(sorry for starting a new thread when this was being discussed elsewhere, but we were threadjacking it, and I think all concerned, or at least most concerned will be glad to see that thread drop down the latest topic list-Foz)

The basics:

A) The article can be placed under BLP-LOCK by any uninvolved administrator. When an administrator places an article under this policy, they must either refer to an existing OTRS ticket, or submit one, and detail why such action is necessary in that OTRS ticket.

B ) If an OTRS volunteer agrees that the article should be placed under BLP-LOCK, the article will be stubbed down to a bare-bones situation (just bare facts, no controversial information), and fully-protected for a period of a MININUM of six months (this can be permanent).

C) During this BLP-LOCK status, the only edits that should be made are those via {{editprotected}} requests that have full-consensus on the talk page. Any information that not reliably sourced should not be added to the article, even with consensus. While a subject of the article does not get an automatic veto over information being added to the page, administrators who handle BLP-LOCK editprotected requests should be fully aware of the BLP policy and judge accordingly.


This is actually fairly close to the Stable Versions idea we've been promised for eons going forward.. It reduces a major part of the reason that folks (here and elsewhere) are upset about BLP: That any "child with a computer" can vandalize it, and then these vandalizations are available in the history forever.. and for folks that don't have people watching/OWNing the article, these vandalizations can persist for a period of time until caught. Instead, the article grows in a more controlled manner.

The reason for thinking that the OTRS ticket is necessary.. I'm not sure this is necessary or a good idea for ALL BLP articles, but if an article needs BLP-LOCK, then it should have above-normal levels of attention paid to it, and OTRS is one way to do that. I know that the problem is that OTRS can be overwhelmed at times, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is on it, and work OTRS/BLP-LOCK if it goes through.

Also, on a strictly personal level of thought.. if a subject complains to WP via OTRS, this should be a standard option (to BLP-LOCK their article) going forward. It's bad enough if a subject needs to email us once if there's problems with their article. We shouldn't have to make then continually monitor their article.

They actually don't let anyone work OTRS. I think they might reject you just because you post to this site (or do you already have access?)

I know some admins who would try to put every non-notable BLP on lockdown (as they should be). We don't want to kill the ORTS mechanism by deluging it with hundreds of thousands of requests all at once. Let's allow any brave admin do the right thing minus the red tape.

And again, the optional 6 months is a recipe for drama, requests for unprotection, sockpuppeteering, and general MMORPGness. BLP-LOCK should last until death, paper encyclopedia notability, or subject consent.

No, I don't have access.. when I first came up with this plan, a couple of other admins asked if I had access to OTRS (which I don't).. but they agreed that OTRS would be a good way of getting more attention focused on it.

and then..........a hint that there could be trace amounts of wisdom coming from Wikipedia?

It could start at BLP with a design for all articles for all eternity.

End the concept where "anyone" can do the editing and you might improve the quality and, in fact, level of participation by real live experts in fields from a to z. Participation from vandals would all but dry up. Vandals do not stick around if they cannot get their way instantly.

"Version 2" does not require any level of notability, so even the most notable of individuals would qualify. The original version does have a requirement, but it's a requirement for "off-line encyclopedia" notability, which is far too high a bar. This needs to be worked out and made into something that only affects marginally notable biographies. Another problem is that the meaning of "bare bones" info is not defined, except that this is supposed to be "uncontroversial" info. Is comprehensive info excluded even if it is entirely uncontroversial? Furthermore, a controversy may be central to a person's notability--in that case, would it be required that the controversy be treated in an uncontroversial way, or would be required that all information pertaining to the controversy be removed, even if that information is the only thing notable about the subject?

What constitutes paper encyclopedia notability? An article in Encyclopaedia Britannica? An entry in Who's Who? An entry in a specialist reference, for example on film actors or educationalists? A listing in the Civil Service Yearbook?

The proposal, so I understand it, is limit the medium to paper GENERAL encyclopedias (the biggest of which, BTW, just went bellyup due to the internet). The word "encyclopedia" has been much used and overused, so that we have "encylopedias" of every imaginable narrow topic: Encyclopedia of Ants of the Amazonian Rain Forest. And there are "bio" encyclopedias of the Who's Who sort galore, of course (Who's Who being, of course, a vanity set with articles essentially written by the subjects, and edited for space and silliness by the publisher). But these things proliferate endlessly, and the aim is precisely to avoid that. The whole point of limiting living bios to ONLY paper general encyclopedia notariety, is that it serves as an easily checkable bright line and limits notabilility to people so famous they manage to compete for space, on a limited paper background, with articles about everything from atoms to zebras. And you must be a damned famous person for that. And even more so if you're still breathing.

That's not clear. I think it's a fine bar FOR LIVING SUBJECTS. Articles about dead people can still proliferate. In fact, I don't even care if obits or memorials get in. There's presently a prohibition against them, but it's a arbitrary one, and nobody will notice or care if they are allowed, any more than anybody will or should notice or care if all Pokemon are bio'd. I'm an inclusionist, except when it comes to personal information about people who can still be hurt. We might even consider handling certain details of the lives of dead people with a bit of sensitivity, if they're "newly dead" (immediate family sensitivity still on high). But I will leave that for the utopian future. First things first.

I would vote "yes" if the info is presented in bio form, under the subject's name as a header. We can never tell what information about a person is, or is not, controversial, without asking them. There's no really efficient way to do at, at this point, except perhaps ONCE. Until it is done, and ever-after, when it is done, the article needs to be locked away, or locked down. Who's Who doesn't do much damage, because it's locked. And the subjects are the authors (and even pay for it), so we know they have no objection.

Not removed, just moved. Thus, while the person is alive, the single thing they're notable for, will remain discused in the article where the thing itself, is discussed. I see no reason the person's name needs to be redacted THERE, if Wiki-style WP:V sourse has been used. But the idea that people famous for only one event don't get bio'd on WP now, of course is nonsense. WP has a bio of the cop who shot the Texas Tower sniper. This poor bastard, who is still alive, got bio'ed because somebody got a pineapple up their rear about it, and since the cop had filed a lawsuit in connection with the same shooting, now the WPians could claim TWO public references for TWO separate acts. Nevermind that the second once wouldn't pass WP:SNOWBALL for notability, without the first. But, by wikilawyering, now he's wiki-notable. LOL. And that's how we're here.

Milton Roe answered this quite nicely. I just want to toss out that, all things considered, I'd rather squabble about whether encyclopedia X was general interest or specialised (and thus in or out of the list to use for evaluating paper bios to decide if person Y was in or out), than directly squabbling whether person Y is or isn't notable under less easy to evaluate standards. Because there are a lot less X than Y... Still gameable? yes. Imperfect? yes. But I think a better approach than what WP has now.

The Roe Standard: Does it have articles on BOTH atoms and zebras? It passes. (Or BOTH quarks and jaguars if your Gell-Mannian ego demands that pairing; but you see the point).

I think you're confusing Who's Who with Who's Who in America. Being in Who's Who is a great honour and cannot be bought.


And what about something like Chambers' Biographical Dictionary? Anyone who's in there is pretty notable.

Yeah, there's some ambiguity here, but Lar hits the nail on the head. This debate is exponentially more straightforward that the current process, which uses everything from usenet fame, to human interest puff pieces, to having co-authored a book that somebody might have once read.

The dead trees BLP notability standard also creates the potential for precedent. If we decide that Chambers' Biographical Dictionary counts (or that it doesn't count), we don't have to revisit the decision. Allowable sources for paper notability could be listed, and it would be straightforward to tell whether someone is in or out. We would avoid the sort of post hoc random-mob decision-making that the current system engenders.

Say someone gets an OTRS complaint, and they're wondering whether the BLP can be locked down. Under a paper encyclopedia standard, in most cases you could tell them immediately with very high confidence what the answer will be. "Hmm, sorry, but you're listed in Britannica." Or: "Yes, Bill O'Reilly thinks you're hot shit, but obviously no paper encyclopedia would include an entry on a prostitute such as yourself."

OTRS doesn't have to reply, "well, gee, maybe we can lock your page down, but we'll have to run that past the community because, as Amarkov says, we don't quite use a paper notability standard. JoshuaZ is certain that you've "injected" yourself somewhere, and David Gerard might remember getting into a flame war with you--we should really let the mob decide."

Why is it whenever I hear the term BLP-Lock, I always keep thinking of those Psyche-Locks in the Phoenix Wright games? Those were cool.

Of course, at such a point I like to think how Mr Attorney would have reacted to such an idea as Wikipedia. I'm sure you know what's coming here, but nonetheless...

Over two years ago, when the arguments for keeping my bio were based on the "notability" argument, some teenie-bopper admins on Wikipedia were using raw Google counts in a search for my name.

Half of them didn't put my name in quotes, which meant a "daniel smith" could be at the top of a page that Google indexed, and a "john brandt" somewhere else on the page.

The other half used quotes, but ignored the fact that there is some musician named Daniel Brandt in Europe, an Internet expert in Switzerland with the same name, and some prosecutor in the U.S. with the same name.

After subtracting all the namesakes (which of course the teenie-boppers are too dumb to do), you still have the problem that I was the first Google critic, and there were a large number of Google-loving ecommerce types out there who dissed me mercilessly. Every one of them was an expert at manipulating the Google juice on their sites to make more money. That amounted to a lot of anti-Brandt hits in Google.

Even SlimVirgin selected a couple of pro-Google, anti-Brandt citations. One was of blog quality and the other was from Salon and biased in a pro-Google direction — the reporter made up quotes from me that made me look ridiculous. That was good enough for SlimVirgin, who used these citations to justify starting a stub on me.

SlimVirgin has improved by now, but that still leaves hundreds of pesky, out-of-control editors who pretend that they're building an encyclopedia, and who think they enjoy the protection of the gods in exchange for their good work.

A place in the American version can't be bought outright, either. But they, as with the UK version, work on info supplied by the subject, and don't check facts. They're pretty inclusionist, because being so makes them money. As it does in the UK version. You get a discount if you're listed (I don't know what it is), but they still make a hefty price from anybody who is, and that's vanity, because nobody else wants the thing but a few libraries. The UK version is 300 pounds and the US one is 700 dollars. Multiply by 30,000 subjects in the UK and more in the US and that's quite a lot of money for a couple of paper books. So, vanity.

As for the "honor" of inclusion, if being included with magazine editors, managers of piano competitions, civil servants, and every titled baby down to littlest baronet (gag me), okay if you say so. I guess you have to be British to get it. At least in the US we've figured out that you're just paying a shite-load of loot to own a book with your name in it.

Having a biography on Wikipedia is like being tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.

If it weren't for the honor of the occasion, one would just as soon have skipped it.