< August 27	August 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete —Angr 07:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notable Wikipedian[edit]

Template:Notable Wikipedian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template facilitates violation of the BLP policy and offers little or no appreciable benefit to the encyclopedia. Allow me to explain these two assertions:

This template facilitates violation of the BLP policy because there is no simple and unintrusive way of determining whether a particular user account actually belongs to a particular person. While there are ways of confirming the identity of the person operating a particular account, this can be quite intrusive, and we should not demand this for something as trivial as this template (see below). Let us consider two hypothetical examples:Example 1: A high school student with the name Bill Smith creates a user account with the name User:Bill Smith. He subsequently edits the article about Bill Smith, a businessman. Another editor notices that User:Bill Smith edited the article Bill Smith and places ((Notable Wikipedian)) on Talk:Bill Smith. Even if User:Bill Smith makes only positive contributions to Wikipedia (or makes no additional contributions), the template is inaccurately attributing the edits of Bill Smith the high school student to Bill Smith the businessman.

Example 2: Someone creates a user account with the name User:Bill Smith and edits the article about the person Bill Smith. Another editor notices that User:Bill Smith edited the article Bill Smith and places ((Notable Wikipedian)) on Talk:Bill Smith. The next day, User:Bill Smith vandalises a series of articles, insulting and threatening various people and organisations (such as schools). As long as ((Notable Wikipedian)) remains on Talk:Bill Smith, we are in effect attributing these insults and threats to Bill Smith (the person), without any actual evidence. While this claim by itself is unlikely to have legal consequences for Mr. Smith (law enforcement authorities would presumably seek actual evidence), it could damage his reputation and/or cause psychological distress.

This template offers little or no appreciable benefit to the encyclopedia due to the fact that any useful function that it performs could be carried out just as well or better by other means. The template is designed to be placed on the talk pages of articles, and is claimed to be a useful way of keeping track of autobiographical editing. However, we have other templates for that: ((COI)) and ((Autobiography)). (We also have Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Moreover, whereas ((COI)) and ((Autobiography)) are designed for use on articles which have been edited extensively by the subject (or someone else with a conflict of interest), this template could be added for even minor edits. In other words, whereas ((COI)) and ((Autobiography)) are intended to identify content issues, this template is just a bureaucratic record-keeping mechanism. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, assumes an unverifiable link between a wiki account and a real person. Bazj (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked one of them to see the template in action... "An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Donald Knuth, has edited Wikipedia as 171.66.180.182". Linking a person to a wiki account is one kind of bad, but to an IP address is SOOOOOO bad! Kill it. Kill it now. Before somebody sues. Bazj (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hey hey hey, misuse of a template is not grounds for its deletion. I've always seen this as a "there's a potential COI thing going on here" type of template, rather than a "did you know"-style one. If the link between person and account wasn't explicit then I'd have no problem removing it from a template on sight. Better documentation needed, deletion not needed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify what you mean by "if the link between person and account wasn't explicit"? Also, doesn't ((COI)) fulfill the function of a "there's a potential COI thing going on here" template? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean that user:RussNelson is definitely Russ Nelson, in a real-life admission sort of way. User:blah234234 is not Tony Blair just because he says he is. If we stick to verified links, we're fine here. And this template is a rather gentler way of pointing the issue out than a big warning banner in articlespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that's the thing: this template is designed to be used regardless of whether there is a content issue, which is not the case with the other templates. Also, how do you know that User:RussNelson is Russ Nelson (I'm not saying that he isn't, but just asking on what the statement is based)? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons given, ironically enough, by Chris Cunningham (this one, not that one). If anyone knows the problems relating to this template, I'm fairly sure he would. As long as the user is verified as being the person the article is about, this serves as a useful guide to potential CoI edits. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we verify who is controlling the user account? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do we verify who is controlling your account? Exactly. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no need to, unless you want to place a tag on Talk:Black Falcon. :) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • FACT: In the several years i have edited here, no one from Wikipedia has ever telephoned me (my phone number is on my web sites) or emailed me to verify that i am User:Catherineyronwode. I may very well be someone else. In fact, i am feeling more and more like someone else every minute. catherine yronwode catherine yronwode"64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How will you provide identifying information even via phone or email? Will you send them a fax of a Photo ID? Is this sufficient to conclude to the positive, since it works for financial institutions? Will we merely accept someone's word, or their electronic signature attesting to the fact? Is there ANY other tag that requires this scrutiny? self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful template. -- Avi (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep COI and Autobiography aren't broad enough. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not broad enough for what purpose? Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but periodically verify use to ensure that the user account who performed the edit is actually the person who is the topic of the article. bahamut0013♠♣ 16:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's just it: how do we verify that the user account is actually the subject of the article? Simply asking the user is not a viable option, since we can't easily verify whether the user is telling the truth. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This template is part of the textbook example of how not to handle COI. Sure, it has conceivable good uses, but it's far more likely to be used inappropriately, and I haven't seen it used correctly once yet. The potential benefits are far outweighed by the current abuses. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some of the arguments for deletion, such as difficulty verifying identities, would best be solved by modifying the template, rather than deleting it outright. Can't fix what's gone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete–if there is a COI problem, then the COI template should be used and then the specifics of it should be brought up on the talk page; this template just seems like a way to criticize other users, and its wording implies that the verdict is guilty, regardless of whether the discussion about the alleged COI is ongoing or not.--danielfolsom 01:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Both examples given are examples where this template is applied in error. Shouldn't the criteria for deletion pertain to situations when the template is used correctly? When an article subject is also a Wikipedia editor, that's an important piece of information with regard to evaluating their edits. I've never put the template on any article except where the Wikipedian's identity is verified (such as through OTRS). --SSBohio 04:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should also consider the fact that the correct usage of the template constitutes only a small fraction of the total usage. I've looked through nearly one hundred of uses of this template and could not find a single case where actual verification of identity is given. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're smuggling-in some proposition(s) here. Where I have used the tag, I've not necessarily provided a tedious explanation for the tagging, but I've followed protocols that would, for example, satisfy a court of American civil law (albeit not a court of criminal law). Now, I don't agree with the presumption that I have to provide a tedious explanation for a datum supplied on a talk page (as opposed to in an actual article), and I would support an indefinite block of any editor who insisted that such explanations be provided (to be lifted when he or she had stopped baying at the moon). And, unless the taggers already provided full explanations (doubtful in most cases) or you queried them, you're guessing about whether the taggings were well reasoned. —SlamDiego_←T 15:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have I anywhere asked for "tedious explanation" to justify tagging? Actual verification, as opposed to speculation based on a coincidence of real names and user names, is all that I've requested. Out of curiousity, what protocols did you follow? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, although I had not said that you asked for tedious explanation, because you hadn't yet; now you have. Because verification often will involve tedious explanation. I do not deny that verification should be given in response to a good faith challenge of a specific tagging; I deny that the absence of verification (which may involve tedious explanation) in the absence of such challenges demonstrates that a given tagging was inappropriate. No, I'm not now going to give you a tedious explanation now to satisfy your curiosity. I will, however, tell you that in some cases it involved such things as tracking the movements of the person across country to see whether they matched the locations of the IP numbers. —SlamDiego_←T 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you consider provision of verification of a claim to be "tedious explanation", then it is obvious that our different positions on this matter are rooted in differing philosophies regarding the importance of verification itself, especially with regard to living persons. You seem to believe that it is appropriate to make a claim about a living person without providing verification as long as the person making the claim considers it to be reasonable and makes it in good faith. On the other hand, I believe that it is inappropriate to make a claim about a living person without providing verification, and certainly inappropriate if the claim is based merely on a "best guess". If I have misunderstood your position, I would appreciate clarification, if you would care to provide it; otherwise, that is how I see it. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have a marked propensity for using illogical inference to support ridiculous claims about what your opponent believes. One can acknowledge that verification is tedious without denying that verification may sometimes be incumbent. What I have actually claimed is that some tedious verification doesn't become incumbent until a good-faith request for verification has been made. Meanwhile, what you have done for the cases of tagging that you surveyed is either to claim that verification should have been preemptively provided, no matter how tedious that task, or to infer that verification could not have been provided simply because it wasn't. —SlamDiego_←T 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Putting aside your remarks about my nature, I will confirm your assumption that I do believe that verification should be provided at the time of tagging, regardless of how "tedious" it may be. I do not believe we should make claims about the identity of users (i.e. User:Notable Wikipedia is Notable Wikipedian) or the online activities of people (i.e. Notable Wikipedian edits Wikipedia as User:Notable Wikipedia) without actually offering some concrete proof. Regardless of the intent or circumstances, this ultimately constitutes an attempt to "out" an editor, and should not be taken lightly. But that's just my opinion. If you find the approach of requiring preemptive verification in all cases to be unreasonably cumbersome, bureaucratic, or paranoid, that is certainly up to you, and I recognise that this is an issue on which we will not reach an agreement and which it is pointless for us to continue to pursue. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I wasn't making an assumption; I was making a logical inference, and I didn't deicde between whether you were treating preemptive verification as a requirement, or presuming that its absence implied that the taggers were uable to provide it. (I'm fine with having the remaining uncertainty resolved.) —SlamDiego_←T 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Patently useful in my own opinion. rootology (C)(T) 22:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Three reasons:

• (1) As a "notable Wikipedian" myself, i have found this tag more chilling than helpful. When some good faith edits about me stated erroneously that i had been raised in Sacramento, California (never lived there in my life!) i was left with no choice but to fix the problem. Another time, questions were posed about whether my role in some legal cases had been as defendent or expert witness; i stepped in to explain that i had been an expert witness in one and a plaintiff in the other -- and then supplied a multiplicity of good RS newspaper accounts of the events. And for all of the work i did, there's that stupid tag added, which makes it look like i was sneaking around trying to ego-glorify myself. It's hurtful.
• (2) The "notable Wikipedian" tag encourages dishonesty. I have seen a number of pages which were "gamed" by the subjects of the pages, but they had more deviousness than i did and used an unidentifiable user-name. The honest contributors, such as myself, are made to look bad, while the sneaks get away with being invisible.
• (3) As Ssbohio and others clearly and repeatedly note, there is no verification process by which Wikipedia admins seek to establish that the "notable" contributor is who he or she claims to be! I could get a new user account tomorrow under the name Rielle Hunter and start messing with the Rielle Hunter page and someone would soon tag her BLP page with this useless tag -- making Ms. Hunter look bad as a potential biography-gamer.

All in all, this is an ill-considered tag that should be deleted from the database. Use the CoI template instead. catherine yronwode catherine yronwode a.k.a. User:Catherineyronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT Someone posting from an IP address that starts with the numbers "64" just posted here claiming to be me! cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just because some people misuse the template doesn't mean it should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless we restrict this template to users with OTRS access (in which case it would be best to create a new template with a different format and name), there is no proper use. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The BLP issue itself is just too great, ignoring the other issues. We cannot label accounts as belonging to Joe Smith unless there is proof. For most uses of this template, the proof probably is not there. --- RockMFR 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as argued by the nominator, the use of this template is misguided as the actual identity of an account generally cannot be verified. (At least by ordinary users; I would not object to keeping this template if its use was restricted to those with WP:OFFICE or WP:OTRS access.) As it is, this template is often placed on talk pages to subtly cast doubt on the accompanying article by insinuating that it has been the subject of non-neutral, conflict-of-interest-driven edits, when there is no evidence that that is the case. Moreover, even in the cases when it is definitively known that an article has been edited by someone related to it, what is the use of highlighting that fact? Conflicts of interest themselves aren't necessarily bad; it's only a bad thing when the user in question fails to reveal their conflict of interest, and/or it leads to non-neutral editing. So, this template adds little or no value to a page, and as such we would be better off deleting it. Terraxos (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I completely agree with the post immediately prior to this one by Terraxos.self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - When reviewing edits to a particular page, I don't want to have to go to Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles to see which editor might be the person making changes. For instance, there's absolutely no way to tell that Bluemarine (talk · contribs) is Matt Sanchez, just by looking at the username. Since this template is on the Talk page, I can review the edit history and know about the username Bluemarine and his other accounts. Furthermore, COI doesn't replace it because a) it doesn't give a username, and b) it's in mainspace and designed to be removed once the article is cleaned up. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Are you sure that Bluemarine (talk · contribs) is Matt Sanchez -- and if so, why? Because Bluemarine said so? Because Matt Sanchez said so? Did you see the post up above by self-ref (nagasiva yronwode)? He's posting from the same IP address that i am. Who is he? Is he me? Is he my sock? Is he someone logged into my network illegally? Or is he my husband? How can you tell? How do you know? Answer: You can't tell and you don't know. Answer: It was my husband. Answer: I *told* you it was my husband. Answer: Really, really, really, it *was* my husband. I promise! Do you see where this leads us? I am convinced that COI is all that is needed. It covers a lot more ground than Notable and until it is actually invoked and proved, it does not tarnish notables with the ugly implication of non-neutral editing. Sincerely, "Ol' What's-Er-Name When She's Not Logged In" a.k.a. "64" a.k.a. "No ... not HIM, he's my *husband*, i told you that already!" a.k.a. catherine yronwode the only, and realio-trulio, not nagasiva yronwode, who is in the room across the hall at his own computer. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you and your husband continue to vote together in concert on Wikipedia I will report you as meatpuppets. I would recommend you end the practice. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you claiming that Wikipedia does not follow the old "one-person-one-vote" rule for which our forefathers and foremothers fought, bled, and died -- or are you claiming that in a marriage, one person is de facto always the other person's "puppet"? Please clarify. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they are mentioning the employment one of the below-mentioned threatening tag-mechanisms in the hopes that they will inhibit one or both of our behaviours just in case we later turn out to be the same person or that one of us is a meatpuppet of the other (which happens not to the the case). This is the reason that editors are encouraged to be BOLD, at least in part, so as to weather this kind of aggressive and pre-emptive tag-threat. I think their mention in discussion such as this is an unfortunate distraction and may be a mis-use of them. Perhaps it was arch and i missed the joke.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing toward the relevant reporting-tags about which i was previously asking. These appear to be the ones (add as you know about them): COI, Notable Wikipedian, Meatpuppet, Sockpuppet, Vandal. All 5 of these require identification or characterization either with respect to an item being edited or with respect to another user account or both. The same problem surrounds each of them and therefore they only have limited justification in usage. I suspect that there is merely 'slop' misusage, and that folx must feel that sufficient identification reliability obtains such that they are employed. By this litmus, it appears that sufficiently-resembling behaviour from an IP is the criteria for identification, and nothing more.

My impression is that the reason that any of this is an issue is because Wikipedia is in certain zones a battleground. People advocate against this because they want to see it stop, but the reality is that certain epistemological and cultural zones are contested and a variety of means are used, some uglier than others, to fight it. There appear to be 3 main areas of involvement which apply: vandalizing, IP-multiplicity, and perturbing bias.

• Vandalizing is easily seen and dealt with immediately based on strict and consistent behaviour from an IP. Its importance as a tag is obvious and its usage justified by retaining the integrity of the information and appearance.
• IP-multiplicity is dealt with by threats of Meatpuppet or Sockpuppet tagging such that if conformance continues disciplinary action will be taken. The primary problem that i can see with it is the confusion that it may sow and the barriers it places before what Wikipedia calls its consensus-process. Ultimately IP-multiplicity should not matter as long as people make individual IPs/User accounts responsible for their expression and consensus strawpolls aren't treated like voting. Its basis in usage is clarity of social interaction, and thus constitutes a strictly unnecessary crutch.
• Perturbing bias is dealt with by COI and Notable Wikipedia tagging such that if conformance with problematic behaviour continues, disciplinary action will be taken. The reason that this is important at all is because of the scarcity-model Notability standard which Wikipedia has developed as a guide due to the battleground that it has become. If it were a true and universal encyclopedia, then every object or phenomenon would become a focus of its inclusion (compare how it treats species; this is how we would be dealing with human beings), and the sustainability or reliability of information with respect to them would come more into focus.

Whereas vandalism and IP-multiplicity do not require strict identification, merely a comparison of what lies beyond the IPs, COI and Notable Wikipedian do pertain to strict identity in relation to the edited or written materials. It is for this particular reason that unless identification can be confirmed, BOTH tags should be deleted.

Not only should all identity-related tags be deleted, but the Notability guideline which fosters these kinds of tags and the contention, apparently deriving from perceived scarcity of resources in construction or reflection on paper encyclopedias, should be abandoned, and all objects and phenomena, whether or not perceived as 'notable' should be included in a truly universal wikipedia.self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ((COI)) is actually different from ((Notable Wikipedian)), because ((COI)) at least does not attempt to link a specific account to a specific person; it only notes a possible conflict of interest on the part of at least one (unnamed) user, thereby bringing attention to issues of content rather than something else. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why, then, couldn't one argue that Notable Wikipedian is alike to COI in that it is a possible notability associated with an IP which would very similarly indicate a possible conflict of interest issue? With COI we have some kind of alliance to a group interest (unconfirmed) which may conflict, and likewise with Notable Wikipedian we have an alliance to an interest in a person (unconfirmed) which may conflict.self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not deny the existence of certain similarities, but merely wish to point out that ((Notable Wikipedian)) is significantly more problematic than ((COI)). ((COI)) does not attempt to "out" a particular account and tries to draw attention to a possible content problem, whereas ((Notable Wikipedian)) is specifically designed to out particular accounts and to make unsubstantiated claims even in the absence of any content issue or problem. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Serious BLP issues, potential for abuse is too high and there is no way to independently source the information within the template. It's also not encyclopedic and provides no context for what constitutes notability. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random break[edit]

• Delete - at pages such as Rosalind Picard this template is used by experienced Wikipedia editors to help them maintain their ownership of articles. They use this template to claim that an IP address IS a specific person but they provide no evidence to support the claim. The template use instructions say, "where username is the person’s Wikipedia username": that is, the stated use of the template is for user accounts, not IP addresses. After this template is used to label an IP address (without evidence provided) as being a specific person, the owners of Rosalind Picard then treat edits from those IPs as being worthy of being ignored/reverted. This is even done in violation of policy when the edits from those IPs are explicitly protected by Wikipedia policy, "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved." This results in persistent and calculated violation of Wikipedia policy by editors who think they own the page and can silence good faith attempts to correct errors on a Wikipedia biographical page. From above on this page: "misuse of a template is not grounds for its deletion. I've always seen this as a "there's a potential COI thing going on here" type of template" <-- That (point out a "potential COI thing") may have been the intended use of the template, but the template is abused by some Wikipedians. The damage being done by misuse of this template goes far beyond any potential benefits from its use. There are other methods, with less potential for misuse, that can be used to say "there is a potential COI here". Some of the editors who have teamed up to claim ownership of articles such as Rosalind Picard and who have misused this template as part of their calculated violations of Wikipedia policy have commented in this discussion so as to voice support for keeping this template. Rather than just delete this template, it might be useful for Wikipedia to have a full discussion of editors who have been systematically misusing this template. --JWSurf (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Besides all the comments above, it also seems to blur the line a bit concerning Wikipedia:Outing. And I also can imagine this being used similar to Template:Sockpuppet, that is, for those "suspected", rather than confirmed. - jc37 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "outing" issue is important only when Notable people wish to contribute from an IP address. The resemblance of Notable to Sockpuppet (and now Meatpuppet, with which my husband and i were charged above, whie we were providing a real-time example of non-verifiability) truly casts an ugly "suspicion of guilt" or "suspicion of COI" slur on Good Faith editors who contribute to Wikipedia and who also are the subject of BLP pages. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" not verifiably anyone, and if you think so, remember this: at no time in the years that i have written and edited for Wikipedia has anyone claiming to be from Wikipedia called or emailed me to verify that i am who i say i am. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep COI and BLP problems in an individual case can be dealt with in the usual ways, including OTRS. . This proposal does not address a real problem. DGG (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The suggestion that COI problems be dealt with in the usual ways (e.g. ((COI)), WP:COI/N) is actually part of the deletion rationale, so I don't see how it supports a "keep" recommendation. With regard to BLP, are you really suggesting that nearly 1,400 cases be submitted to OTRS for verification of identity? Finally, your comment does not offer a reason for keeping the template. In what way is it useful? On what basis do we claim that a particular account is operated by a particular person? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly potential for harm, yet no potential for benefit outside of satisfying curiousity. If a user is substantially bias towards a certain BLP , that's a serious problem, regardless of whether the user is the same person. Why do we need to more carefully scrutinize the edits of the BLP subject more than others who may be personally bias/involved. Also, this template, as worded, can be used on people who never even edited there own bio. By involuntarily identifying people, we're basically going against a founding principal, that people can contribute without identifying themselves. If people really feel you have to know the identity of this group of editors, to monitor for bias, why not demand identities for everybody. --Rob (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this template provides a non-intrusive way to alert readers to more carefully weigh the contributions of the user to their own biography or other projects with which they may be concerned. Yes, potential for misuse exists with this and every other template but the actual good it does outweighs the potential. Can we be truly certain of any editor's identity? Until Google establishes a global DNA database and Wikipedia starts mandating a small blood sample and a retina scan with each edit, I suppose not, but given the tools we have now we can be pretty sure about most editors most of the time--unless they're deliberately gaming the system to prove a "point" as above. None of that gaming obviates the usefulness of this template for maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. - Dravecky (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're comments don't match with the actual wording and scope of the template. It tells people that the bio-subject has edited *some* article on Wikipedia, not necessarily their own bio. If they did edit their own bio, they may have done so neutrally. If you want to warn readers of bias editors, then you should make a new template, that warns readers of *all* known bias editors of an article, including friends and enemies. --Rob (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete No real encyclopedic benefit, encourages BLP violations when a Wiki user is ID'd as the subject of the article w/o verification (itself reason to delete the template). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Confused and Uncertain - On the one hand, Black Falcon offers a very useful explanation as to why such templates should be wiped out. I wonder though if there is some other way to maintain the template. Although I'm not quite sure I agree with it. --Candlewicke (Talk) 02:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. First, understand that info boxes can be substituted for this uses of this template. It is hard to see a case for eliminating this template unless those info boxes would virtually all be found in violation of policy. Beyond the curiosity value, this template (or the alternate infoboxes) helps to alert other editors to be especially attuned to possible conflict of interest in the editing of articles. (((COI)) identifies a major contributor as having a conflict of interest, but the Notable Wikipedian need not have been a major contributor.) Yes, it (or they) could be abused to violate assumption of good faith, but a presumption that any given use of it (or they) is such a violation would itself be a violation of assumption of good faith. And merely being particularly alert to edits by an editor with a conflict of interest is not the same thing as rejecting those edits out-of-hand. —SlamDiego_←T 15:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "info boxes can be substituted for uses of this template"? Are you suggesting identifying the user accounts of notable Wikipedians in articles? As for the rest of your comment, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the template. The template does not indicate that John Doe edited his own Wikipedia article, but rather that he "has edited Wikipedia". Surely this curiousity value (which is ultimately meaningless, since it can't be confirmed) does not override concerns related to mis-attribution of actions and outing of editors' identities. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a very literal writer; I usually mean exactly what I say. I didn't refer to identifying user accounts in articles, and I consider that unnatural reading rather uncivil. I'm not perfectly sure which notion you label “purpose”; but I certainly don't misunderstand the use of the template. ((Notable Wikipedian)) is specifically designed in a manner which allows it to note that the article edited by the NW is about the NW. Many of us here are noting that this is an important use of the template, regardless of whatever you might call its “purpose”. You misunderstand the possible use of ((COI)), which (despite its name) is too narrow in its feasible use to cover some of the conflict-of-interest use that is possible with ((Notable Wikipedian)). ((COI)) only applies to major edits. —SlamDiego_←T 18:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No incivility or sarcasm was intended; my comment was a genuine request for clarification. I understood "info boxes" to refer to the infoboxes that are normally found in articles and, your comment notwithstanding, I still do not have a clear idea of what you mean by "info boxes can be substituted for uses of this template". As for the latter part of the comment, ((Notable Wikipedian)) is not specifically designed in a manner to claim that the article edited by the NW is about the NW. Rather, the template's text only claims (again, almost always without verification) that the NW has edited Wikipedia. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not feel reassured by the thought that you can be that incivil without intending to be so. You didn't ask what I meant, you asked if I was suggesting that info boxes identifying editors be slapped on article pages. Info boxes appear in more than just articles. Your claim about ((Notable Wikipedian)) shows that you haven't throughly examined its code or documentation. You simply don't know enough about that about which you are lecturing. —SlamDiego_←T 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Precisely: I asked. I neither claimed nor assumed that that was what you were suggesting. I merely inquired about the interpretation that seemed to me to be the most in line with your comments. I do not why you chose to take my comment to be in any way mocking (perhaps it was a poor choice of words on my part; perhaps it was a subconscious expression of frustration at what I perceived to be an unclear sentence; perhaps you were subconsciously inclined to receive it negatively, given that you obviously view my expectation for verification of uses of ((Notable Wikipedian)) to be excessive and constitute "baying at the moon"). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is uncivil for Tom to ask Dick “Do you mean to say that you kill babies?”, notwithstanding that no assertion is made that Dick kills babies. It is yet another illogical inference for you to assert that I took you tone as mocking, and your belaboring of a theory as to why I did is yet more uncivil illogic from you. Just stop. Stop making utterances about the intentions or internal states of anyone; you just don't know what the H_ll you're doing. —SlamDiego_←T 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I suppose that I just don't see "link to a user page from an infobox" and "kill babies" to be really comparable. I will reiterate: I asked you to clarify the meaning of your statement (perhaps not using the best wording, but for God's sake, it's not as if I spend hours thinking about precisely how I will express my thoughts in this discussion) and it was you who chose to interpret my question in that way. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The degrees of incivility in the two cases are quite different, but the logical principle is the same. And I reiterate: You didn't ask me what I meant; you asked me specifically whether I meant something that would have grossly violated WP:BLP, breached prior ethics, and simply didn't fit a natural reading of my point. Again, in principle it was exactly the same as asking me whether I meant to say that I killed babies. The choice that I made in my interpretation of your incivility was to read it logically. So I also reiterate: Stop making utterances about the intentions or internal states of anyone (not just me); you just don't know what the H_ll you're doing. —SlamDiego_←T 22:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That your reaction to the two statements may be the same (or similar) does not mean that the logical principle is the same. Asking someone "Do you mean to say that you rape newborns?" would justify a solid flogging, whereas asking someone "Do you mean to say that you drink Pepsi?" would not (unless perhaps it's said in a Coca Cola plant). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I didn't claim that my reaction made the two similar in principle. No, speech acts do not justify floggings, not even speech acts that ask “Do you mean to say that you rape newborns?”, but if they did, then yours would merit a thumb to the eye. The difference is only one of degree. Your question to me wasn't of a Coke v. Pepsi sort. Placing an infobox equivalent to ((Notable Wikipedian)) on a article without more substantiation than is required to make assertions on talk pages would obviously breach WP:BLP and ethical constraints (some of which, indeed, are what drive WP:BLP). —SlamDiego_←T 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: Mainly because of this template's BLP violation concerns. If there is bias in an article tag it with ((COI)). A template should not exist to tar-and-feather a person for having a Wikipedia account or to enshrine a notable person who happens to be a Wikipedia editor. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 11:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Much of the argument for deletion seems to turn on WP:BLP. I remind everyone that this tag is not intended for use in articles, but on talk pages. —SlamDiego_←T 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP applies to talk pages. See the first sentence of WP:BLP. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLP applies everywhere, but it's force is obviously not the same everywhere. If it were, then we'd be unable to discuss on a talk page whether a specific proposition about a LP was sufficiently well-documented to be included in the article. —SlamDiego_←T 18:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is true, but unverified material about living persons should be avoided everywhere. While the same degree of urgency does not apply to content on talk pages as it does to article pages, BLP still applies. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What should be avoided everywhere is unverifiable material about living persons. To instead have only verified material everywhere would turn Wikipedia into an unnavigatable swamp. Everything on talk pages would be footnoted, and footnotes themselves would require footnotes. The one benefit that comes to mind is that you wouldn't be able to make any more wack assertions in TfD about what I've said or think, but existing policies ought to have kept you from doiing that anyway. –SlamDiego_←T 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the absence of OTRS confirmation (or some similar method), the claim that "Notable Wikipedian edited Wikipedia as User:Notable Wikipedian" is effectively unverifiable. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. Certainly something like OTRS would be necessary to meet a standard of proof comparable to that required in a court of criminal law, but ethically and legally we really only need to meet the standards of civil law. —SlamDiego_←T 22:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Firstly, you are looking at the matter only from the perspective of an editor adding the tag, and not the perspective of a living person whose on-wiki activity is outed or to whom the edits of another person (said edits possibly including vandalism, threats, etc.) are inaccurately attributed. Secondly, unless you are a legal expert, I don't think you would be in a position to make definite judgments about these distinctions. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your claim that I am only looking at the matter from the perspective of an editor adding the tag is yet another claim about what's going through my mind. Again, stop making claims about intentions and internal states of others; you're no d_mn'd good at it. I am well aware that the subject of an article may want to ensure that there are no inaccuracies in articles about him. We wouldn't merely tag these articles otherwise; instead, we'd move to have the NW blocked from editing. As to the standards of evidence in criminal and civil court, I happen to be quite familiar with them, and it's really ridiculous for you to argue that your notions are to be presumed otherwise. —SlamDiego_←T 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another random break[edit]

• Keep I just think it's useful to have a template for this purpose. As some have said above, if there's really a concern with it people creating fake accounts to pose as a person, we can require an OTRS ticket for it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't require an OTRS ticket, since that would require forcing editors to disclose personal information as a prerequisite to editing. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. The editor would already have disclosed the information; we'd merely demand that they verified the disclosure. —SlamDiego_←T 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And if they did not provide verification (due to inactivity or a desire for privacy), would we then remove the template from the talk page? If your answer is "yes", then I would not object to using the template in this way. However, a quick look at the "whatlinkshere" for the template shows that it is plainly not being used in this manner. The template is being added to the talk pages of articles in the absence of any disclosure of information by suspected NWs (of course, there are some exceptions) and in the absence of any actual verification of the information. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do not confuse sufficiency with necessity. In some cases, the case for the use of ((Notable Wikipedian)) might collapse in the absence of that editor providing verification; in other cases it certainly would not. Simply accept that your argument about OTRS was ill-considered, instead of offering another ill-considered argument in an attempt to salvage something. —SlamDiego_←T 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "In other cases it certainly would not" - as I noted above, we apparently have different philosophies on what constitutes appropriate verification. As for your "simply accept..." sentence, I would like to note that despite your diagnosis of my argument, you have yet to offer a real alternative to verification besides OTRS confirmation (and just to be clear, I do not consider "reasonable estimation" or "best guess" by editors to constitute an alternative to verification when it comes to claims about living persons). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As noted, you've grossly misrepresented my philosophy on what constitutes appropriate verification; so, while you're correct that our philosophies are quite different, but you're not well positioned to say more on that score. I didn't raise the possibility of OTRS confirmation in the first place; I only noted the ridiculousness of your argument that it would be a violation of Wikipedia policy to ask an editor who claimed to be a notable person of name N to demonstrate that he were that person. And, although it would probably be a good thing to develop a policy statement on what constitutes appropriate verification that an editor claiming to be a specific notable person truly is that person, such is not required for a TfD, and this template is not here presumed guilty until proven innocent. —SlamDiego_←T 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I never claimed that "it would be a violation of Wikipedia policy to ask an editor who claimed ot be a notable person of name N to demonstrate that he was that person". When I wrote that "we can't require" editors to confirm their identities, I did not mean that it violates any policy; instead, I meant precisely what I had written: we can ask editors to confirm their identities, but we can't force them to do so unless we make disclosure of personal information a prerequisite for editing (even then, the most we could do is to block non-compliant accounts).
              As a matter of fact, I am well aware that the username policy calls for blocking of accounts that use the name of notable living persons "until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name". I claimed that it would be intrusive on our part to do so without just cause, and as is surely clear by now, I don't consider a trivial template on a talk page to constitute just cause.
              Anyway, since it is apparent that we are going in circles and are steadily moving away from the topic of the template to speculation about intentions and propensities, I suggest that we discontinue our threads. It is clear that you view my expectation for preemptive verification to be unreasonable and/or disruptive (in your words: "I would support an indefinite block of any editor who insisted that such explanations be provided (to be lifted when he or she had stopped baying at the moon)") and I view your view your opposition to providing such verification, except in cases where a good-faith request for such is made, to fall short of what is necessary and appropriate (toward the living people about whom claims are being made). It seems unlikely that anything will come out of continued debate that has not already been stated. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Indeed you did make that claim, in response to JeremyMcCracken, because his suggestion was explicitly in reference to account where the person represented him- or herself as a specific notable person. In the case of someone calling hims- or herelf, say, “SlamDiego” (thus far not the name of a notable person) and not claiming on his user page or elsewhere in Wikipedia to be some specific person, but unannouncedly being that person, McCracken offered no suggestion. (Thus, he did not cover the case where someone wants to tag Hermann Heinrich Gossen with ((Notable Wikipedian)) on the theory that User:SlamDiego is secretly Gossen. (I assure you that I am not Gossen.)) —SlamDiego_←T 22:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That may have been his suggestion, but I already explained that it was not mine. Again, when I wrote that "we can't require" editors to confirm their identities, I meant that we can't force them to do so unless we make disclosure of personal information a prerequisite for editing (even then, the most we could do is to block non-compliant accounts). I did not even mention the word "policy" until you brought it up. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, but you're trying to change the history of a discussion, when it's there for anyone to read. Your remark “We can't require an OTRS ticket, since that would require forcing editors to disclose personal information as a prerequisite to editing.” was in objection to his limited suggestion that editors who had declared themselves to be some specific notable could be compelled to verify as much before such declaration were considered sufficient support for tagging. Since no one has asserted that you used the word “policy” at that stage, it's uninteresting that you can deny having used it. —SlamDiego_←T 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The history is there, as is my explanation. As I've already noted outside of this discussion, I do not intend to discuss this issue with you any further in light of your comment of "00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The main use for this seems to be COI issues, which i agree can be useful but also are often taken care of otherwise. Fold the useful aspects of this template into more appropriate templates as editors who do reform shouldn't have warning signs on articles as such. In theory many articles could have such templates and talkpage clutter is an ongoing issue. Also BLP applies to talkpages, even user talkpages. Banjeboi 18:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a great heads up to article contributors to notify them that the Wikipedian may have altered the article in their intrest. It would also be good for letting users know that they may ask the subject of the article a question. -- penubag  (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's the function of ((COI)). This template just states that the subject of the article has edited some page on Wikipedia. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. ((COI)) is explicitly reserved for major edits. Were it not, then I would be less concerned for ((Notable Wikipedian)). —SlamDiego_←T 18:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should we record (on the article itself or on the talk page) that the possible subject of the article made some minor typo or formatting fixes? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why do you pretend that any edit that is not major is a typo or format fix? In any case, I have already answered the question of why, beyond curiosity, we should be alert when the subject of an article begins editing it (and the answer should have been obvious before it was given). —SlamDiego_←T 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you have not. There is nothing inherently sinister or suspicious about the subject of an article editing the article about him/herself. Curiousity is inherent in human nature and people may have the urge to read what others have written about them. If they notice any errors (regardless of whether these errors are typos or something slightly more substantial), it should not be surprising that they might want to fix them. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, indeed I had, and you could have produced your attempted rebuttal when I did (instead of in this latest comment) when I did, instead of now. The problem with your attempt is that it utterly confuses malevolent edits, inappropriate edits, and major edits. An editor could make edits that are neither major nor malevolent, yet are nonetheless inappropriate. —SlamDiego_←T 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Most of the comments in support of keeping seem to rely on the claim that this template is useful for identifying COI issues. However, that is not the function of the template, as can be seen from its wording: "An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Notable Wikipedian, has edited Wikipedia as User:Notable Wikipedian". This template only makes a (hard-to-confirm and generally unconfirmed) claim that a person covered by a Wikipedia article has edited at least one page on Wikipedia. It does not claim that the person made any edits to the article about him/herself; for a template that serves that function, see ((COI)). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are plainly confusing not being a function with not being a principal function; the template deliberately allows for coverage of the case where the NW has editted an article about his- or herself. Next, if we granted that the principal funtion is not to note such edits, that wouldn't rebut the claim that this is a highly useful function. Further, one should not confuse the intended principal use of anything with its most important use in practice. FInally, the fact that the template is not structured to default to the use in question doesn't even tell us whether its designers saw this as its principal function; the alternative would be to use a boolean false for a positive assertion; code designed for readability usually avoids such practice. —SlamDiego_←T 18:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no confusion. Given that the article about the notable Wikipedian is included within the set of all Wikipedia articles, it is naturally the case that the template allows for coverage of instances of actual COI editing. Nowhere in my comment did I suggest otherwise.
      Once it becomes apparent that the principal function of this template is not to highlight COI editing, and under the assumption that there is no need to tag a talk page (or any other page) for minor edits made by a notable Wikipedian, this template is revealed to be either a "trivia template" of sorts (i.e. one that makes potentially interesting (and generally unverified) claims) or a less precise version of ((COI)). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've walked the reader through the fallacies here, but you're evidently not going to attend to the argument even when it's step-by-step. Without realizing it, when you write that it is “apparent that that the principal function of this template is not to highlight COI editing” you choose the proper word, for it is merely apparent, and only so to you by virtue of mistaken presumptions. I will reïterate part of what I said, but not waste everyone's time complete restating arguments that others will understand and that you have ignores: ((Notable Wikipedian)) is designed to allow a specific note that the NW has editted an article about him or her. (The fact that this option is optional doesn't change that point.) ((COI)) is only designed to identify cases where the autobiographical edits are major. —SlamDiego_←T 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That ((Notable Wikipedian)) allows that note (contrary to your assumptions, I had not failed to notice the "editedhere" parameter) does not negate the claim that identifying COI editing is not the template's primary function. We are on agreement on the point that ((COI)) is designed only for cases where the autobiographical edits are major, but that still does not explain why we should have a template to display the claim that someone who may or may not be the subject of the article (the fact that you believe that providing verification of this is unnecessary and "tedious" is independent of whether actual verification exists) has made non-major edits to the article. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL required me to assume that you'd failed to notice a mechanism whereby an template can be used to tag edits as autobiographical, since you kept denying its presence. In any case, I'm glad that you now admit that the editedhere attribute can accomplish just that. I have repeatedly noted the nonsequitur in your assertions about the “primary” function of the template; you keep making the assertions without bothering to explain what you think determines that a function is “primary”, and why we should peculiarly care about that function which you label “primary”. And repeatedly misrepresenting my position on verification may please whatever choir you have, but it will repell the rest of the audience. —SlamDiego_←T 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I wonder if ((COI)) should be modified to allow usernames to be included when needed. In this way the reason that seems to be of concern, problematic editing, is addressed. -- Banjeboi 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that indeed be helpful: ((COI)) requires a conflagration before one may even say “smoke”. And if ((COI)) is modified or a third template (weaker than ((COI)) but restricted to conflict-of-interest concerns) is introduced, then we'd really need a decent transition process, rather than suddenly trashing all of the instance of ((Notable Wikipedian)). One possibility would be to set a bot out to replace all of the uses of ((Notable Wikipedian)) for autobiographical edits with uses of the new or modified template. Alternately, ((Notable Wikipedian)) could be temporarily modified to itself announce a transition deadline, and the task then left to interested editors. —SlamDiego_←T 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well transiting to or out of a template can certainly be worked out - unless I'm missing something I'd rather remove boxes advertising wikipedians unless there is a problem to be addressed. To me COI seems to be the primary reason and frankly if an editor has been warned about COI and amends their editing I feel leave well enough alone rather than having their work be painted as suspect (that would seem to violate AGF). -- Banjeboi 02:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is useful to as a cross reference to the COI tag, could be made to take a link to provide source for long term use but should be available for short term, "hang-on this may want a closer look" use. The other option is to make it a peramater on the BLP tag requirng a souce, since I doubt many editors work from beyond the grave... --Nate1481 14:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 15:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession box one to six (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used. Same functionality available with ((s-bef)) with the rows=6 parameter, which conforms to the standards at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Templates. Bazj (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Didn't even know this one existed. Yes, delete. It is a redundant template.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 18:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – One more step towards standardisation; let us discard these confusing multi-row templates. Waltham, The Duke of 09:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-fic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is no longer in use, and it won't be used as it is contrary to the MoS. Bazj (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is the second time the template has come up on TfD; see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 26#Template:S-fic for the TfD from last year (initiated by yours truly) for existing arguments for and against its deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! — This should have been deleted last time, but oddly supporters of the template insisted that it stay regardless of the fact that it cannot be used. Delete this thing once and for all. Please!
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 18:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just remembered the war we all had over this template and how it did not work out. sigh...such a long time ago (not really) but some things need to go. This template was one of my best works for headers, but sometimes, our universe is just not ready for another one. We humans are selfish that way.-Whaleyland —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per EVula's reasoning in the July 2007 TfD. Aside from the fact that we should treat fictional topics primarily from an out-of-universe perspective (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)), succession boxes imply that time in a fictional universe operates on the basis of the same principles as time in the real world. This is simply not the case, since an author can quite easily make mistakes in the calculation of fictional dates, thereby undermining any attempt to specify a fictional succession of characters ... unless you have the lotion. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per me. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I remember how I supported using succession boxes for fictional subjects last year; I have since reconsidered. Succession boxes require relatively long and intact chains to function, and these are rare to find in fictional universes—navboxes are much more useful for such purposes. Deleting this template is the right thing to do. Waltham, The Duke of 09:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Magazine (Zine) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox Magazine. This template is not used anywhere and is not coded correctly (the fields are hardcoded and thus can not be specified on individual articles) while this can be easily fixed, the template is not necessary. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A redundant and hardcoded template. JPG-GR (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete, unused. GlassCobra 15:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPIreland Navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete:- Unneeded per this April 2008 discussion, redundant because a newer better template exists, it is unused since its April 2008 creating when it was removed from use having been made and posted by indef blocked sockpuppet user User:Markreidyhp. ww2censor (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.