On 6/1/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
But with lists, it should be subject to the exact same thresholds of informational notability.
It *should* be, but in practise it's been a nightmare to enforce. There was a small group of accounts (some of them now proven sockpuppets) that was determined to maintain these lists (speaking now about the Jew lists), and usually not with sources. Attempts to oppose them were often met with personal attacks.
Honestly, that's when the semi-protection for vandalism (because that's what it is) should come on, and other non-involved admins be asked in from a public ANI post to get it looked at and NPA blocks dished out.
Every attempt that I know of to put them up for deletion has failed because people hate to see what they think is information disappearing, even if it's useless, unsourced, and they're not themselves willing to maintain it.
Unsourced + BLP, however, should be a sure-fire way to get something removed. But, deleting them outright isn't the best thing, since Lists of X aren't a bad thing. It's just unsourced BLP stuff that is. Wasn't it Doc that nuked that Internet article last year? Brought it down from about 200 items to like 10? Do the same on one of these. If anyone reintroduces unsourced BLP material, it's a free RV for whomever to take it out. Put it back in 3 times, 3RR vio. Wash, rinse repeat. Seriously. Anons war? Same thing, slap on semi-protection.
Try looking after any of the lists yourself for a couple of weeks.
Maybe some day, sure, in the future. ;)
It's been tried. When we did it, we were accused of WP:POINT, because
it did leave us with some absurdities i.e. having to decide whether to remove people we *knew* were Jewish and everyone knew were Jewish, but where no reliable source had ever actually said or implied it. If we did remove them = WP:POINT. If we didn't remove them = other unsourced names must be allowed in too.
That looks and feels like a catch-22, but it really isn't. If something doesn't qualify as BLP compliant, it needs to come out. Someone's religion may or may not be contentious, but perhaps a better way to get around this is to simply do this slight tweak addition to BLP:
* All information on BLPs must be sourced per ATT/RS/V. * Unsourced, and non-contentious information, if added, may be optionally removed by anyone, not subject to 3rr.
In other words, people can add stuff and always will, and most of it isn't controversial. But there's no reason any unsourced info on a BLP should be in. If it's a notable fact, it can be sourced. Make that BLP change, and the gun needed to end the problem exists.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com