BLP Task Force/Meeting agenda/Minutes

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Minutes of the first meeting of the BLP task force. It took place on IRC in irc:// The timestamps are in Eastern Standard Time (UTC -5). Any red links are pages on the English Wikipedia.

[2009-11-08 21:03:54] <Keegan> Welcome, everyone
[2009-11-08 21:04:04] <Keegan> For those not aware of what this is, a short rundown
[2009-11-08 21:04:36] <Keegan> This task force was requested by the Board of Trustees of the Foundation to come up with, or at least explore, how to handle the "BLP situation"
[2009-11-08 21:04:47] <Keegan> Please check the meeting agenda
[2009-11-08 21:05:19] <Keegan> So, we've come up with a couple feasible "top down" proposals, we'll get to recommendations to the Foundation that should be how to help from the "bottom up"
[2009-11-08 21:05:20] <Lara> in topic
[2009-11-08 21:05:26] <Keegan> Yes, there
[2009-11-08 21:05:50] <Keegan> Nothing is set in stone
[2009-11-08 21:05:55] <Keegan> So, that's about where we are
[2009-11-08 21:06:05] <Keegan> Now, item one is Legal issues
[2009-11-08 21:06:13] <Keegan> Answer: That's not for the task force
[2009-11-08 21:06:23] -->| delirious ( has joined #wikipedia-blptf
[2009-11-08 21:06:34] <Keegan> Oh, btw, I'm just running a meeting, I'm not "the task force"
[2009-11-08 21:06:35] <--| delirious has left #wikipedia-blptf
[2009-11-08 21:07:08] <kevin_g> I agree that legal issues are beyond our scope
[2009-11-08 21:07:15] -->| Quagmire (i=hed@unaffiliated/cream) has joined #wikipedia-blptf
[2009-11-08 21:07:48] <Keegan> So, next up, we have our proposals that have feasibility from "top down"
[2009-11-08 21:08:06] <Keegan> We've got No consensus blps default to delete
[2009-11-08 21:08:34] <Keegan> Thoughts on feasibility of limited scope?
[2009-11-08 21:08:53] <Lara> Keeping in mind that the community just shot that down for at least the second time, Cary has noted that it's not for us to worry about reception.
[2009-11-08 21:09:23] <kevin_g> It's easy to limit the scope to BLPs only, IMO
[2009-11-08 21:09:41] <Lara> Yea, we need to rewrite that proposal.
[2009-11-08 21:09:43] <Keegan> Okay, we'll get into detail on that shortly. We agree that is a possible proposal?
[2009-11-08 21:09:49] <Lara> Yes
[2009-11-08 21:10:02] -->| Betacommand (n=Betacomm@unaffiliated/betacommand) has joined #wikipedia-blptf
[2009-11-08 21:10:04] <Lara> we can't worry about the response to it if the board puts it into resolution.
[2009-11-08 21:10:09] <kevin_g> I wrote up a brief bit on the /Workshop page on this
[2009-11-08 21:10:10] <--| Betacommand has left #wikipedia-blptf
[2009-11-08 21:10:11] <Keegan> (BTW folks, we've discussed most of this extensively by mailing list)
[2009-11-08 21:10:12] <Lara> It worked with non-free images.
[2009-11-08 21:10:23] <Lara> perfect timing of Betacommand for that point.
[2009-11-08 21:10:48] <KillerChihuahua> It seems to me there are two, or possibly three aspects to reception. One, reception of ideas within this task force. Two, reception in the wider wm community. Three, if this is "top down" then it is, unpopular though it may be to say this, not necessary for any effective measures suggested by this taskforce and adopted by the Foundation to /have/ wide support.
[2009-11-08 21:11:47] <kevin_g> it's a bit rare to see wide support or opposition for anything on WP of late
[2009-11-08 21:11:51] <Keegan> KC: I agree, this is why I broke up the scope into "proposals" and "recommendations"
[2009-11-08 21:11:57] <Keegan> Two different aspects
[2009-11-08 21:12:06] <Lara> Well, yea, we'll go with that. Let's just acknowledge that this particular proposal will probably result in backlash from the community, accept it, and move on.
[2009-11-08 21:12:39] <KillerChihuahua> Indeed, but have we consensus on anything within this task group to move from "proposal" to "recommendation"?
[2009-11-08 21:12:40] <Keegan> The other proposal we seem to agree on is cracking down on unsourced BLPs with a no-excuses attitude
[2009-11-08 21:13:00] <Keegan> KC: I mean "Proposal" to be what we think the Board can do
[2009-11-08 21:13:24] <Keegan> "Recommendation" is what we can advise the Board to work within communities on
[2009-11-08 21:13:52] <KillerChihuahua> Ah. Ok, using that terminology -
[2009-11-08 21:14:04] <KillerChihuahua> have we consensus on any proposal? any recommendation?
[2009-11-08 21:14:18] <Lara> Sent it forth as a proposal. There seems to be consensus for that on the list.
[2009-11-08 21:14:22] <Lara> Send*
[2009-11-08 21:14:30] <Keegan> KC: Check the agenda, I think we can do two things
[2009-11-08 21:14:53] <Lara> We just have to rewrite it.
[2009-11-08 21:15:01] -->| killiondude (n=Killer@wikimedia/Killiondude) has joined #wikipedia-blptf
[2009-11-08 21:15:11] <Lara> Gnangarra crafted it to change AFD, not specific to BLPs.
[2009-11-08 21:15:11] <Keegan> But first, let's figure out is it worth the effort, or possible, to provide an outline of bottom-up changes that we need?
[2009-11-08 21:15:13] <Keegan> In other words
[2009-11-08 21:15:38] <Keegan> Things that a task force or the Board cannot do, to work within our community process?
[2009-11-08 21:15:41] <kevin_g> it's beyond our scope to rewrite local AfD policies
[2009-11-08 21:15:51] <Lara> The timing of this latest proposal was wretched.
[2009-11-08 21:16:08] <Lara> kevin_g: I know, that's what I was meaning about the necessary rewrite.
[2009-11-08 21:16:26] <Lara> but yea, timing of BLP AFD default to delete in no consensus.
[2009-11-08 21:16:29] <Keegan> Let's get to that in a moment, returning to proposals
[2009-11-08 21:16:51] <Keegan> Do we have feasible recommendations that are not ad nauseum arguments?
[2009-11-08 21:17:10] <kevin_g> Propose that: When debating the deletion of biographies of living people, the default action shall be to delete unless there is a clear consensus to keep, and that the article passes all of the relevant local policies
[2009-11-08 21:18:10] <--| Quagmire has left #wikipedia-blptf
[2009-11-08 21:18:17] <Keegan> Do we want to pursue "recommendations"?
[2009-11-08 21:18:28] <Lara> I think so.
[2009-11-08 21:18:31] <Lara> Definitely.
[2009-11-08 21:18:52] <Lara> Particularly the ones regarding how the subjects of biographies are treated on wiki.
[2009-11-08 21:19:07] <Keegan> Okay, we'll get to that soon then
[2009-11-08 21:19:14] <Keegan> Let us return to proposals
[2009-11-08 21:19:56] <Keegan> The two things that are top down possible are retention of BLP articles on WMF servers, and demands of sourcing without leniency
[2009-11-08 21:20:04] <Keegan> Discuss
[2009-11-08 21:20:07] * Keegan watches
[2009-11-08 21:20:23] <KillerChihuahua> IMO we need to be careful about going overboard on the Consensus to Delete.
[2009-11-08 21:20:39] <--| :[Soap] has left #wikipedia-blptf
[2009-11-08 21:20:51] <KillerChihuahua> Unsourced is clear-cut; that is less problematic both in phrasing clearly and enforcing IMO
[2009-11-08 21:21:05] <Keegan> Okay, so get into what is "marginal notability" by administrative standards
[2009-11-08 21:21:25] <kevin_g> I suspect the non-consensus = delete will affect fewer articles than people think
[2009-11-08 21:21:30] <Lara> I'm more of a go big or go home sort of gal myself. But considering the latest blowout in the community over this, meh. I don't know.
[2009-11-08 21:21:42] <Lara> This is difficult to determine.
[2009-11-08 21:21:50] <Lara> Like civility, notability is subjective.
[2009-11-08 21:21:57] <Lara> And the admin corps doesn't agree.
[2009-11-08 21:22:23] <KillerChihuahua> IIRC we're unanimous that BLP1e is improperly applied and not clearly enough defined.
[2009-11-08 21:22:31] <Lara> Very true.
[2009-11-08 21:22:40] <Lara> It gets misused by both sides.
[2009-11-08 21:22:45] <kevin_g> yes
[2009-11-08 21:22:47] <Keegan> I'm going to -m for this part, let's hear from admins
[2009-11-08 21:22:53] <Lara> k
[2009-11-08 21:23:01] =-= Mode #wikipedia-blptf -m by Keegan
[2009-11-08 21:23:03] <KillerChihuahua> nods Lara: anything we do must be done keeping in mind that where judgement is applicable, there will be differences of opinion
[2009-11-08 21:23:12] <Keegan> Opinions, please
[2009-11-08 21:23:23] <zscout370> there is a lot of times, as you memtiomed earlier, the community will always pushback no matter even if it benefits us
[2009-11-08 21:23:29] <zscout370> and all changes were top down from the WMF
[2009-11-08 21:23:59] <Ched_D> the AfD can decide the notability aspects of the article in question - but I think the "default to delete" needs to be an all or nothing
[2009-11-08 21:24:08] <KillerChihuahua> Nods, we've established that whatever we do will have some screaming and pitchforks, and we cannot bother to worry about it
[2009-11-08 21:24:31] <KillerChihuahua> Ok, lets take that one item and discuss pros and cons
[2009-11-08 21:24:32] <zscout370> so ignore the community is my feeling
[2009-11-08 21:24:36] <Rjd0060> When that is a big group of people, you have no choice but to worry about it because they are louder than the others.
[2009-11-08 21:24:41] <KillerChihuahua> nods zscout
[2009-11-08 21:24:53] <Lara> Basically. My concern is the possibility of total rejection by the community. However, there was a lot of noise over the same proposal for non-free images, and that stuck.
[2009-11-08 21:25:14] <zscout370> Lara, because it was top down from the foundation and you had people who refuse to give up
[2009-11-08 21:25:26] <Lara> Yea. Which could happen here, however....
[2009-11-08 21:25:29] <kevin_g> and the recent debate ended up about 40-60 in favour, so it's not out of the ball park
[2009-11-08 21:25:29] <KillerChihuahua> And this will be top down from the foundation, zscout
[2009-11-08 21:25:31] <jayvdb> im a rabid inclusionist ... default to delete sux for AFDs that dont attract a crowd
[2009-11-08 21:25:49] <FatPuppy> Lara: Beta went on a tagging rampage late 2007-early 2008
[2009-11-08 21:25:50] <Ched_D> if wp:office items can trump "consensus" .. at least I've heard that said
[2009-11-08 21:25:51] <KillerChihuahua> Which brings us back to the pros and cons
[2009-11-08 21:25:59] <Lara> the vocal minority can ruin any chance of a consensus with project level proposals. It takes more than a vocal minority to reject and Foundation resolution.
[2009-11-08 21:26:01] <FatPuppy> the result of that was me deleting the majority of the non-compliant images
[2009-11-08 21:26:06] <Prodego> default to delete will not work for everything
[2009-11-08 21:26:07] <zscout370> Ched_D, and OTRS, unless you count that part of the office
[2009-11-08 21:26:07] <jayvdb> if there is a good number of people at the AFD, a stalemate has meaning
[2009-11-08 21:26:14] <kevin_g> articles with little interest is one thing we have noted as a problem
[2009-11-08 21:26:18] <Prodego> OTRS is not a free pass to do whatever you want
[2009-11-08 21:26:21] <FatPuppy> the problem though with blps is AFDs
[2009-11-08 21:26:24] <Keegan> zscout370: We'll get to OTRS shortly
[2009-11-08 21:26:29] <Prodego> any OTRS action has to be justified just like anything else
[2009-11-08 21:26:32] <Keegan> And how it handles BLP concerns
[2009-11-08 21:26:36] <FatPuppy> the non-free image stuff was bot and me and other admins
[2009-11-08 21:26:41] <KillerChihuahua> Pros: default to delete removes questionable BLPs
[2009-11-08 21:26:43] <FatPuppy> but it was basically one pair of eyes
[2009-11-08 21:26:55] <zscout370> FatPuppy, and me with the images too
[2009-11-08 21:27:04] <KillerChihuahua> Cons: default to delete might remove some very valuable and well sourced, but more obscure bios
[2009-11-08 21:27:17] <jayvdb> KillerChihuahua: default to delete puts pressure on the AFD system
[2009-11-08 21:27:23] <jayvdb> it encourages gaming
[2009-11-08 21:27:26] <kevin_g> How so?
[2009-11-08 21:27:32] <jayvdb> and strength in numbers
[2009-11-08 21:27:35] <Keegan> jayvdb: This is only for BLPs
[2009-11-08 21:27:37] <KillerChihuahua> I think for this discussion we need to keep notability separate for now
[2009-11-08 21:27:42] <FatPuppy> I deleted at least 25 k
[2009-11-08 21:27:44] <FatPuppy> at the very least
[2009-11-08 21:27:47] <jayvdb> which is what we discourage at AFD
[2009-11-08 21:27:51] <FatPuppy> no more than 60 k
[2009-11-08 21:27:53] <zscout370> jayvdb, I think of the schools when you mention that
[2009-11-08 21:27:58] <Keegan> Yes, Notability comes in part four
[2009-11-08 21:28:01] <Keegan> We're in part three
[2009-11-08 21:28:11] <Lara> KC: True, but they can always be userfied by request for recreation.
[2009-11-08 21:28:17] <Ched_D> in concept there is a big difference between "bio" and "blp" .. but they often get treated the same
[2009-11-08 21:28:23] <KillerChihuahua> So if we're going to suggest default to delete for BLPs, should we also suggest minumum number of views? Woudl that address the concerns of the inclusionists?
[2009-11-08 21:28:37] <jayvdb> zscout370: yea ... and schools are being kept more these days because people pushed back .. hard!
[2009-11-08 21:28:46] <Keegan> Lara has a point, just because something is deleted out of no concensus, default to delete means it cannot be recreated
[2009-11-08 21:29:05] <Keegan> Again, please note all, we are not talking about any
[2009-11-08 21:29:12] <NuclearWarfare> I don't think so KC; we have never really treated how much people like an article as something to judge inclusion by
[2009-11-08 21:29:17] -->| GrooveDog (n=GrooveDo@wikimedia/GrooveDog) has joined #wikipedia-blptf
[2009-11-08 21:29:18] <Lara> I don't buy the argument that defaulting to delete allows for any more gaming than defaulting to keep. It just changes who has the advantage.
[2009-11-08 21:29:23] <FatPuppy> what WOULD work is deleting with one pair of eyes
[2009-11-08 21:29:25] <Keegan> AfD that is not a "marginally notable/BLP1E" kinda thing
[2009-11-08 21:29:26] <Lara> From Inclusionists to Deletionists.
[2009-11-08 21:29:36] <FatPuppy> quite similar to the way we got rid of so many non-compliant non-free media
[2009-11-08 21:29:54] <--| GrooveDog has left #wikipedia-blptf
[2009-11-08 21:30:04] <kevin_g> agree with Lara - we're exchanging one arbitrary position for another
[2009-11-08 21:30:11] <Ched_D> while I can fully support the "default to delete" .. I'm less confident in "salting" a blp
[2009-11-08 21:30:18] <Lara> How about this
[2009-11-08 21:30:21] <KillerChihuahua> Wait a sec... default to delete means "it cannot be recreated" - one presumes the normal routes would be available?
[2009-11-08 21:30:27] <zscout370> salting should only be done if it still made and still has BLP problems
[2009-11-08 21:30:38] <Keegan> Right, Ched, salting wouldn't be an issue
[2009-11-08 21:30:39] <Lara> Instead of proposing that the foundation say "they default to delete" change it to say "administrators have the discretion to default to delete".
[2009-11-08 21:30:40] <Lara> ?
[2009-11-08 21:30:45] <Keegan> Those are WP:OFFICE problems
[2009-11-08 21:30:49] <kevin_g> all these post-deletion things are within the DRV realm are they not?
[2009-11-08 21:30:58] <Keegan> Lara, I like that
[2009-11-08 21:31:04] <Keegan> Problem, take it to DRV
[2009-11-08 21:31:05] <Ched_D> kk .. my misunderstand from above
[2009-11-08 21:31:24] <KillerChihuahua> "discretion", unfortunately, leaves us with only a mere suggestion
[2009-11-08 21:31:28] <KillerChihuahua> a hint, if you will
[2009-11-08 21:31:32] <OlEnglish> just turn on flagged revisions for blp's and be done with it
[2009-11-08 21:31:37] <jayvdb> KC ... the normal routes are not easy for non-admins. DRVs are usually a joke
[2009-11-08 21:31:45] <Lara> Won't solve all our problems.
[2009-11-08 21:31:46] <Risker> I don't think the discretion thing will work, admins will be hesitant to use it for fear of being taken to DRV all the time
[2009-11-08 21:31:46] <KillerChihuahua> that perhaps someone might consider.. In other words, it will have little effect IMO
[2009-11-08 21:31:47] <Keegan> KC: It's an out for the WMF, which is what we're shooting for
[2009-11-08 21:32:17] <Lara> Risker: I don't think that will be an issue. We have enough BLP admins ready and willing to fight to change these traditions.
[2009-11-08 21:32:19] <KillerChihuahua> I'm not objecting, I'm poking sticks at it to see where the holes are
[2009-11-08 21:32:22] <FatPuppy> unilateral deletion would be most effective
[2009-11-08 21:32:39] <KillerChihuahua> depends on what effect you want
[2009-11-08 21:32:48] <Keegan> This would work for DRV in that it'd be up to reviewers to decide if the closure was proper
[2009-11-08 21:32:50] <FatPuppy> it's better to have a few bad deletion than a few BLP nightmares
[2009-11-08 21:32:51] <Lara> FatPuppy: That's not going to make it into the proposal.
[2009-11-08 21:33:00] <Jake_Wartenberg> A resolution like the one Lara suggested would certainly support the admins that already close AfDs as default to delete.
[2009-11-08 21:33:11] <Keegan> Oh, and this isn't just for
[2009-11-08 21:33:12] <Jake_Wartenberg> And I am sure more would close that way if it were policy.
[2009-11-08 21:33:13] <Ched_D> protection of the subjects would be the effect I think we're attempting to achieve
[2009-11-08 21:33:20] <Keegan> This is projects wide
[2009-11-08 21:33:31] <FatPuppy> hmm
[2009-11-08 21:33:33] <kevin_g> reduction of marginal, unwatched BLPs is an effect I'm aiming for
[2009-11-08 21:33:39] <zscout370> FatPuppy, I shoot questionable BLP's down and, at most, people just whine on my talk page
[2009-11-08 21:33:40] <FatPuppy> or at least "if in doubt on a BLP, delete"
[2009-11-08 21:33:41] <Keegan> So it needs to be simple but effective to an extent
[2009-11-08 21:33:43] <KillerChihuahua> Does anyone see any objections to the suggestion Lara made other than the possible lack of force which I noted?
[2009-11-08 21:33:49] <Lara> Perhaps this should go back through the mailing list for another round of discussion to decide between all our or discretion.
[2009-11-08 21:33:57] <FatPuppy> zscout370: good admins don't follow the deletion policy :P
[2009-11-08 21:33:58] <Jake_Wartenberg> FatPuppy: too vague
[2009-11-08 21:34:04] <Lara> Because KC makes a good point as well.
[2009-11-08 21:34:18] <Keegan> Right, so we'll go into proposal two
[2009-11-08 21:34:27] <kevin_g> I think allowing admin discretion is too weak - we need to draw a line somewhere
[2009-11-08 21:34:30] <Lara> "if in doubt on a BLP, delete" <--- good idea too.
[2009-11-08 21:34:43] <Keegan> back to plus m, we can pass this ball around at the open discussion part after we digest thoughts
[2009-11-08 21:34:51] <FatPuppy> Jake_Wartenberg: the current deletion policy says "if in doubt, don't delete"
[2009-11-08 21:34:53] <Lara> k
[2009-11-08 21:34:54] <KillerChihuahua> Well, I'm not saying its a dealbreaker, Lara - merely want to make sure we aren't missing any downsides before we move forward
[2009-11-08 21:35:09] <FatPuppy> so equally as vague
[2009-11-08 21:35:11] =-= Mode #wikipedia-blptf +m by Keegan
[2009-11-08 21:35:21] <Keegan> FatPuppy, we'll continue this in a few
[2009-11-08 21:35:26] <Lara> KC: Yea, that's why I'm thinking it deserves another round on the list, because there's only three of us here tonight. There's good points for both sides.
[2009-11-08 21:35:35] <Keegan> We're going to race through our mailing list discussions first
[2009-11-08 21:35:45] <KillerChihuahua> So we have "administrators have the discretion to default to delete" vs "if in doubt on a BLP, delete"
[2009-11-08 21:36:01] <Lara> or "if there is no consensus to keep, delete."
[2009-11-08 21:36:07] <KillerChihuahua> IMO the second is slightly stronger phrasing
[2009-11-08 21:36:09] <Keegan> Right
[2009-11-08 21:36:24] <Keegan> We'll continue to define that on the mailing list
[2009-11-08 21:36:30] <KillerChihuahua> nods
[2009-11-08 21:36:32] <Lara> k
[2009-11-08 21:36:38] <Keegan> Have another meeting a couple weeks to see what we figure out
[2009-11-08 21:36:49] <kevin_g> Lara's does allow for some discretion in where the "no-consensus" line is
[2009-11-08 21:36:53] <Keegan> So, unsourced claims, dubious claims, broken links
[2009-11-08 21:37:20] <Lara> Okay
[2009-11-08 21:37:32] <Lara> MZMcBride has an idea for this
[2009-11-08 21:37:36] <Lara> Can he be voiced?
[2009-11-08 21:37:37] <KillerChihuahua> current BLP policy on is to remove unsourced on sight
[2009-11-08 21:37:44] <kevin_g> to me, the logical progression of removing unsourced claims is not allowing unsourced BLPs
[2009-11-08 21:37:51] <Lara> Exactly.
[2009-11-08 21:37:53] <KillerChihuahua> concur with kevin
[2009-11-08 21:37:59] <Lara> LaraBot scans all new articles every day.
[2009-11-08 21:38:01] <kevin_g> but deletion on sight is not freindly enough
[2009-11-08 21:38:04] <Lara> BLPs are listed for us to check.
[2009-11-08 21:38:07] <Keegan> But it's not applied
[2009-11-08 21:38:13] <Keegan> We need something to enforce it
[2009-11-08 21:38:22] <KillerChihuahua> precisely
[2009-11-08 21:38:22] <Lara> LaraBot automatically notifies creators that they've created and unsourced BLP and asks them to add sources.
[2009-11-08 21:38:25] <Lara> We manually tag them.
[2009-11-08 21:38:38] <KillerChihuahua> any way to bot tag them, Lara?
[2009-11-08 21:38:41] <kevin_g> all these things are great, but they are not stemming the tide
[2009-11-08 21:38:45] <Keegan> Jimbo said long time ago that anything unsourced in any article shouldn't be there
[2009-11-08 21:38:49] <Lara> Well, that's why I'd like Natalie voiced.
[2009-11-08 21:39:00] <Keegan> But [citation needed] still prevails in blps
[2009-11-08 21:39:09] <kevin_g> at some point we have to say "if you want to create a BLP you must provide a source"
[2009-11-08 21:39:13] * Lara pokes Keegan.
[2009-11-08 21:39:26] <Lara> Voice Natalie?
[2009-11-08 21:39:33] <KillerChihuahua> I have no objection to voicing Natalie
[2009-11-08 21:39:44] <kevin_g> no objection here
[2009-11-08 21:39:47] <Lara> It's his bot.
[2009-11-08 21:39:50] <Keegan> Well, he does run larabot
[2009-11-08 21:40:03] =-= Mode #wikipedia-blptf +v Natalie by Keegan
[2009-11-08 21:40:06] <Natalie> Rawr.
[2009-11-08 21:40:10] <Keegan> Rawr
[2009-11-08 21:40:13] <Lara> Rawr.
[2009-11-08 21:40:14] <Lara> Okay, so
[2009-11-08 21:40:17] <Natalie> LaraBot currently lists the pages and notifies the creator.
[2009-11-08 21:40:18] <KillerChihuahua> So can Larabot be modified to tag BLPs
[2009-11-08 21:40:33] <Natalie> It might be much better to have them moved into the user's user space and tagged.
[2009-11-08 21:40:45] <Lara> And ed.
[2009-11-08 21:40:50] <KillerChihuahua> no bot moves, please, we've had this discussion
[2009-11-08 21:40:53] <Natalie> Something I experimented with a few weeks ago:
[2009-11-08 21:41:00] <kevin_g> there are 50.000 or so tagged now - in the bigger picture it's hard to see what that achieves
[2009-11-08 21:41:17] <KillerChihuahua> But the bot can tag at the same time as adding to the list and notifying the creator, yes?
[2009-11-08 21:41:18] <Lara> Tagging does nothing in most cases.
[2009-11-08 21:41:27] <Lara> Tagging isn't the issue
[2009-11-08 21:41:41] <Natalie> It could just tag them, though it's usually only a dozen or so new bios each day, so they're usually done in batches by Rettetast (see )
[2009-11-08 21:41:46] <Lara> We manually do it, it's not a big deal. The problem is that it's generally pointless.
[2009-11-08 21:41:51] <Keegan> Voiced people, we all agree about making this a Foundation level thing?
[2009-11-08 21:41:53] <KillerChihuahua> I'm thinking it will at the very least notify readers that what they are reading could be complete bollocks, pending someone making it down the list to that article
[2009-11-08 21:42:05] <Keegan> Let's agree on that and then re-open it
[2009-11-08 21:42:15] <kevin_g> @Keegan - yes
[2009-11-08 21:42:25] <Lara> yes
[2009-11-08 21:42:35] <KillerChihuahua> nods
[2009-11-08 21:42:48] <kevin_g> if we think something might be complete bollocks, then why are we keeping it?
[2009-11-08 21:42:54] =-= Mode #wikipedia-blptf -m by Keegan
[2009-11-08 21:42:56] <Lara> I think we have a better chance of approval, and I think it's better for the project, if we move pages rather than outright delete them.
[2009-11-08 21:42:57] <KillerChihuahua> *We* aren't
[2009-11-08 21:43:05] <Keegan> Okay, open thoughts from all now
[2009-11-08 21:43:05] <Jake_Wartenberg> We should add noindex to Template:UnsourcedBLP tag, be it in userspace or not.
[2009-11-08 21:43:16] <KillerChihuahua> this would be an added function we were discussing for a bot
[2009-11-08 21:43:18] <Lara> That's a good point.
[2009-11-08 21:43:20] <kevin_g> agree with Jake on that
[2009-11-08 21:43:23] <KillerChihuahua> agree, Jake
[2009-11-08 21:43:24] <Natalie> doesn't work in content namespaces (like the article namespace).
[2009-11-08 21:43:30] <KillerChihuahua> No???
[2009-11-08 21:43:33] <kevin_g> can that be changed?
[2009-11-08 21:43:35] <Lara> Can that be changed?
[2009-11-08 21:43:42] <KillerChihuahua> It can, almost certainly.
[2009-11-08 21:43:43] <jayvdb> yes, it is a config change
[2009-11-08 21:43:45] <Natalie> It could be changed. But it opens up the possibility of abuse.
[2009-11-08 21:43:52] <KillerChihuahua> However, should we? I think No.
[2009-11-08 21:43:52] <Natalie> Like noindexing "Barack Obama"
[2009-11-08 21:43:56] <KillerChihuahua> right, Natalie
[2009-11-08 21:43:56] <jayvdb> I gave the reqd change on WR a while ago
[2009-11-08 21:44:07] <Jake_Wartenberg> Lara: We could use an article incubator like thingy for pages created by anons.
[2009-11-08 21:44:07] <Lara> Well, another form of vandlism.
[2009-11-08 21:44:14] <Ched_D> there was mention of an "incubator" area a while back - could something be developed where articles that are unsourced (but potentially souraeABLE) be moved to such a section that is automatically NOINDEX ed?
[2009-11-08 21:44:19] <Lara> Anons can't create pages.
[2009-11-08 21:44:25] <Jake_Wartenberg> They once could.
[2009-11-08 21:44:30] <Jake_Wartenberg> Those pages are still around.
[2009-11-08 21:44:33] <Natalie> Ched_D: That was the idea of moving the pages to users' user space.
[2009-11-08 21:44:33] <jayvdb> Ched_D: I like that idea
[2009-11-08 21:44:40] <Jake_Wartenberg> And we still wanna get them out of mainspace.
[2009-11-08 21:44:49] <KillerChihuahua> I like the idea of out of mainspace, but not in userspace
[2009-11-08 21:44:53] <Lara> That's what Natalie suggested.
[2009-11-08 21:44:58] <KillerChihuahua> nods Lara
[2009-11-08 21:44:59] <Lara> Why not userspace?
[2009-11-08 21:45:16] <jayvdb> userspace suggests it is the one person who is responsible for it
[2009-11-08 21:45:22] <Ched_D> Natalie ... my concern is "ownership" issues if articles are moved to "user space" over a more public venue
[2009-11-08 21:45:25] <kevin_g> I'd prefer a common space
[2009-11-08 21:45:27] <OlEnglish> perhaps the new article wizard can have its own namespace
[2009-11-08 21:45:35] <KillerChihuahua> I've seen far too many "articles" moved to uspace and never sourced nor clarified. NOT free webhost for your unsourced nonsense, etc.
[2009-11-08 21:45:36] <Natalie> Could easily add another namespace.
[2009-11-08 21:45:42] <Jake_Wartenberg> Natalie: good idea
[2009-11-08 21:45:44] <jayvdb> OlEnglish: nice ;-)
[2009-11-08 21:45:47] <Lara> okay, so a new namespace.
[2009-11-08 21:45:50] <Jake_Wartenberg> then we don't need noindex in mainspace
[2009-11-08 21:45:54] <KillerChihuahua> exactly. Ched
[2009-11-08 21:45:58] <Natalie> KillerChihuahua: Well the idea was to monitor userspace'd articles and delete after two weeks or whatever.
[2009-11-08 21:46:00] <Jake_Wartenberg> and we can noindex the whole namespace
[2009-11-08 21:46:06] <kevin_g> and then move them once they are checked? sort of flagged revs for new articles
[2009-11-08 21:46:08] <Natalie> Yes. Like User_talk: is currently.
[2009-11-08 21:46:25] <Keegan> I'm afk for about a minute
[2009-11-08 21:46:29] <Lara> This is great. Okay, so a namespace, noindexed, as an incubator for unsourced but sourceable BLPs.
[2009-11-08 21:46:52] <Ched_D> support
[2009-11-08 21:46:55] <KillerChihuahua> This will cause extra layer of work... and a namespace is a very big change to the Wikimedia sw
[2009-11-08 21:47:04] <Rjd0060> It's a good idea. But how does that encourage fixing?
[2009-11-08 21:47:05] <Jake_Wartenberg> Just a config change
[2009-11-08 21:47:06] <OlEnglish> who/how do we determine if they're sourceable?
[2009-11-08 21:47:06] <jayvdb> can anons create pages in this namespace ?
[2009-11-08 21:47:11] <NuclearWarfare> There is the :[:[WP:Article incubator]], which could be useful for this
[2009-11-08 21:47:16] <Rjd0060> Just like the tags now. They don't get anybody to do anything.
[2009-11-08 21:47:17] <Lara> OlEnglish: google search
[2009-11-08 21:47:18] <KillerChihuahua> agreed, NW
[2009-11-08 21:47:18] <Natalie> I think preventing people from creating the bios is better than letting them create and then moving.
[2009-11-08 21:47:24] <Jake_Wartenberg> NuclearWarfare: seperate namespace is better.
[2009-11-08 21:47:26] <NuclearWarfare> Have some sort of review process for stuff leaving the incubator, and you are set
[2009-11-08 21:47:31] <Lara> If it's not a hoax, it should be sourceable.
[2009-11-08 21:47:33] <kevin_g> the idea is good - can we work out tech details later?
[2009-11-08 21:47:44] <Jake_Wartenberg> agree with kevin
[2009-11-08 21:47:47] <OlEnglish> google isn't everything though
[2009-11-08 21:47:49] <Keegan> Agree with Kevin
[2009-11-08 21:47:50] <KillerChihuahua> we have Incubator, we have new namespace, we have Userfy then delete, we have Flagged revs for BLPs all on table for adressing this
[2009-11-08 21:48:05] <OlEnglish> there are many offline sources especially for older bios
[2009-11-08 21:48:11] <Jake_Wartenberg> We can keep people from linking into this namespace, OlEnglish
[2009-11-08 21:48:18] <Jake_Wartenberg> how else would this stuff get found
[2009-11-08 21:48:19] <Lara> OlEnglish: Well, generally good enough to determine if someone exists.
[2009-11-08 21:48:22] <Keegan> I think everyone agrees, we need a resolution from the WMF that no matter how it's done, that's up to the project, but it *has* to be done somehow
[2009-11-08 21:48:30] <Lara> If there's nothing on Google, chances are slim as hell that anyone else will source it.
[2009-11-08 21:48:34] <Natalie> Board resolutions cause problems.
[2009-11-08 21:48:42] <Lara> And anyone who would can create it themselves.
[2009-11-08 21:48:42] <Natalie> Something that nobody seems to have recognized.
[2009-11-08 21:48:48] <NuclearWarfare> But what do we have to effect change right now though
[2009-11-08 21:48:53] <Keegan> No, we recognize them, Natalie
[2009-11-08 21:48:57] <Natalie> The non-free content resolution was an absolute mess.
[2009-11-08 21:49:03] |<-- FloNight has left (Connection timed out)
[2009-11-08 21:49:05] <Keegan> It's why in all of our arguing we've found two things
[2009-11-08 21:49:09] <Natalie> And it remained a mess (with ArbCom cases, bans, etc.) for years.
[2009-11-08 21:49:09] <Ched_D> KC ... so we should have a very liner format for dealing with these?
[2009-11-08 21:49:13] <jayvdb> one comment about this entire task force is that the BLP mentality changes which have happened over the last few years have had a significant effect.
[2009-11-08 21:49:14] <KillerChihuahua> and after the dust settled, it was enforced, Natalie
[2009-11-08 21:49:22] <jayvdb> I think care needs to be taken to avoid pushing too hard
[2009-11-08 21:49:24] <Natalie> KillerChihuahua: I'm more concerned with the three-year storm. ;-)
[2009-11-08 21:49:34] <Keegan> I don't' think we'll find any more that are possible in some way shape or form to implement them
[2009-11-08 21:49:40] <KillerChihuahua> I think we need to discuss the options in greater detail before saying "new namespace is it!" and checking that off our list, Ched
[2009-11-08 21:49:53] <Natalie> Agree with KC. ^
[2009-11-08 21:49:55] <Ched_D> ahhh ... ok
[2009-11-08 21:50:01] <Ched_D> agreed
[2009-11-08 21:50:12] <Lara> Yea, this is something to run through the list for further discussion.
[2009-11-08 21:50:29] <Rjd0060> I said something above you might want to consider.
[2009-11-08 21:50:32] <Rjd0060> It's a good idea. But how does that encourage fixing?
[2009-11-08 21:50:33] <NuclearWarfare> There is the more hardline approach: Two week prod for unsourced BLPs; can only be removed by adding sources
[2009-11-08 21:50:35] <zscout370> How would this new namespace be made and what would it even be called?
[2009-11-08 21:50:48] <KillerChihuahua> NW: that is a good idea IMO
[2009-11-08 21:50:58] <kevin_g> I like NW's idea as well.
[2009-11-08 21:51:04] <Keegan> Okay, let's move on from this
[2009-11-08 21:51:05] <Ched_D> Bincubator? .. ;)
[2009-11-08 21:51:07] <KillerChihuahua> Ah... Can the larabot add the prod tag???
[2009-11-08 21:51:16] <Jake_Wartenberg> That would create 10x more backlash, NW
[2009-11-08 21:51:18] <jayvdb> I also like NW's ideas
[2009-11-08 21:51:29] <kevin_g> it does mean the articlel is there for all to see/fix for a period of time
[2009-11-08 21:51:31] <Keegan> Because, as zscout is alluding to, the specifics of implementation will be up to local projects
[2009-11-08 21:51:36] <KillerChihuahua> not worried about backlash on completely unsourced BLPs, Jake
[2009-11-08 21:51:41] <Lara> Natalie: can LaraBot be programmed to add such a prod tag?
[2009-11-08 21:51:43] <Keegan> None of those specifics will come from the BLPTF
[2009-11-08 21:51:43] <Lara> I'm sure it could.
[2009-11-08 21:51:47] <KillerChihuahua> You seem to be missing the whole /completely unsourced/ bit
[2009-11-08 21:51:54] <Jake_Wartenberg> And I am not sure what benefit there is to deletion over NOINDEX
[2009-11-08 21:52:13] <Lara> Well
[2009-11-08 21:52:20] <Lara> If no one bothers to add a source in two weeks.
[2009-11-08 21:52:24] <Lara> ... we're not losing much.
[2009-11-08 21:52:28] <KillerChihuahua> agreed.
[2009-11-08 21:52:34] <Lara> Just add it to the ARS's feed and we're set.
[2009-11-08 21:52:42] <Rjd0060> Still NOINDEX'ed in the meantime?
[2009-11-08 21:52:45] <Lara> They'll swarm to save anything.
[2009-11-08 21:52:49] <Ched_D> can an admin bot be developed to delete something that has been tagged for x-number of days? ... or is that a slippery slope?
[2009-11-08 21:52:55] <Rjd0060> add to the prod tag, or something?
[2009-11-08 21:52:57] <KillerChihuahua> We cannot NOINDED without a namespace, Rjd
[2009-11-08 21:53:01] <Lara> slippery slope.
[2009-11-08 21:53:02] <kevin_g> too slippery for me
[2009-11-08 21:53:03] <Rjd0060> a, right
[2009-11-08 21:53:18] <OlEnglish> anything to be deleted must be reviewed by a human
[2009-11-08 21:53:29] <KillerChihuahua> D = X, sorry about the type
[2009-11-08 21:53:42] <Lara> A list can be generated for admins to manually check, but we would still need an approved process for deletion.
[2009-11-08 21:53:44] <KillerChihuahua> But we have no objections to Auto-Prod unsourced BLPs?
[2009-11-08 21:53:50] <jayvdb> I dont see the problem with having NOINDEX in mainspace ; Template:Db-attack would benefit from it
[2009-11-08 21:54:01] <Jake_Wartenberg> Lara: they will be overwhelmed, perhaps have the bot only tag a few hundred a day
[2009-11-08 21:54:03] <Keegan> Okay folks, everyone settle down for a minute and we'll revisit this
[2009-11-08 21:54:05] <KillerChihuahua> ripe for abuse, jayvb
[2009-11-08 21:54:13] <Keegan> We need to skirt over a few more topics
[2009-11-08 21:54:20] <Keegan>
[2009-11-08 21:54:25] <Lara> We already have the lists, they're just not sorted by number of days.
[2009-11-08 21:54:27] <Keegan> We are now at part four
[2009-11-08 21:54:42] <Keegan> Which is not Foundation level stuff
[2009-11-08 21:54:50] <Lara> I disagree.
[2009-11-08 21:54:53] <Keegan> Ideas and thoughts of how to bottom up those things
[2009-11-08 21:55:24] <Jake_Wartenberg> I doubt that will be possible.
[2009-11-08 21:55:27] <KillerChihuahua> sorry Lara, you're disagreeing with?
[2009-11-08 21:55:37] <Lara> The community... hmm. I don't have faith that anything can be achieved bottom up right now. The project hasn't scaled and anything can be shot down by a vocal minority.
[2009-11-08 21:55:41] <Keegan> No +m for this, because it is beyond the purview of the taskforce and involves us all here
[2009-11-08 21:55:57] <Keegan> Well, there's the accounts and COI issues
[2009-11-08 21:56:04] <Keegan> Which tie into OTRS
[2009-11-08 21:56:08] <Keegan> So, GO!
[2009-11-08 21:56:12] <Lara> The foundation can and should say that subjects need to be treated respectfully.
[2009-11-08 21:56:24] <KillerChihuahua> Agreed.
[2009-11-08 21:56:25] <Lara> We've been pushing this for a long time, nothing has changed.
[2009-11-08 21:56:33] <kevin_g> CIO seems to be widely abused
[2009-11-08 21:56:42] <Lara> the foundation needs to give us something to point to to tell admins to back off.
[2009-11-08 21:56:50] <Keegan> It is abused because its original intent is misunderstood
[2009-11-08 21:56:51] <Lara> and yes, COI and LEGAL both.
[2009-11-08 21:57:04] <Lara> not every edit summary that uses the term "libel" is a reason to block.
[2009-11-08 21:57:09] <Ched_D> if OTRS confirms identity of someone with a concern - could a "board" of sorts with notices be a place that could be looked at?
[2009-11-08 21:57:13] <jayvdb> bottom up can work, but the effects usually take a while to be visible, and people in the trenches dont notice the improvement so easily
[2009-11-08 21:57:18] <Keegan> If LaraLove edits the article about LaraLove to correct that she lives in Burbank and not Ft Lauderdale, she'll be reverted
[2009-11-08 21:57:21] <Keegan> Several times
[2009-11-08 21:57:26] <Keegan> And then blocked out of "COI"
[2009-11-08 21:57:27] <Jake_Wartenberg> Lara: especially if there really is libel
[2009-11-08 21:57:27] <Lara> indeed.
[2009-11-08 21:57:31] <KillerChihuahua> Not necessarily, Keegan
[2009-11-08 21:57:32] <Keegan> Then comes the OTRS email
[2009-11-08 21:57:48] <KillerChihuahua> I see the issue, but framing it as an absolute is not accurate
[2009-11-08 21:57:50] <Keegan> KC: This is not an overwhelming issue
[2009-11-08 21:58:00] <KillerChihuahua> Which is not?
[2009-11-08 21:58:03] <Keegan> In the BLP sense it usually is
[2009-11-08 21:58:06] <Lara> i agree with Keegan. I often see tickets about people who attempted to fix their birthday, their place of birth, their college, etc, and they get reverted repeatedly and then blocked.
[2009-11-08 21:58:13] <KillerChihuahua> As do I.
[2009-11-08 21:58:17] <kevin_g> how many aggrieved subjects do we think make it to OTRS?
[2009-11-08 21:58:32] <Lara> A fraction. Small fraction.
[2009-11-08 21:58:36] <Keegan> In the scope of the BLP problem, they get bitten
[2009-11-08 21:58:50] <Keegan> And they don't even mind having the article, they just want to have the facts
[2009-11-08 21:58:52] <Lara> OTRS, as SlimVirgin noted on WP, needs to be advertised better.
[2009-11-08 21:58:52] <KillerChihuahua> I am objecting to the phrasing which implies it is all, or even most
[2009-11-08 21:59:00] <Keegan> We don't want them to put in the "Truth"
[2009-11-08 21:59:04] <Keegan> But little things
[2009-11-08 21:59:12] <Jake_Wartenberg> should be right at the bottom of every BLP
[2009-11-08 21:59:15] <Jake_Wartenberg> in bold
[2009-11-08 21:59:25] <Keegan> Oh god no
[2009-11-08 21:59:26] <KillerChihuahua> We have no firm statistics, so I suggest we use non-specific phrasing. "Some"
[2009-11-08 21:59:32] <Keegan> That would invite the crazies
[2009-11-08 21:59:34] <OlEnglish> i find a simple note on the talk page works fine.. see a recent edit to the :[:[Chris Demetral]] article where user:cdemetral changed his marital status
[2009-11-08 21:59:40] <KillerChihuahua> We already get crazies, Keegan
[2009-11-08 21:59:43] <Natalie> Most unsourced bios (at least in the sense that they don't have external links or == References ==, etc.) are tagged.
[2009-11-08 21:59:47] <Natalie> With Template:BLP unsourced.
[2009-11-08 21:59:50] <Keegan> *moar* crazies
[2009-11-08 22:00:07] <Jake_Wartenberg> Well, a lot more subjects would also find the email.
[2009-11-08 22:00:12] <Jake_Wartenberg> You get the good with the bad.
[2009-11-08 22:00:27] <Lara> Ideally, we can fix these problems and not have a great need for subjects to need to find the helpline.
[2009-11-08 22:00:38] <MichaelSnow> As far as the foundation saying something - the board did issue a statement earlier this year
[2009-11-08 22:00:39] <Jake_Wartenberg> ok, so we could edit Template:Blp, and add the email there
[2009-11-08 22:00:41] <Natalie> The helpline should be easier to find.
[2009-11-08 22:00:50] <jayvdb> again this is about respect for the subject ... people should see cdemetral and think "goodie .. this person can help us get the facts right" ... instead they think "COI" :/
[2009-11-08 22:00:56] <Lara> The Board didn't issue anything of value, Michael.
[2009-11-08 22:01:01] <MichaelSnow>
[2009-11-08 22:01:04] <Lara> There was nothing for us to use to change anything.
[2009-11-08 22:01:06] <Keegan> Hi MichaelSnow
[2009-11-08 22:01:08] <Lara> Nothing for us to point to.
[2009-11-08 22:01:10] <Keegan> Everyone clap
[2009-11-08 22:01:13] <OlEnglish> jayvdb: exactly
[2009-11-08 22:01:47] <Lara> Sorry. Didn't mean to shut chat down with dissent.
[2009-11-08 22:01:55] <Ched_D> perhaps editing the Template:WPBio to contain the link to OTRS would be more the venue ... since the talk page is where we point folks first anyway
[2009-11-08 22:02:05] <MichaelSnow> What would something of value look like?
[2009-11-08 22:02:11] <Lara> What we're trying to create here.
[2009-11-08 22:02:30] <KillerChihuahua> Somethign which has an effect. We're open to suggestions.
[2009-11-08 22:02:34] <Keegan> Part 4 of the Foundation statement is where we have problems
[2009-11-08 22:02:41] <Lara> Something with some meat in it. Not just acknowledging the problem, but spelling out how we *will* attempt to fix it.
[2009-11-08 22:03:06] <Lara> We were literally able to create nothing from that resolution.
[2009-11-08 22:03:13] <Keegan> Okay, so that would get into the "Recommendations"
[2009-11-08 22:03:15] <MichaelSnow> Part 4 - problems with what the statement says, or problems with the execution?
[2009-11-08 22:03:15] <KillerChihuahua> agreed. All four items, but 4 especially, are routinel ignored
[2009-11-08 22:03:22] <Keegan> Execution
[2009-11-08 22:03:29] <Keegan> Not the Foundation's fault
[2009-11-08 22:03:32] <Jake_Wartenberg> ok, so that could be very bottom up; we could start a discussion on adding the otrs email to Template:blp
[2009-11-08 22:03:34] <Keegan> We've got community issues
[2009-11-08 22:03:35] <KillerChihuahua> Execution. We cannot execute those who ignore it. (/joke)
[2009-11-08 22:03:48] <Lara> rofl
[2009-11-08 22:03:49] <Risker> the part that says "Some articles about living people contain small errors, are poorly-written or poorly-sourced. Articles about people who are only marginally well-known are often neglected, and tend to improve much more slowly over time, if at all. " is nowhere near strong enough
[2009-11-08 22:04:12] <Lara> It doesn't say what to do about it.
[2009-11-08 22:04:13] <Keegan> Risker, that's what we're working on, a more firm proposal
[2009-11-08 22:04:19] <Lara> It doesn't even hint that admins can do anything about it.
[2009-11-08 22:04:26] <Keegan> okay, back to +m for a moment
[2009-11-08 22:04:41] =-= Mode #wikipedia-blptf +m by Keegan
[2009-11-08 22:04:53] <Lara> Execution comes down to the community.
[2009-11-08 22:05:00] <kevin_g> that resolution is a start, but need some directives to projects based on our proposals
[2009-11-08 22:05:07] <Keegan> So, what we, the TF members, are looking at is what I thought we were
[2009-11-08 22:05:11] <Lara> The endless desire for drama, the elusive consensus and the never-ending quest for it.
[2009-11-08 22:05:23] <Keegan> MichaelSnow's comments kinda confimed it
[2009-11-08 22:05:29] <KillerChihuahua> ..and those who have a Cause.
[2009-11-08 22:05:51] <Keegan> We need the two things, "Proposals", like sourcing, that are enforceful and rules
[2009-11-08 22:06:32] <Keegan> We need "Recommendations, as in we resolve this list of grievances for the communities to come up with locally, but strongly worded that they must
[2009-11-08 22:06:48] <Lara> Right. Okay.
[2009-11-08 22:06:51] <Keegan> Is that about right, Michael?
[2009-11-08 22:07:02] <KillerChihuahua> We have too many rules, with too many words, IMO. We need to avoid that in our suggestions to the Foundation. Short, sweet, clear and to the point is indicated.
[2009-11-08 22:07:14] <Keegan> It'll be short
[2009-11-08 22:07:17] <Keegan> We don't have that many
[2009-11-08 22:07:38] <Keegan> I can only find about two proposals, strongly worded back can be done in three sentences
[2009-11-08 22:07:55] <Keegan> And probably about six big points of action, maybe four
[2009-11-08 22:08:26] <MichaelSnow> We don't necessarily know the answers - the board struggled with some of the same issues when we wrote the resolution
[2009-11-08 22:08:28] <Keegan> Mostly centered around just being helpful
[2009-11-08 22:08:47] <Keegan> MichaelSnow: This is for us to pass along to y'all
[2009-11-08 22:08:53] <Keegan> What you do with it is your business
[2009-11-08 22:09:23] |<-- killiondude has left (Client Quit)
[2009-11-08 22:09:26] <Keegan> Okay, back to chatter
[2009-11-08 22:09:39] =-= Mode #wikipedia-blptf -m by Keegan
[2009-11-08 22:09:54] <Natalie> Why is there no focus on a global BLP policy?
[2009-11-08 22:10:12] <Natalie> (Remove "Why" as necessary.)
[2009-11-08 22:10:16] <kevin_g> a global BLP policy is exactly what I expected this task force to come up with
[2009-11-08 22:10:30] <kevin_g> put together from the proposals so far
[2009-11-08 22:10:38] <Natalie> Anyone read ?
[2009-11-08 22:10:40] <Keegan> Well, my thought was...what kevin just said
[2009-11-08 22:10:45] <Lara> This resolution is for all Wikipedias, right?
[2009-11-08 22:10:59] <Keegan> It's not going to be "Resolved: Point 1, Blah blah"
[2009-11-08 22:11:02] <Lara> That is something, though
[2009-11-08 22:11:16] <Keegan> Lara, right
[2009-11-08 22:11:20] <Lara> If there are projects that have no BLP project, the Foundation should recommend that they create one.
[2009-11-08 22:11:31] <Lara> BLP policy*
[2009-11-08 22:11:53] <Keegan> Natalie: The idea is what that says, with some rules tossed in
[2009-11-08 22:12:08] <Keegan> That is too fluffy
[2009-11-08 22:12:11] <NuclearWarfare> I'm not sure that would be wise; perhaps limiting it to the English Wikipedia would be a good idea. Having the foundation mandating a global BLP policy is another thing, but we wouldn't want to conflate issues that the...Dutch have with BLP with what enwiki's as problems
[2009-11-08 22:12:23] <NuclearWarfare> I'm not sure if that made sense
[2009-11-08 22:12:25] <KillerChihuahua> Lara, if we can frame a clear cut Foundation level policy which covers all WM projects, I can see no actual need for them to create their own. Am I missing soemthign?
[2009-11-08 22:12:31] <Keegan> NW: It did
[2009-11-08 22:12:47] <Keegan> And that's why our hands are tied in what we can do in the Proposals part
[2009-11-08 22:12:53] <OlEnglish> all wmf projects already take into account BLP policy when dealing with WP:V which is global is it not
[2009-11-08 22:12:56] <Keegan> But we can "recommend" fwiw
[2009-11-08 22:12:57] <MichaelSnow> Point 1 of the statement is definitely asking that projects have a BLP policy
[2009-11-08 22:12:59] <kevin_g> a foundation level policy needs to set minimum standards. so local projects have something to work with
[2009-11-08 22:13:14] <Lara> KC: We only have a month left and we've got a lot of work left to do. What we've got thus far isn't a policy. It's ideas that supplement our policy and strengthen it.
[2009-11-08 22:13:16] <KillerChihuahua> NW: what issues are the Dutch having which might conflict with a Foundation rule?
[2009-11-08 22:13:34] <NuclearWarfare> No, a global policy is fine with me
[2009-11-08 22:13:36] <OlEnglish> well not all wmf projects..
[2009-11-08 22:13:42] <NuclearWarfare> It's just some of the things we brainstormed really apply only to enwiki
[2009-11-08 22:13:47] <KillerChihuahua> agreed, Lara - but my point still stands.
[2009-11-08 22:13:57] <jayvdb> it applies to all projects
[2009-11-08 22:13:57] <Keegan> NW exactly
[2009-11-08 22:14:07] <KillerChihuahua> Which?
[2009-11-08 22:14:08] <jayvdb> wikiquote has BLP issues
[2009-11-08 22:14:18] <OlEnglish> and wikisource?
[2009-11-08 22:14:19] <KillerChihuahua> NW said some apply only to en, which?
[2009-11-08 22:14:24] <OlEnglish> wikiversity?
[2009-11-08 22:14:28] <Lara> I'm all about a global BLP policy. I just don't think it's realistic that 1/ we could create one in a month, and that 2/ we're the group of 6-8 people to do it.
[2009-11-08 22:14:32] <Keegan> That is why I broke this down into what we can do, top down, and what we can emphasize with encouragement, bottom up
[2009-11-08 22:14:40] <OlEnglish> wikispecies?
[2009-11-08 22:14:44] <OlEnglish> how would blp apply?
[2009-11-08 22:14:45] <jayvdb> wikisource does too .. we fault to delete for PD works about a living person
[2009-11-08 22:14:51] <zscout370> what I can tell you that the Japanese are very harsh about BLP
[2009-11-08 22:14:56] <NuclearWarfare> Well, it's more of the matter of the fact that they weren't really consulted in this
[2009-11-08 22:14:58] <jayvdb> we have had a few nasty cases
[2009-11-08 22:14:58] <KillerChihuahua> The bot is the only one I know of. We can still suggest the foundation rule be two week prod for unsourced BLPs
[2009-11-08 22:15:03] <zscout370> even more so than we are
[2009-11-08 22:15:12] <Keegan> OlEnglish: What does it matter if it doesn't apply then? It's there just in case :D
[2009-11-08 22:15:13] <Lara> Natalie: What basically happened on Meta with your policy proposal?
[2009-11-08 22:15:34] <NuclearWarfare> So even if the idea is good, they won't like it because it is a mandate from someone else without their consultation
[2009-11-08 22:15:35] <Natalie> Lara: See the bottom of the talk page.
[2009-11-08 22:15:36] <jayvdb> MZM's policy proposal started well
[2009-11-08 22:15:37] <Natalie> Lots of stagnation.
[2009-11-08 22:15:39] <Natalie> Someone just needs to declare it policy.
[2009-11-08 22:15:48] <Lara> Hmm
[2009-11-08 22:15:56] <Lara> Something to add to the list?
[2009-11-08 22:15:57] <OlEnglish> in case wikispecies starts including biographies? :)
[2009-11-08 22:16:02] <Keegan> Okay, let's get this wrapped up from the public logging part and then you can blather and log on your own
[2009-11-08 22:16:04] <KillerChihuahua> Link to MZMs proposal pls?
[2009-11-08 22:16:11] <Keegan> going back to meeting
[2009-11-08 22:16:13] <Lara> We can toss that to the board for review and approval?
[2009-11-08 22:16:14] <Natalie> KillerChihuahua:
[2009-11-08 22:16:16] <NuclearWarfare>
[2009-11-08 22:16:18] <KillerChihuahua> ty
[2009-11-08 22:16:27] =-= Mode #wikipedia-blptf +m by Keegan
[2009-11-08 22:16:37] <KillerChihuahua> ah yes ok
[2009-11-08 22:17:12] <Keegan> Okay, so, We're (half of the participants) all on the same page now about our focus?
[2009-11-08 22:17:20] <KillerChihuahua> Since a BLP rule applies only to BLPs, if a project has NO BLPs then they don't need to worry about it. I fail to see why anyone would need that spelled out tot hem.
[2009-11-08 22:17:38] <Lara> Do drink the Windex.
[2009-11-08 22:17:42] <KillerChihuahua> ?
[2009-11-08 22:17:44] <Keegan> Strengthen a global blp policy with a couple points that are globally acceptable
[2009-11-08 22:17:55] <Lara> KC: Warning labels that state the obvious.
[2009-11-08 22:18:03] <KillerChihuahua> Ah, precisely! Yes.
[2009-11-08 22:18:06] <Keegan> And write up recommendations for the English Wikipedia?
[2009-11-08 22:18:08] <Lara> They're there for a reason. Same reason what you just wrote has to be written.
[2009-11-08 22:18:13] <KillerChihuahua> Agreed, Keegan
[2009-11-08 22:18:27] <Lara> Yes
[2009-11-08 22:19:01] <Keegan> kevin_g?
[2009-11-08 22:19:12] <KillerChihuahua> Disagree. I really cannot see anyone asking "how does this apply to nonBLP articles?"
[2009-11-08 22:19:13] <kevin_g> yes
[2009-11-08 22:19:19] * Lara slides kevin_g the pot of coffee.
[2009-11-08 22:19:36] <Keegan> We're not coming up with enforcements in that regard, KC
[2009-11-08 22:19:50] <Keegan> A nudge on the side
[2009-11-08 22:19:58] <KillerChihuahua> sorry, your brevity obscures your meaning.
[2009-11-08 22:20:10] <Keegan> I know :)
[2009-11-08 22:20:14] <Keegan> I get that a lot
[2009-11-08 22:20:16] <KillerChihuahua> In what regard, precisely?
[2009-11-08 22:20:25] <Lara> You wouldn't think someone would think Spermicidal jelly was supposed to be eaten either, but it happened.
[2009-11-08 22:20:27] <Keegan> Recommendations
[2009-11-08 22:20:40] <KillerChihuahua> ?
[2009-11-08 22:20:58] <Lara> "how does this apply to nonBLP articles?" <-- Someone will ask that.
[2009-11-08 22:21:02] <Keegan> Here is a suggestion of thoughts on policy changes
[2009-11-08 22:21:11] <KillerChihuahua> And we say duh, it doesn't.
[2009-11-08 22:21:18] <kevin_g> we do need to keep things as simple as possible
[2009-11-08 22:21:32] <Keegan> Good good, I think we can
[2009-11-08 22:21:40] <KillerChihuahua> Its not like the guy who stuck his privates in the food processor full of liver..... and lost it.
[2009-11-08 22:21:41] <Keegan> It's not the Constitution of Wikipedia
[2009-11-08 22:21:52] <kevin_g> an implementation guideline could answer more detailed questions
[2009-11-08 22:22:01] <Keegan> Yeah
[2009-11-08 22:22:14] <KillerChihuahua> He sued. We don't care if someone asks an idiot question; IMO we need clarity and brevity above disclaimers.
[2009-11-08 22:22:17] <Keegan> If the notability guideline can rule the day...
[2009-11-08 22:22:42] <Lara> KC: You win the references to idiots award.
[2009-11-08 22:22:44] <Keegan> Okay, we'll work on clarity
[2009-11-08 22:22:54] <Keegan> Not everyone is here, we'll take what we have back to the list
[2009-11-08 22:23:00] <Lara> k
[2009-11-08 22:23:04] <KillerChihuahua> kk
[2009-11-08 22:23:14] <kevin_g> ok
[2009-11-08 22:23:27] <Keegan> kevin_g, got your log?
[2009-11-08 22:23:39] <Lara> If not, I logged.
[2009-11-08 22:23:46] <KillerChihuahua> as did I.
[2009-11-08 22:23:47] <Keegan> Okie dokie.
[2009-11-08 22:23:51] <Keegan> Me too
[2009-11-08 22:23:58] <kevin_g> yes, I think
[2009-11-08 22:24:05] * Keegan bangs gavel
[2009-11-08 22:24:07] <Lara> -m?
[2009-11-08 22:24:13] <Keegan> Adjourned to the mailing list