or so existing ones will be sourced (hopefully) with no threat of deletion. As for the "fallacy", your argument is incorrect, we don't block vandals to teach people not to vandalize, we block them so they can't vandalize. If someone comes here intending to disrupt the project, the best we can do is limit the disruption. The hope here is that the people who will be affected by this are really here to help add to Wikipedia, not just dump some unverified content and leave. Mr.Z-man 00:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very rare that I agree with Pmanderson, but I think his compromise is workable. What I read him as saying is we don't REQUIRE WP:BEFORE but we recommend that people look for sources. What is wrong with recommending that? Half the people don't listen to recommendations anyway and as a recommendation, I don't think anybody would come back and say, "John Smith needs to be desysopped because he didn't follow the recommendation." No, what the recommendation says is, "Hey, we are an encyclopedia dedicated to improving and increasing human knowledge. Why don't you take a minute or two to see if this person is really worth keeping?" Heck, I would like to think that our better admins/users would do that already.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Very true and I agree with you entirely Balloonman. You may also like to read a couple of the newer sections and sub-sections below about warnings, encouragement, educating editors, and fundamental challenges. --Kudpung (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have no problem with a recommendation as a compromise, but I disagree that no one will complain. The fact that this is even a point of contention suggests that some people feel rather strongly about this. Though "worth keeping" is not the issue here. If it isn't worth keeping, it should be deleted regardless of the sourcing status. If people are looking for anything it should be looking to see if the article is easily sourceable and then only choosing not to tag if they source the article. We should avoid encouraging people to leave articles both unsourced and untagged. Mr.Z-man 18:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Quickie summary on any requirements of prodders

In hopes of moving things along, I suggest getting a snapshot of where we all stand on the issue of whether to require prodders to look for a source. Hopefully, that will clarifying things somewhat to help us resolve the issue.

Please, for this section, just write a single bullet point with a single sentence of your position. Please put discussion in a different section.

No need to require prodders to look for a source for *new* articles, which is what is under discussion. Maurreen (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Prodders should look for a source for new articles, or we should have an explanation, not in Wiki-jargon, why they need not; fixing articles is better than deleting them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of "sticky prod" is to say "yes we want new BLPs to be sourced, but if no one is willing to look for sources they will be deleted", if we insist that someone must look for sources to trigger the process, then we utterly defeat the purpose: it would mean that if no one was willing to look for sources, we'd keep the article by default.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
What Doc said ↑; putting the burden of improvement onto the people wanting articles to meet our existing standards is what led to us having 45,000 or so unsourced BLPs and hundreds of thousands of other articles in the various maintenance backlogs. Mr.Z-man 00:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, what Doc said. What new article contributors need is prompt feedback that they need to give sources, near to when they still have their sources handy, else it will be deleted and they could try again some other time when they do have sources. --doncram (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
We want sourceable articles kept (if notable, etc.) and unsourceable ones deleted--deleting ones that are actually sourced & notable is counterproductive, and if we care about getting them soruced, we should help source them. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The main point of agreement that was reached is that new unsourced BLPs are no longer acceptable, so putting any sort of 'BEFORE' requirement on the prodder goes against this consensus. Quantpole (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Any form of words such as "should", "suggested", "recommended", "encouraged" to look for sources is fine. Any explicit requirement, or making a sticky-prod invalid if the contributor fails to look for sources, will result in the system failing — either unsourced BLPs will get through the net because of some specious argument that the nominator failed to complete a technicality, or nominators will lie and say they have searched for sources, which claim will not be disprovable, causing a similar effect to that of the claimed contrary lease in the old ejectment process. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Though prodders should be encouraged in the strongest possible terms to seek sources first, I doubt a requirement that they do so would be enforceable (it's easy to imagine a generic "I looked and didn't find anything major" response). Gonzonoir (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
No need to search for sources before prodding. Per Quantpole (we have agreed that unsourced BLPs are acceptable, and this is part of that), because it's unenforceable per Stifle, and because NPPs are the wrong people to be looking for sources anyways (better to leave it to ARS-types and article creators). Any language in the form of encouragement is fine by me. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Stifle's and Gonzonoir's comments above. "Should" is good, "required" is too much. -kslays (talk • contribs) 19:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
"Encouraged but not required" is probably the way to go for this, per Scott MacDonald. NW (Talk) 19:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Scott MacDonald and NuclearWarfare on this: "encouraged but not required". In addition - I'm not really up on the status quo, maybe it's there already - incubation should be noted as an alternative to deletion at the end of the prod period, for BLPs that appear prima facie notable. The tagger should be encouraged to suggest this possibility if they think it appropriate. Rd232 ^talk 20:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I see no harm in suggesting to the obvious edit count addicts that maybe they could relax just a little, and look before they leap. DGG lists such a self-appointed Wik policeman in his arbcom statement. It's not rare by any means. Checking the taggers' cotnribution histories will often prove the point. (see 'munchies' above).--Kudpung (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Encourage people to try fixing it before putting BLP-PROD but no requirement of it or you will see an absurd increase of not-patrolled new BLP articles. --KrebMarkt 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Encouraging is fine, but it shouldn't be a requirement. (It simply doesn't make sense to move the burden from the author, who should presumably be able to locate a source readily, to a random page patroller). Scott Mac has the right idea above. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 00:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The person adding a bio on a Libyan basketball player is in a much better position to source it than the newpage patroller. However I do think we can ask the newpage patrollers to hold off an hour and not prod as unsourced BLP until an article is at least an hour old. And we could ask them to categorise the article so that it comes to the attention of relevant projects. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This may be getting off track, but actually, I think it might be better to give notice immediately, not an hour after the new article contributor has logged off. So that they are informed right away, and don't have different expectations, and don't leave the library where they had the source handy, etc. What is best practice in giving some immediate notice, perhaps at the Talk page instead or in addition, should be left to NPPers to figure out, in the future. The main things here, IMO, are that NPPers should not have to look for sources, and new article contributors should be given PROMPT feedback that they need to add sources. --doncram (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof of deleting any article has always rested on the nominator. PROD/speedy deletes are simply a means not to get hung up on obviously unnotable articles. If a nominator can't be bothered to do a minimal amount of research to prove her/his case, then we shouldn't allow her/him to use this option. Simple as that. -- llywrch (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Llywrch is wrong, the burden for adding BLP material and sourcing is explicitly stated to be on the person who is adding the BLP. We are just adding solidifying the fact that new BLPs need sources. As for the wording, I can go along with encourage/recommend, but not require. I can see a "requirement" getting abused and misused even when dealing with dilligent people who might legitimately look but not find anything.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions : An overwhelming majority is in favour of not making WP:BEFORE a requirement (which IMO would be probably technically impossible anyway.) Encouraging the prodders to look for sources nevertheless has a very strong following.--Kudpung (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add my 2 cents that WP:BEFORE should apply before any special PROD... Hobit (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Question re "encourage"

It is, naturally, good to encourage any wikipedian to do more good voluntary work. But, I still don't see the rationale in specifically encouraging prodders to do this particular task of sourcing things.

We currently have people tagging new articles as {{unreferencedBLP}} - we don't encourage them to source the article instead.
We don't say that people who add {{fact}} tags ought to be encouraged to source instead (although it would be good if they did)
We don't assume that there an onus on someone marking an article for "cleanup" to actually clean it up themselves (although it would be nice if they chose to).

So why are we even talking about this?

We want ALL unreferenced BLPs to be BLPprodded because that means we (or the creator) will either source them, or we will eventually remove them. That's the consensus we have.
So, we want to encourage NP patrols to BLPprod articles - and we shouldn't be doing anything to discourage that, or to make it onerous. Otherwise the danger is that some will be missed. All a person BLPproding should be expected to do, is to check carefully to make sure the article is indeed currently unsourced.

What we need to do here is:

Encourage the prodding of every new unsourced BLP - don't complicate this.
Give as much help and encouragement to the creator of an article, so he can source the article.
Encourage all willing wikipedians to source as many of these prodded articles as possible
Give us much visibility to the prodded articles as possible, so willing volunteers can find them and source as they can.
Keep an automatic list of any article deleted under BLP prod, so concerned persons can review and source and restore as they can and wish.

That's it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can aruge with that Scott. Thanks. See: Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop#Warnings? --Kudpung (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Scott, but also we want the contributors of these BLPs to include their source, so we need to change the article creation process to make that clearer. If we can raise the quality of what goes through Newpage patrol so that more can simply be marked as patrolled - or even their contributors made wp:autoreviewers that would take pressure of an area where frankly we are struggling. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything to improve that process would be helpful. In terms of NPP holding off an hour (your comment above), the article creator may then have logged off and will not realise that there is a problem and the article liable to be deleted. It's a tricky balance to avoid being bitey but also letting someone know ASAP that there is an issue to be sorted out. Quantpole (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but think the 7 day duration should resolve that. Also in my experience at new page patrol, complaints about overhasty tagging are rife but I don't remember an author complaint about underhasty tagging. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

When I do speedy a lot of the time I will just watchlist something and then check in a day or two to see whether it is still a csd candidate or not. However I do notice that a lot of new users seemingly create a new page and then disappear. The best time to make someone aware of an issue is when we know they are around which is more likely just after an article has been created. I'd rather let someone know there is a problem than leave it a bit when they might no longer be around to sort it out. Quantpole (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is the approach we want, it highlights a fundamental difference between blpstickyprods and regular prods, which we should emphasize clearly to patrollers (I missed it at first reading): unlike "normal" PROD taggings, BLPStickyProd is about the suitability of the article itself, not the suitability of the article's subject.

Patrollers will have to tackle StickyProd tagging with an approach more like the one they would use for CSDs than the one they would use for "normal" prods: whereas a CSD tag usually refers to some problem with the article itself (it's spam; it's illegible; it doesn't assert the subject's importance), "normal" prods are supposed to address the notability of the article's subject (I would never prod a crap article without doing a notability search).

Personally I think this difference is important enough that this process shouldn't have been called "prod", but I clearly missed the boat on that one. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If the BLP processed as part of NP patrol then no requirment to look for sources but if it is tag under other conditions either sources must be looked for or the editor must be prepared to state that based on their experence in this area sources are very unlikely to exist.©Geni 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fundamental 'encouragement' challenges

Referring to Scott's numbered list above concerning encouragement, let's keep in mind the fundamental challenges which are summarised again:

Taggers probably often do not consider it their job to do WP:BEFORE or even help the encyclopedia in any further editing tasks. Indeed, it seems to appear to have been established in the course of these discussions, that serious and/or mature new page patrollers may even be exempt from doing this.
Some taggers may tend to go about the task with a zealotry that is not necessarily the best solution in all cases.
Far too many taggers are munchkins who use their talk pages as a forum and are running competitions for high edit scores and to exchange dozens of barnstars.
There are sometimes one-time taggers who have consulted the encyclopedia, seen something they don't like, think they know about Wikipeda policies, and tag an article without trying/wanting to help.
Creators of new BLPs are often one-time contributors with an interest only in the BLP they are writing, and have no intention of becoming 'Wikipedians'
One-time creators (and there are many of these, especially of BLPs) will often not return to see what has happened to their article.
Some some-time contributors are anons who, because of dynamic Internet connections or using different computers, connect with a different IP each time and will never see new-message alerts when, they log on.
A surprising number of new registered users appear to not even know about the existence of their talk pages, so it's often impossible to contact them and get a reaction. It's like doing WP:BEFORE: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

--Kudpung (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lets be frank.

We want as many people as possible, whoever they are, to help reference BLPs so we don't end up deleting them. Encoutrage all willing people to help with this.
We want 100% of unreferenced new BLPs to be tagged. We want to encourage as many people to do this with as much unbitey zealotry as possible. Because we want all BLPs, which unfortunately remain unreferenced, removed.

However, one and two are not really related. People can do either. There should be no assumption that people who do one would wish to do the other, and no pressure on them to either. Can we delink these entirely?--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Scott, but am keen to do this in as non-bitey way as possible. I suspect that a lot of the onetime editors who create an article and then disappear do so because they are bitten rather than welcomed, so I want to make this process as "friendly" and informal as we can, even if that means regulars perceive it as patronising. Two ways I can see to do this are to hold off and not template good faith articles until they are an hour old, and to have multiple escalatory versions of the template - in particular the first one for users with redlinked talkpages should be a variant of {{Welcomeunsourced}}. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I really agree with the desire to make this non-bitey. I do worry that holding off an hour might end up being counterproductive, though. If I write an article as a newbie, it would seem to me that if someone came up to me right after I did it and said "Hi, hey, welcome to Wikipedia, could you give me a link to where you got that info?, maybe put <ref> in front of it and &lt/ref> at the end?", I'd rather actually hear that pretty quickly (when the source might still be in my browser history) than later on. On the other hand, I do think there's a danger of rushing the potential newbie who might have checked in but might still be working on adding sources. So I'm not sure I'd support delaying the first tagging, I feel that making the process less bitey has to do more with what we say at first than when we say it. --Joe Decker (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that a welcome to new editors would be helpful, but that would be on their talkpage not in the article, and we could try to make the tags less bitey - but they will get plastered on articles seconds after the first save and that really does annoy contributors. We have a huge problem at special:newpages with overenthusiastic taggers judging articles on their first save, and this could exacerbate that. Giving an hours grace would mean that some articles didn't need to be tagged at all, we already have the note "Note: articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation." I would like to add unsourced BLP to that. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. (And yah, definitely, the welcome would be a talk thing.) --Joe Decker (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Quickie summary No. 2

I'm hoping we're moving toward a compromise. As User:Balloonman said above, a recommendation or somesuch for prodders to look for sources might lead some to do so. The prodders that don't wish to do so would be free to ignore the recommendation.

What do you think of some version of "encouraged," "recommended," "suggested," "should," or none of those?

Please just give a single bullet point with a single sentence. Please place any discussion elsewhere. Maurreen (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "encourage" -- "should" is stronger than I'd like – I'll accept whatever the group accepts. Maurreen (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Encourage is the best of the above. I look for ways not to byte users, even experienced users, and I suspect that the other three terms will come back in ways unintended to byte us down the road. They also seem too heavy handed.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
How about "urged"? Maybe it's too tabloid. "Encouraged" is the best of those suggested. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Encouraged is good. It would be nice if patrollers can find a source, but it really should be a "it would be nice of you to..." thing, not an obligation as 'suggested' or 'should' would imply. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 18:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer no mention at all, but, except for "should", I would have no problem with the suggestions above as long as it makes it clear that it is not a requirement ("should" still sounds like a requirement). Mr.Z-man 18:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Encourage or should (should, ideally?) would be fine; if we can spare the space for "better to fix than delete", it may be more effective. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
"Encourage" is okay. Anything stronger should be avoided. --doncram (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Encourage. --Kudpung (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose "should", prefer being honest and saying "none of these" as I don't think this can work if Newpage patrolers see this as taking longer than a speedy deletion tag; But can live with "encourage" provided it is part of an overall package that includes some other concessions to try and maintain consensus. ~~Very unhappy with the way this debate is being stage managed and feel somewhat railroaded.~~ Ϣere SpielChequers 13:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Any will do. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Encouraged is ok, but too strong - I accept it in the interest of consensus. May is the appropriate weight. Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
What about "Editors are encouraged (but not required) to..."? The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Encourage is best (clearly optional, but also something that is preferred). Jogurney (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Stage managed" and "railroaded"

WereSpielChequers said above, "Very unhappy with the way this debate is being stage managed and feel somewhat railroaded."

I don't know whether that is referring to me at all. If so, that is not my intention. I don't mind leaving this page, and I would listen to suggestions and constructive criticism about how I'm trying to manage it.

My goal with this workshop page in general has been to help keep it on track while showing respect to all, trying to help work out something that most people will have the most acceptance of. One thing I expect we'd all agree on is that the RFC that spurred this became very messy.

As far as my view about prodders and *new* articles, I initially was in favor of prodders looking for a source, but I was quickly persuaded otherwise. As far as "encouraged," I think it's a small matter for both sides. But I also understand that people in general don't want to feel that they compromise more than the other side.

As far as "provided it is part of an overall package that includes some other concessions to try and maintain consensus," I am keeping this in mind. It was part of a general suggestion I made earlier, and I planned to be more specific if more specifics were needed. Maurreen (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I've struck that as I don't want to drive anyone out of the debate. However I am concerned at parking the issue of warnings and how they escalate, as I see that as inextricably linked with the templating process. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will unpark the warnings section. I hadn't realized anyone saw it as essential. Maurreen (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we put the two "Warning" sections closer together? Maurreen (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no strong view on where, but I think we need "warnings" or usertalk messages of some sort for:

People who remove without sourcing - which brings up the issue of how much one has to source an article to remove the sticky?
People who create multiple unsourced BLPs - do we escalate warnings and if so to what level?
What do we do with people who apply this template to articles that are sourced but inadequately so?

I think they could be handled in three separate sections. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems as if people are leaving in drones. Maybe it's somthing to do with some people confusing the template workshop with a debate. Generally debates are what decide what gets done, and a workshop is the process of doing it. Perhaps now that we have split practical work from theorising, we can head for the progress and deadlines that the Arbcom has suggested.--Kudpung (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Name

NOTE: Section moved from workshop page). NOTE: This part moved from 'Question re "encourage"' to help keep discussion organized. Maurreen (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because we currently call it a stickyprod doesn't mean it is too late to rename it, or that wp:Twinkle can't put it in the same dropdown menu as speedy deletion tags. I think that for the taggers it should behave much like a speedy deletion tag, but for admins, projects and other rescuers it should behave more like a prod. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've actually wondered that "prod" isn't the best equivalent here. It is like prod in that if still tagged after 7 days it gets nuked without debate. However, prod says "In my opinion, this is unsalvageable and should be deleted, does anyone disagree?", whereas this says "This is currently unreferenced. If not referenced it WILL be deleted. If you can help avoid that by referencing it, please do so." In short, it has nothing to do with the potential of the article, or the opinion of the prodder - it has only to do with the factual state of something being unsourced.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, could we call this Bio-Unref-tagging or Delete-if-left-unreferenced (wp:DILU) tagging instead? --doncram (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I lean toward DILU. Maurreen (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The name "sticky prod" is likely to generate misunderstandings for users who did not follow the present debate (leading to uses of the tag outside of scope). I agree that DILU is much preferable, as it is more descriptive. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of starting with di- like the other di- templates for pictures that function in a similar way. So di-lu or di-unref should be easy enough to remember, and match what we already have. eg templates:

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

i am not a NPPer and don't know of those other templates. I don't see what "di" stands for in those ones. I do see some value of having a compatibly named series of templates for NPPers to use in sequence or to address different issues, but perhaps the current suite's members should all be renamed (a new set of names/aliases could be introduced while leaving the existing names usable). But i'm afraid it will take this offtrack to develop a whole new naming system. What are all the likely templates for NPPers to use, anyhow, I don't know them. Maybe go with a new, separate name like DILU for this one, and be open to a comprehensive renaming campaign later. --doncram (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly support calling this something other than PROD (for the reasons I set out in my 11 March comment above). FWIW I am a new page patroller, but as I'm not a file patroller I was unfamiliar with those di- format tags. Still, DILU sounds good to me. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

DI means Delete If One way to find out what templates do is to quickly copy the curly bracketed template, and put it in your sandbox, click 'preview' and you'll see what it gives. Must say, I rather like Graem's idea.--Kudpung (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I converted Graeme's presentation above from using nowiki brackets, to use the template link "tl|" instead, so can follow links to those templates. The phrasing "delete if" is not used in any one of those and would not really make sense if you extended it out (would "di-no source" expand out to "delete if no source"? i think it actually means "delete because no source", so db should be used in its name instead). It is really not clear that "di" means "delete if", for those ones. But for the purposes of this Sticky Prod, making the name convey conditionality, as in "delete if", seems good for being less bitey. --doncram (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally still like BLP-PROD, since it does parallel the prod idea. The only difference is that an article is prod tagged due to notability concerns, whereas here it's BLP/Verifiability. The author notices for prod reads: "All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article...". This still fits for BLP-PROD, since the criteria know just says we need references for new BLPs. (Still, all that said, I'd be okay with a non-prod name as a second choice, perhaps something like BLP-UNREF). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 18:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I llike the idea of "delete if." It's plausible that "delete if" will expand as WP raises standards.

One way in that the "sticky" is not parallel with our current prodding system is the fact that it is sticky.

Also, we haven't decided how long a BLP will be "stuck" before it is deleted. If that period is not one week, that would be another aspect that is not parallel. Maurreen (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

DILU or BLP PROD would be fine. Anything, really, as long as it doesn't contain the word "sticky" which I find awkward and somewhat misused in this context. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I just came to this page and this section and those just below are the only ones I can follow! That said, I too prefer to drop the "sticky" bit. DI-UNREF works for me. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 02:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This still seems to be unresolved. I just thought of another possiblity: NUBLP-PROD i.e. New Unreferenced BLP PROD. Also, I assume these pages would be moved as well if we were to change the name? --Jubilee♫clipman 08:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears that DILU has the widest level of support. Is there any reason we shouldn't close this and focus on the more important technical issues i.e. final templates, including on Twinkle/Huggle/other scripts, and updating the relevant categories/dashboards? The Wordsmith^Communicate 13:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

DILU has the problem that it provides no indication of what the thing is unless you do some digging. I wouldn't be too worried about wikipedians knowing what the name means as that it what policy pages and in an pinch admins are for. The name needs to be indicative to the new users who are most likely to get hit by it. "ref-deadline" perhaps?©Geni 03:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well of course the template will expand it out and tell you what it means, only the taggers and removers need to know what it is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Length of time before deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In my official capacity as a person butting his fat ~~beak~~ nose in, I am declaring the "time before deletion" to be approximately the median of the suggestions below -- 10 days – to be changed at a later time if people think this is an absolutely horrendous choice. More importantly, I am suggesting that the proposal does not need to remain in limbo over this particular detail.--Father Goose (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(Section moved from WT:STICKY)

Five days? One week? Two weeks? One month? I suggest one or two weeks. These articles are probably doing little harm at first, but there should be a little urgency or perhaps we may see article creators wandering away and forgetting to source the articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Two weeks sounds fair to me, but I am fine with anything less than...a month. NW (Talk) 19:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
KISS - 7 days, just as prod. Remember that it can be undeleted anytime later if someone offers to source it. If the timescale is less than prod, then you could end up with a stickyprod applied for unrferenced BLP, and a regular prod because someone thinks it not notable. Gets messy.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I am hopeful that seven days will find wide agreement. That's a reasonable amount of time, considered from either side. And it is aligned with regular prods, among other processes. Maurreen (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If we are going to depend on undeletion to source articles, the deletion tag should link to a list of admins willing to undelete.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
As this is more drastic than regular PROD, the time need to be longer. There is an alternative sequence possible for PROD, which is to simply deprod and send the decision to to AfD, in which case the shortest effective date is 14 days. If this is not going to be possible here, the time should be at least the equivalent. Since any admin will undelete a prod, and probably not all admins will undelete these, the time would need to be longer yet to actually be fair. I am fine with anything that is at least a month, so in combination with NWs preferences above, a month would be sensible. Maureen, I consider a single week an extreme position, not a compromise. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I will personally undelete any BLP deleted as unsourced, if the requester promises to source it without delay.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to hear it--there may yet be chance of a reasonable compromise way of adopting it. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is; normal PRODs provide a week as enough time for someone to notice the Prod and disagree. This also requires anyone who disagrees to also find a source, all within the same week.
A parallel system to Prod would be: BLP-Prod says "does anyone have a source for this?" If nobody volunteers, delete in a week, just like Prod. If somebody volunteers, they can replace {{BLP-Prod}} by a tag like {{hangon}}, also dated, which gives them a preset time to source the article; if nobody does source it, then, again, delete. This will keep them all from having to fill Scott Mac's talk page, and indefensible articles will still be gone in a week. Septentrionalis [[User talThat I can live with. But anyone placing a "hangon" would need to produce the source without delay, else the clock keeps ticking.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's why {{BLPhangon}} would have a time limit itself. The clock would not stop ticking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems more complicated than necessary. I'd rather just have one slightly longer time limit than expect newbies to use more complicated tags. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree here. If you have a source, it can be added quickly (as compared to the re-write that might be necessary to avoid CSD). Since Prods (sticky or not) aren't under the thread of immediate deletion like CSD's, I'm not sure I see a need for a hangon-type tag. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything between 7 to 9 days but not more. The rational behind is the delay between tagging and concerned Wikiprojects getting the information up to 2 days can be lost along the way. --KrebMarkt 22:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Two weeks. then auto destruct. - --Kudpung (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
1 month hopefully things will be sorted out before then, and if a true lack of sources is evident then the other prods and AFDs can be used. This is to be less bity, and give the greatest chance for improvement rather than elimination. I would also accept 4 weeks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Graeme, I'm not quite sure if I understand - one month is indeed approximately four weeks, or did you mean something else?

Compromise - Here's another, less bitey solution: Two weeks, then an automated reminder, then auto deletion after another two weeks. Although we know that most of the BLPs that are going to be deleted are the crap, hoaxes, and children's attempts at editing the Wikipedia, it does assume more GF. On autodelete, the bot puts a message on the creator's talk page such as:

The article you created on DD/MM/YY about XXXXXX has now been deleted for lack of verifiable sources. if you feel that this deletion was an error, please refer to WP:DRV.

Such a system would make {{hangon}} tags and stuff unnecessary. In fact I could even see such a system eventually getting adopted site-wide (Hmm... in a couple of years maybe.).

--Kudpung (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about bot deletion (if that's what you're recommending), because newcomers often fix things but don't understand they're allowed to remove angry tags (even if the tags tell them they can do so). I do like the idea of an automated notification about how to get the article back. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that one whole month is plenty of time to get something fixed. It's even longer than the time allocated for a GA review, for example, of a long article. especially if the creator/major contributors have had a first request, and a further reminder after two weeks. If nothing has been done after such a time frame, the likelyhood is great that the reminders have fallen on deaf ears, such as on a one-time contributor who will probably never reeturn to Wikipedia and log in to see what has happend to his/her article. It could be deleted by a bot in such a case , which IMHO, would then be perfectly legitimate.--Kudpung (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

One month would be best, because new editors often don't have time to check in that frequently. A large proportion of editors (myself included) who try to do substantial work only edit Wikipedia now and then, often around once a month. I do not want to bite them when they discover without warning (because they haven't looked in a month) that their article text is gone without accessible backup. However, a compromise with a one week warning, followed by deletion two weeks later, similar to Kudpung's suggestion above is acceptable. (And I really like the idea of system-wide adoption.) -kslays (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the claim that a newbie will create an article and not come back to look at it before a month. If they dont come back to admire their shiney new work within a few days, I doubt they will come back within a month. I support two weeks edit to add clarification maximum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Active Banana (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Active Banana (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
7 days is the most that should be allowed. 99% of article creators are going to come see their creation within a few days; I fail to see why the duration should be longer than a standard PROD. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I suggest 1000 days, but would compromise at 30 days. I know its hard to believe, but tons of casual wikipedia editors (aka "normal people") don't always visit wikipedia daily or even weekly. And God forbid an article requires sources not accessible via google (which still is probably a large % of the world's total published output since 1450), because a good faith editor could reasonably require time to access them.--Milowent (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Sorting out the suggestions from the comments, If a consensus seems to be developing , it would appear to be in the 2 - 4 weeks (14 - 30 days) region, but let's not draw any conclusions yet.--Kudpung (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
A month seems minimal. We must give the newbie time to notice our complaint; even bot notification will not do this until the newbie looks at Wikipedia. Then we must give them time to source; which implies understanding our sourcing practices. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
One Month seems reasonable as long as we all agree that everyone is responsible for sourcing not just the creators or the NPP people or taggers or whoever: we are all responsible as editors to find sources for all the articles on WP (I think that was the gist of the huge section above but I am unsure where put this comment). Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 02:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Addendum - One month also gives the newbies plenty of time to get acquainted with our policies, find non-internet-based sources for the more difficult-to-source people (like modern composers and sculptors), and get back online after a busy month with the screaming kids and colleagues (yes, they scream too...), as mentioned above --Jubilee♫clipman 15:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
7 days. People look at the articles they create. Forget "biting the newbies", remember "biting real people who can sue." Abductive (reasoning) 05:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
2 weeks -- the use of suits as the bogeyman is not realistic as we have been given no indication that anything remotely like that has occurred. OTRS would easily handle any such cases, as it has in the past for fully-referenced articles. And recall also that CSD still has provisions for obvious nonsense and the like, and we have seen little sign that those engaged in trying to prevent wholesale automated deletions have been obstinate in protecting such. Collect (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
2 weeks seems reasonable. It gives newbies more time to figure out how to use the references tag, and prevents the backlog of unreferenced BLPs from accumulating. Jogurney (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment - A quick look art the mathematical result shows the average wish to be around 17.2 days, so I guess that would be two weeks (14 days). There have been no new votes for four days, shall we wrap it up at 14 days then, or do we want to either wait for more votes or to calculate the consensus a different way?--Kudpung (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
7 days I see no reason to be different from {{prod}} --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
7 days. I'm of the opinion that editors can fix sourcing in a seven-day period. We don't need to make it too different from our current PROD system. If they can't source in a week, deletion seems fair. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the current PROD system is not based on an inchoate fear of lack of cited sources in BLPs. I'm of the opinion that most articles can be sourced in 1 hour if the author(s) is immediately available. But that very rarely happens because its a volunteer gig. Very very few wiki editors are as active as you, for example. One problem is that some articles actually require time to obtain sources not available to google (consider Kelutviaq which could easily have been deleted, and is in need of referral to hard copy sources), and some worthwhile content will certainly be deleted if the sticky prod time period is set at 7 days. It a balancing act, no doubt. But less worthwhile content will be deleted if a longer period is adopted, such as 2 weeks or 30 days. Since contentious material should always be removed from articles, there will be an opportunity to do that when an editor decides to add the stickyprod template. Thus, the perceived risk of atrocities occurring is decreased during the prod period. Just because God created the world in 7 days (well, 6, actually) is not precedent for applying the same period everywhere. My comment applies equally to the 3 "me toos" below.--Milowent (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

7 days, mainly per Peter. Another seven days isn't going to change much. f o x (formerly garden) 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
7 days per Peter. Keep it simple, per PROD; avoid creep. Chzz ► 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
7 days Let's keep these things rational and together, if it must be done, with the caveat that, like PROD, undeletion should occur upon request. Ray^Talk 23:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
7 days for consistency with other processes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
One month to allow new/occasional editors time to figure out how things are done and add the sources. Any blatant problems are already covered under speedier removal systems. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

SUMMARY: We now have 11.5 votes for 1 week, 4.5 votes for 2 weeks, 7 votes for one month, and two "other" votes proposing different processes entirely. The average of these votes is 2.1 weeks. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But you forgot to average in my 1000 days suggestion (142 weeks)! Seriously though, if we are compromising it looks like 2 weeks is where its headed, and its been under discussion now for three weeks.--Milowent (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

7 days per Maurreen - as long as we combine this with restoration if there is an offer to reference it; and no bot deletions - the deleting admin needs to check that the tag is still valid. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people/Phase_I#View_by_Jehochman, a large majority supported 7 days, in line with other deletion processes. I think it is unfair to disenfranchise those supporters by making a different decision here. Kevin (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Disenfranchise?" I guess you are accusing Risker of that, who closed that RfC by stating that "The majority of opposition to each of the views proposing a BLP-PROD variation related to the length of time an article would be prodded (which ranged from 2 days to over a month)" and that a key objective of the next phase was to "Develop consensus on the details of a BLP-PROD process, most critically on the duration of a BLP-PROD". It was made abundantly clear that 7 days was not decided on at phase I.--Milowent (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no indication that the initial endorsement of the blp prod concept came with an explicit endorsement (let alone insistence) on the initially proposed time limit (which changed mid-proposal).--Father Goose (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than go with an average, which can be skewed by outliers such as Milowent's suggestion of 1000 days, a median figure is a better way to find "the middle". At this particular instant, it appears there are 12.5 votes for 7 days and 12.5 votes for longer timespans, and the median would fall right between 7 and 14 days, or 10.5. Setting aside the "consistency with other processes" argument, what's the harm in compromising at 10 days?--Father Goose (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no harm FG, Calliopejen and I have both made suggestions for wrapping this up, and nether of us took the 1,000 days seriously because we recognised Milowent's good natured joke. Somewhere else I have already demonstrated that at least 1,000 unsourced BLPs - practically stubs - were mass produced by one contributor who may have though that such a quantitiy of creations might possibly enhance his/her chances at his/her recent RfA. It seems the process is to take a music group or a sports team and sistematically make a stub for each of its members. Now I always thought, rightly or wrongly, that if a team or a band asserts notability, the same is not automatically true for each of its members. However, that's a different issue and now it is I who is guilty of leading us off track.

Could Calliopejen or somebody now call a consensus of either 10 or 14 days, or at least put a date on closing this vote (such as Saturday 27 March, 23:59), so that we can move along?--Kudpung (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undeletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Section moved from WT:STICKY)

I suggest undeletion go through standard WP:DRV. And I think we've had agreement that undeletion would need only to have a source and commitment to add that to the article. Maurreen (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to a DRV. All that is required is for someone to ask any admin, and give an undertaking to source it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Maurreen (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Support speedy undelete on request, with no need for DRV, to reduce the time, and work. Since the restored article will still have the sticky prod, the clock on it may need to be reset so that is does not deleted straight away, but still has a time limit for the proposed referencing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK I think that means we add this to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion as an uncontentious restore, so any admin can restore and reset the clock on any article deleted via sticky prod on a good faith offer to reference the article, Funnelling these through wp:REFUND has the advantage that a request is likely to be fulfilled more quickly than going to one specific admin (unless you know that admin is currently online), so it is reasonable to expect people to file such requests when they are ready to work on an article. We also need to document that any admin can restore an article deleted via this process if either they intend to reference it or another editor offers to do so. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Graeme, I see no reason that "the restored article will still have the sticky prod." I think we can assume good faith with this until we have compelling reason not to. The editor requesting the undeletion should have the source info in hand. It should be added within about 10 minutes max. Maurreen (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To be quite honest, folks, I think DRV is policy orientated, and that this template wksp page about a sticky prod might possibly not quite be the most relevant place to discuss it.--Kudpung (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

→Maurreen, the restored article will have whatever tag on it that it had when it was deleted, so a speedily deleted article has a speedy delete tag, and the prod'd article has an expired prod tag. What I was saying was that something should be done to fix this, otherwise it can be deleted again straight away, that was not the point, but the person offering the source may take a day to get around to it. My idea is not for the restored article to be deleted, or even to stay jsut restored for ever with out improvement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If the process is that the article is restored with the BLP prod, but the restoring admin resets the time for a fresh seven days I think we have a clear simple system. Anyone sufficiently familiar with the wiki to offer to source a deleted article should be able to handle the idea of deprodding it when they have referenced it. I don't think we should assume that the person offering to reference the article will be able to do it within ten minutes of when an admin restores it for them unless they are themselves the admin clicking restore. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. We give people reasonable time, but it also gives a mechanism to ensure the article will be redeleted if it is not sourced. I'd have gone for shorter than 7 days, but if the blpprod time is 7 days, simply re-adding a new blpprod tag, resetting the time, is an elegant solution. It also means that if the undeleting admin forgets to retag, any user will be able to re-add a blpprod as it will still be an unsourced BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be restored but only to be userfied to the page of the requesting editor.--Kudpung (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Notify the editor and put it in Article Incubator - that's why we have it - a definite and recent improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone is offering to source an article then I think that article belongs in mainspace, that way you check what links here, add categories and may even get collaborative editing. Restoring and moving out of mainspace with a hope of returning it there at some point sounds like a bureaucratic and messy solution that makes extra complication for no discernible benefit. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree with mainspace, userfy or incubator are alternatives to deletion, but complications to restoring. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw my suggestion to handle these through WP:DRV. Maurreen (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion – where?

Current suggestions so far for where to request undeletion are:

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Any admin

Do we want to list either of these, both, or something else? Maurreen (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Both please. These should all be potential articles, otherwise we would be speedy deleting them or sending them to AFD. So it should be as easy as possible for any editor to get an administrator to restore it for them just by offering to reference it. I suppose that means that at some point we will have to decide how to treat editors who promise to reference articles but then leave them unaltered; However as long as we are restoring with a sticky prod in place but with the clock reset I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that RFUD and asking any admin are both sane options (and I assume concerns about process can be brought to DRV just like with any other deletion process), so is there any reason we can't close this and move on to more pressing issues? The Wordsmith^Communicate 13:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes there is nothing controversial here any more so this can be closed off. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that RFUD is an appropriate venue, as is asking a passing admin for help, so i'm closing this thread to focus on more important issues. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People leaving in drones

This is just a comment, but I think the subject needs clarifying: Some participants, including me, have expressed concern at the drop in the number of people participating in the BLP Sticky Prod. There are many possible reasons for this: Some were extremists who didn't get their own way in the RfA. Others were just totally confused with the mess the RfA and its talk page became, others simply posted their 2 cents and went on with their daily business. One reason that we are all missing is that with the shouting over and the conclusions and consensus hung out to dry, people have noticed that work groups have crystallised for the template, bots, wording, minor policy, and time frames, and they may feel that it is time for the smaller groups to get on with the tasks in hand. However, those who are no longer following these pages can rest assured that although the sticky prod was a difficult birth, it would never have been possible without so many midwives, and all their comments were taken into consideration. I'm sticking around for purely selfish reasons: I wanted to know what to do with all the unreferenced BLPs in the projects I work on, and now that we know, I want the tools as quickly as possible, and to get there I'm still prepared to sweep the floors, close the windows, and straighten the tables and chairs. --Kudpung (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem is when the topic gets split into 300 different discussions <g> folks notice that they then can do nothing else. Collect (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

More accurate would be to say: When 300 different topics are introduced during the course of one discussion. No matter, it's a typical Wikipedia syndrome.--Kudpung (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, it's often easier for smaller groups to make decisions than it is for larger groups. Maurreen (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but then the masses can/will claim "no consensus". Kevin (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Then those 'masses' should take more interest in what's going on, fully understand what is being discussed, and then make appropriate comments and/or use the votes that they are entitled to. On the other hand, over 400 users have been involved in this topic at some stage or another - maybe by not participating further, they are tacitly demonstrating their confidence that a smaller task force will make the right decisions.

Uh, no. Most of them likely got bored or frustrated and went on to something else, either here, or perhaps Chatroulette. Wikipedia is like most democracies where people don't get involved much unless something huge happens that gets them either really excited or really pissed. The mass deletions in January did that. The general sense I'd say most casual editors now have is that the mass deletions will not continue, and that a new PROD policy is being worked on specific to BLPs to get those articles sourced. Some many not like it, but they can't be arsed to read all this stuff, and they will hope what we come up with is something they can live with. Yes, some of the masses will complain there was no consensus, and even if they're right, once the policy is in place, it will not be easily gutted.--Milowent (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Um. Neither bored nor frustrated here. Just following the debate and getting on with fixing unreferenced BLPs which I think is probably a better use of my time than joining in when I have very little to add since the issues seem to me to getting a thorough going over by more experienced Wikipedians. I would like there to be some way in which New Page editors have to provide at least one source for a BLP before Wikipedia accepts the first "Save Page" but since I haven't seen that suggested anywhere, I guess that might not be possible.--Plad2 (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Bots

I'm just getting myself up to date on this matter, and I'm not quite sure what the current status of it is, but I did notice people talking about using bots on the other page. I just wanted to say that I think bots should not be proposing articles for deletion; PRODding should always be done by a human user. For starters, bots are poor at judging when an article fails our policies; when they've been used to find and tag unreferenced BLPs before, they always catch many that in fact are referenced, but not in a way the bot recognises (e.g. not having a 'References' section). Secondly, it's just a matter of courtesy to article creators: if you create an article and it gets proposed for deletion, it should be by a human, not a bot, so there's someone you can appeal to and ask for an explanation from. I'm sure if I was a newbie and my first article was immediately met by a bot message saying 'We don't want this article', I'd be pretty demoralised about contributing further to Wikipedia.

I may have misunderstood - perhaps this isn't what was being proposed. If we're talking about bots simply being used to notify article creators that their articles have been proposed for deletion, I wouldn't have a problem with that; it's bots themselves PRODding articles that I object to. Robofish (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not talking about bots actually doing the PRODing - that was ruled our in the RfCs that preceded this workshop. PRODing would be done by the New Page Patrollers, or anyone else who comes across a recently created, unreferenced BLP. There was some mention of a bot listing newly created, unreferenced BLPs and notifying the relative Wikipedia Projects, but the fact they are unreferenced would not come to light until they had been humanly patrolled. Some automations have been discussed, and generally found favour, such as when the PRDer places the template, a bot or a telplate action will place a friendly message on the creator's talk page, encouragting him/her to find a reference within 30 (to be decided) days. If we decide for 30 days before deletion, there has also been a suggestion that a further reminder could be sent out automatically as a courtecy to the PRODer and to the creator after 14 days. When the 30 days is up, I seem to remember that the deletion can be made uncontentiously without further dioscussion. Does tis help?--Kudpung (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Motion

FYI, there have been some out-of-process deletions, and a threat of more, since the mass deletions that started this kertuffle.

I've proposed a motion to ArbCom. It is intended to get the most acceptance by the most people.

ArbCom member Carcharoth has asked me to "ask those involved in these discussions (apparently the sticky prod) to comment on whether they think a motion such as you have proposed is needed."

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

2 pages or 1?

Do people want this to be a separate page from the general workshop page? Maurreen (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as the pages "talk" to each other, it is probably better to have two. Basically, this page discusses the policy implications while the other discusses the creation and implementation of the actual template (AFAIK). I think there were concerns that the discussion would be hard to follow if both factors were discussed in the same place. Also, some people prefer to work on policy, others on workshopping. Is anyone actively co-ordinating the efforts, more the point? --Jubilee ♫clipman 01:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think User:Kudpung had been coordinating, but I haven't seen him(?) lately.

You and I disagree about which way is easier to follow, but no biggie if it's just us, I'll let it go. Maurreen (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, though I haven't participated much, I have watchlisted both pages so that I can follow the discussions and chip in as and when I feel I have something to add. Others may well be doing the same, so any inconsistancy between the discussions on the two pages would be spotted, I guess, by someone. I may be wrong, of course... --Jubilee ♫clipman 01:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes keep it as two pages, though I have been away for a whi9le, and we could do with more participants. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Golly, I've only been away for 48 hours. I spent that time in planes between my home in Asa and my home in the UK. Glad to see general support for my having made the split. I think it worked and the template seems to be up and running. There are a few stragglers and newcomers trying to open yet new debates on policy on the wrong page; however the general idea now appêars to be to iron out any flaws that come to light while the template and its associated (auto) actions are running. I'm happy with than and I can get back to my normal editing, knowing what is expected of me when I come across new, unsourced BLPs. --Kudpung (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regular prod after BLP prod is removed?

Apologies in advance if this has been answered in the mounds of text above. If an article tagged with the BLP prod is sourced and the BLP prod is removed, but for some other reason the article doesn't meet our policies, are we allowed to replace the BLP prod with a regular prod? Them From Space 22:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, that should be OK. Maurreen (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, too. No reason not to add a CSD tag, either, if applicable --Jubilee ♫clipman 01:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But if it's a CSD, why not do that first? No point in adding a source if the article is going to be deleted speedily. Maurreen (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The BLP-PROD might be added first anyway, though, by someone not fully cognisant of the Criteria for SD. I'm thinking ahead to 2013 or whenever, here, when the "new" PROD will be old news and editors are more familiar with it --Jubilee ♫clipman 01:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes often copyvios and hoaxes are discovered later. So there should be nothing against mixing prods or CSDs with a BLP-PROD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If I see something that is a blatant CSD I'll tag it as such - I won't waste time sticky PRODing it. On the other hand, I'll certainly do a BEFORE before PRODing.--Kudpung (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There's normally a rule against prodding an article twice, so logically if a sticky prod is a type of prod then it shouldn't be prodded if it has been referenced and the sticky prod removed. However I'm inclined to think we have a new beastie here and therefore the rule about only prodding an article twice would not be relevant. No objection to people correcting tags to prods if for example you don't think they are notable but you can confirm they are dead. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)